I disagree. I think the Iran could easily turn into the functional equivalent of a constitutional monarchy. Britain is still, on paper, ruled by the head of the Church of England after all.

Hmm, that's an interesting and good point. I think it's still a bit more messy for Iran, though. Their religious doctrine is much less tolerant of liberalism. That means citizens will have to choose between being pro govt. or pro "evil" liberalism. That's why it's hard for me to see change. Btw, I wonder how Britain handles issues of religious freedom if there is no official separation of church and state.

That's not the sense I got out of Iran during the summer uprisings. These are the same people who overthrew the Shah in 1979 because their religious doctrine is intolerant of tyranny. The justification for the uprising--and the sense that many people are turning against even the Ayotollahs--is that no man, not even an Ayotollah, is immune from the duty to govern justly. I'm not saying Iran is going to legalize gay marriage anytime soon, but they're liberal enough to get outraged over a stolen election or a peaceful protestor shot dead in the streets.

When you talk about the Shah being overthrown in 1979, yet 30 years later we still see a tyrannical govt. in Iran, it's exactly the point I'm making. Religious rules inherently will be interpreted by man, which is the danger of a theocracy. Who leads if Iran's most prominent opposition leader, Mousavi, with his more liberal views dies? Worse yet, what happens if Mousavi succeeds in becoming president only to be replaced years later by an Ayatollah under the reasoning he is straying too far from the religious path? All of the bloodshed would have only bought a few years of this brand of "freedom". Said another way, how can one truly be free if that freedom is subject to be conditioned or revoked on the whim of just a few men?