I totally agree with Cpt. Haddock. Yes, we can learn a lot by comparing ourselves to others. That's why they have comparative politics as a major in colleges these days. Who was it who said, an Englishman who only knows about England knows nothing about England? (Could it be Bacon?) Anyways, I also agree with Haddock that Ms. Koirala's piece is quite far-fetched. Any introductory book on Iranian economic history or political economy would have told her that it was precisely the "uneven" and "haphazardly imposed" modernization that led to Shah's fall. What Shah did not realize was that Iran was not only Tehran. His modernization was mainly focused on Tehran and other cities, which made the rural youth to migrate there (in Tehran and other cities). The rural agricultural economy collapsed, and the migrant workers in Tehran and other places were, as it happens everywhere in the world, not quite happy with their jobs, housing arrangements and the urbanites biased views about them. And Khomeni makes his grand entry! The rest is history. If Shah had focused on the rural areas and had kept the youths who would later in their anger, frustration and fanaticism support Khomeni by focusing on rural development, then he would still be the grand Shehenshah. However his team of mostly pro-American bureaucrats and politicians did not do anything to address the rural poverty and other problems. The wealth and development were confined to the cities only. Because the Shah had good relations with the US, and had given the US exclusive priviliges of drilling and processing oil, and US interfarance in Iran's governmnet (Note there was a coup in Iran in 1953 or sometimes in the 50s), led to anti-US, anti-Shah nationalism among the urban youth and intellegentsia. And they too were inclined to support Khomeni. And if you look at the pattern of regime changes in modern times, its usually due to the alliance of urban students and intellegentsia and the peasantry/workers. Shah could do nothing. And as it happens everywhere, the angry crowd chose its super angry leader to head the govt. And things did not turn out as good as the people had expected. However, from an Iranian's persepective : Hardships and other things besides, Iran could stand against the US, the great Satan. Iran was not percieved by others as a US puppet anymore. And Iran could get on with its nuclear program. In other words, Iran could at least in principle act independent. Poverty, anger and nationalism is a deadly combination! and add religious fanaticism to it, its lethal. Nepal's situation is quite interesting. What lies ahead?- I don't know. But whatever happens, it will be quite an interesting lesson for all, from the policy planners in Singhadurbar to ..well..., the State Department in DC.