It's worth reading up on the structure of the government of Iran: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Iran. The Iranian President or Ayatollah is often portrayed as a dictator, but the reality is quite a bit more complicated than that. Iran has a functional civil service, with the office of the President, a parliament, and independent judiciary. Presidential candidates are vetted by the theocracy, but are elected in pretty legitimate elections. Though the theocracy pulls a lot of strings, the civil government has significant autonomy in areas such as economic policy and the routine administration of justice. And theocracy itself at least as elements that could evolve into a more liberal system. The Supreme Leader is elected by the Assembly of Experts, who are themselves elected by public vote.
Most importantly, Iranians are used to and expect those hallmarks of modern civilization. That makes them very different from the people who live in the other Middle Eastern theocracies, who, prior to establishment of the monarchies, did not have nations with functioning national governments and civil services. Those attitudes towards government are what enable friendships between countries, moreso than relatively transitory conflicts. For example, the U.K., France, and Germany live relatively harmoniously within the structure of the EU, even though as recently as 70 years ago, they killed millions of each others' people.
I don't want to whitewash Iran (it's still a place that executes homosexuals, after all). But I think it's important to look at the example of England, the originator of modern western democracy. It evolved very methodically from a divine-right monarchy into a liberal democracy. It did so because it had the political structures in place to enable that transition. Long before the monarch was relegated to ceremonial status, the civil government was actually running the show. Countries like Saudi Arabia do not have that. Their governments are intimately tied up in their monarchies. Iran, on the other hand, does have the structures in place to enable a successful transition into democracy.
> Presidential candidates are vetted by the theocracy, but are elected in pretty legitimate elections.
First of all, I wouldn't call any election in a country without free press and with severe censorship legitimate or fair.
Secondly, around a hundred people got killed protesting contested election results in 2009. The democracy Index ranks Iran among the 10 least democratic countries on the planet.
Most importantly, Iranians are used to and expect those hallmarks of modern civilization. That makes them very different from the people who live in the other Middle Eastern theocracies, who, prior to establishment of the monarchies, did not have nations with functioning national governments and civil services. Those attitudes towards government are what enable friendships between countries, moreso than relatively transitory conflicts. For example, the U.K., France, and Germany live relatively harmoniously within the structure of the EU, even though as recently as 70 years ago, they killed millions of each others' people.
I don't want to whitewash Iran (it's still a place that executes homosexuals, after all). But I think it's important to look at the example of England, the originator of modern western democracy. It evolved very methodically from a divine-right monarchy into a liberal democracy. It did so because it had the political structures in place to enable that transition. Long before the monarch was relegated to ceremonial status, the civil government was actually running the show. Countries like Saudi Arabia do not have that. Their governments are intimately tied up in their monarchies. Iran, on the other hand, does have the structures in place to enable a successful transition into democracy.