Iran and the region are reeling from the killing of General Qasem Soleimani and its violent aftermath. It has rekindled my interest in Iran, especially its long history of absolute and brutal rule. I think the cause of many of the problems that Iran faces today is that autocracy has historically triumphed over democracy. I do not mourn Soleimani’s passing. The blood of innocents stained his hands-collateral damage from his external actions on behalf of the Islamic Republic to support the murderous Assad regime in Syria. But I question the arbitrary nature of his killing. It was imperial hubris on display once again. The US, because it has enormous strength and power, acted as a judge, jury, and executioner assassinating a foreign leader in a third country. It is far too easy to blame all the Iranian people’s misfortunes on naked imperialism and outside interference. Because of its key strategic location and vast natural resources, Iran has received unwanted attention from the British, Russian, and US empires in the last 300 years. But, equally, the absolute rule of so-called King-of-Kings and Supreme Leaders has prevented an ancient civilization from realizing its full potential. Iranian leaders have not grasped that any ruling structure without political and personal freedom is not sustainable. It is for Iranians to decide whether they want tyranny or democracy. Those advocating enforced regime change backed by external powers will do a great disservice to the cause of genuine democracy in Iran The one bright light in an otherwise blighted political history of Iran was the Constitutional Revolution of 1905, when the people revolted against a corrupt system, at the end of the Qajar dynasty. The revolution allowed Iranian women to engage in political action to help them break the centuries-old bonds of political and social oppression. It resulted in the country’s surprisingly liberal first constitution in 1906. These formative events were the start of the liberal, democratic, and nationalist aspirations of the Iranian people who continue to this day. Iran’s first constitution called for a liberal government (not Islamic, as some desired) based on the constitutional monarchies of Belgium and Great Britain. It was a striking change from the stranglehold of absolute monarchy. The constitution allowed for a multi-party political system-in contrast to the managed two-party system under the last Shah and the one-party state of the Islamic Republic. The Pahlavi dynasty, founded in 1925, ruled as absolute monarchs but kept the liberal trappings of the 1906 constitution. Before the CIA supported coup toppled his short-lived democratically elected government in 1953, Prime Minister Mosaddegh had attempted to revive the progressive and pluralistic spirit of the constitution but faced opposition from the traditional forces in society. After the Islamic Revolution in 1979, much like the Bolsheviks in Russia, Ayatollah Khomeini moved against its allies against the Shah-first against the large communist Tudeh party and then the smaller democratic nationalist faction which favored a return to the Constitution of 1906. The clerics abrogated the constitution of 1906, along with the monarchy. The Islamic constitution enshrined the centrality of the religion, replaced secular laws with the sharia (Islamic law), and ensured the control of the clerics on the state and society. After the Pahlavi dynasty, the Islamic Republic continued the absolute dictatorial rule in Iran. Thus, Iranians remain under the thumb of unaccountable rulers, unable to hold them to account. The clerical élite that replaced the monarchical élite did not brook any opposition. Since 1979, the regime’s security apparatus is responsible for the killing of thousands of people for protesting against the lack of political freedom, fraudulent elections, inflation, stagnation, unemployment, and corruption. Intellectuals, political dissidents, and opposition groups cannot be openly active. There is no free media, no democratic elections, no real opposition, and heavy-handed censorship of all press and publications. It is for Iranians to decide whether they want tyranny or democracy. Those advocating enforced regime change backed by external powers will do a great disservice to the cause of genuine democracy in Iran. The fiercely independent Iranian people have to choose between the violence, extremism, war, and economic sanctions they are facing today or joining the free comity of nations. The challenge ahead is immense, because the Ayatollahs, much like the Shah, will not fade away or co-opted easily. Ultimately, if an Iranian democracy is to take hold, it will need unity, courage, and hard work. Bringing about and maintaining a stable, democratic system takes time and effort. It is not a speedy process or one based on set timelines. Democracy is not an all-or-nothing system. It requires a political order that is participatory and pluralistic. But democracy’s enduring appeal is reflected in the many people around the world ready to fight for it. The writer is an analyst and commentator on politics, peace, and security issues