You have to be pretty careful with that. The Shah's attempts to secularize Iran are part of what caused the Islamic Revolution in the first place.

The Shah gave women the right to vote, divorce, run for public office, and own property, eliminated polygamy, legalized abortion, and raised the age of marriage for women to 18. Labor laws were revised to prohibit sex discrimination and ensure equal pay for equal work. The Islamists didn't like that.

>The White Revolution consisted of 19 elements that were introduced over a period of 16 years, with the first 6 introduced on January 9, 1963,[8] and put to a national referendum on January 26, 1963.
>
>...
>
>Extending the Right to Vote to Women, who previously did not enjoy this right.[9] This measure was criticized by some of the clergy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Revolution

The Shah refused to genocide the Baha'i religious minority, which had long been hated and persecuted by Shia Islamists. The Islamists didn't like that.

>You could definitely say that there was a collation between Shah and the Shia Marja, i.e. Ayatollah Borujerdi. We have documents on this. Ayatollah Borujerdi had issued a message to the shah, saying that “we worked with you (ie. the shah and the monarchy) to bring down Mossadegh and crack down on the communist party and now expect you to work with us to crackdown on the Baha’is, who are a great enemy of Islam.” As much as I know, the shah did collaborate with them.
>
>...
>
>Later, when things were heightened and it wasn't only about closing down the Baha’i center in Tehran, and when harassing and killing Baha’is spread to villages in Yazd, Isfahan, Najafabad and beyond, the Pahlavi government, perhaps under pressure from foreign representatives, changed its position. This is why the bill that was in the parliament and aimed to expropriate Baha’i property was suddenly dropped. The government basically found out the grave consequences of this policy.

https://iranwire.com/en/features/64797/

The Shah enacted land reforms, consisting of taking some lands from wealthy clerics and re-distributing it to the poor (the equivalent of taxing religious institutions). The Islamists didn't like that.

>The first step in land reform started in the early 1950s. The Shah gave over 500,000 hectares of land to about 30,000 homeless families.[1] Before the land reform, 70% of the arable land was owned1 by a small elite of large landowners or religious foundations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Land_Reform

The Shah allowed non-Muslims and women to hold public office. The Islamists didn't like that.

>Khomeini also attacked provisions of the reforms that would allow members of Iran's non-Muslim minority to be elected or appointed to local offices:
>
>"I have repeatedly pointed out that the government has evil intentions and is opposed to the ordinances of Islam. ... The Ministry of Justice has made clear its opposition to the ordinances of Islam by various measures like the abolition of the requirement that judges be Muslim and male; henceforth, Jews, Christians, and the enemies of Islam and the Muslims are to decide on affairs concerning the honor and person of the Muslims."[21]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Revolution

Fast forward to 1979, and the Islamists have taken over the whole damn country and instituted a full-blown theocracy. The Shah has fled into exile, his secular reforms will be quickly reversed, and Iran will remain a theocracy for 43 years and counting.

So there's a lesson in there about not trying to secularize everything too quickly, or else you'll invite resistance and revolution - ie, the people you're trying to marginalize and subjugate are going to fight back if they figure out what you're trying to do to them. It's like how if you throw a frog into boiling water, it'll jump out. You have to put the frog into regular-temperature water and turn the heat up slowly.

That's the most effective way to take over. It's why the military industrial complex is successful - they spent decades taking over the US government. Smedley Butler mentioned it way back in 1935, and Eisenhower mentioned it in 1961 - so that gives you an idea of how long they've been working at it.

They didn't just barge in one day like a bunch of morons in red hats and buffalo-horned helmets, and try to take control of the government in a day by shitting on Congress' desks. No, they spent years patiently intertwining their interests with that of the government until nobody could tell them apart - until "what's good for GM" became synonymous with "what's good for the country."