Final answer:
The Shah of Iran's autocratic rule, Western-friendly policies, and use of repression differed from Gandhi's nonviolent resistance and Atatürk's secular reforms. His era of rule saw internal conflict due to policies that favored foreign interests, particularly in oil, and led to his overthrow during the Iranian Revolution.
Step-by-step explanation:
Muhammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, often simply referred to as the Shah of Iran, differed significantly from leaders like Mahatma Gandhi and Mustafa Kemal Atatürk in terms of ideology, their approach to governance, and their relationship with Western powers and modernization. Unlike Gandhi, who advocated for nonviolent resistance and Indian independence from British rule, the Shah ascended to power with the support of Soviet and British forces. The Shah's domestic policies centered around modernizing and Westernizing Iran, which included establishing close ties with Western nations, especially the United States.
Reza Shah's leadership contrasted with Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the father of modern Turkey, whose reforms aimed to secularize and Westernize Turkey while asserting complete independence from foreign influence. Atatürk implemented sweeping secular reforms, abolished the Islamic caliphate, and adopted the Latin script for the Turkish language, amongst other changes.
The role of the Shah in Iran's political dynamics notably shifted between his initial ascent to power, with Allied support during WWII, and his later rule when he faced challenges from Mohammad Mossadeq, his prime minister who had introduced progressive reforms and sought to nationalize Iran's oil fields. The Shah's policies heightened tensions within Iranian society, leading to opposition from a range of groups, including religious leaders like Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, progressives discontented with the lack of political freedom, and the general public resentful of the wealth disparity exacerbated by Western alliances.