You could be referring to the Sharif Husayn, the ruler of Mecca during WW1, who is indeed an ancestor of the current kings of Jordan - but what does he have to do with Iran?

I studied Islamic history and Arabic, so while it's possible your father's knowledge is more extensive than mine, I'm fairly sure I know the important stuff in the history of the Middle East. I quite agree that it's extremely complicated and a quagmire - I just don't see your point about Mediterranean Sea access. You could well be right that that's what Romney meant, and that he did in fact know enough geography to think of the Persian Gulf, but then I still want to know why he thinks that's such a big deal.

Imamate, not Caliphate - caliphs are Sunni. You may find it interesting to know that the Sunnis believe in the coming of the Mahdi too, though of course they don't believe that he will be either Iranian or a Shi'ite - and both denominations also believe in the second coming of Jesus. Kind of ironic, really, the way both evangelical Christians and Muslims believe Jesus will return to pray at the site of the old Jewish Temple in Jerusalem (and both use those eschatological beliefs as a factor in their politics, which I as a non-believer can only look at in horror).

While it's of course true that the Iranian regime is rather more obsessed with this kind of stuff than most other Muslims, I find your mixture of eschatology and real-politik somewhat bizarre. If the Mahdi does appear as they expect, it's really not going to matter one jot whether Iran has a port on the Mediterranean or not. And if he doesn't appear, that port really isn't a priority for them.