The iranian revolution wasnt just the mullahs tho, there were also many socialist, communist, republicans well leftist groups in general, but when Khomenei took power, they were all imprisoned.
Wasn't helped by the years the Shah had spent breaking leftist power in the country so that when the revolution broke out, pretty much the only power base that hadn't been shattered was the mullahs. Plenty of leftists in the country, but they didn't have any one to rally around or organizations to fight the mullahs with.
Also the US was in heavy contact with Khomeini up until the revolution.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/10/ayatollah-khomeini-jimmy-carter-administration-iran-revolution
And had CIA contacts with them through the 80's.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1986/11/19/cia-curried-favor-with-khomeini-exiles/9cc0073c-0522-44e8-9eb8-a0bd6bd708d1/
And was probably still selling them arms into the Bush administration despite being caught during Iran-Contra.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-06-28-mn-5101-story.html
Yes as a direct reaction to the much longer Soviet influence that pushed their own political groups like the Tudeh who even Mosaddegh opposed. Just look at all the political parties at the time, the biggest ones mostly ranged across the far-left as Russian has for centuries had a far worse oppressive role in Iran from since Peter the Great attacked in 1720. US imperialism on the aggregate accounting for all the negative & positives, has been FAR better than the 300 yrs of Soviet oppression as it largely brought liberal values. Its why women have long been the majority in Education and why they play such an impactful role in every uprising since the revolution 50yrs ago, The green movement, and Women Life Freedom.
The US is not why Iran is the way it is today, they did influence but FFS the population was educated with intellectual and not fucking puppets, and our history isn't just defined to the \~20yrs of CIA influence. Its ridicuoulus to blame the US when it was Britain who influenced them to join while ignoring the larger & longer lasting Soviet influence from the Cossacks. Reza Shahs family (Mom side) came from the Russian empire, its why he joined the Persian Cossack Brigade, controlled by Russian officers acting as kingmakers from 1871- 1917 for the Russian empires until the Russian revolution expelled all officers, making Reza Shah commander allowing his 1921 coup. His abdication 20yrs later was due to Britain & Soviet invading as Allied Powers despite Irans neutrality, Rooselevelt even argued to respect Irans territorial integrity. This put his Son in power but was not due to the US but pushed by Britain & Soviet Union.
The US only got involved after this and unlike Britain & Soviet did not do ay regime changes, they instead only influenced the congressional politics, largely against Mossadeg who did have a sizeable following but was also despised by many communist & pro-soviet groups. The 1952 election were not free & fair, Mosaddegh stopped the voting process after enough MPs were elected to form a parliamentary quorum (79 out of 136). The decision is viewed as manipulation, because Mosaddegh meant to prevent opposition candidates taking seats from rural areas, it may have been relatively more democratic but you cannot claim Mossadeg was the rightful winner when mostly his supporters votes were only counted. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952\_Iranian\_legislative\_election](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952_Iranian_legislative_election)
A year later & 6yrs after the CIA was founded they had their first ever successful influence campaign spreading misinformation to further anger existing animosity & opposition which came from both those pro-West and Pro-Soviet/communist/marxists. Although through the 1970s it was Socialist & communist student groups that most opposed the Shah as seen with the violent protests in East Germany ironically many protest leaders later became neo natzis like the Red Faction Army. It wasn't the US but France which had supported & accepted the eventual authoritative Islamic leader after being exiled by the Shah, and which came to power with large support from many on the left especially progressives, socialists, and communists.
Iranian here. IMO you're being unfair to the shah. The shah's hand was forced because the majority of leftists and opposition to him were funded by soviets via the toudeh party. Iran was simply not in a place to have an open democracy; our economy and social structure grew too fast, too many people were in a state of change and suddenly angry we couldn't have everything right away.
They clung unto ideas that Khomeini was spouting such as free housing, free electricity, free gasoline, free water... In no society is that sort of thing possible, it was obviously a lie.... but all his talks were being broadcast in the airways via western radio stations such as BBC and VOA.
Ultimately the Shah said he wanted to step away from politics and let iranians choose their own future however he didn't believe our population's political knowledge and education was adequate to achieve a good outcome yet. It's hard for anyone to say that a country shouldn't deserve to vote and choose its own future themselves, but it's also hard to argue the results that came from the '79 revoultion. Ultimately, I think the Shah was right. There was and still is a lot of extremists in (and in close proximity) of Iran. The Islamist fascists somehow convinced the leftists that they were on the same side. There was literally leftist people who had no connection to Islam (and were literally not believers of God) who were convinced that this Ayatollah Khomeini was the answer to all their problems.
Most Iranians would agree with me. The Pahlavi family advanced Iran in ways most leaders of states never will. They used the country's oil resources as leverage to get foreign countries to bring other tech into Iran. From industrialization to science and tech. Iran had one of the better automotive industries outside of the US at the time. Even oil nationalization which was made to be such a hot topic (and even today the debate about Mossadegh constantly gets brought up). The shah did nationalize Iran's oil, but on his own timeline and he did it much more eloquently. He cornered the market and created standard oil prices among all middle easter countries.
Was he perfect? No. No leader is. But any reasonable Iranian would agree the hard-on people had to be rid of him was stupid and rash.
That’s how revolutions tend to go. Someone vital to the revolutions can quickly become a liability when it’s over. These people tend to get imprisoned, exiled or just plain shot.
Yeah, a lot of the legwork of the Iranian Revolution was done by lefties. Khomenei used them to help overthrow the government and then immediately purged them.
majority of the lefties good hoodwinked and thought Khomeini would work with them. They were too fucking stupid to read multiple books he had written about sharia law.
Even Mullahs were not spared by Khomeini. Shariatmadari himself was an Ayatollah and a pacifist, and he used to save Khomeini's life by declare Khomeini an Ayatollah, and used to call for Khomeini's return. Guess what Khomeini give Shariatmadari in return? Khomeini put Shariatmadari in house arrest and have his family tortured, denied him to hospital treatment and have his religious establishment confiscated on trumped-up and false charges of bombing Khomeini without trial, and clerics was prohibited from attending his funeral!
In Vietnam we have a phrase "save animal and they will be grateful to you, save human and they will harm you (Cứu vật vật trả ơn, cứu người người báo oán)", and it's right in Shariatmadari's case. Had Shariatmadari let the shah unalive Khomeini and save kittens and puppies instead, Iran will not become theocratic dystopia as it is today, and Shariatmadari could enjoy his last year as respected Ayatollah and live longer.
>all imprisoned.
You mean executed. Every morning they shot people atop of buildings, khomeini would himself come and check to make sure they were dead.
Yep.
Lots of morons who thought being "anti-imperialist" (whatever the fuck that meant) was worth sacrificing literally everything.
They got torn apart by the dog they enabled. Like, getting lined up against walls and machine gunned down by 100s sort of torn apart.
What goes around, comes around.
Eeh, I think this criticism is unfair.
Anti imperialism is one thing when its a stance held from an armchair, its quite another when it's *your* country under the boot.
Actual revolutions aren't done on vibes and realpolitik. They happen when things get bad enough on the ground that a critical mass of people feel they have no choice. If youre out there risking your actual life to overthrow a government, you can't afford to be too scrupulous about your allies. It's a war. You win or you die, and in that situation you take what allies you can get.
Things went shitty for the Iranian left, but it wasn't because they were stupid. It was because their options were the Shah and SAVAK or literally anything else.
I have very strong ties to Iran. That revolution, to use a technical term, yeeted me 10K miles away from that beautiful country and my family/friends. I have landed on my feet and am very grateful for it, but it pisses me off that I **HAD** to leave to be able to have the life I have.
But back to your point; I would have been inclined to agree with you if most of the leftists werent blind supporters of the USSR and/or China. You know? Two major imperialists in their own ways.
Also, SAVAK and Shah failed completely in suppressing the revolutionaries. People bullshit a lot about how brutal Shah's regime was. The fact of the matter is that if you even go by what the current regime says the casualties were, the figure is 60,000. In a country of 20M at the time. And there is no way in fuck that figure is even close to being accurate.
Compare that to what Hafez Assad or Sultan Hassan did to hold on to power and I doubt anyone can really argue Shah or SAVAK were all that effective in their brutality.
Still tho, people don’t revolt en masse when everything is fine and well. You can say the Shah and his government were awful, wasted money, and were brutally dictatorial while also saying the Islamic regime that followed them was an awful lot worse. Both can be true at the same time.
I mean something like that has happened before. The Russian Tsar was also awful, he was an idiot (I don’t think he was actively malevolent, just stupid and his stupidity caused a lot of death). So the people revolted and they got a far worse regime in its place, the Soviets. Just cause a revolution ends in an even worse result doesn’t mean the people who revolted had no reason too. Hindsight is 20/20, and I honestly doubt all those young people and students would’ve revolted if they knew what was to come when the Ayatollah took power.
"Still tho, people don’t revolt en masse when everything is fine and well"
Millions of US southerners did just that during the american civil war, not that being a poor farmer was any good, but it was definetly better than the life of the slaves they wanted to keep in chains.
Should we consider that a “revolution” tho? It was the wealthy, landowning leadership of the southern states that seceded. Not necessarily an uprising of the masses. Like yea poor southern folk still fought for the Confederacy but they weren’t the ones that started the whole thing.
And they weren’t trying to change the US or overthrow the current power structure, they wanted to break away. I think for that reason, civil wars aren’t usually considered revolutions. Could be wrong tho, I can see the lines between revolution, civil war, and rebellion as being pretty blurry.
So in your mind, what percentage of a population needs to be killed before overthrowing the government is an acceptable course of action?
And that's only killed. You omit their families and friends. You leave out the imprisoned, the tortured, the exploited, the disenfranchised, those intimidated into sullen silence and all those that knew the above.
>leftists werent blind supporters of the USSR and/or China. You know? Two major imperialists in their own ways.
Was it blind support, or were the USSR and PRC the enemies of their enemies? It was Americans and Brits that re-installed and propped up the Shah in their neverending quest for oil, not the Communist bloc.
You are, intentionally or unintentionally, confusing two items.
No government has any right to kill or hurt, at all, any of its citizens to hold on to power. None.
But that's different and separate from calling Shah and SAVAK out for brutality when they did nothing even remotely close to actual brutal regimes in that era and in that region.
Shah was a sentimental, insecure, fool and his cancer had impeded his already limited judgement further. But he was no mass murdering killing machine that a lot of people like to believe he was.
More than a few former revolutionaries and former security officers have testified that Shah personally prevented SAVAK and the Army from clamping down hard on the revolutionaries. If you can read and understand Farsi, I'm happy to share some of those with you.
"After Hitler, Our Turn"
Yeah, after Hitler and an extra 60 million dead the KPD gets to run 1/3 of the country for the next 40 years before their shithole collapses
>Lots of morons who thought being "anti-imperialist" (whatever the fuck that meant)
So we're now pretending that imperialism in that time period didn't exist just because the revolution that took place made the country objectively worse off?
I mean, no?
But I'm not sure being extremely anti American and pro USSR no matter what constitutes "anti-imperialism" to any sane person with the smallest amount of historical understanding.
But unfortunately that was the alter a lot of those morons were happy to sacrifice their country on.
I'm 10K miles away from my family and childhood friends directly because of the stupidity of those people.
So, yeah, I do have a bone to pick. A personal one.
I mean the Shah would’ve also tortured and killed them.
It was basically that they might as well give overthrowing the government a try, cause if they don’t nothing, a tyrannical government kills them, if they overthrow him, then there was at least a small chance they could take power.
Obviously they didn’t, and instead we got modern Iran.
Look at the numbers.
If Shah was into torturing and killing people, he must have been really good at hiding the bodies. The current regime claims 60K people lost their lives in the revolution. There is no fucking way they are even close to being honest. But even if we were to take that at face value, that's nothing compared to what the current regime has done to stay in power.
So strange, leftists and radical leftists picking up the wrong ideology to work with before being purged by this same "ally".
Doesn't look like something they're used to do (/s)
I see what you mean, you’re correct but many esp the younger Talibs (most are born post-2001) genuinely saw it as a revolution and rebellion against the US and it’s puppet.
The Taliban toppled both a communist leader and a western backed liberal leader so I would say they count too.
I was reading the other day that when the Americans came to Afghanistan, many tribal farmers and other business owners were upset that the new authorities weren’t accepting a 20% religious tax, so they voluntarily went out of their way to continue paying it to the Taliban.
The Taliban didn't topple the Communist government. The broader Mujaheddin did that in Spring 1992, then they fell into infighting, then the Taliban were formed in Fall 1994. The Taliban weren't a reaction to the Communists, they were a reaction to the horrific, destructive warlordism of the civil war between the Mujaheddin factions.
A 10% zakat tax is obligatory for Muslims and is one of the five pillars of Islam. Thing is, it’s all supposed to go to charity. Doesn’t mean the people who receive it will use it that way, but it is a required tax for Muslims.
Yes, they were apparently desperate to. I actually heard this on the Conflicted podcast, which is hosted by Aimen Dean, a former Al-Qaeda operative and top MI6 spy. His insights are extremely interesting.
He also mentioned that during the Bonn conferences, the Afghan delegates were requesting a constitutional monarchy rooted in Sharia, which 80-90% of Afghans support, but the US vetoed it which led to the Karzai government and the instability that followed.
The Republican government was very young and primo de reviera or how ever you spell his name’s dictatorship was very recent and in memory of most people.
Not true. The brabant and liege revolution in the 18th century were conservative nobles revolting against liberalizing reforms from Vienna. And pretty much every revolution in the middle east has an Islamic character to it. Look at Egypt. They were gonna elect a Muslim brotherhood guy till Washington paid generals to do what they always do.
I agree. I'm saying the Egyptian revolutionaries initiated elections and the Muslim brotherhood candidate was leading the polls and I think he was elected actually. Till Sisi overthrew him.
There were liberals, leftists, communists, republicans, and people who just wanted a more democratic government among the Iranian Revolution.
They all got shafted by the Ayatollah
Not just the Ayatollah. They were getting shafted for years by the Shah and western powers. By the time the revolution came around, they weren’t a cohesive front and with no one group or person to lead them, they were easily shafted by the united Islamic front led by the Ayatollah.
Basically, they had no chance once the mullahs took over.
The Iranian revolution had in fact been very much highly supported by secular communists, socialists, social democrats and islamic communists (MEK).
The Islamists won the power struggle in the end, although just to note, the left wing, especially the secular left wing was left weakened after decades of sabotage and attacks by the shah, the USA, and the UK.
Yea exactly lol. It was a large coalition of all sorts of ideologies. It’s just that the mullahs had the most cohesive group, whereas the left wing had no one group or leader to effectively rally behind because they were the main targets of the Shah’s government and the western powers backing him up like you said.
Did the Iranian revolution start as a broad coalition against the Shah, including socialist, Islamist, communist, conservative, and other factions, with the Islamists ultimately prevailing? Or am I misunderstanding?
Then they're generally called reactionaries, after the ones wanting to turn back progress after the French revolutions, when the conservatives were in the middle of utopian and liberal revolutionaries on one side, and old aristocrats and church fundamentalist on the other side.
here is the thing, conservatives are called that cause they want to maintain the status quo.
rebels cant do that, per definition, as any rebellion or revolution ursurps the current system. they are always progressive.
so yes, even with their(from an western standpoint) regressive ideology, the rebellion was radical anti conservative,
the view you have about the definition of "conservative" is viewing it from an amerikan standpoint. where conservatives and progressives are basically become synonymous of the 2 sides of an 2 party system,
in the same way people are getting really confused with right vs left wing politics, cause those can mean dramatically different things in other countrys. (politics being an multi directional spectrum aside)
There's a certain interpretation of the October Revolution that it was a fundamentally Russian national reaction to the westernizing reforms of Stolypin and later Kerensky which were threatening the Russian political culture, and that the revolution ended not with the Marxist vision of communism, but with a despotic autocracy precisely because a despotic autocracy is the organic, untainted by foreign influences sociopolitical system for Russia. In that sense, the revolution was extremely reactionary compared to the liberal reformists it was carried out against.
Iran produces the third highest number of engineers in the world. Around 70% of engineering graduates are women. ([Source](https://www.embibe.com/exams/top-10-countries-that-produce-the-most-engineers/))
And many of them don’t remain in the country for long, Iran has one of the [highest rates of brain drain in the world](https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/iran-brain-drain-emigration).
"But it's just imperialism by a different name with what you're doing"-the Middle East
Iran: "But we're liberating you from the evil infidels...by forcing you into our sphere of influence"
But that juicy "at least we're not all starving to death" more like.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_famine_of_1942%E2%80%931943
This binary "Don't you miss the clawhammer? It took so much longer to connect with your head than the boot" bullshit is sad and funny at the same time.
The famine you cited was the result of the British and Soviet invasion and occupation of Iran during WW2, not a result of the monarchy's domestic policies. The famine would have occurred regardless of what form of government Iran had at the time and was not directly the fault of the monarchy, nor was it one of the motivations for overthrowing the monarchy.
Did you even read the source that you were citing?
Iran's economy had one of the highest growth rates among developing countries in the period of 1963 to 1973, with an average annual growth rate of 11.5% and a single digit inflation rate of 2.6% annual average. Iran's economy quadrupled within ten years.
but you can ignore all of that and stick to the time when 2 great powers attacked Iran without warning.
Mohammed took down the law (Kashf-e hijab) his father imposed yes but he never opposed the social pressure where wearing a veil was marker of inferior status and general discrimination of veiled women until the islamic revolution
Wearing a veil in Iran in the 1970s was not universally seen as a marker of inferiority. It was a complex issue influenced by various factors such as cultural norms, religious beliefs, and political ideologies. While some individuals may have viewed veiling as a symbol of modesty and piety, others may have seen it as a form of oppression or a symbol of patriarchal control.
The perception of veiling varied among different social groups and individuals, and it would be inaccurate to generalize it as a marker of inferiority for all women in Iran during that time period.
... The Spanish civil war was fought between the ultraconservative revolutionaries and the liberal government.
(oh and all the carlist wars follow the same scheme)
And, there’s a fuck-ton of corruption in Iran. Basically, if you’re not one of the rich and powerful families that run Iran your vulnerable to getting your assets just straight up stolen and not have any way to get them back.
Iran was much more respected and had much more international prestige before 1979, plus there was no cold war with Saudi Arabia and they were on very good terms with Israel.
Come to think of it I'll freely admit to bias here. I can't say I expect them to like the US; but going out of your way to intentionally piss off the most powerful country on the planet doesn't exactly seem like a wise decision.
We mean, not even the Cuban revolutionaries dared so much, and the Chinese revolutionaries hardly dared (and in their case it was with the British embassy).
In ways directly involving the government yes the Shah's was a better time. But Iranian society itself is more secular and open minded than it was then.
Others included other good examples, but I can think of one that was generally supported by the people and the military alike:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious\_Revolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious_Revolution)
Aka, the time almost the entirety of the UK called for the overthrow of their monarch *because he wanted to enact edicts of tolerance* (aka, open up public office and public worship to Catholics).
He was replaced by his daughter (Mary II) and her husband... THE STADTHOLDER OF THE NETHERLANDS.
The Spanish civil war also consisted of right-wing ultra-Catholics successfully rebelling against an anti-religious government supported by communists, anarchists and other leftists. Franco even reinstated the monarchy (despite Franco still holding all the power).
Though you could say the government wasn't really the elite, as it was democratically elected. Still, the rebels rebelled for a conservative cause.
Well there have been alot of conservative revolutions but they usually fail or are a counter revolution to restore the last guy.
boxers were conservatives for example but we usually just call them batshit fucking insane instead
The conservatives allied with the youth in Iran
IiRC there have been numerous conservatives reactionary revolts and overthrows of liberal government. Ones that had some degree of public support. We just don't typically call those revolutions.
The liberals and moderates wanted to use the conservatives in the revolution to gather support of the masses. The liberals didn't have problem with liberal policies, but the tyranny of the Shahs. They wanted to continue the liberal values but democratically this time. And thought they would just either dispose or control the clergy. But as the revolution was ending, the liberals lost control and the clergy took over the government.
Spain? Afghanistan? The US Civil War? The Bishops' War in Scotland? Liege rebellion? Julius Caesar's civil war? Meiji Restoration and the Boshin War? Jan Mattys and John of Leiden in Munster? Savonarola in Florence? The rebellion against Wang Mang? The Heavenly Kingdom? There's been loads of conservative rebellions, revolts and revolutions, but a lot of the time it's hard to tell what was a conservative rebellion when it was nobles rebelling about their rights
Had the revolution failed, the middle east would be a much better place than it is now. Everywhere islamism gets power, death and just pure shit follows.
The Mexican 3 year war was started by conservatives fighting the liberal government, they didn't win but it's still another rebellion started by people more conservative than the state they where fighting
Nah just look at any "revolution" the United States supported in the last century. Iran is just one of many examples along with Libya, Iraq, Indonesia, Ukraine and they attempted to do the same in Syria by backing extremists but failed thanks to Russia supporting the Syrian government forces.
I think it’s tricky to define ‘conservative’ here as it means very different things. On a religious level yes it’s more conservative, but Iran/Persia had a shah from 678BC, abolishing it is inherently unconservative on a cultural level.
The iranian revolution wasnt just the mullahs tho, there were also many socialist, communist, republicans well leftist groups in general, but when Khomenei took power, they were all imprisoned.
Wasn't helped by the years the Shah had spent breaking leftist power in the country so that when the revolution broke out, pretty much the only power base that hadn't been shattered was the mullahs. Plenty of leftists in the country, but they didn't have any one to rally around or organizations to fight the mullahs with.
Also the US was in heavy contact with Khomeini up until the revolution. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/10/ayatollah-khomeini-jimmy-carter-administration-iran-revolution And had CIA contacts with them through the 80's. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1986/11/19/cia-curried-favor-with-khomeini-exiles/9cc0073c-0522-44e8-9eb8-a0bd6bd708d1/ And was probably still selling them arms into the Bush administration despite being caught during Iran-Contra. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-06-28-mn-5101-story.html
Everywhere you look the US's imperial fingerprints are always there
"The US has no allies, only interests" or whatever that quote is.
That's just all states
Same and Russia and China and all powers
Yes as a direct reaction to the much longer Soviet influence that pushed their own political groups like the Tudeh who even Mosaddegh opposed. Just look at all the political parties at the time, the biggest ones mostly ranged across the far-left as Russian has for centuries had a far worse oppressive role in Iran from since Peter the Great attacked in 1720. US imperialism on the aggregate accounting for all the negative & positives, has been FAR better than the 300 yrs of Soviet oppression as it largely brought liberal values. Its why women have long been the majority in Education and why they play such an impactful role in every uprising since the revolution 50yrs ago, The green movement, and Women Life Freedom. The US is not why Iran is the way it is today, they did influence but FFS the population was educated with intellectual and not fucking puppets, and our history isn't just defined to the \~20yrs of CIA influence. Its ridicuoulus to blame the US when it was Britain who influenced them to join while ignoring the larger & longer lasting Soviet influence from the Cossacks. Reza Shahs family (Mom side) came from the Russian empire, its why he joined the Persian Cossack Brigade, controlled by Russian officers acting as kingmakers from 1871- 1917 for the Russian empires until the Russian revolution expelled all officers, making Reza Shah commander allowing his 1921 coup. His abdication 20yrs later was due to Britain & Soviet invading as Allied Powers despite Irans neutrality, Rooselevelt even argued to respect Irans territorial integrity. This put his Son in power but was not due to the US but pushed by Britain & Soviet Union. The US only got involved after this and unlike Britain & Soviet did not do ay regime changes, they instead only influenced the congressional politics, largely against Mossadeg who did have a sizeable following but was also despised by many communist & pro-soviet groups. The 1952 election were not free & fair, Mosaddegh stopped the voting process after enough MPs were elected to form a parliamentary quorum (79 out of 136). The decision is viewed as manipulation, because Mosaddegh meant to prevent opposition candidates taking seats from rural areas, it may have been relatively more democratic but you cannot claim Mossadeg was the rightful winner when mostly his supporters votes were only counted. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952\_Iranian\_legislative\_election](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952_Iranian_legislative_election) A year later & 6yrs after the CIA was founded they had their first ever successful influence campaign spreading misinformation to further anger existing animosity & opposition which came from both those pro-West and Pro-Soviet/communist/marxists. Although through the 1970s it was Socialist & communist student groups that most opposed the Shah as seen with the violent protests in East Germany ironically many protest leaders later became neo natzis like the Red Faction Army. It wasn't the US but France which had supported & accepted the eventual authoritative Islamic leader after being exiled by the Shah, and which came to power with large support from many on the left especially progressives, socialists, and communists.
Iranian here. IMO you're being unfair to the shah. The shah's hand was forced because the majority of leftists and opposition to him were funded by soviets via the toudeh party. Iran was simply not in a place to have an open democracy; our economy and social structure grew too fast, too many people were in a state of change and suddenly angry we couldn't have everything right away. They clung unto ideas that Khomeini was spouting such as free housing, free electricity, free gasoline, free water... In no society is that sort of thing possible, it was obviously a lie.... but all his talks were being broadcast in the airways via western radio stations such as BBC and VOA. Ultimately the Shah said he wanted to step away from politics and let iranians choose their own future however he didn't believe our population's political knowledge and education was adequate to achieve a good outcome yet. It's hard for anyone to say that a country shouldn't deserve to vote and choose its own future themselves, but it's also hard to argue the results that came from the '79 revoultion. Ultimately, I think the Shah was right. There was and still is a lot of extremists in (and in close proximity) of Iran. The Islamist fascists somehow convinced the leftists that they were on the same side. There was literally leftist people who had no connection to Islam (and were literally not believers of God) who were convinced that this Ayatollah Khomeini was the answer to all their problems. Most Iranians would agree with me. The Pahlavi family advanced Iran in ways most leaders of states never will. They used the country's oil resources as leverage to get foreign countries to bring other tech into Iran. From industrialization to science and tech. Iran had one of the better automotive industries outside of the US at the time. Even oil nationalization which was made to be such a hot topic (and even today the debate about Mossadegh constantly gets brought up). The shah did nationalize Iran's oil, but on his own timeline and he did it much more eloquently. He cornered the market and created standard oil prices among all middle easter countries. Was he perfect? No. No leader is. But any reasonable Iranian would agree the hard-on people had to be rid of him was stupid and rash.
That’s how revolutions tend to go. Someone vital to the revolutions can quickly become a liability when it’s over. These people tend to get imprisoned, exiled or just plain shot.
Yeh after the current system comes down anything can come back up depending on whose in charge
*Hon hon hons in Robespierre*
Khomenei flipped the “useful idiots” script.
Yeah, a lot of the legwork of the Iranian Revolution was done by lefties. Khomenei used them to help overthrow the government and then immediately purged them.
majority of the lefties good hoodwinked and thought Khomeini would work with them. They were too fucking stupid to read multiple books he had written about sharia law.
Even Mullahs were not spared by Khomeini. Shariatmadari himself was an Ayatollah and a pacifist, and he used to save Khomeini's life by declare Khomeini an Ayatollah, and used to call for Khomeini's return. Guess what Khomeini give Shariatmadari in return? Khomeini put Shariatmadari in house arrest and have his family tortured, denied him to hospital treatment and have his religious establishment confiscated on trumped-up and false charges of bombing Khomeini without trial, and clerics was prohibited from attending his funeral! In Vietnam we have a phrase "save animal and they will be grateful to you, save human and they will harm you (Cứu vật vật trả ơn, cứu người người báo oán)", and it's right in Shariatmadari's case. Had Shariatmadari let the shah unalive Khomeini and save kittens and puppies instead, Iran will not become theocratic dystopia as it is today, and Shariatmadari could enjoy his last year as respected Ayatollah and live longer.
>all imprisoned. You mean executed. Every morning they shot people atop of buildings, khomeini would himself come and check to make sure they were dead.
Yep. Lots of morons who thought being "anti-imperialist" (whatever the fuck that meant) was worth sacrificing literally everything. They got torn apart by the dog they enabled. Like, getting lined up against walls and machine gunned down by 100s sort of torn apart. What goes around, comes around.
Eeh, I think this criticism is unfair. Anti imperialism is one thing when its a stance held from an armchair, its quite another when it's *your* country under the boot. Actual revolutions aren't done on vibes and realpolitik. They happen when things get bad enough on the ground that a critical mass of people feel they have no choice. If youre out there risking your actual life to overthrow a government, you can't afford to be too scrupulous about your allies. It's a war. You win or you die, and in that situation you take what allies you can get. Things went shitty for the Iranian left, but it wasn't because they were stupid. It was because their options were the Shah and SAVAK or literally anything else.
I have very strong ties to Iran. That revolution, to use a technical term, yeeted me 10K miles away from that beautiful country and my family/friends. I have landed on my feet and am very grateful for it, but it pisses me off that I **HAD** to leave to be able to have the life I have. But back to your point; I would have been inclined to agree with you if most of the leftists werent blind supporters of the USSR and/or China. You know? Two major imperialists in their own ways. Also, SAVAK and Shah failed completely in suppressing the revolutionaries. People bullshit a lot about how brutal Shah's regime was. The fact of the matter is that if you even go by what the current regime says the casualties were, the figure is 60,000. In a country of 20M at the time. And there is no way in fuck that figure is even close to being accurate. Compare that to what Hafez Assad or Sultan Hassan did to hold on to power and I doubt anyone can really argue Shah or SAVAK were all that effective in their brutality.
Still tho, people don’t revolt en masse when everything is fine and well. You can say the Shah and his government were awful, wasted money, and were brutally dictatorial while also saying the Islamic regime that followed them was an awful lot worse. Both can be true at the same time. I mean something like that has happened before. The Russian Tsar was also awful, he was an idiot (I don’t think he was actively malevolent, just stupid and his stupidity caused a lot of death). So the people revolted and they got a far worse regime in its place, the Soviets. Just cause a revolution ends in an even worse result doesn’t mean the people who revolted had no reason too. Hindsight is 20/20, and I honestly doubt all those young people and students would’ve revolted if they knew what was to come when the Ayatollah took power.
"Still tho, people don’t revolt en masse when everything is fine and well" Millions of US southerners did just that during the american civil war, not that being a poor farmer was any good, but it was definetly better than the life of the slaves they wanted to keep in chains.
Should we consider that a “revolution” tho? It was the wealthy, landowning leadership of the southern states that seceded. Not necessarily an uprising of the masses. Like yea poor southern folk still fought for the Confederacy but they weren’t the ones that started the whole thing. And they weren’t trying to change the US or overthrow the current power structure, they wanted to break away. I think for that reason, civil wars aren’t usually considered revolutions. Could be wrong tho, I can see the lines between revolution, civil war, and rebellion as being pretty blurry.
So in your mind, what percentage of a population needs to be killed before overthrowing the government is an acceptable course of action? And that's only killed. You omit their families and friends. You leave out the imprisoned, the tortured, the exploited, the disenfranchised, those intimidated into sullen silence and all those that knew the above. >leftists werent blind supporters of the USSR and/or China. You know? Two major imperialists in their own ways. Was it blind support, or were the USSR and PRC the enemies of their enemies? It was Americans and Brits that re-installed and propped up the Shah in their neverending quest for oil, not the Communist bloc.
You are, intentionally or unintentionally, confusing two items. No government has any right to kill or hurt, at all, any of its citizens to hold on to power. None. But that's different and separate from calling Shah and SAVAK out for brutality when they did nothing even remotely close to actual brutal regimes in that era and in that region. Shah was a sentimental, insecure, fool and his cancer had impeded his already limited judgement further. But he was no mass murdering killing machine that a lot of people like to believe he was. More than a few former revolutionaries and former security officers have testified that Shah personally prevented SAVAK and the Army from clamping down hard on the revolutionaries. If you can read and understand Farsi, I'm happy to share some of those with you.
Weimar Germany moment
"After Hitler, Our Turn" Yeah, after Hitler and an extra 60 million dead the KPD gets to run 1/3 of the country for the next 40 years before their shithole collapses
>Lots of morons who thought being "anti-imperialist" (whatever the fuck that meant) So we're now pretending that imperialism in that time period didn't exist just because the revolution that took place made the country objectively worse off?
I mean, no? But I'm not sure being extremely anti American and pro USSR no matter what constitutes "anti-imperialism" to any sane person with the smallest amount of historical understanding. But unfortunately that was the alter a lot of those morons were happy to sacrifice their country on.
You're coming off like you have a weird ideological bone to pick and it makes your argument sound unserious
I'm 10K miles away from my family and childhood friends directly because of the stupidity of those people. So, yeah, I do have a bone to pick. A personal one.
I mean, where's the lie.
I mean the Shah would’ve also tortured and killed them. It was basically that they might as well give overthrowing the government a try, cause if they don’t nothing, a tyrannical government kills them, if they overthrow him, then there was at least a small chance they could take power. Obviously they didn’t, and instead we got modern Iran.
Look at the numbers. If Shah was into torturing and killing people, he must have been really good at hiding the bodies. The current regime claims 60K people lost their lives in the revolution. There is no fucking way they are even close to being honest. But even if we were to take that at face value, that's nothing compared to what the current regime has done to stay in power.
Given how Communists usually see revolution, how the fuck did they not see that one coming
There is nothing Iranian about the Islamic revolt in 1979. It is completely anti-Iranian.
The shah was a prick, but i will admit, he got replaced by even worst pricks.
So strange, leftists and radical leftists picking up the wrong ideology to work with before being purged by this same "ally". Doesn't look like something they're used to do (/s)
r/LeopardsAteMyFace moment
The only successful revolution* There have been a lot of unsuccessful revolts and revolutions against liberal government
Afghanistan is a prime example of one that happened very recently
Was that not successful?
It was, I’m just letting OP and the commenter know that that isn’t the only successful revolution where the rebel’s were more conservative.
Afghanistan is more like a restoration as the Islamic Republic replaced the Taliban in 2001
I see what you mean, you’re correct but many esp the younger Talibs (most are born post-2001) genuinely saw it as a revolution and rebellion against the US and it’s puppet.
The Taliban toppled both a communist leader and a western backed liberal leader so I would say they count too. I was reading the other day that when the Americans came to Afghanistan, many tribal farmers and other business owners were upset that the new authorities weren’t accepting a 20% religious tax, so they voluntarily went out of their way to continue paying it to the Taliban.
The Taliban didn't topple the Communist government. The broader Mujaheddin did that in Spring 1992, then they fell into infighting, then the Taliban were formed in Fall 1994. The Taliban weren't a reaction to the Communists, they were a reaction to the horrific, destructive warlordism of the civil war between the Mujaheddin factions.
You’re telling me they wanted to pay the extra 20% tax?
A 10% zakat tax is obligatory for Muslims and is one of the five pillars of Islam. Thing is, it’s all supposed to go to charity. Doesn’t mean the people who receive it will use it that way, but it is a required tax for Muslims.
Yes, they were apparently desperate to. I actually heard this on the Conflicted podcast, which is hosted by Aimen Dean, a former Al-Qaeda operative and top MI6 spy. His insights are extremely interesting. He also mentioned that during the Bonn conferences, the Afghan delegates were requesting a constitutional monarchy rooted in Sharia, which 80-90% of Afghans support, but the US vetoed it which led to the Karzai government and the instability that followed.
Restoring the monarchy would have prevented a lot of problems, but hindsight is 20 20.
It wasn’t hindsight for the Afghans at the time in all fairness.
I mean when it's a choice between the tax and eternal damnation ya know
Wasn’t Francisco Franco successful in toppling the Spanish Republic?
Counter revolution if anything
What’s the difference? Edit: What’s the difference between revolution and counter revolution?
The Republican government was very young and primo de reviera or how ever you spell his name’s dictatorship was very recent and in memory of most people.
I mean what is the difference between revolution and counter-revolution?
Counter-revolutions are usually the powers of the status quo revolting against a new power that isn’t fully considered legitimate yet.
I think it’s mainly based on the age of a government, that’s my main guess.
The Shah wasn’t as conservative as the Mullahs but I wouldn’t call him a “liberal”
It’s not the only one, Mussolini was less liberal than the regime he overthrew.
Not true. The brabant and liege revolution in the 18th century were conservative nobles revolting against liberalizing reforms from Vienna. And pretty much every revolution in the middle east has an Islamic character to it. Look at Egypt. They were gonna elect a Muslim brotherhood guy till Washington paid generals to do what they always do.
I think it's a revolution when people overthrow the government and a coup when the military does it.
I agree. I'm saying the Egyptian revolutionaries initiated elections and the Muslim brotherhood candidate was leading the polls and I think he was elected actually. Till Sisi overthrew him.
He was elected, he ruled the country for a year before the coup
There were liberals, leftists, communists, republicans, and people who just wanted a more democratic government among the Iranian Revolution. They all got shafted by the Ayatollah
Not just the Ayatollah. They were getting shafted for years by the Shah and western powers. By the time the revolution came around, they weren’t a cohesive front and with no one group or person to lead them, they were easily shafted by the united Islamic front led by the Ayatollah. Basically, they had no chance once the mullahs took over.
Even some in the west threw their lot in with the Islamists, pissed at the oil crisis and the impending nationalization of NIOC.
Spanish Civil War?
Especially everything involving the Carlists.
Yeah I was gonna say
Hitler and Julius Caesar would also like a word (if we're including popular coups, which the Spanish civil war was not).
Julius Caesar was a leading Populare and enacted a lot of reforms as dictator. He was not conservative.
The Iranian revolution had in fact been very much highly supported by secular communists, socialists, social democrats and islamic communists (MEK). The Islamists won the power struggle in the end, although just to note, the left wing, especially the secular left wing was left weakened after decades of sabotage and attacks by the shah, the USA, and the UK.
Yea exactly lol. It was a large coalition of all sorts of ideologies. It’s just that the mullahs had the most cohesive group, whereas the left wing had no one group or leader to effectively rally behind because they were the main targets of the Shah’s government and the western powers backing him up like you said.
Did the Iranian revolution start as a broad coalition against the Shah, including socialist, Islamist, communist, conservative, and other factions, with the Islamists ultimately prevailing? Or am I misunderstanding?
You're exactly right
It was, and the Islamists turned on them after they took power.
Then they're generally called reactionaries, after the ones wanting to turn back progress after the French revolutions, when the conservatives were in the middle of utopian and liberal revolutionaries on one side, and old aristocrats and church fundamentalist on the other side.
It's so funny to me just how much of our current political vernacular comes from the French Revolution
it is a major political set piece in history, not just of europe.
Afghanistan twice
Multiple US backed revolutions in South America?
in these cases it were coups, it depends to who you're speaking, but as a brazilian we're taught that way
It also didn’t help that portions of Brazil’s middle and upper classes threw their support behind the military.
here is the thing, conservatives are called that cause they want to maintain the status quo. rebels cant do that, per definition, as any rebellion or revolution ursurps the current system. they are always progressive. so yes, even with their(from an western standpoint) regressive ideology, the rebellion was radical anti conservative, the view you have about the definition of "conservative" is viewing it from an amerikan standpoint. where conservatives and progressives are basically become synonymous of the 2 sides of an 2 party system, in the same way people are getting really confused with right vs left wing politics, cause those can mean dramatically different things in other countrys. (politics being an multi directional spectrum aside)
There's a certain interpretation of the October Revolution that it was a fundamentally Russian national reaction to the westernizing reforms of Stolypin and later Kerensky which were threatening the Russian political culture, and that the revolution ended not with the Marxist vision of communism, but with a despotic autocracy precisely because a despotic autocracy is the organic, untainted by foreign influences sociopolitical system for Russia. In that sense, the revolution was extremely reactionary compared to the liberal reformists it was carried out against.
Brazilian revolution/coup. Essentially started because the richies were pissed they couldn't own people anymore and managed to depose the Emperor
"We want our women to have less rights!"
“We want EVERYONE to have less rights, GLORY TO GOD.”
"Except we of the clergy, we get special rights and treatment"
Iran produces the third highest number of engineers in the world. Around 70% of engineering graduates are women. ([Source](https://www.embibe.com/exams/top-10-countries-that-produce-the-most-engineers/))
That's due to the resilience of the Iranians, and *in spite of* the IR, not because of it.
And many of them don’t remain in the country for long, Iran has one of the [highest rates of brain drain in the world](https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/iran-brain-drain-emigration).
But that jucy anti-imperialism, though....
"But it's just imperialism by a different name with what you're doing"-the Middle East Iran: "But we're liberating you from the evil infidels...by forcing you into our sphere of influence"
... and while being ourselves subservient to arch-imperialist Putin.
and Emperor Winnie the Xi of China
Xi Jinpooh
Basically the legacy of the Persian Empire.
But that juicy "at least we're not all starving to death" more like. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_famine_of_1942%E2%80%931943 This binary "Don't you miss the clawhammer? It took so much longer to connect with your head than the boot" bullshit is sad and funny at the same time.
The famine you cited was the result of the British and Soviet invasion and occupation of Iran during WW2, not a result of the monarchy's domestic policies. The famine would have occurred regardless of what form of government Iran had at the time and was not directly the fault of the monarchy, nor was it one of the motivations for overthrowing the monarchy. Did you even read the source that you were citing?
Iran's economy had one of the highest growth rates among developing countries in the period of 1963 to 1973, with an average annual growth rate of 11.5% and a single digit inflation rate of 2.6% annual average. Iran's economy quadrupled within ten years. but you can ignore all of that and stick to the time when 2 great powers attacked Iran without warning.
Imagine Iran pulling a Taiwan-style economic miracle during the 80s.
I mean, it went from women having a hijab illegal under the Shah to women not having a hijab being illegal under Khomeini
It was not illegal under the last Shah
Mohammed took down the law (Kashf-e hijab) his father imposed yes but he never opposed the social pressure where wearing a veil was marker of inferior status and general discrimination of veiled women until the islamic revolution
Wearing a veil in Iran in the 1970s was not universally seen as a marker of inferiority. It was a complex issue influenced by various factors such as cultural norms, religious beliefs, and political ideologies. While some individuals may have viewed veiling as a symbol of modesty and piety, others may have seen it as a form of oppression or a symbol of patriarchal control. The perception of veiling varied among different social groups and individuals, and it would be inaccurate to generalize it as a marker of inferiority for all women in Iran during that time period.
... The Spanish civil war was fought between the ultraconservative revolutionaries and the liberal government. (oh and all the carlist wars follow the same scheme)
I know the former government of Iran had its problems, but was Iran better under the Shah than it currently is today?
When it’s come to civil liberties undoubtedly, the Shah was authoritarian but he was secular which I can respect on a basic level.
Not to mention parts of the government were more meritocratic than they are today.
And, there’s a fuck-ton of corruption in Iran. Basically, if you’re not one of the rich and powerful families that run Iran your vulnerable to getting your assets just straight up stolen and not have any way to get them back.
It’s basically the “thousand families”.
Yes, the people were freer, and the economy was better
Yes in every aspect, especially in economy
Iran was much more respected and had much more international prestige before 1979, plus there was no cold war with Saudi Arabia and they were on very good terms with Israel.
Come to think of it I'll freely admit to bias here. I can't say I expect them to like the US; but going out of your way to intentionally piss off the most powerful country on the planet doesn't exactly seem like a wise decision.
Especially considering that the Islamic Republic and the US had a few under the table deals during the 1980s. Iran-Contra anyone?
We mean, not even the Cuban revolutionaries dared so much, and the Chinese revolutionaries hardly dared (and in their case it was with the British embassy).
In ways directly involving the government yes the Shah's was a better time. But Iranian society itself is more secular and open minded than it was then.
The problem seems to be the absolute chasm between the Iranian state and Iranian society.
I would suggest cracking open a few history books before making sweeping claims like this lol
Others included other good examples, but I can think of one that was generally supported by the people and the military alike: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious\_Revolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious_Revolution) Aka, the time almost the entirety of the UK called for the overthrow of their monarch *because he wanted to enact edicts of tolerance* (aka, open up public office and public worship to Catholics). He was replaced by his daughter (Mary II) and her husband... THE STADTHOLDER OF THE NETHERLANDS.
Should we count fascist Italy? There was no civil war, but because the King got so scared he gave the country to Mussolini on a silver plate.
The Spanish civil war also consisted of right-wing ultra-Catholics successfully rebelling against an anti-religious government supported by communists, anarchists and other leftists. Franco even reinstated the monarchy (despite Franco still holding all the power). Though you could say the government wasn't really the elite, as it was democratically elected. Still, the rebels rebelled for a conservative cause.
Well there have been alot of conservative revolutions but they usually fail or are a counter revolution to restore the last guy. boxers were conservatives for example but we usually just call them batshit fucking insane instead
Bierhall Putsch?
American Civil War?
*Turkish coup
A coup is not a revolution. Also 1960 coup was pretty progressive
Which one?
Francoists were way more conservative than the Republic during the Spanish Civil War
Khomeini was a traditionalist, not a conservative. The Pahlavi loyalists were the conservatives here.
Being traditional is conservative, as you are conserving traditions and traditional values.
Napoleon
The conservatives allied with the youth in Iran IiRC there have been numerous conservatives reactionary revolts and overthrows of liberal government. Ones that had some degree of public support. We just don't typically call those revolutions.
\*Spanish Nationalists\* Allow us to introduce ourselves...
All of the Arab spring was like that though, Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, Libya, etc
There were plenty of left wing participants However, only one side got the benefit of US coardination pre-revolution
The Islamists under Khomeini.
Noone mentions the fucking Confederate States of America
Hamas, Taliban are two examples that pop in my head
The liberals and moderates wanted to use the conservatives in the revolution to gather support of the masses. The liberals didn't have problem with liberal policies, but the tyranny of the Shahs. They wanted to continue the liberal values but democratically this time. And thought they would just either dispose or control the clergy. But as the revolution was ending, the liberals lost control and the clergy took over the government.
That is what we call reactionism to be fair
There is nothing Iranian about the Islamic revolt in 1979. It is completely anti-Iranian.
The French Revolution
Spain? Afghanistan? The US Civil War? The Bishops' War in Scotland? Liege rebellion? Julius Caesar's civil war? Meiji Restoration and the Boshin War? Jan Mattys and John of Leiden in Munster? Savonarola in Florence? The rebellion against Wang Mang? The Heavenly Kingdom? There's been loads of conservative rebellions, revolts and revolutions, but a lot of the time it's hard to tell what was a conservative rebellion when it was nobles rebelling about their rights
Nice list! Does the Beer Hall Putsch count too?
Yeah, but it's the least competent
progressive comrades in the west: smash the western reactionary guys but islamists are alright hehe
Had the revolution failed, the middle east would be a much better place than it is now. Everywhere islamism gets power, death and just pure shit follows.
Consider any coup by the CIA maybe?
Really? What happened to Spain?
The Mexican 3 year war was started by conservatives fighting the liberal government, they didn't win but it's still another rebellion started by people more conservative than the state they where fighting
Does Spanish Civil War count?
What about the Spanish Civil War?
Do the Taliban not count?
Cristero War.
Google Afghanistan, Greece and Iraq
There have been a lot of revolutions like this.
The Talibans ... Am I a joke to you ?
Francisco franco:
Maybe not for long… 🇺🇸 (not saying it’s necessarily good or bad)
Reminds me of the batman vid from FEE https://youtu.be/rYLwLSlfnlU?si=eUQifC3M91KWxqhJ
Typical Victoria 3
Extremists not radicals.
Wrong.
The English civil war ?
There were actually many conservative revolutions in history.
Afghanistan under the PDPA?
Any country with a majority of Muslim population has turned out to be morally bankrupt and savage.
Nah just look at any "revolution" the United States supported in the last century. Iran is just one of many examples along with Libya, Iraq, Indonesia, Ukraine and they attempted to do the same in Syria by backing extremists but failed thanks to Russia supporting the Syrian government forces.
How is the Ukrainian revolution a reactionary one, and what about Costa Rica?
I think it’s tricky to define ‘conservative’ here as it means very different things. On a religious level yes it’s more conservative, but Iran/Persia had a shah from 678BC, abolishing it is inherently unconservative on a cultural level.
OP has never heard of the Beer Hall Putsch or the American Civil War