Anniversary of the Iranian Revolution and Revival of the “If in History” Commentary 

The ‘if in history’ can be a titillating topic for poets and fiction writers but not useful to political or historical commentators. In contrast, focus on unintended consequences of human action reveals how misperception or impulsive action can pave the way for shocking historical ironies.

It is fair to say that the Iranian revolution of 1979 could not have happened the way it did without Khomeini’s leadership of the anti-Shah movement.

For Khomeini’s uncontested voice against the Pahlavi monarch excited not only the leftist, liberal and nationalist opponents of the Shah but also the masses of urban poor who were not politically active or viewed as even a potential threat to the status quo. This situation was unimagined  by both the Shah and Khomeini.

In mid 1978 the Shah decided to humiliate Khomeini in the expectation of discrediting him politically. First he ordered publication of an insulting article against him in a newspaper that echoed the monarch’s positions and then pressured Saddam Hussein to expel him from Iraq. The 1975 Algiers Accord resolving border dispute between Iran and Iraq had resulted in a rather cordial relationship between the Shah and Saddam Hussein.

According to Iraqi documents seized by U. S. intelligence after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003, Saddam advises the Shah not to do did. He promises the Shah to prevent Khomeini from issuing any statement or engaging in political activity. That was not enough for the  King of Kings and the leader of the Great Civilization. He dismissed Saddam’s suggestion and urged him to kick the Ayatollah out as soon as possible.

Saddam reluctantly submitted and ordered his men to take Khomeini to Kuwait’s border and expel him from Iraqi territory. And the Shah asked Kuwait not to issue him visa to enter the country. So the Ayatollah spent three days in the custom area of Kuwaiti airport.

Ebrahim Yazdi (a member of the Freedom Movement who later became foreign minister) flew from Texas to Kuwait to find an Islamic country that would be willing to give Khomeini a visitor’s visa. Even with his American passport Yazdi could not persuade any of them. The Shah’s influence in the Islamic world proved to be decisive. 

At the time Iranians did not need a visa to visit France. Khomeini hated the idea of going to a European country. He was even willing to go to Indonesia but his request was denied. Thus Yazdi took Khomeini to Paris expecting that it would be a temporary stay there until they could persuade an Islamic country to accept Khomeini’s request for visa. 

Khomeini's arrival in Neauphle-le-Chateau, a village near Paris, marked the beginning of his notoriety as an international celebrity. Diaspora Iranians subscribing to competing political perspectives were all united in praising him as the leader of the revolutionary movement against the Shah.

At the same time, Khomeini’s taped speeches in Neauphle-le-Chateau were sent to Iran and played in mosques and Muslim gatherings for urban poor who soon began to see the Ayatollah’s picture on the moon.

Khomeini was very surprised of his celebrity status among secular Iranians in addition to massive international attention he was attracting.  This situation transformed the Ayatollah into a masterful Machiavellian.

Thus he began to tell journalists and admirers what they wished to hear. He was for democracy, human rights, gender equality, political freedom and civil liberties for all.

I interviewed him in late December 1978 for an article I was commissioned to write for Inquiry Magazine published in San Francisco. I began the interview by introducing myself as a professor teaching in California.  He replied, “I am also a طلبه (talabeh, a religious student) and nothing I wish more than returning to Qum to resume my studies.”

His words were music to my ear - the leader of the anti-Shah movement was not interested in power.

About a year after the fall of the Shah and Khomeini’s advocacy of sectarian policies, when an Italian journalist asked him how he justified his liberal and democratic ideas advocated in France, he replied “خدعه کردم” (I lied).

Khomeini had a dark side to his character and possession of absolute power fed this dark side to make him a vengeful sociopathic political animal. 

The Shah could not comprehend the fact that his decision to ask Saddam Hussein to expel Khomeini from Iraq fueled the engine of the revolutionary movement.

The unintended consequence of the Shah's supposedly clever decision was too surreal for him to comprehend. So he died being convinced that President Jimmy Carter and Western oil companies had plotted against him and Khomeini was simply a tool used by them.

Khomeini was as surprised with the consequence of his unwanted move to France, but his explanation was more appealing to the masses: God, in his supernaturally mysterious way,  had chosen him to lead the revival of Islam in the world. 

Mansour Farhang’s long career in international relations has included a diplomatic post and many distinguished research and teaching positions. He taught for more than 30 years at Bennington and returned as a visiting faculty member in 2017.