I just finished watching the five part Manoto TV’s documentary about the Islamic Revolution of 1979. I highly recommend everyone to watch it. One fact that becomes clear, despite the efforts of the producers maybe, is that Khomeini's leadership and courage played a huge role in his triumph. Next to him the Shah seems like a scared boy. Khomeini could control millions. He was so hugely loved and respected that he could make the entire oil production of the country stop with one word. In 2009 we lost a few hundred lives but never did one shop close or one group strike. Even the students did not strike and the University never shut down. Compared to ’79, 2009 was a little sneeze. No wonder the regime is still solidly in place. They know a thing or two about revolutions and what makes them work. Because, any way you look at it, the Revolution was a huge success for those who won it, namely the religious elite.
Another point that becomes clear is that there was really no other viable opposition. I used to believe that the Revolution was hijacked. But, in fact, the other groups never had a remote chance in the face of competition from the clergy and the mosque. We spend much time debating the ‘what ifs’, in fact this whole documentary seems to be made around those ‘what ifs’.
We spend a lot of time thinking about ‘what if’ the intellectuals had not sided with Khomeini. What intellectuals? They didn't matter at all. They were a small group the masses couldn’t remotely care about. The leftists who joined Khomeini did so to save their neck and were cleansed from the regime soon after. The leftist groups were made up of mostly students and had a small number of followers compared to those who followed Khomeini. Everyone who joined Khomeini did so because it was obvious that he would win. The masses were completely at Khomeini's service in a devoted way never before seen in a revolution. That is why the Revolution was an Islamic one and never had a chance of being anything else.
The National Front (which an 18 year old I, at the time, supported) was mostly made up of tired old men castrated by the Shah. Their time had passed and we paid the price. The point where after Ashoora Tasooa demonstrations Bakhtiar comes on TV and says I want a 'social democrat' government the distance between him and the masses becomes apparent. Bakhtiar was so French sounding in his ideas that it was better if he ran for the mayor of Nice than to try to save the constitutional monarchy (which was never really constitutional) from a devoutly Shiite nation. Khomeini spoke the language of the masses and he seemed to lack fear or emotion, which made him a great leader.
The Shah, on the other hand, comes across as a scared man waiting around for, either, orders from the Americans or fate. The contrast between his previous huffing and puffing and his newfound timidity encouraged the revolutionaries and must have discouraged the army as well. It is sad to watch, on the screen, rather Zhivagesque indeed, this extreme contrast between the Shah after the Opec boom and the Shah at the time of the revolution.
Nothing he did was as bad as his departure in his private jet from Iran. Imagine the folly of leaving an army that supposedly idolizes you in the middle of that chaos. The Shah’s fear and lack of character played a big role in the manner of his fall. It’s palpable in every clip he is in from the tear gas attack on the White House lawn onward the man was panicked. It's shocking how he flees leaving his beloved army and many of his ex-cronies in prison. No gloss of history or repeated viewing of him interviewing in impeccable French or English will ever wash that. He acted in a shameful way towards the end making an unswerving Khomeini seem even stronger and nobler.
Khomeini owes much to the PR savvy of the Western educated Yazdi and Ghotbzadeh whom he got rid of in the end. They made all the right moves as the people on the Shah's side made all the wrong ones. I’ve heard many of the Shah’s close aids, at the time, claim that they told him not to act the way he did, I wonder if there is any truth to that. To the bitter end he was encircled by courtier rivalry, like the one between ex-prime minister Hoveyda and the newly appointed one Amouzgar. Imagine, they are losing the country to Muslim revolutionaries and all they care about is out doing one another in front of the Shah.
Leaving the country in the hands of the very un-charismatic general Azhari and then general Gharabaghi, was another huge mistake. But the Shah seemed, even to the end, afraid of people who could outshine him so he surrounded himself with incompetent men. Regardless of the mistakes of the Shah, the intellectuals, the leftists, or the national front, one thing becomes crystal clear after watching the Manoto TV documentary, no one could have stopped the revolution or Khomeini. And all “what ifs” are really mute. The only ‘what if’ that makes sense posing is the one that goes back to twenty some years before 1979: what if Mossadegh had not been overthrown?
Execllent piece. I so not think Khomeini and the religious estalishment could have succeeded without the support of the nationalist and secular forces. Or at least not so spectacularly. The non-religious forces and the religious modersates, united in a single front during the revolution, were a powerful force that - as a whole - had the backing of big chunk of the urban population. It was only after the revolution that they lost influene when they broke up into their smaller groups and got easily crushed by the religious factions alied with Khomeini. The differene between Khomeini's promises and actions in the months before and after the reolution are startling. His speeches and slogans before the revolution largely echo those of liberal and progressive groups -- a clever strategy that united all the opposition, not just his religious followers.
Also, my view of the Shah's departure has changed over the years. I, too, used to think he was a coward for abandoning his people and loyal followers in the final hour. And maybe he was a coward. But at the same time he refused to order the army to kill thousands more people in order to save his reign. If he had remained in Iran, many more people would have lost their lives. I only wish Khomeini and Khamenei were cowards. But they lack that little bit of dignity the Shah had to realize the people want you out and it's time to leave the throne. I'm convinced that more people poured into the streets during the 2009 Green protests than during the 1979 revolution. The reason why this regime did not fall was because its leaders are far more willing to kill peaceful protesters that the Shah did. But ultumately they're time will also come. Rotten regimes will transform and fall apart. When and how are irrelevant.
Thank you JJ jan for reading it.
You should watch the documentary it's worth revisiting the revolution. The Shah did kill many and even if he had killed more Khomeini and his followers would have stood until his fall. It is not so much that he didn't want to kill that it wouldn't have mattered. He had lost already. He also was very keen on not alienating the westerners who backed him if they had okd a massacre he may have gone for it. But at that point it was too late. There was no chance that the throne could be saved certainly after ashoura tasoua. and of the urban masses its hard to see them following anyone other than the ayatollah. They just outnumbered everyone. That is a fact that no one seems to want to credit them with. Khomeini did change his tune but that was expected as Bakhtair and even my mom used to claim. It seems very unlikely that the revolution could have gone any other way. Even ther number of hejab less women in the demonstrations shows that the secular urban where hugely, massively, outnumbered.
Many people did die under the Shah. Many people were killed during the revolution. But the number of people killed since the revolution pales in comparison. The current regime has excelled in every crime imaginable. The fight against the Shah's regime may have been heroic but it was not in any way noble. I'll take a coward rather than a cruel leader any day.
Anyway, I'm just airing out ideas. I really appreciate what you're saying and agree with almost everything. I just can't give these bastards much credit for anything.
Amid all kinds of observations and deductions, one historical fact stands out: Today's mullacracy is the result of yesterday's Pahlavist dictatorship. Those unwilling or incapable of confessing it, will have no rule in tomorrow's democracy.
I agree 100% with Ms. Sabety’s excellent article. There was a mass hysteria in full force supporting Khomeini and no other, I repeat no other political or social group mattered. Forget about what if Bakhtiar had more time or many other what ifs. believe me IT DIDN”T MATTER A BIT. As an 18 year old young man and two years prior to the revolution I could feel that a Tsunami was coming but of course did not know the magnitude of it. Movie theaters that once were packed with mostly young male crowd watching scantily dressed dancers and singers in cabarets, irrelevant to script rape scenes and…….. were all of the sudden empty. In mosques I was surprised to hear such a direct tone of Mullahs advising the male crowd the consequence of letting their wives, daughters, sisters to run around with short skirts and practically named the men unpaid pimps. I can go on and on but the truth of the matter is that a magician with lots of charisma and skillful use of language in a form that overwhelming majority of the masses could understand and relate to (Since their fathers or grandfathers talked in the same tone) hypnotized us by drawing a beautiful garden that Iran was about to become and in reality it turned out to be a mirage. Kudos to Ms. Sabety.
Shah's lack of character is undeniable. He was truly a coward in every sense of the word. I wonder if he knew he was dying of cancer and he just did not care anymore.
I also watched the entire 10 hours of the program and found it unbiased and informative. The documentary, to its credit, did not pass any judgments on who was to blame for what took place in Iran and left it to the viewers to come up with their own conclusion, and this write up by Ms. Sabeti is one of those conclusions.
In my view, the events of 1979 were the result of a series of actions and events that came together at a unique point in history that may not happen again. Everything from lack of political freedom in Iran to East-West cold war, clergy’s power grab, left’s treachery, Khomeini’s deceit, pro-Mossadegh’s revenge, military’s lack of strong leadership, western countries’ positive view of Islamic rule as was exercised in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and so on. However, one major factor that always gets ignored and to me is the foundation of this disaster is the role of the Iranian people, you and I.
I believe that any Iranian who is over the age 50, no matter if they were in Iran at the time or not, should honestly take a look in the mirror and accept some responsibility. The only people who can, with a clear conscious say that they tried to avoid this disaster are the thousands of pro-constitution marchers who attended the 2 rallies in Amjadieh and in front of the Prime Minister’s office and tried to bring some sanity to the rest of the Iranian nation. They failed.
Perhaps the Shah didn't want bloodshed? Have you pondered that? Shah showed through his 37 year long reign that for a Middle Eastern ruler he was really not that brutal. Amir1973 once cited a study by an Italian journalist which showed that throughout the entire reign Shah of 37 years a total of about 500 (or possibly 320) people were executed. That figure included criminals such as murderers. Compare that to the Islamic Republic, which executed that many in half an hour. I hate to say this, but perhaps the Shah was too lenient for a Middle Eastern nation with a history of brutal rulers. There is evidence of Shah's general wanting to get more brutal at the start of the dmeonstrations. But Shah did not allow them to do so out of fear of bloodshed.
And as far as the following that Khomeini had...so what? Hitler was adored by German masses also.
The problem with Iran in 1979 was religious superstition and illiteracy. The majority of the people in Iran in 1979 were illiterate and very religious / supersitious. But even educated people started finiding strands of Khomeini's hair in their Qurans and saw Khomeini's image on the moon. And when that happened it was all over.
And on the issue of Shah flying out on a private jet, what was he supposed to use, a donkey? Were (are) our people so petty that they couldn't see the emperor of a country flying on a private jet?!! For nature's sake, Babak Zanjani, the IR crook has his own private jet. But now juxtapose that we Khomeini arriving in Iran on Air France! Can you imagine if an opposition figure today wants to land in Iran using Delta Airlines? My God, people will eat him up for being a foreign stooge, etc.!
I have to say that the Islamic Republic's biggest success has been its intelligence services and its ability to control the political discourse inside and outside of Iran. Just look at the "pundits" on even foreign news services like the BBC. They're mostly old revolutionaries who STILL toe the IR's line and spread its narrative of Iran's recent history. And the IR's intelligence service and well funded propaganda aparatus has also been able to dicimate the opposition inside and outside of Iran and successfully portray them all as a bunch of "has-been" tools of foreign nations.
Thank you jj and faramarz. Excellent points.
Dear Faramarz, it is obvious where you stand on this whole debate but for the sake of a healthy debate let’s examine your so called unique series of events that came together at a UNIQUE point in history. Let me make it clear that for all those people pushing for more sanctions and undeniable eventual war, I actually agree with you that we the people need to take control of our own destiny and stop waiting for his Excellency Emam Zaman/Mighty U.S of A. And no, a couple of thousand people participating in a couple of rallies in support of Bakhtiar does not cut it for me. Too little, too late.
1) Lack of political freedom: Was in place since 1953, a good 25 years prior to revolution.
2) East-West Cold War: was in full bloom since Churchill’s famous Iron Curtain speech back in 1946, a good 33 years prior to revolution
3) Clergy power grab: started with Shah Ismail some 400 years ago and can be traced in every major historical event in Iran since that time.
4) Left’s treachery: I suppose you are talking about Tudeh party which already showed their allegiance to their masters 25 years earlier (see #1), other parties despite names that needed a truck to carry them did not matter.
5) Khomeini’s deceit: It happened AFTER revolution and cannot be counted as one of the events leading to the revolution itself.
6) Pro Mossadegh’s revenge!: They were given the key to the house. Some did not want the responsibility. Bakhtiar took a chance with it. Where is the revenge? Please elaborate.
7) Military’s lack of strong leadership: It never had one during Shah’s time since he was the head of it himself
8) West positive of view of Islamic rule?!! Saudi Arabia? Pakistan? There was no clergy running the government in either country. This falls under U.S. desperate decision to back clergy out of fear of communism. IMHO, it would have not made a damn difference in whether U.S. backed clergy or not. Too little, too late. All those Emamzadehs and Mosques that were built under Shah’s watch did the job.
So all of the above factors were in place some decades or centuries prior to revolution hence cannot be counted as unique time in history. We need to seek the answer somewhere else but the first step is to build a trust among ourselves and stop pointing to one another as the guilty party. There is plenty of blame to go around, even your beloved constitutionalists get their fair share. And blaming a 15 year old for where we are is definitely not a good start. Best of luck.
This so called revoultion which was nothing but serious of riots and protests that went out of control could have easily been crushed if the right people were in charge and the right time. All it was needed was to arrest several hundred troublemakers put them in prision for couple of months, have a real marshall law (shoot first and then question next) and that would have been the end of it.Reality is we Iranian people (with an exception of Kurds) are not exactly the bravest people on the face of the earth and we always hedge our bet with the winner. case and point, Couple of thousand of basijis on Motorcycle crushed 2009 protest of what one or two million people. Even if Bakhtiar government who was soft on protesters lasted longer gradually tides would have shifted.
We can not properly judge Shah's character here, but one think amazes me. You see how media all over the world easily refers to terrorism and Islam, Shah was not brave enough to say Muslims instead he refered to them as "blacks". I think this was in one of his last interviews if I am not mistaken. He also refered to communist as "reds".
The clergy religious industry had been vying for power for over 500 years, and they finally got their wish. They'll be out of job, if Iran had become democratic and secular. I think they would have overthrown Mossadegh if they had a chance. It was and still is keeping their job and business going.
Dear Kamal, I don't understand your itemized reply to my comment, so I will try to re-state my points differently.
The reason we had the street riots of 1979 was not because of a simple reason like the oil price, Shah's comment about the blue-eyed people now had to work for the brown-eyed people, or Brzezinski’s green belt in the Soviet Union's central Asian republics, or Cheriq/Mojahed's arm struggle, or the lack of political freedom in Iran, or Rastakhiz Party, or 2500-year party, or American military equipment sale to Iran, or Shah’s illness, etc. It was a combination of all these pieces and the timing of it, but built on a foundation that the educated and supposedly responsible Iranian people had no idea what they wanted to do.
We as a nation knew how to go on the streets and burn banks and buildings and chant "death to this, and death to that", but we had no idea about how to actually build something. The models that were put in front of us were either a Marxist one that just 10 years later collapsed in the Soviet Union and the Eastern Europe, or an Islamic one that no one knew what it was.
Saying Bakhtiar was "too little, too late" is like watching your kid drowning in the pool and saying, "oh well, too little, too late!"
the Shiat ISIS, aka "Islamist regime of Iran" has a very sophisticated propaganda machine. Goeble's would be proud of them!
This article and some of comments are the proof—in case we needed any—of how little some of us Iranians know about the 1979 revolution and social classes & reasons behind it, It’s brief period of success and final defeat at the hands of Islamist fascism. This article is also the proof of the success of Islamist Regime’s ceaseless lie and deception campaign of propaganda in distorting the facts in their own favor, by trying to sow the seeds of doubt & dissolution in Iranian people’s minds. Preventing Iranians from realizing the fact that the only path to victory and freedom from the yoke of Islamist theocracy is through a Revolutionary uprising of Iranian people and not putting hopes in another “reformist” murdering smiling mullah who is only been given the title of the “president” through some back door agreements between the frightened old Shiat ISIS murdering khalifa Ali Khamnenei and western military bosses representing oil cartels. A back door agreement which would give western oil cartels another decade of full access to super cheap Iranian oil in return for a guarantee for Shiat ISIS Boss Ali’ khamenei not meeting the same end as Moammar Gaddaf, at least for a few more years………
Dear Faramarz, I did itemize my reply purely to make sure that I cover ALL of the points that you brought up in making your case. I find it the most efficient way of debating, first due to covering all basis and second to prevent participants from going on tangents and stay focused on the subject matter. My repeated references to the phrase “too little, too late” was meant as a reminder to all of us, particularly to monarchy constitutionalists that there were plenty of time during the Shah’s era for we the people to hold him accountable and demand that he would honor the constitution. Particularly the first 12 years of his reign. Tudeh party gained so much power and built a strong organization during the exact same period which provided cultural, educational services to ordinary citizens and a strong political party that was a puppet of the Soviets. Now, why couldn’t the same thing happen with the monarchist as an institution? We had the royal court and that was it. The answer may be because due to being shortsighted, and having an interest in the way Shah ruled, they decided to keep their mouths shut. 1332 saw our imaginary kid go in to a coma and it finally passed away on the day of Shah’s announcement about creation of Rastaakhiz party as the only legit party of the land. I’m told that our 1906 constitution was copied almost verbatim from the Belgium (a multi ethnicity country, mind you) constitution. Last time I checked Belgium was still a kingdom. You/We had 37 years to ask for our legal rights and did not lift a finger but attending a rally in support of Bakhtiar on the last few weeks of his time in the office all of the sudden means something? You cannot be serious. Roots of the revolution and yes it was a revolution still require further studies and it will need active participations from all of us since every story has many characters and every character sees things from his/her own point of view. We have all these scholars who have researched this event by interviewing a few people who were in charge, added their own commentary as the actual facts and published it. Do we have even one comprehensive study that gives us a glimpse of the thought process of active participants( from oil workers to teachers who took part in national strikes , to the active militant revolutionaries and so on ……) to find out what was going through their minds, what was their real demands other than the phony slogan “ Freedom, Independent, Islamic government” People rise up for a reason. Accusing ourselves of being illiterates and savages is not a good start and will not get us anywhere and contrary to some people’s belief nobody and that is NOBODY knows it all. I read some of the commentaries and am surprised beyond belief when I see the author summarizes let’s say 100 year history of our land in one paragraph and give themselves the right to insult others for not agreeing with their conclusions. Respectfully, Kamal.
@Anonymous_Observer: the journalist was, I believe, a Frenchman, Paul Balta. The approximate number of executions carried out under the Shah was 400 over his 37 year reign.
In brief, 1979 tragedy was a "National Suicide". Let's face it, We are all guilty of that tragedy. Shia Religion passion and BBC radio propaganda played a big role.
Thanks Amir jaan for the information.