QUESTION

Khomeini

was just a puppet used by others to achieve the destruction of Iran. A year before he arrived on the scene he was going to write an appology to the Iranian government and request a return to Iran! Next year he is full blown revloutionery, a guy that could not even speak persian, Arabic or for that matter any language correctly if his life dependent on it!The fact that morons followed him shows how backward we were and still are. sadly people who live in fifteen century mentality can not be pushed to modernity over night. One can only wonder what Iran (if existed at all today!) would look like today had the Great Reza Shah and his son didn't come to power and try so hard to modernize the country. the rest is history....

Re-Credit to Imam

I believe that the credit should rather go to BBC world service who promoted one of their own agent(Khomeini hendi)
I rather give a discredit to our people's stupidity for falling to British old trap

Dear Commenter

Dear Commenter 

• I was a university student under the Shah’s regime. The students were always under the watchful eyes of Savak agents, at least two of them on every floor in our building roaming around openly and proudly and anxiously awaiting to take out their next victim. Remember Khomeini started his struggle with forceful opposition to the debilitating Capitulation Law passed by Iran’s parliament and was designed to dehumanize Iranian people by giving total immunity to America personnel working in Iran. His compassionate speech in Qum in defense of the right and the dignity of the Iranian people led to his exile to Turkey and the consequential massive uprising all over the country. In that speech the said, “If an America driver hit and injure or kill the Shah of Iran, he will not be charged because he had immunity, however, if the Shah of Iran kills an American dog, he will be prosecuted and charged” How can someone attach so unfairly a person who bravely staged a revolution that saved us from one of the most brutal regimes in human history?   
• Dear Mr. Madadi, 
•  I totally agree with you concerning the optimal length of the article. I know that time is the most expensive commodity and no reader wants to spend much of it reading the lengthy articles. If you don’t believe, look at my last article posted on Monday. It is long and I assume not too popular with readers. It was an oversight in my part not realizing this point on time.  Don’t worry if you don’t get as many comments as the lady writers get, as one commenter pointed out. It is typical of us, the Iranian men to become more opinionated, more polite, more humble, and not to mention more expressive when dealing with ladies. This is our e-way to impress them. No doubt internet has changed everything including the way we express ourselves.  The fact that you did not treat me harsher in your response to my comment signifies your professionalism and forbearance. I hope in your future writings you turn your attention to more current and more critical issues that affect us as Iranians living in abroad.    

Ben

Ben:

Good article. I would like to make some comments though.

To avoid a revolutionary change in any nation, two elements must be present:

(i) The middle class must be large and extensive, making up a significant fraction - close to a majority at least - of the population.

(ii) As a country develops economically, it must also develop politically. Only a transparent political system - which is necessarily democratic - can prevent corruption, cronyism, government-sanctioned crimes, etc., all of which were rampant during the Shah's reign.

The Shah failed to develop both. The middle class made up at most 15% of the population - if that. The middle class did not also have political freedom to provide a solid backbone for the regime in order to help the country develop further. Intellectually, the Shah's regime was bankrupt.

A small fraction of the population was rich, and the rest was lower and underclass. A large fraction of the lower and underclass had been created by the Shah's failed White Revolution regarding land reform. The reforms did not create security for the small farmers who had became landlords. Thus, they migrated to large cities in search of jobs, which they could not get.

The Shah also was in a hurry to spend the windfalls from the oil boom of 1973-1976 to develop the country with lavish spending. However, Iran was not prepared to absorb a huge influx of capital. That gave rise to the hyperinflation of 1976-1977.

The Shah did not also recognize that Iran did not have the infrastructure to absorb the huge influx of capital. Nor did Iran have the manpower. We had Phillipino and Indian doctors, European and American engineers, etc. Amir Abbas Hoveyda said in 1975, "we have the money to buy anything we want." Well, money was not enough. It seems that any expert knew this, except the Shah and the people around him.

So, put together the bad economic situation and the huge gap between haves and have nots, lack of a large middle class, the existence of a huge underclass population on the outskirt of large cities, and the terrible political repression, we can see why the Shah was overthrown.

Some people say that Iranians were fooled. In addition to being an insult to a great and old nation, the fact is people were not fooled. There were the necessary economic, political, and social elements for a revolution, some of which were outlined above. So, the revolution happened and, in my opinion, it was totally legitimate.

What happened AFTER the revolution does not wash the conditions BEFORE the revolution. If people were fooled, it happened AFTER the revolution when they voted for the IRI in 1358, WITHOUT first finding out what the content of this IRI was.

Regarding Reza Shah:

Unlike what you say,

(i) he was not overthrown, but REMOVED by the British, the same system that had brought him to power, and

(ii) he did have an efficient secret service. Despite many good things that he did for Iran, Reza Shah's reign gave rise to some of the darkest political years in Iran. The police state that he created postponed Iran's political development by at least one generation.

Reza Shah came to power only 14 years after the magnificent Constitutional Revolution that had established the first constitutional government in the entire Asia. So, unlike what some say in order to justify Reza Shah's repression, Iran was ready for political development, with much intellectual power and many great thinkers. But, Reza Shah either killed them, or silenced them, or jailed them, or exiled them. It was so bad that even people that had served him and Iran well, such as Davar (who established the modern judiciary in Iran), committed suicide because they were afraid of him.

Re: Kaveh

Thank you for your comment!

Credit to Imam

Are you kidding me? Imam Khomeini is why the revolution triumphed. Even Bazargan kept telling him to accept terms. It was Imam ans his objectives, his leadership, his guidance. He kept guiding the rev. movement and telling people to continue the struggle. It was he who created this system in a way that no foreigner can mess with (genius to set up Rev. Guards parallel to artesh)

Re: Varjavand

Quote from your post: 

"Shah was brought down by the faithful people who were united under the Khomeini’s leadership and resilient in their resolve. By people like my folks back home who were willing to sacrifice their life for their faith... "

There are some truths and some clear falsehoods in your above statement.

It is true that people were united under khomeini's leadership. It is true that people like your "folks" had a lot to do with it too.

However, it is false to say that only "faithful" people were involved. In fact, a great majority of the true revolutionaries, specialy among the left, did not have any religious faith.

It is also false to simply say that people were united under khomeini's leadership. This is a half complete sentence. The complete sentence would end with "... united... under khomeini's leadership thanks to the great many decieving LIES that he and his supporters such as my "folks" in Iran spread by design." Now the sentence is complete.

Quote from your post:

"You probably haven’t been in Iran, especially as a university student, during his time. How many more people he had to kill to be considered vicious?..."

I was in Iran as a university student and I was actively protesting the Shah and participating in revolutionary activities on a daily basis, mainly due to your "folks" brainwashing. And I say with certainity that you are being deceitful by trying to create an impression that the previous regime was murderous.

The total number of those killed in the entire reign of shah was less than three thousands (according to one of your ex-folks, Emad Baghi), mainly in street confrontations with the army during the last six months of the revolution. Your "folks" killed three times that in just one month by the order of khomeini himself. Also unlike the previous regime, your "folks" would not hesitate to kill millions in order to remain in power. We all know that.

I hope this clarifies a few things. 

P.S. The name "varjavand" does not fool anyone.

Simplistic isn't as negative as you may think

First of all: Ben, very good article.

Anonymouss: All of the larger events were started by smaller, simple events and occurrences. An avalance always begins with a single snowflake. That half-rate half-Indian mollah had the backing of Jimmy Carter, but the Shah could have (and should have) taken decisive action and disposed of him like the trash he was back in 1963. Instead, Ambassador Pakravan was fooled by that sociopath and he paid with his life 16 years later.

MKB: While you and I certainly can be governed democratically, I don't know if I can hold the same confidence in the rest of the Middle East. As much as it kills to me say or even think it, for all of the cultural wealth that emanates from that part of the world, the free exchange of opposing or even simply diverse, secular, political ideas has not existed. Personal accountability is a completely foreign concept, and the lack of it has been a huge factor in the way things are in the region. With freedom comes responsibility, and it doesn't appear that anyone wants to take responsibility. I hope that things will change.

The best part of this site...

Is all the Finglish insults and quips people say without any real purpose. Is there some sort of contest for this?

Two words for you: Simple Minded

Ben

You are really simple minded. If you were student at universities in Iran, and/or had a relative stuck with SAVAK, you probably would know better.  Since it may take a very long time to educate you, all I can tell you is YOU ARE A SIMPLETON.

Good luck with the rest of your analysis.

Ben joon, beekaari?

Seems "kafgeer beh tahe deeg khrodeh". You must be desparately running out of subject or trying to compete with Sepahpour-Ulrich to see how many comments you can attract this time. Aakheh inam shod topic? hundreds of analysts and experts have tried to answer such a question by writing volumes of books on this subject and still it remains unanswered. Then from nowhere, Ben Madadi, comes up and in a a six or seven paragraph article wants to answer the question. And an equal amount of beekaars, like myself, reply to your mumbo jumbo. Ok here is my answer to your question: "The pahlavi regime was brought down by Somaagh Ali Khane Kabobi . Did you know him? He was the owner of Kabobi Somaaghi in meydoone shoosh. When he promised to give free kabobs to whoever shouted marg bar shah, then the revolution began. The rest as you know is history.

I agree with Varjavand,

I agree with Varjavand, partially. The Revolution was not about religion, however, those who usurped the revolution and committed dispecable violence and murder committed those crimes for their "religion" and for their perverted sense of "faith" and "godliness". A bunch of bigoted, intolerant, hateful mongers who would exterminate all those who oppose them and don't follow obediently their version of "faith" and "religon". A Totalitarian, uneducate, and xenophobic segment of the society (redneck Iranians) with sociopathic tendencies who use religion as a tool to subjugate and legitimize murder, violence, and bigotry...Khomeini, being the sociopath that he was, understood this deviant segment of society really well and exploited/pandered their bigotry and their misogynistic sentiments into a political advanatage in the name of "religion"/cult to gain power and wealth...

//www.iran-emrooz.net/index.php?/zanan/more/1...

Re: varjavand

Thank you very much for your comment, and saying that I am a good writer. I appreciate it.

The point of writing articles, blogs etc, is nothing but writing a view, a personal view. Being a good writer is more than I can wish for. Many people, readers, exaggerate what is nothing but a personal view, and the whole idea of having the freedom to express one's view is to exactly do that. And the whole beauty of the freedom to express one's view is to have one's view different from someone else's view.

By the way, how can one expect such short articles to be proper analyses and argumentations against, or for, one thing or another? They can never do that. Any relatively short article can never be complete or accurate, because there isn't enough length for it. And if I write a long article no one will read it, believe me! So, the best thing to do when reading articles is to be somehow cool and, as some previous commentators said, simplistic. I write often enough to present simplistic views one after another so that the whole can be less simplistic in general. And commentators, especially opposing ones, are very much welcome to come up with their own views. Regards, Ben

Realistically

Pahlavis and Darabaris brought down themselves with their actions, injustice, dictatorship, and etc!!!

Rehashing an old story

Dear Mr. Madadi

You are a good writer but a bad analyst. Some of us who come to this site and do nothing but to create time-consuming controversy by offering eccentric views. We offer mediocre solutions to the world’s biggest problems; however, we do not offer good solutions to the simple problems. Even if someone does, not many of us care.

First of all, what is the point of rehashing an old story at this time, after thirty years? Second, if you want to know what really brought down the Shah’s regime, go watch the video tapes from the demonstrations that led to his demise and the signs carried by the demonstrators. It was the religion my friend. During your entire article there is no mention of religion. Don’t you think the religion had to do something with it? Hello?

Shah was brought down by the faithful people who were united under the Khomeini’s leadership and resilient in their resolve. By people like my folks back home who were willing to sacrifice their life for their faith

You said Shah was too civilized, whom are you kidding? You probably haven’t been in Iran, especially as a university student, during his time. How many more people he had to kill to be considered vicious?

Why we have to put up with your weird analyses that consume our time needlessly? Next time you try to express an opinion, please make sure it is more conventional and less subjective.  

Not that I want to relive the past, but our past impacts our

future. This is especially true for Iran, because the patterns are repeated over and over again. And I do agree with Simorgh that the current ratcheting up of US rhetoric and supporting MEK demonstrates similar pattern that we have seen played out in Iranian politics.

For those who have any interest, If you have not read the following books yet, I highly recommend it. The authors are both historians, Middle East experts, and had lived in Iran, and speak the language.They go into detail of the complex interplay of various forces and that led to the Revolution.

1. The Tragedy of American-Iranian Relations by James A. Bill; and

2. Modern Iran - The Roots and Results of Revolution by Nikki R. Keddie

Normally

This site is full of anti-Israeli, pro palestanian IR supporters who love throw mud at anyone who disagrees with them. But from time to time, you see a great analysis, and post. Something that is very objective, without any sides taken, and attempts to bring the events into the "truth" focus. That is what Simorgh has done, and I have to say, his points are excellent, and right on the money. Great job!

Past is Past... Time to Move on .... NOT so Fast!

Yes, revolution was 30 years ago, but its impact is felt today stronger than ever.

Likes of MKO have been waiting patiently in line to take over once and if islamic republic is removed, to impose their socialist version of yet another islamic republic on iran.

That is why it is so important for us to understand what happened in 1979 so that we do not repeat the same mistakes. Iranians were sold a fraudulent bill of good, which led us to the abyss that we witness today.

Iranian revolution is very complex and as of yet we do not know the full story. On one hand this article refers to the incompetence of pahlavis, but that is just a tiny contributor of the revolution.

From the point of view of the revolutionaries, the revolution was based on fraud, lies, deceit, and exaggeration; both in terms of what was going on in the shah's regime AND in terms of what was to be achieved and delivered by khomeini and his supporters. None of the key players had any good intentions in mind, religious, leftist, and intellectual alike.

From the point of view of the people, the revelotion once again has multi-dimensional reasons. The simplistic reason is what is often offered that "pahlavis were corrupt and dictatorial", but none of the, e.g., corrupt and dictatorial persian gulf arab countries revolted. Why? This is a compex issue and has many answers, among them:

(1) iranians were fed an exaggerated corruption picture of pahlavis, some of which we still see islamists claim on this site, while it is discredited, even by the islamic republic. None even today bother to define and describe the extent of the regime's corruptions.

(2) iranians were fed an exaggerated picture of shah's authoritarian rule; with an impact sometimes as high as thousands of times larger than what it was.

(3) Then there is the issues of religiosity of rank and file iranians, which not even the elite were fully aware of. A vast majority of city and village residents had no direct contact with shah's way or rule, his dictatorship, or his corruption; but were deeply uncomfortable with his progressive policies. Likes of hejab, music played on radio, provocative films and plays on TV and in cinemas, serving of liquor in restaurants and bars, shows and mixing of genders in discos and cabarets, even his emphasis on celebrating and emphasizing iranian customs (chaharshanbeh souri and noruz, ...) made some uncomfortable.

(4) There is also the cultural dimension in all this, such as that iranians are not good at accepting and respecting authority. As a friend of mine once said, all iranians in the west who work in western industries, consider their bosses to be incompetent and unqualified. In other words they all question why not I should be in boss' position, or what does he/she have that I don't have. Similar cultural tendencies existed in iran in relation to shah. As an early western reporter quoted a driver in the early days of the revolution saying that "we did not revolt so that someone can tell us that we should stop at the stop-light."

(5) Iranians had no familiarity with human nature and flaws of any ruling class, even those ruling democracies. They expected a level of perfection from shah that was not possible even if he ruled democratically. In other words, they lacked experience in human psychology and how other systems of government worked. I often remember that people complained as to why street should be blocked and traffic diverted when shah's motorcade was passing thru. Now we know that, well, such is more or less the case everywhere, even in western democracies.

(6) Iranians blamed shah for short-comings in low-level rank and file employees of the government. In other words, they each wanted government to be perfect before ordinary citizens attempted to well behave. Not knowing that government is dominantly made of ordinary people.

(7) Foreign influence appears to be far more than that of '53 coup, the full scope of which we still do not fully understand. A network of forces, from najaf to beirut, from northern ireland to west berlin, and students and intellectuals across europe and america, not to mention western and eastern governments and industries had interest and hands in falling of the shah's regime.

(8) in hindsight, shah's government was quite weak as informing and educating people on what his government was doing and why. We see that one of the main element's of western democracies are propaganda. That is how they guide people who to choose, and what plans to implement. Shah was equally reserved in NOT showing the real face of the religious authorities. We did not know of Omar's atrocities towards iranians, not about atrocities of shah esmail safavi (essentially a mulla), nor had access to writings of likes of kasravi and dashti, who started as mullas and ended up as anti-mullas.

(9) Timing! Well, communism was hot and not failing yet in those days. And iranian students, who were often on shah's scholarship payroll, would fall for it and become vigor opposing force.

...

At any rate, it is essential that we know about the revolution and its causes, with the hope that we do not fall into a similar trap if we ever get a second chance.

Payandeh Iran!

Simplistic view

Mr Madadi,

Whilst some of what you say applies to some parts of the puzzle which is the Iranian Revolution, there are many other factors that should be taken into consideration. One can write several books on this subject.

But, what bothers me about your article is the view that, because we are Middle Easterners, we have to have some strongman ruling us and we are incapable of being governed freely and democratically.

It is precisely this view that gave the Pahlavi’s the belief that they can rule Iran with little regards to human rights, social and economic equality and governance through infrastructure by the people for the people. And it is this view which was ultimately their downfall

Look forward, the past is long gone

What is the point of trying to reanalyze the past?

I suggest revisit some of the news clips from that era and the shear number
of people might convince you that people were unhappy with that regime. His
Imperial Arm Forces backed off and joined the uprising. Yes things are not that
great in today’s Iran
but looking back to the past won't help any either. We Iranians are amazing
people and that’s why we are what we are. For the last time, LOOK FORWARD AND
STOP FEELING SORRY FOR YOURSELF!!!!!!! COPISH?

Very simplistic view...

Mr. Ben: your observation maybe valid, but your connecting of dots is very simplistic. Do you really think that a second-rate mulla from najaf could bring down an even half-decent regime? He was the puppet, the guiding threads were in the hands of others, both internal and external to iran, but none with any honorable objective.