• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

A Revolution Could Soon Be Under Way in Iran

smartcooky

Penultimate Amazing
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Messages
29,016
Location
Nelson, New Zealand

Some of us are old enough to remember how the leftists' embrace of Islamists played out in Iran. I was 24, in the military, and fully understood the import and the impact of the Iranian revolution.

Leading up to 1979, leftist groups consisting of trade unions members, university students and left-wing progressives allied with Islamist factions to overthrow Mohammad Reza Pahlavim the Shah of Iran. This came to be known as the "unholy alliance" and with good reason. The groups were mainly drawn together due to a shared opposition to the Shah's rule, his pro-Western policies, and the misguided perception that Iran was under foreign domination. At the core of this alliance was anti-Western and anti-imperialist belief systems The leftists viewed the Shah as a puppet of the US government, and they saw Ayatollah Khomeini's position as compatible with their own. What they didn't realize is that the Islamists' reasons for their stance were vastly different from theirs - they did not realize (or if they did, they did not understand) that Khomeini's plan for the post-Shah government was a theocracy based on what Arabs know as "velayat-e faqih" meaning "Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist" . This is a Shi'a Islamic political theory, created by Khomeini, which requires that a qualified cleric should rule, resulting in a theocratic government where a Supreme Leader holds ultimate religious and political authority. In such a theocracy, there is no room for dissent, or trade unions, or education for women. These facts did not become clear to those leftists until it was too late. This was the "◊◊◊◊ Around" stage....

Then in 1979, came the "Find Out" stage - the Revolution took place, and its aftermath was utterly brutal. Once the Shah was overthrown, the Islamists ended the alliance almost immediately, and they turned on the leftists. Khomeini and his loyalists quickly consolidated power and systematically purged their former allies. The leftist leaders, trade unionists, members of the Tudeh Party, the Fedayeen and the People's Mujahedin of Iran - groups that had supported the Islamists cause, were rounded up, imprisoned, tortured, and executed. Women who refused to comply with Islamic laws regarding things such as only ever going out in public with a male family member, or refusing to cover their faces would, be summarily (and publicly) executed either by being shot or beheaded. The new Islamic Republic suppressed any and all dissent, being particlarly brutal on women, and banning all democratic and secular parties.

Then Khomeini and his loyal clerics established the Islamic Revolutionary Guard to enforce the theocratic government and crush any opposition. In the end, they established a system that was a leftist's worse nightmare... certainly far worse for them that was ever the case under the Shah.

Pre-1979, Iran was never a Muslim country in the first place - its history was based in Persian Zoroastrianism - and in many ways that made it a sort of natural ally to Israel. This is the reason why you see so many flags of the Imperial State of Iran (or Imperial State of Persia) at pro-Israel marches....

Israel-Iran-Flags.jpg


What happened in Iran in 1979 should be a huge red flag for everyone. The far left are ignoring this red flag. Like the far-right, they have embraced anti-Semitism (for different reasons of course) and the left in particular have taken the side of the Palestinians and their terrorist leaders, uncritically accepting their word on everything that is happening in Gaza - the hugely inflated casualty and death statistics, the bogus claims of genocide, the exaggerated claims of the levels children starving.

I sincerely hope the mullahs fall, and if they do, it will dramatically change the geopolitical picture in the Middle East. Iran has one of the highest GDPs and one of the largest economies in the Middle East. This size is due to its large population and many resources. While its GDP per capita is low (which is why a majority of its peole are dirt poor, its overall (gross) GDP is around US$4.5 billion. This allows Iran to do whjat it does better than anythong else other than Qatar - fund terrorism. A huge part of their GDP goes towards groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad group, and Ansar Allah (a Houthi group in Yemen), Iraqi Shia Militias, the Al-Ashtar Brigades and Saraya al-Mukhtar (Bahrain), the Fatemiyoun Division (Afghanistan) and the Zaynabiyoun Brigade (Pakistan) that are currently fighting in Syria. The fall of Iran would be a hammer blow for Islamists around the world, and would dramatically cut the money supply for terrorists in the Middle East.
 
Last edited:
Politics in the Middle East is like a vinyl record: 33 revolutions a minute. The Shah was hardly the first Iranian leader installed after insurrection (see T.E. Lawrence). The mullahs won't be the last.
 
Politics in the Middle East is like a vinyl record: 33 revolutions a minute. The Shah was hardly the first Iranian leader installed after insurrection (see T.E. Lawrence). The mullahs won't be the last.
Utter rubbish - you have no ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ idea what you are talking about. Individual monarchs may have been deposed (and less often than English monarchs I must add) but Iran/Persia had an unbroken monarchy for over 2,500 years, at least as far back as the Achaemenid Empire (c. 550–330 BC).

1979 was the first time in its history that Imperial rule was overthrown, and a Republic put in its place.
 
Hmmm, why DID that happen again?

I seem to recall something about a semi popular leader being elected and nationalizing the oil industry to funnel the oil money to Iran rather than the foreign investors.
And that leader then being forcibly removed by a certain country to be replaced by the autocratic regime of the Shah.

What country did such a thing? And where could we draw a parallel at the moment?
 
Hmmm, why DID that happen again?

I seem to recall something about a semi popular leader being elected and nationalizing the oil industry to funnel the oil money to Iran rather than the foreign investors.
And that leader then being forcibly removed by a certain country to be replaced by the autocratic regime of the Shah.

What country did such a thing? And where could we draw a parallel at the moment?
Indeed!!

But none of that detracts from or negates my point here - that people played stupid games by allying with Islamists, and when the ◊◊◊◊ hit the fan, they ended up winning stupid prizes!!
 
Indeed!!

But none of that detracts from or negates my point here - that people played stupid games by allying with Islamists, and when the ◊◊◊◊ hit the fan, they ended up winning stupid prizes!!
You say that, but at that time there was no comparison to know what would happen.

Most of the middle east was still in the grip of arabic nationalist governments which paid mostly lip service to Islam.
The only nation truly under Islamic rule at the time was Saudi Arabia and even then that was firmly sub ordained to the Royal house of Saud.
Khomeini used the same tricks the Christian nationalist use in the US at the moment and thus was able to mobilize the less educated but religious and conservative part of the population that otherwise might have kept supporting the Shah.
And like the German conservatives earlier, the more liberal part of the revolutionists assumed they'd be able to control him and keep things going on the right path.

But every Islamist fundamentalist revolution since has been based on the Iranian example, so to claim they should have known is assuming time travel.
 
Much of the OP is perfectly true, although it is sprinkled with arrant nonsense:

  1. "what Arabs know as "velayat-e faqih"" - It is not "what Arabs know", as the words are Persian, and specifically Khomeinist.
  2. Also, this "Pre-1979, Iran was never a Muslim country in the first place - its history was based in Persian Zoroastrianism" is complete nonsense. Do you even know who Nader Shah was? Iran has been the focal point of Shia Islam for centuries. It was only really in the last hundred years that it secularized under Reza Shah.
If this is your understanding of Iran, then my guess is that this boastful sentence: "I was 24, in the military, and fully understood the import and the impact of the Iranian revolution." is Monday morning quarterbacking.

But anyway, we can certainly hope that there will be a secular democratic republic in Iran again, although frankly I doubt that the Iranians really want a return of the Shah's family.

I have serious doubts that secular Iranians are on the whole favourable to Israel, after all, secular Arab states have not been.
 
And when I say "secular democratic republic again", we should remember that that was largely extinguished in 1953 with the British-American coup to overthrow Mossadegh and install the Shah as an absolute monarch. This is probably why the Shah was largely seen as a puppet.

His regime was also pretty brutal, being propped by the rather nasty Savak organization and the torture chambers of the Evin Prison.

There were good reasons why it was unpopular.
 
You say that, but at that time there was no comparison to know what would happen.

Most of the middle east was still in the grip of arabic nationalist governments which paid mostly lip service to Islam.
The only nation truly under Islamic rule at the time was Saudi Arabia and even then that was firmly sub ordained to the Royal house of Saud.
Khomeini used the same tricks the Christian nationalist use in the US at the moment and thus was able to mobilize the less educated but religious and conservative part of the population that otherwise might have kept supporting the Shah.
And like the German conservatives earlier, the more liberal part of the revolutionists assumed they'd be able to control him and keep things going on the right path.

But every Islamist fundamentalist revolution since has been based on the Iranian example, so to claim they should have known is assuming time travel.
Who claimed "they should, have known"?
 
Same situation as Venezuela: any new government needs the tacit approval of the US (and in this case Israel) to be allowed to function, which undermines any popular legitimacy.

No one wants a Democratic Iran if it doesn't behave the way we want.
 
Utter rubbish - you have no ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ idea what you are talking about. Individual monarchs may have been deposed (and less often than English monarchs I must add)
but Iran/Persia had an unbroken monarchy for over 2,500 years, at least as far back as the Achaemenid Empire (c. 550–330 BC).

1979 was the first time in its history that Imperial rule was overthrown, and a Republic put in its place.
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude, are you serious?!!??

An "unbroken monarchy"?

This is hilarious!

The Pahlavi monarchical reign consists of this:

Reza Shah - One-time military officer who kicked out the previous monarchy and....
Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, his son. And that's it!

The monarchy was broken several times, and Iran was in fact was under Caliphates for a few hundred years.

Looking into it, it seems you, smartcooky are promoting nationalist myths propagated by the Pahlavis.

Jesus, man! Will you do some actual reading from legitimate sources rather than just regurgitate whatever YouTube TikTok videos your algorithm throws up.

Maybe something like this....?

1767597522274.png
 
I travelled a lot in the 70s, and met Iranian uni students in many countries, and their fear of the Shah's savak was so deep that it was almost scary in itself. They knew that they were watched, they knew that anyone they met could be savak, and they knew what would happen to them if they somehow transgressed. And they never knew what would be considered a transgression. When the Shah fell, nearly everyone, not least Iranians in exile (secular or muslim), thought that things could only get better, and that it was the start of a secular and democratic Iran. Now we know that they got worse.
 
I travelled a lot in the 70s, and met Iranian uni students in many countries, and their fear of the Shah's savak was so deep that it was almost scary in itself. They knew that they were watched, they knew that anyone they met could be savak, and they knew what would happen to them if they somehow transgressed. And they never knew what would be considered a transgression. When the Shah fell, nearly everyone, not least Iranians in exile (secular or muslim), thought that things could only get better, and that it was the start of a secular and democratic Iran. Now we know that they got worse.
Yeah, things weren't great in Persia under the Shah, but at least women

- had the vote.
- could be teachers, doctors or lawyers.
- were free to wear whatever they wished.
- were not required to be subservient to their husbands.
- would not be flogged, stoned or even executed for adultery.
- weren't forced into marriage at the age of 9.
- had the right to divorce.
- had the right to custody of their own children.
- could be judges.

I don't know about here you live, but we call this freedom where I come from. ALL of that vanished under Khomeini.

How does that old saying go? Better the devil you know........
 
In hindsight, yes, I hear that you vision becomes very sharp and clear there. But Iran was a repressive dictatorship, very harsh to women as well, and the people were suffering under the Shah. They had no idea that they were choosing an even worse devis.
 
This is rather silly, smartcooky. Women clearly do have the right to vote in Iran, even now. But in both cases, democracy was something of a sham, both under the Shah and under the Islamic Republic.
1767606203416.png

Women can also have many of the jobs you say they cannot.

I actually work with a woman from Iran. She has variously said she hated the Islamic Republic and considers herself an atheist, but she also started saying she supported the regime when Iran and Israel were firing missiles at each other. She would excitedly show me obviously AI-generated images of buildings in Tel Aviv in raging fires and tell me that Tel Aviv had now been totally destroyed. I would give her a "Sure Jan" response.

Don't get me wrong, I hope to see the end of the Islamic Republic, but I don't think anyone wants the Pahlavis back.

They were NOT lovers of freedom at all.
 
Utter rubbish - you have no ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ idea what you are talking about. Individual monarchs may have been deposed (and less often than English monarchs I must add) but Iran/Persia had an unbroken monarchy for over 2,500 years, at least as far back as the Achaemenid Empire (c. 550–330 BC).

1979 was the first time in its history that Imperial rule was overthrown, and a Republic put in its place.
Oh? OK, then. Tell us what happened in Iran in 1953, and how it relates to Venezuela.
 
Oh? OK, then. Tell us what happened in Iran in 1953, and how it relates to Venezuela.
Yes, yes yes, I know about 1953, and 1905, and 1921 and 1963.

None if those incidents broke the 2,500 year run of Imperial statehood Go back and ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ well READ what I actually said...

"1979 was the first time in its history that Imperial rule was overthrown, AND A REPUBLIC PUT IN ITS PLACE"

Now pay attention, you might learn something.

Iran/Persia had an unbroken monarchy for over 2,500 years, at least as far back as the founding of the Achaemenid Empire (c. 550) by Cyrus the Great. Some have argued that the Median Dynasty preceded them, but there is some dispute about this (that is why I said "at least").


If you want to learn something, check this out of you local library

 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom