King of Kings: The Iranian Revolution Explained

The Iranian Revolution was a big surprise to many including Jimmy Carter and the Shah Reza Pahlavi.  There were clues, but they were largely ignored until it was too late.  Scott Anderson decided it was time to research the records and try to better understand it.  His research was impressively extensive.

One perspective presented Iran with a positive rising income (but unequal), good life expectancy, fair treatment for minorities including Jews, Armenians and Assyrians.  Over half a million citizens with college degrees from abroad.  Traded with Israel.  Relative freedom for Muslim women, even planning to give them the vote.

On the other hand you had a religious fundamentalist, who thought women had way too much freedom.  Khomeini also hated Jews and Bahais as well as the American government. 

How did it happen?  More than 40 years after the Iranian Revolution Scott Anderson was able to talk with many eye witnesses and uncover detailed written information.  He does a great job providing a better understanding of this globally important event with serious consequences today.

Shah Reza Pahlavi was not universally popular.  Corruption was evident and inequality was prominent.  His freedom for women and toleration of  Jews and Bahai offended many.  His secret police, SAVAK was assumed to be much more intrusive than Scott was able to prove, but nonetheless clamped down on political dissent.  The Shah was very secretive.  He would talk to generals, chosen for loyalty one on one and never as a group.  He kept knowledge of a fatal medical condition from American intelligence.   An interesting skill was he could pilot jet planes and did so.

Ancient Persians did not enslave the people they conquered and allowed them to keep their religion.  They required only a pledge of loyalty to the Kingdom.

The Brits wanted to get rid of Mohammad Mossedegh, an elected leader who wanted to nationalize their oil resources.  They negotiated with President Truman who turned down request for a coup, but Eisenhower agreed.  Shah had been requested to sign an agreement to this end, but at first refused until Kermit Roosevelt strong armed him to do so.  The U.S. government had helped engineer the coup that in 1953 forced Mossedegh out and replaced him by a more powerful Shah. 

Fundamentalists immediately developed a greater grudge against Americans.  They already felt that Americans tempted Iranians to sin and encouraged female freedom.  Khomeini was one of the more vocal critics urging death to the Satanists. 

Jimmy Carter actually wanted to develop a stronger relation with Iran recognizing they were stable in an unstable part of the world, supplied a significant amount of oil, bought a lot of American weapons and provided a better location to monitor the Soviet Union.  He successfully encouraged the Shah to modify his human rights abuses.  He felt obligated to the Shah, but paid little attention to the real situation and his staff mostly ignored Iran, until they couldn't.

Ebrahim Yazdi, was a key operative.  Born in Iran he was an Islamist with a social conscience and became very upset about the Mossadegh ouster and hated the Shah.  Although aware of American connection he ended up upgrading his education and becoming a pharmacologist in the U.S.  Active among anti Shah groups while in America at first sought political action, but decided a fundamentalist would work better.  When Khomeini needed to find a new exile location Yazdi steered him to France where he would have a better platform allowing his bombastic sermons to have a wilder distribution. Yazdi provided translations for media while toning down Khomeini's hatred  Noted U.S. most concerned with all the riots in Iran that Communists would take over, but they were assured not a problem.  He planned strategies to steer the military leaders to Khomeini.  He was a moderate to the end (2017) confessing he regretted his (critical) involvement with Khomeini.

Riots escalated and it was decided the Shah should leave.  Khomeini was ready to move in, but other political forces tried to form a government encouraged by the United States.

Eventually in 1989 Khomeini came to Tehran and gave his blessing to some politicians he approved of, but was in reality the final decider.  The Americans wanted the politicians in charge, but found even they bowed to Khomeini. 

When Iraq invaded Iran to take advantage of its supposed vulnerability the Iranian leadership realized they had used up much of their weaponry and needed the U.S. to re-supply them and negotiations seemed to be progressing, but suddenly collapsed.  There was speculation that Ronald Reagan's campaign team may have encouraged the delay for the hostage release.  It is known they had contact with Khomeini staff.  Scott Anderson, the author in 2023 learned of comments by prominent Republicans that indicated they had inside information the hostages would not be released until Ronald Reagan was inaugurated.  Carter's humiliation at the hands of the Iranian went right to the inauguration. 

One interesting source for this book was Michael Metrinko who had learned Farsi when working with the Peace Corps.  He learned what street Iranians thought and tried to pass it on to little avail.  Working with the U.S. Embassy he was captured with the other American workers and for awhile his Farsi abilities were hidden, but when discovered he was tortured as he he was with the C.I.A.  He was eventually released and when the author discovered him he was sharing his house with a few Afghan students who had escaped that conflict.

Details do matter and Scott has been a hard worker uncovering the key players and the key moves.  A blog cannot do justice to his book, but it is my hope you will check out the book itself.

Trump has found Iran to be a good enemy to use for his political goals.  An earlier view of Iran from 2022:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2022/10/the-iranian-dilemma.html  That was for his first term.  In his second term he has taken a more aggressive stance in line with Netanyahu's perspective.

Jimmy Carter made critical mistakes with Iran, but overall was a very decent man who did much good, but admits his biggest regret was with Iran.   http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2021/10/the-outlier-unfinished-presidency-of.html

An earlier book, "Lawrence in Arabia" illustrates Scott's understanding of important historical events. http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2013/12/lawrence-in-arabia.html

"Black Wave" helps explain the Mid East Turmoil

 We westerners have a limited perspective on the part of the world that gets disproportionate attention.  The Mid-East is complicated, but definitely impinges on our lives.  Kim Ghattas is from Lebanon and as an internationally respected reporter splits her time between Lebanon and the United States.  She brings a unique perspective for our understanding.

From my perspective it seems that intolerance is a human failing that we all struggle with.  We enlightened ones feel we are above prejudice, but that is not nearly true.  Most of us are almost arrogant that our way of life (or at least what we aspire to) is the best and all others are lacking.  Us seniors tend to think our youth are missing something.  Some of us on the other hand think our saviors are among the young.  It is not a lot different in the rest of the world.  

English Puritans had power.  The people had been concerned about corrupted power and at first welcomed the new rulers.  Playing cards, women acting on stage, music and dance were not allowed.  Fun was considered unpius and even sinful.  But it wasn't too long before resentment of restrictions led to a new monarchy. 

Looking at the Mid-East  western men feel superior as our women have much more freedom.  Men in power have in one sense been protective, but also possessive.  Rape laws were to protect the purity of daughters and wives.  Over the past little over a century many laws were also made to keep women from getting uppity.  Our past is only marginally better than other parts of the world, but it is easy to forget how the status quo has always been sexist.

Events that go back centuries have set the table for modern dynamics, but the author feels that the year 1979 heralded significant changes.  It was the year of the Iranian Revolution, a major attack on the Grand Mosque in Mecca and the Russian invasion of Afghanistan.  

Large numbers of Iranians were dissatisfied with with what they saw as a dictatorship of the Shah who had used technology and training from the United States and Israel to control citizens.  Khomeini was more than a religious authority, in fact quite a manipulator who used religion to gain power to control a country. and stretch beyond.

The attack on the Grand Mosque was very upsetting to Saudi Arabian authorities as it housed the holiest location for the Muslim faith.  It was soon taken back from the intruders, but the fear had set in.  Iran felt they should have more control over the holy site.  

The Russians were stepping in after a Communist leader lost power.  The Afghans resented another foreign power.  Muslims everywhere took to join the resistance, including Osama bin Laden.  The United States under President Ronald Reagan wanted to support resistance efforts without declaring war.

Prior to 1979 Iran and Saudi Arabia had been friendly, if not actual allies.  

From this point the author explores connections between several Arab and Muslim countries, notably Egypt, Syria, Pakistan, Lebanon and Palestine,  There are many murders, shootings and chemical attacks along the way.  Religious extremists gain power and start to impose restrictions such as no music and no theater, but most obviously directed at women.  The United States and other western nations made choices that often made things worse.

Women had ups and downs.  They sometimes had the choice to wear or not to wear a head covering and sometimes lost that right.  Some could vote, some could run for office, but many could not.  Driving was fairly normal, except in Saudi Arabia.   A bright moment was in 2018 when women in Saudi Arabia were allowed to drive.  In that case some of the women who had been agitating for that right were imprisoned, so that the government could take full credit.  Education has been shut down and raised up for women.

My personal view is that it will be women who break down the barriers and increase the democracy in the region which in turn will reduce the violence.  More men are supporting empowering women more.

One "progressive" Arab leader has been Mohammad bin Salman who has done much to "westernize" the culture including for women.  However it seems almost certain that he made the decision to kill Jamal Khashoggi who once had been a friend, but became a most vocal critic. 

A good source of news  for the Arab world is Al Jazeera,  https://www.aljazeera.com/ that also has an extensive global reporting network. It is easy to assume our usual sources understand the situation, but really we labor under false assumptions.

Kim puts historical research in its place by quoting Soren Kierkegaard, "It is perfectly true...that life must understood backwards  But they forget the other proposition that it must be lived forward".

WHO DESERVES THE BLAME?

Iran has very recently acknowledged they did fire the missile that caused the Ukrainian airplane to crash and kill 176 people.  As a Canadian it was brought to my attention that 57 of my fellow citizens lost their lives along with Ukrainians, Iranians and other national citizens.  No American lives have reached my attention and it seems likely that with all the American sanctions it would not have been easy for them to depart from the Tehran airport.

The amount of misery derived from this one tragic mistake cannot be calculated.  A lot of people with a lot of potential (many were children, others students) and many already doing notable things to make the world better. 

To many it seems obvious that an Iranian pushed the button, ok'd the system that made such defensive action possible and someone forgot about the danger even if that was because such circumstances had never happened before.  Iran has admitted their error and will likely do something to ameliorate the damage.  Their reaction to the American provocation was almost knee jerk, if not surprising.  There were probably arguments about the best way to handle the delicate situation.  They knew they could not win a conventional war against the Americans, but if they didn't respond Americans would be encouraged to be more aggressive.  There were many "targets" and many commentators suggested Iran would likely take a long term view.  According to some reports there were no Americans killed or injured in the missile attacks at the military bases and that most likely was the aim--demonstrate Iranian capabilities without unnecessarily provoking American retaliation.

For a time it seemed that Americans were indeed recognizing that the Iranians had shown some restraint.  Nonetheless they continued their justification for the assassination of Qassem Soleimani and have added more economic sanctions against Iran and requested more co-operation from their allies.

Stepping back only a few days who is responsible for the decision to kill an Iranian military leader.   It was noticed that the American politicians, Trump and Pompeo used the word "terrorist" as it made their procedure more "legal."  Apparently the decision was made with classified information.  It may well be it is necessary to protect information sources, but there has been a lot of inconsistency, enough to offend some prominent Republicans.

 It may be no coincidence that Trump's efforts to dismiss impeachment have run into some obstacles.  He has been able to stop witnesses and withhold documents that might incriminate him further.  He realizes that although he might avoid even a Senate rebuke the whole process makes re-election more difficult.

As it happens he has assembled an advisory group that favors attacking Iran.  Trump himself identified the Iran Nuclear agreement as an election issue, declaring it an unacceptable deal.  It is true that many Americans would agree with him and it so happens that as he has aligned himself with both Israel and Saudi Arabia they would also argue against Iran.  It has been suggested by some (include me in this) that Trump felt slighted by Obama and wanted to undo anything Obama had been praised for.  Supposedly Mike Pompeo (with some evangelical connections) has long argued to attack Iran and had identified Soleimani as a target.  George Bush and Barrack Obama had both had Soleimani identified as an enemy but rejected assassination as not worth it.

Expect more efforts to justify the assassination.  No argument that Soleimani was a dangerous opponent and had done plenty of injury to American interests.  It should not have been a surprise that although he can be characterized as a "terrorist" other people saw him as a "freedom fighter."  He first got involved in military affairs when Iraq invaded Iran after their Revolution, quite likely with American encouragement.  Many would not accept the Iranian overthrow of the friendly Shah or that  Iranians would identify with other Shiites.

Americans can easily recall the hostage taking that ruined Jimmy Carter's re-election.  52 embassy staff were held against their wishes for 444 days.  It is hard to justify that, but most Americans are uninterested and unaware of the background.

You could go back to colonial times and learn that the Brits and to a lesser extent other Europeans and Americans had locked up Iranian oil resources.  An elected Iranian Prime Minister, Mohamed Mosaddeq decided it was time to get a better deal for Iran.  Britain asked for help from President Dwight Eisenhower and in 1953 the CIA arranged and participated in a coup that put the Shah  Mohammad Reza Pahlavi in power and later helped  (along with Israel) set up a secret police that was hated by citizens.  Unless one has lived under a system controlled by secret police it is difficult to understand how it must feel although we all say how much we love freedom.

One of the ways of bringing down a dictator has been through religious fundamentalists.  Another example is the role that Karol Wojyla (who later became Pope) played in the Polish resistance to Communism.  Many people hated the government, but it was very dangerous to express their resentment.  The Catholic faith attracted many followers and through the church were able to diminish the power of the government and eventually play a role in the downfall of the Soviet Empire.

Similarly the Iranians were restrained in their efforts for more freedom.  Like the Poles they found that a fundamentalist leader, in this case Ayatollah Khomeini exiled in Paris was the most effective focus.  He rallied the people against the Shah who was overthrown and fled for his life.  Jimmy Carter who had lessened some of the worst abuses felt obligated to to provide refuge and medical assistance.  America was seen as the one who instigated an oppressive government and protected an enemy of the people.  More details from an earlier post:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2019/05/alarm-bells-on-iran.html

Students had been in important force in the Revolution and saw an opportunity to attack the Americans.  As I understand originally they just set out for a protest, but got carried away.  As a student many decades ago I could identify what we called "shit disturbers" upset with some university injustice and tried to dismiss a governor.

Americans have never forgiven the Iranians.  All American politicians have to be careful how they address Iran.  Obama recognized a concern for nuclear proliferation and one of the critical stress points was Iran, in the middle of the volatile Middle East.  A lot of westerners were concerned about all the warring factions that threatened energy security and of course Communist efforts to take over the world.  Iran as the major Shiite power surrounded by rival Sunnis was heavily involved.  They of course saw themselves as representing their national and religious interests.  Obama identified the nuclear danger--Iran was edging towards nuclear power which could include weaponization.  The fear was that if they got weapons, Saudi Arabia and Egypt as major Sunni powers would also want the bomb.  A neighbor, Pakistan already had the bomb and Libya, a Muslim nation had given it up.

Obama was supported by a number of other nations including allies and potential enemies saw a potential for global danger.  The powers with their own unique viewpoint agreed to unify to force Iran to pull back.  It was a long difficult process, but in the end an agreement was made and as usual with such agreements not everybody got all that they wanted.  One item that was crucial was the return of Iranian money that had been frozen after the hostage taking.  This has been interpreted as a bribe to get Iran to co-operate.  The notion has been debunked, but even today is still asserted as a crime of Obama's.

All I have done is set up a scenario for tension.  We all played a role in this tension.  Even self righteous bloggers like myself played a role.  Like others I drive a car, in my case an older relatively inefficient car.  Politicians in many nations realize there is much hatred (and ignorance) against Iran and many have had an impact on the situation.  Although most of us are concerned about issues closer to home they become part of a package that at least touches on Iran.  Canada has a unique role--at the time of the hostage takeover we were not considered a "Satan" and were able to rescue some of the American hostages (which most Canadians, myself included are proud of).  One of the effects of that role was breaking off diplomatic relations.

All this history and viewpoint is of small interest to the many grieving people left behind.  Many others feel self-righteous about who to blame--obviously the Iranian government and the Trump administration.  There will be legal and diplomatic maneuvering which will not satisfy everyone and is only cold comfort to the many grievers.  What I hope comes out of this tragedy is a better understanding.  We humans can't ever know all the background to any action or foresee all the consequences.  We can stop to ponder that in fact what we don't know is important.  Yes, we all have to make decisions and live with the consequences.  If this sounds weasely perhaps you are right, but let's be honest there isn't enough understanding in the world and we need it desperately if we are going to survive as a human race.   Unfortunately I anticipate there will be many more decisions made with disastrous consequences that most of us don't understand the connections (me included).