WI Ayatollah Khomeini is assassinated by SAVAK in the 1960s.

What if the Ayatollah Khomeini was assassinated by the Shah of Iran's secret police SAVAK in the 1960s in Iraq? I think it would have a huge impact on the happenings in late 1970s Iran because he was pretty much the father of the Islamic revolution in Iran.

One of the Hostages (the Army attaché IIRC) said in a book about the crisis that if the Shah had done that, there would've been no Revolution. Either have him executed (he did time in the Shah's prisons), or SAVAK (the Shah's Intelligence and Security Service) whacks him in exile.

Matt Wiser said:

One of the Hostages (the Army attaché IIRC) said in a book about the crisis that if the Shah had done that, there would've been no Revolution. Either have him executed (he did time in the Shah's prisons), or SAVAK (the Shah's Intelligence and Security Service) whacks him in exile.

Click to expand...

I am doubtful of the assertion that there would have been no revolution whatsoever, but I think the distinctly Islamist character of Khomeini and his supporters would pretty much have caused the stillbirth of political Islamism in Iran.

The Revolution prior to a certain point was actually pretty secular: dominated by leftist university students and people of a more liberal persuasion. Khomeini was, however, particularly good at exploiting the disenfranchised bazaari classes and wielding them as a political force that brought him into power. While there will certainly be other Islamists without Khomeini, IIRC he was pretty much the most charismatic front-man of the bunch. And without a popular face like that, it's doubtful that the Islamist turn of the 1979 Revolution would happen.

Khomeini was a convenient focal point for general hatred of the Shah, in reality killing Khomeini would not prevent the revolution, as Khomeini was in exile during the period when the revolutionaries actually ousted the Shah.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_and_causes_of_the_Iranian_Revolution
Khomeini made his career on criticizing the very real issues of the Shah's rule, which made Khomeini, rather than Khomeini making the revolution or creating the revolutionary spirit.

IIRC either the French or the Iraqis actually offered to do the job for them when he was residing in their country. I've seen it argued that it would have actually been better leaving him in Iraq than France since whilst the distance was greater it was much easier to contact people back in Iran due to the better infrastructure and communications systems available than those in Iraq.

Simon said:

IIRC either the French or the Iraqis actually offered to do the job for them when he was residing in their country. I've seen it argued that it would have actually been better leaving him in Iraq than France since whilst the distance was greater it was much easier to contact people back in Iran due to the better infrastructure and communications systems available than those in Iraq.

Click to expand...

Israel is a distinct possibility as well if the Shah becomes convinced Khomeini is a threat.

I've long been a bit skeptical of the claims that one guy stepping off the airplane from Paris was enough to turn a left-wing revolution irrevocably in the direction of Islamic fundamentalism. That seems to rely pretty heavily on Great Man historical assumptions.

And what's interesting is I've heard the same idea from two sources: American right-wingers, who frame it as anti-Carter(ie. Carter was too gutless to take out Khomeini, the enemy of America), and anti-American leftists, who frame it as anti-American(ie. by refusing to kill Khomeini, the US essentially effected a coup against the left-wing elements in the Revolution).

Of course, in those scenarios, it is Carter and the USA, not SAVAK, who were imagined to be in a position to kill Khomeini and stop the Islamic Revolution. The basic premise is the same, however.

HeavyWeaponsGuy said:

Israel is a distinct possibility as well if the Shah becomes convinced Khomeini is a threat.

Click to expand...

A good point, Israel also had a number of joint military research and development projects going with Iran. Even if they were secretly screwing them over with regards to the results. The problem with that is IIRC people knew if not about specific programmes then the links in general and good relations, for the region, so that people could still come to the conclusion, erroneous or not, that it was done with the Shah's knowledge.

overoceans said:

I've long been a bit skeptical of the claims that one guy stepping off the airplane from Paris was enough to turn a left-wing revolution irrevocably in the direction of Islamic fundamentalism. That seems to rely pretty heavily on Great Man historical assumptions.

Click to expand...

I believe it was a combination of the religious folks already being one of the larger of the range of groups that made up the revolution and his being something of personal a focal point as Wiking mentioned. That's a pretty good base for you to build upon if you're ruthless enough and play your cards right.

Simon said:

I believe it was a combination of the religious folks already being one of the larger of the range of groups that made up the revolution and his being something of personal a focal point as Wiking mentioned. That's a pretty good base for you to build upon if you're ruthless enough and play your cards right.

Click to expand...

While, for my part, I believe the "Great Man" theory of history is an incredibly narrowminded way in which to view the world, I believe the idea that occasionally, pivotal figures do reshape the world is an idea that has merit. History is reshaped by charismatic, dynamic figures. It was, after all, the dynamic persona of Adolf Hitler that, among many other things, made the difference between the Nazi Party being an obscure far-right political party known only to a few historians of Interwar Germany and a major political force that took power and reshaped the whole of Germany in their image. To go to the extreme and say that history is written only by great (in the archaic sense meaning powerful or awe-inspiring, not necessarily good) men is absurd, to say that history is never written by singular figures is equally absurd. History is written, of course, by both, but sometimes a given political organization or even an entire political ideology really just needs a front man (or woman) to carry it forward. It is that figure that can make the distinction between seizing absolute power and fading into obscurity.

Feel free to shoot starbats at this, but when I made a thread on making Iraq into the super, "Nazis part II" enemy for America as the pop culture made it out to during my formative years, one of the scenarios I played with what Iran going Leftist and into the Soviet sphere sans Khomeini, and the US really pumping into Iraq as a counterweight. (And that all coming to roost after the Cold War ends).

The Soviets with a warm water port on the Persian Gulf at the end of the 70s/start of the 80s? Christ, the US would have an absolute fit.

The insignificant cleric who once became Western media's saint

The insignificant cleric who once became Western media's hailed & praised saint

Back in the early 1960s, Khomeyni was a totally insignificant low-level low-grade obscure cleric unknown to Iranians. But you seem to overlook the fact that he remained so ... up until 1978 when he was -all of a sudden- transformed into a forefront revolutionary leader by the sole virtue of mass media and anti-Shah Western politicians' intense propaganda.
This so sudden metamorphosis was dramatically performed in less than 6 months in 1978.


When you bear in mind that Khomeyni was notoriously incult to a fault and barely able to speak Persian (let alone any foreign language), you then grasp how easy it is to take even a retarded bloodthirsty, and at that overtly antisemitic and anti-Western, primitive misogynous ignoramus and make of him a "Gandhi-like" "saint" figure (words used at the time by Western journalists and politicians to refer to ayatollah Khomeyni), while at the same time outrageously slandering the West-friendly polyglottous cultivated visionary feminist Persian King (the Shah) and portraying him as nothing less than Hitler's reincarnation (US feminist Kate Millett was one- among many others- who used that Nazification comparison at the time, a corny but efficient propagandazing modus operandi known as "reductio ad hitlerum").

All this is to say that what so easily worked in 1978 with this nobody called Khomeyni would have probably worked, albeit to some varying degrees of success, with anybody else, so the anti-Shah foreign conspirators/back-stabbers (US, France, etc.) could have as well picked up any other equally insignificant shallow incult opponent in Iran to serve their primary goal, which was to topple the charismatic Shah at any costs and overthrow the world's most ancient continuous Monarchy whose lasting glory dates back as far in time as Persian King Cyrus the Great's reign more than 2500 years ago.

By the way, as you may have inferred from my pseudo which is my actual name (Shahpour), I am an exiled Persian ...living in Paris (France).
French being my first foreign language, my English, however intelligible, may not be as elaborate and articulate as I would like it to be...