What the title says. What if Grand Ayatollah Khomeini, a leader of the Iranian revolution and the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic, dies/ is killed in exile? It doesn't matter how (heart attack, stroke, helped by SAVAK) but he's dead by beginnings of the revolution in late 1977. What's the long-term effects of the Ayatollah's early death? Could the Shah's regime survive? Or at the very least could the Iranian revolution create a democratic state instead of a religious dictatorship?
WI: Ayatollah Khomeini killed/dies in exile?
- Thread starter Emperor Constantine
- Start date
The Shah is still likely to be screwed but the Iranian revolution certainly wasn't guaranteed to put a theocracy into power, IIRC it was more of a multi-party affair with the mullahs effectively managing to steal it out from under people whilst it was in action. An Iran with a political scene made up of Islamists, communists, secularists, left-wing and right-wing parties etc. would be a rather interesting situation.
Would such a coalition be viable or would Iran be likely to collapse into a civil war?
They'd probably focus more on Iran, if I had to guess. A communist Iran sounds like a bigger threat than a Communist Afghanistan, at least in my opinion. I guess it depends on what the USSR can spare. Would they be able to sustain campaigns in both countries?
Were there any prominent Islamic Jurists of stature to step into Khomeini's shoes? Alternately, could a group of Ayatollahs form an effective politburo to supplant other groups.
Well Mohammad Beheshti was apparently the number two guy in the early years of the Islamic republic, before his assassination. I don't know much about him but he could be a potential replacement. As for a group/council of Ayatollahs, that sounds like a bag of cats; without a dominant personality I think rule by committee in a revolutionary atmosphere would be difficult to maintain, especially as there were other popular factions across Iran, like the Republicans, communists and even Royalists. Looking at history, if a violent revolution doesn't have a strong-man its likely end up with internal fighting among the various factions.
They might not have to. I know that the Kuwaiti's were a source of funds for Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war, and it seems likely that the Gulf states would have their preferred factions that they'd fund- and I doubt they'll be the Communists.
Without Khomeini, the devout religious groups wouldn't have a focus. While there certainly was a tendency among certain groups in Iran to put more emphasis on religion in daily life, Iran had the tradition of "quietism", which basically provided for religious authorities to stay away from secular life. So without Khomeini as the "hidden imam", this might as well have stayed that way.
The other powerful group behind the revolution were the People's Mojahedin and the Fedayeen. They were not bound to the Communist Tudeh party, but still had enough Marxist/socialist leanings to make them appear as potential Communists from an American view. If a civil war emerges, there would probably be a similar constellation like in Afghanistan: the Soviets would support the Mojahedin, while the US would start supporting the remaining loyalist SAVAK forces and later switch to religious groups. It's even possible that they would invite foreign Mujaheddin to come to Iran in order to fight the (often secular) Mojahedin.
The other powerful group behind the revolution were the People's Mojahedin and the Fedayeen. They were not bound to the Communist Tudeh party, but still had enough Marxist/socialist leanings to make them appear as potential Communists from an American view. If a civil war emerges, there would probably be a similar constellation like in Afghanistan: the Soviets would support the Mojahedin, while the US would start supporting the remaining loyalist SAVAK forces and later switch to religious groups. It's even possible that they would invite foreign Mujaheddin to come to Iran in order to fight the (often secular) Mojahedin.
Sorry, I didn't mean as a coalition but merely as a part of the political spectrum and likely with seats in any parliament that forms.