Military regime in Iran (1979)

[estcan5]

Hi

This is my first post in this forum, although I have read many threads before, so apologies if I make some mistakes.

The topic that presently interests me is the Iranian Revolution, which happened exactly 40 years ago. I read that as the Shah was preparing to leave the country, his top generals were pondering upon the idea of launching a coup as soon as the Shah had left, but US warned them against this idea via General Robert Huyser and instead advised the generals to support the (weak) civilian government of Shapour Bakhtiar (see link below).

What if Washington had finally gone all in and advised the Iranian generals to take power by force? This would be accompanied by full public support for the coup. Lets assume the coup itself succeeds immediately and the generals (led by someone more decisive than former Prime Minister General Azhari) decide to assert their authority by ANY means necessary, including:
1) clearing the streets of protesters by using live ammo against any that defy the soldiers;
2) asking France to extradite Ayatollah Khomeini as soon as possible, to have him summarily executed as soon as he lands in Iran;
3) taking down any other significant protest leaders by either arresting and executing them (if they can be apprehended) or having snipers "take care" of them (if they are always surrounded by supporters);
4) taking oil production under military control, arresting any strikers and executing the strike leaders.

My guess is that the first reaction would be anger and even stronger protests, but after Khomeini and some other leaders are eliminated, the movement would be "decapitated" and gradually start weakening. What do you think, can the regime be saved?

Link: https://www.theguardian.com/world/i...eral-huysers-secret-iran-mission-declassified

 

[nezza]

Hmm, good question

Who would the new government be loyal to? If they maintained the friendship with Carter then many Iranians would feel betrayed and would lead to civil war.

If Khomeini was extradited and executed then both Tehran and Paris would be the focus of a lot of anger from his supporters with possible terrorist attacks in France.

Oil would be the key here. Would the junta continue to sell oil to the US?

 

[Koprulu Mustafa Pasha]

The Iranian Military might be hailed as liberators as first. But as any other military regime they will start to purge potential enemies such as communist and shia islamists. That is when the problems start. The chance of a Secular Dictatorship developing into a somewhat stable democracy is possible. But the regime will stay at least until the early 21st century. Iraq may still attack. This prevents a potential civil war with the majority supporting the regime for the time being.

 

[Seandineen]

Could there be a horthy type ruling in the name of young reza?

 

[estcan5]

According to my idea:

1) Initially at least, the monarchy would be nominally retained, but the Shah would be "advised" not to return until the situation calms down. Some general, maybe General Gholam Ali Oveissi, would serve concurrently as Regent and Prime Minister.

2) The junta would continue friendly relations with the US, but it would make clear to the public and the US that they are not American puppets and they would stand for Iranian national interests before all else. Probably oil would would still be sold to US, but Iran would cash in a much bigger percentage of the profits than previously.

3) After the situation would have been pacified, the junta would start thinking about a transition to a more stable form of government. They would set up clandestine contacts with the moderate opposition (whom they had spared more during the crackdown than the radicals) and try to come to an agreement on the future. Probably the options would be a republic or a strictly constitutional monarchy (headed by Crown Prince Reza). But I don't know if any agreement could be realistic.

 

[starman]

Could a coup leader be sure the troops would obey orders to kill protesters and strike leaders? Could they run the oil facilities themselves if strikes didn't end? Would Paris extradite Khomeini? Even if they did, wouldn't other leaders take the place of those slain?
The Iranian revolution seemed so broadly based the shah just lost control. It might've turned out like the coup of '91 which toppled Gorbachev. Lacking much support it just fell apart.

 

[nezza]

According to my idea:

1) Initially at least, the monarchy would be nominally retained, but the Shah would be "advised" not to return until the situation calms down. Some general, maybe General Gholam Ali Oveissi, would serve concurrently as Regent and Prime Minister.

2) The junta would continue friendly relations with the US, but it would make clear to the public and the US that they are not American puppets and they would stand for Iranian national interests before all else. Probably oil would would still be sold to US, but Iran would cash in a much bigger percentage of the profits than previously.

3) After the situation would have been pacified, the junta would start thinking about a transition to a more stable form of government. They would set up clandestine contacts with the moderate opposition (whom they had spared more during the crackdown than the radicals) and try to come to an agreement on the future. Probably the options would be a republic or a strictly constitutional monarchy (headed by Crown Prince Reza). But I don't know if any agreement could be realistic.

From what I understand about the Pahlavi family a constitutional monarchy possibly in the style of the UK with Reza as more as a figurehead but with real power in the Majlis.

 

[estcan5]

Could a coup leader be sure the troops would obey orders to kill protesters and strike leaders? Could they run the oil facilities themselves if strikes didn't end? Would Paris extradite Khomeini? Even if they did, wouldn't other leaders take the place of those slain?
The Iranian revolution seemed so broadly based the shah just lost control. It might've turned out like the coup of '91 which toppled Gorbachev. Lacking much support it just fell apart.

I read somewhere (I don't remember where) that France was willing to give Khomeini to the Shah but he simply didn't ask for it. And he never consistently tried to restore control.
One reason why the 1991 Soviet coup attempt failed was that the plotters simply weren't decisive enough; they didn't even arrest Boris Yeltsin. My premise is that the Iranian generals do not take any chances, but neutralise anyone they consider dangerous.

From what I understand about the Pahlavi family a constitutional monarchy possibly in the style of the UK with Reza as more as a figurehead but with real power in the Majlis.

Yes, exactly.

 

[starman]

I read somewhere (I don't remember where) that France was willing to give Khomeini to the Shah but he simply didn't ask for it. And he never consistently tried to restore control.

Why not (ask for khomeini or consistently try to restore control)? Did Carter pressure him not to use excessive force?

One reason why the 1991 Soviet coup attempt failed was that the plotters simply weren't decisive enough; they didn't even arrest Boris Yeltsin.

IIRC they sent a special unit to arrest Yeltsin but they just didn't follow orders.

 

[estcan5]

Why not (ask for khomeini or consistently try to restore control)? Did Carter pressure him not to use excessive force

From what I have gathered, the Shah was simply too depressed to push back forcefully and expected President Carter give him a formal go-ahead for a crackdown (and take responsibility away from him), but he never did.

IIRC they sent a special unit to arrest Yeltsin but they just didn't follow orders.

Maybe it was like that, but I'm not even sure such an order was given.

 

[Lord Wyclif]

I guess the delivery of Shir 2 tanks goes ahead, so what then happens to the Royal Armoured Corps?

 

[walmart]

3) After the situation would have been pacified, the junta would start thinking about a transition to a more stable form of government.

I doubt that. it's more likely the Junta holds power until they are forced out. Hell they might even start picking each other off in a bid to be the solo leader.

 

[sloreck]

IMHO a military coup/dictatorship has more possibility of becoming democratic than a theocracy. Look at Spain for example. OTOH theocratic regimes have power not from the sword, but from direct Divine authority. Humans can change, ideas can morph but the word of the Divine is immutable. Yes, back the day kings ruled by "divine right" but they could lose that blessing in various ways. The theocratic rulers are the ones, and the ONLY ones, who can interpret Divine scripture or decide the parameters that circumscribe their authority. This does not mean that a theocracy can't fall to a revolution, they most certainly can. It does mean that morphing in to a democracy over time is much less likely. To the extent you see "reforms" in a theocracy, they are limited to those which are seen as both not potentially threatening to Divine rule, and are enough to let off pressure for reform or revolution on a larger scale.

Just my 2 cents worth, but a military coup and dictatorship in Iran, while less than ideal, has more chance to lead to a more democratic form of government over time than a theocracy such as it is. I would also wager that the amount of death and suffering from such a coup and regime would be any greater than what the Ayatollahs have caused. Whether or not it would be less, YMMV.

 

[estcan5]

I guess the delivery of Shir 2 tanks goes ahead, so what then happens to the Royal Armoured Corps?

Yes, presumably weapons deliveries would continue normally.

I doubt that. it's more likely the Junta holds power until they are forced out. Hell they might even start picking each other off in a bid to be the solo leader.

I think it depends if they understand that they can't keep the lid on popular discontent forever; if they do, then they'd have to think about starting a transition; if they don't, then the revolution may erupt again at some point. But maybe, if they can hold out that long, the Soviet Union's collapse would ease some pressure (by pulling the rug out from under the left-wing groups)?

 

[walmart]

But maybe, if they can hold out that long, the Soviet Union's collapse would ease some pressure (by pulling the rug out from under the left-wing groups)?

It would and from that point. The opposition would increasing become dominated by Islamists

 

[estcan5]

It would and from that point. The opposition would increasing become dominated by Islamists

Maybe this would be the first good oppurtunity to offer a deal to the moderate opposition: a new constitution (with either a republic declared or a constitutional monarchy restored); free elections to parliament (with radicals barred, of course); state support for religion (and no more westernization campaigns); at the same time, the military would be declared as guarantor of the constitution and retain strong influence over important political decisions.

 

[Lord Wyclif]

Could a Shi’a Monarchy survive to this day, in a similar way to the Sunni system in Saudi Arabia?

 

[walmart]

Maybe this would be the first good oppurtunity to offer a deal to the moderate opposition: a new constitution (with either a republic declared or a constitutional monarchy restored);

Or the they emboldened by the great communist threat being gone and maintain power

 

[estcan5]

Could a Shi’a Monarchy survive to this day, in a similar way to the Sunni system in Saudi Arabia?

Maybe it can, if the new Shah keeps away from politics.

Or the they emboldened by the great communist threat being gone and maintain power

That’s also possible.

 

[Ricardolindo]

IMHO a military coup/dictatorship has more possibility of becoming democratic than a theocracy. Look at Spain for example. OTOH theocratic regimes have power not from the sword, but from direct Divine authority. Humans can change, ideas can morph but the word of the Divine is immutable. Yes, back the day kings ruled by "divine right" but they could lose that blessing in various ways. The theocratic rulers are the ones, and the ONLY ones, who can interpret Divine scripture or decide the parameters that circumscribe their authority. This does not mean that a theocracy can't fall to a revolution, they most certainly can. It does mean that morphing in to a democracy over time is much less likely. To the extent you see "reforms" in a theocracy, they are limited to those which are seen as both not potentially threatening to Divine rule, and are enough to let off pressure for reform or revolution on a larger scale.

Just my 2 cents worth, but a military coup and dictatorship in Iran, while less than ideal, has more chance to lead to a more democratic form of government over time than a theocracy such as it is. I would also wager that the amount of death and suffering from such a coup and regime would be any greater than what the Ayatollahs have caused. Whether or not it would be less, YMMV.

I have a problem with that argument. What if people stop believing in that God?