WI: Ayatollah Khomeini just a better leader?

If we assume he's an idiot, that's just not very interesting. It's much more instructive to assume he feel into certain traps even the most constructive, forward-thinking revolutionary could fall into. For after all, how many times does a person lead a revolution? It's easy to make some mistakes the first time out. So, the U.S. embassy hostages might seem like a good poker chip. But once you've held them for a day, you're kind of obligated to keep holding them. And Iran paid a price. They were somewhat of a pariah nation for a number of years.

So, let's assume Ayatollah Khomeini had the hostages released within the first five hours. And let's assume got several other things right. How far might Iran be along right now?
 
He was pretty good . You must just not know about US coup for British Petroleum of Iranian Prime Minister Mossadegh. Why not expect some vengeance?

That's also why his revolution wasn't democratic. It was clear we, a democracy, wouldn't allow that. He did an oligarchy, a group of aristocrats, instead. It's also a traditionally antidemocratic kind of government.
 
Did he not use the hostage situation for internal benefit so even if its a bad idea externally it may have helped consolidate his power (ie anybody against this is actually a US spy/traitor) ?
 
Yes, I do know that my own country's CIA helped to overthrow the elected prime minister in the early 1950s and put the Shah back in power. And perhaps even more blatantly, we supported the Shah during all those years even when it was obvious the guy was no good.
 
He was pretty good . You must just not know about US coup for British Petroleum of Iranian Prime Minister Mossadegh. Why not expect some vengeance?

That's also why his revolution wasn't democratic. It was clear we, a democracy, wouldn't allow that. He did an oligarchy, a group of aristocrats, instead. It's also a traditionally antidemocratic kind of government.

Khomeini didn't care for Mossadegh. All he cared about was his opposition to the Shah. It was a theocratic government because that's explicitly what he wanted, he abandoned the idea that the monarchy was going to be sufficiently Islamic. If the Shah acted like the Saudis, then he would have never opposed him, and probably could have stifled the revolution. It was his perceived sacrilegious behavior and Westernization policies that caused him to hate the Shah. He was outraged that the Shah would dare to intrude on the mullahs' authority, such as having the state certify clerics.
 
In his 2010 book The Good Fight, Walter Mondale said he believed the Ayatollah was using the hostage crisis to build his own support.
 
As much as I despise the Ayatollah, I wouldn't go as far as to say he was a bad leader - an evil man? maybe, bad leader?; probably not.
 
As much as I despise the Ayatollah, I wouldn't go as far as to say he was a bad leader - an evil man? maybe, bad leader?; probably not.

Khomeini was definitely a smart and crafty man. After all he managed to survive both the Shah, exile in Saddam's Iraq, the anger of one of the world's super power, and a brutal war with Saddam. He was able to shape the Iranian state into what he wanted, not an easy task for any leader. Aside from being a total Assahola I would say he wasn't a bad leader.
 
As much as I despise the Ayatollah, I wouldn't go as far as to say he was a bad leader - an evil man? maybe, bad leader?; probably not.

He was a capable leader who knew how to rally support, maintain it, and consolidate his position. Mao was too but that didn't stop Khomeini and Mao from being two of the worst administrators in modern history. Part of how the Revolutionary Guards were able to consolidate so much power during the later years of his rule was thanks to how incredibly loose, informal, and ad hoc the structures of governance were that he established and supervised. It worked quite well for protecting his power base but not so much for keeping the trains running on time.

However it is worth pointing out that most of his tenure in office was consumed by the bloody, awful conflict that was the Iran-Iraq War. When you're coming down from a revolution with a military that's literally falling apart (thanks to lack of US-made spares for US-made Iranian equipment) while facing invasion from a hostile power that has the indirect backing of both superpowers and the entire Persian Gulf it takes a minor miracle to hold that off and keep your country functioning in any recognizable fashion. If you want Khomeini to do a better job you need to take that war off the table.
 
or no hostage crisis means Iran isn't such a pariah and can get weapons from somewhere allowing it to end the war much quicker.
 
One thing, you call a moratorium on executions. This is a really big thing which a lot of revolutionaries miss. Even for persons recently convicted of murder, you call a moratorium pending review by a judge you have confidence is independent enough.

And if Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini had been more of a honest conservative rather than an anti- , the whole future development of Iran may have been very different. If he had been a delegator somewhat in the tradition of Ronald Reagan (and I welcome the discussion of how to make loose delegation work). If he had generally taken the line (which he may well have) that the Shah is corrupt and the men around him even more so, and we are going to ask our leaders to follow the teachings of Islam as far as being honest leaders for the people. Iran may have competed with Turkey as far as having the most positive influence in the region.

And I quite agree that the Iran-Iraq War was a huge deal. The war started on Sept. 22, 1980, and it certainly didn't help that a U.S. embargo on parts had been going on since the previous November, now did it? I don't exactly consider that a well played poker hand. Following is an info please page on the war referencing the Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Columbia University (New York City?)
http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/history/iran-iraq-war.html
 
One thing, you call a moratorium on executions. This is a really big thing which a lot of revolutionaries miss. Even for persons recently convicted of murder, you call a moratorium pending review by a judge you have confidence is independent enough.

And if Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini had been more of a honest conservative rather than an anti- , the whole future development of Iran may have been very different. If he had been a delegator somewhat in the tradition of Ronald Reagan (and I welcome the discussion of how to make loose delegation work). If he had generally taken the line (which he may well have) that the Shah is corrupt and the men around him even more so, and we are going to ask our leaders to follow the teachings of Islam as far as being honest leaders for the people. Iran may have competed with Turkey as far as having the most positive influence in the region.

And I quite agree that the Iran-Iraq War was a huge deal. The war started on Sept. 22, 1980, and it certainly didn't help that a U.S. embargo on parts had been going on since the previous November, now did it? I don't exactly consider that a well played poker hand. Following is an info please page on the war referencing the Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Columbia University (New York City?)
http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/history/iran-iraq-war.html

So basically you want Khomeini not to be Khomeini. He had already determined that the Shah was anti-Islamic and believed that a regime of clerics was the only true way to go. Without these beliefs it's quite possible that Khomeini decides never to go into politics.
 
So basically you want Khomeini not to be Khomeini. He had already determined that the Shah was anti-Islamic and believed that a regime of clerics was the only true way to go. Without these beliefs it's quite possible that Khomeini decides never to go into politics.

His predecessor and mentor actually actually wanted this from him. It's worth noting that Borujerdi was friendly to the Shah and even received him several times. It was only after Borujerdi died that Khomeini got involved in politics, as he forbade him to do so. Khomeini was breaking a long standing tradition of Quietism.
 
So basically you want Khomeini not to be Khomeini.
Yes, but we do this all the time. For example, I wrote a thread in which I sketched out a scenario where Mo Udall is president from '76 to '84 with Carter as his vice-president. Udall wins re-election in '80 with difficulty, but then in '84 with the economy on the upswing, Carter rather easily wins both the nomination and the general election. And with eight more years of executive experience and watching Udall's successes and failures up close, Carter has a number of additional skills. He's still a visionary and an advanced thinker, but he has a much better feel for when this plays to strength and when it doesn't. Carter jokes with himself that he's only a fair to middling delegator, but that is plenty good enough. And he ends up as one of the more successful 20th century presidents. (alright, I haven't quite written all this, but it's one of my projects on the back burner. And in many ways OTL Reagan was also a dreamer and a visionary and an advanced thinker, yes he was, but for his time period and the issues he faced, it more played to strength.)

And so, the Ayatollah is more in the mainstream of Islamic thought. Certainly in the mainstream where Jews and Christians and Sikhs have lived peacefully in Muslim countries for centuries. I'm not so sure about Hindus because they're polytheists. Anyway, Ayatollah Khomeini even plays a Reagan-esque role as a sensible, reasonable conservative of reining in extremists. For example, Iranian theaters are going to stop showing racy films, that's a given. But he talks to some of his younger followers, there will be no violence against theater owners or employees. We're not going to blame individual people for what has become common practice. And while we're showing less total films which is probably the way it will be for a while, we might even politely try and find the owners and employees new jobs, but don't humiliate them. And I will trust your judgment on how to walk this line.

And in OTL, Iraq under Saddam Hussein attacked over some disputed territory when Iran was weak and that kicked off the very damaging eight year Iran-Iraq war. Well, in our new timeline, Khomeini doesn't let Iran get that weak. A eight year war where approximately a million and a half persons die? Maybe in some dystopian fiction of military history buffs, but not in this new 'OTL'/ATL.

And Khomeini knows and has observed first-hand that Western companies in oil and manufacturing have often promised to promote Iranians into senior positions as soon "as they are ready." He has seen this for several generations now. So, he takes a personal interest in this and very matter-of-factly pressures western companies to actually follow through. He also supports efforts to recruit and encourage older persons who already have some life experience to get college degrees where they can more readily and quickly step into managerial positions. And this requires scholarships and stipends for both the student and his or her family, and Khomeini is all in favor of this. And yes, he is in favor of women in the public sphere and contributing in most but not all professions, although with mainstream conservative views on modest dress which he believes contributes to women being treated with respect and accorded equality as citizens. And conservatives of all stripes often do have these kind of dual beliefs.
 
Last edited:
So basically you want Khomeini not to be Khomeini. He had already determined that the Shah was anti-Islamic and believed that a regime of clerics was the only true way to go. Without these beliefs it's quite possible that Khomeini decides never to go into politics.

A moratorium on executions is a tactical/PR maneuver, not a fundamental change to who Khomeini is.
 
I don't know if Ayatollah Khomeini did call for a moratorium on executions. He certainly should have. Anything else is just same old, same old. It's just the same tyranny under a new name.

I freely acknowledge this is becoming a flight of fancy in which Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini is more of a centrist, as well as being more interested in economic issues and building the middle class. Well, so be it. I think it makes for an interesting timeline.
 
A moratorium on executions is a tactical/PR maneuver, not a fundamental change to who Khomeini is.

I meant the idea of Khomeini as a more moderate Islamist and someone who is willing to give the Shah a chance after his multiple failures from an Islamic perspective. That would be a more fundamental change to who Khomeini was.
 
And so, the Ayatollah is more in the mainstream of Islamic thought.


That means he's not Khomeini. The entire concept of wilayat al-faqih, meaning rule by the clergy, is one that is, and at the time was, antithetical to mainstream and traditional Shi'a thought. The only form of leadership one is supposed to seek as a Shi'a cleric is to assert moral leadership in the form of the imamate and not seek actual power like Khomeini did. His whole concept was one that was pretty radical and unconventional even amongst Shi'a Islamists during the revolution. To make him more mainstream means he never tries to seek power for the clergy in the first place or challenge the traditional Iranian Shi'a quietist stance of not monkeying around in the affairs of the Shah so long as the Shah respected the space of the Shi'a ulema.
 
I think it's fine to do alternate history asking what if Lincoln had been different in one regard or another, what if William Osler had been different, etc.
 
I think it's fine to do alternate history asking what if Lincoln had been different in one regard or another, what if William Osler had been different, etc.

Yes, but you can't expect to change a fundamental part of a person's ideology and have them come to power in the same or very similar circumstances. A Khomeini that is ok with the Shah as long as he doesn't interfere with the Shia clergy's role will probably never seek power or becomes an influential Islamic scholar.
 
Top