WI: Ayatollah Khomeini just a better leader?

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 thought that was why the clerics opposed the Shah--his land reform undermined the clerics' power by taking away their lands.
 
I thought that was why the clerics opposed the Shah--his land reform undermined the clerics' power by taking away their lands.

It was the White Revolution in general. Having the state get involved in certifying religious students, the family law that dealt with divorce and such on rather favorable terms for women. The ulema wanted to keep the rather medieval structure of society, whereas the Pahlavis were forcing Iran to adopt modern secularized nation-state governance.

After that, Khomeini didn't trust a monarchy to not pursue such goals. The only solution was an Islamic state.
 
I thought that was why the clerics opposed the Shah--his land reform undermined the clerics' power by taking away their lands.

Pretty much. The ulema was perfectly ok for centuries under the Qajar and Safavid dynasties keeping quiet and letting the secular rulers run the show, what pitted the Pahlavis against the ulema was the White Revolution as it was a direct attack on their power. Even with all of that only Khomeini and his immediate disciples were advocating for wilayat al-faqih in the ulema. Khomeini's entire theory of Islamic government was a sharp break from long-established Shi'a tradition and seriously out of step with most of the Iranian Shi'a clergy. A more moderate Khomeini means you get a Khomeini who never tries to set up an Islamic state in the first place.
 
It was the White Revolution in general. Having the state get involved in certifying religious students, the family law that dealt with divorce and such on rather favorable terms for women. The ulema wanted to keep the rather medieval structure of society, whereas the Pahlavis were forcing Iran to adopt modern secularized nation-state governance.
I did not know about this and the land reform under the Shah. And yes, this is a significant obstacle.

But the AHC still remains, and I ask for your help. Make some small to medium changes where Ayatollah Khomeini is still a conservative just more within the broad middle ground. So, he's the conservative side of middle-of-the-road, something like that. And like many religious persons of varying traditions, he believes men and women are equal in the eyes of God but just have different roles. He believes women should be free to enter most professions, and at times there is vigorous debate about the exceptions. He also believes that banning racy movies and requiring modest dress in public improves the standing of women in society. (and perhaps like the blue laws in Boston and so forth, just a little bit of suppression can sometimes be a fun thing!)

Along a similar vein, when Reagan ran in 1980, he was not in favor of the ERA. But he stated with some pride that when he was governor of California he had directed his administration to review California laws for gender discrimination which he then sought to repeal or amend one by one. And he thought this was a better approach than transferring so much authority to courts. Plus, with his appointment of Sandra Day O'Connor, President Reagan appointed the first woman to the Supreme Court.

And the western approach to gender equality might be open to improvement, too. For example, when we say we want women to advance as far as men, are we saying that the stereotypically aggressive approach to surgery is the only or best way to conduct surgery? To take just one of many examples.

So yes, considerably greater gender equality in Iran with Ayatollah Khomeini having at least some formal power (for a time) as well as considerable informal power. Perhaps quite a challenge, but then again, I like challenges.

And, Oh Yes, one more thing. Prevent the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s.
 
Last edited:
I did not know about this and the land reform under the Shah. And yes, this is a significant obstacle.

But the AHC still remains, and I ask for your help. Make some small to medium changes where Ayatollah Khomeini is still a conservative just more within the broad middle ground. So, he's the conservative side of middle-of-the-road, something like that. And like many religious persons of varying traditions, he believes men and women are equal in the eyes of God but just have different roles. He believes women should be free to enter most professions, and at times there is vigorous debate about the exceptions. He also believes that banning racy movies and requiring modest dress in public improves the standing of women in society. (and perhaps like the blue laws in Boston and so forth, just a little bit of suppression can sometimes be a fun thing!)

Along a similar vein, when Reagan ran in 1980, he was not in favor of the ERA. But he stated with some pride that when he was governor of California he had directed his administration to review California laws for gender discrimination which he then sought to repeal or amend one by one. And he thought this was a better approach than transferring so much authority to courts. Plus, with his appointment of Sandra Day O'Connor, President Reagan appointed the first woman to the Supreme Court.

And the western approach to gender equality might be open to improvement, too. For example, when we say we want women to advance as far as men, are we saying that the stereotypically aggressive approach to surgery is the only or best way to conduct surgery? To take just one of many examples.

So yes, considerably greater gender equality in Iran with Ayatollah Khomeini having at least some formal power (for a time) as well as considerable informal power. Perhaps quite a challenge, but then again, I like challenges.

And, Oh Yes, one more thing. Prevent the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s.

It's not entirely out of the realm of possibility. Khomeini was quite radical as previously stated, and there were other figures who were more traditionalist for the lack of a better word. His original successor Montazeri was deposed because he stated that he didn't agree with Khomeini's form of government. Actually, Montazeri is probably the man you are looking for.

With regards to Iraq, Iraq is not going to get involved if:
A) The revolutionary purges don't liquidate the Iranian officer corps. Khomeini essentially decapitated the army because of loyalty issues, there was talk of liquidating the entire army before the war.
B) Iran doesn't start talking and pushing for exporting the revolution. Saddam was terrified of a Shia uprising triggered by Khomeini. A movement was crushed in Bahrain as well.

It might be better off is Khomeini gets killed early on (MeK or a monarchist perhaps, maybe even a nationalist support of Bakhtiar) and Montazeri takes over and the revolution has a Thermidor reaction moment.
 
. . . Khomeini essentially decapitated the army because of loyalty issues, there was talk of liquidating the entire army before the war. . .
And that's the trap. Once you start executing, it can be hard to stop. Because then you have to acknowledge that the earlier executions may have been a mistake.

Some people get out of the trap but putting it in a time period, as in 'that was during the revolution.' It sounds like Iran got out of the trap another way and at least stop executing military personnel. Although I think they kept executing political dissidents. And I remember reading a case in which a person who was a Baha'i was executed.

So, a fair number of times, if the revolutionaries start down this path, they do not get out of the trap and the new regime is just as bad as the old one, maybe worse.
 
Top