WI Khomeni not expelled from Iraq?

One of the biggest fuels of the Iranian Revolution was the expulsion of the Khomeini from his refuge in Iraq. The Shah wanted Khomeni gone from Iraq because he was inciting anti Shah opposition in Iran. However, the move proved counter-productive, as Khomeni's new home in Paris gave him better communication with the opposition inside Iran, ultimately giving the help the opposition needed to take down the Shah. How much of a difference would it have made if Khomeni was allowed to stay in Iraq? Can the revolution be delayed for a few years, or even avoided altogether?
 
Last edited:
Perhaps the Shah decides to accept the French's offer to kill Khomeini!

The reason the Shah didn't execute him was that he was already named Grand Ayatollah. Having him put to death would've caused enormous backlash from the religious Iranians, and even stiffen the opposition, something the Shah wanted to avoid.
Besides, how could the French kill Khomeini if he stayed in Iraq, as I was asking in this question?
 
One of the biggest fuels of the Iranian Revolution was the expulsion of the Shah from his refuge in Iraq. The Shah wanted Khomeni gone from Iraq because he was inciting anti Shah opposition in Iran. However, the move proved counter-productive, as Khomeni's new home in Paris gave him better communication with the opposition inside Iran, ultimately giving the help the opposition needed to take down the Shah. How much of a difference would it have made if Khomeni was allowed to stay in Iraq? Can the revolution be delayed for a few years, or even avoided altogether?

Wait the first phrase confused me. The Shah is the one expelled or Khoemeni?
 

JRScott

Banned
If Khomeini had remained in Iraq, he most likely would have been killed by Saddam Hussein in his rise to power. Note it was Saddam when he was VP of Iraq who told Khomeini it would be better for him to leave, and then both men once they rose to power would bring the 8 year war. Given the chance to consolidate his power Saddam would have killed Khomeini, he would of been a threat to Saddam's desires. It is very likely the official story would be that Khomeini had died of natural causes due to illness.

With Khomeini's death I'm not sure the Islamic faction would have remained as organized as it did, as such I do not believe it would have been capable of throwing out the Shah of Iran or ending Persian rule. It does not mean that it would be an easy rule, there were many groups opposed to the Shah, just none of them particularly organized.

Reza Pahlavi would become the new Shah of Iran in 1980 when his father dies. He would continue western reforms which largely anger the former Khomeini followers, the problem is they lack anyone to effectively take Khomeini's place yet. If he is able to get inflation under control and improve the average citizen before the mid 80s I think he could avert the revolution for his reign. Otherwise if he can't do that then its going to happen you just need a new leader to rise and gain power, that would probably take 10-15 years, so you'd be looking at a Revolution in the early to mid 90s, by then though there could be stronger voices from the other opposition groups, who mostly sought for the Shah to conform to the constitutional powers so while a revolution and the fall of the monarchy could happen still by the mid 90s it is not necessarily an Islamic one.
 

Archibald

Banned
Reading Drew "Gumbo" alt history I inquired about Khomeiny bizarre exil to France.
Looks like Giscard stroke a deal with Carter to caretake the senile mullah and make him the solution to the issue the Shah had become.
Of course that did not prevented Giscard to send his hawkish foreign minister Michel Poniatowski (of sinister memory) to Teheran to propose the Shah to kill Khomeiny. France had excellent relations with Iran - the big Eurodif nuclear business. So Giscard took no risk and played both sides.
Of course once Khomeiny revealed his real nature (long after the shah went into exile) an horrified Giscard broke the Eurodif bargaining without a warning, leaving an unfinished business. The Mullahs were not exactly happy.
End result: in 1986 Renault CEO George Besse was shot and killed, officially by far-left revolutionnary group Action Directe (probably encouraged by Iran). Oh, and bombs went off in Paris, killing many people.
Now I'm out to vomit... :(
 

Stolengood

Banned
If Khomeini had remained in Iraq, he most likely would have been killed by Saddam Hussein in his rise to power. Note it was Saddam when he was VP of Iraq who told Khomeini it would be better for him to leave, and then both men once they rose to power would bring the 8 year war. Given the chance to consolidate his power Saddam would have killed Khomeini, he would of been a threat to Saddam's desires. It is very likely the official story would be that Khomeini had died of natural causes due to illness.

With Khomeini's death I'm not sure the Islamic faction would have remained as organized as it did, as such I do not believe it would have been capable of throwing out the Shah of Iran or ending Persian rule. It does not mean that it would be an easy rule, there were many groups opposed to the Shah, just none of them particularly organized.

Reza Pahlavi would become the new Shah of Iran in 1980 when his father dies. He would continue western reforms which largely anger the former Khomeini followers, the problem is they lack anyone to effectively take Khomeini's place yet. If he is able to get inflation under control and improve the average citizen before the mid 80s I think he could avert the revolution for his reign. Otherwise if he can't do that then its going to happen you just need a new leader to rise and gain power, that would probably take 10-15 years, so you'd be looking at a Revolution in the early to mid 90s, by then though there could be stronger voices from the other opposition groups, who mostly sought for the Shah to conform to the constitutional powers so while a revolution and the fall of the monarchy could happen still by the mid 90s it is not necessarily an Islamic one.
So... Saddam killing one more guy means a better Iran?

I'm gonna get in my time machine and make this happen! :D
 

JRScott

Banned
If the monarchy survives, what kind of Shah would the Shah's have been?

Reza largely believed in the separation of religion and politics. He was educated in the United States. His wife was also educated in the United States.

He's written some books but I've not read them so hard to know exactly, I would expect a more Turkish approach to government than the theocracy of present day Iran.
 
So... Saddam killing one more guy means a better Iran?

I'm gonna get in my time machine and make this happen! :D



Frankly I don't think the Shah could have stuck around. The guy had no legitimacy whatsoever in the eyes of the people and desperately needs to go in order to get anything like a better Iran. An Iran under the Shah is no better than Iraq under Sadam.
 
The reason the Shah didn't execute him was that he was already named Grand Ayatollah. Having him put to death would've caused enormous backlash from the religious Iranians, and even stiffen the opposition, something the Shah wanted to avoid.
Besides, how could the French kill Khomeini if he stayed in Iraq, as I was asking in this question?

They take the Ayatollah to France and there's a car "accident" in a tunnel in Paris. It's not like putting a bomb in his house or shooting him from afar. An "accident" could work and could easily be believed by all. So could a "heart attack."
 
Frankly I don't think the Shah could have stuck around. The guy had no legitimacy whatsoever in the eyes of the people and desperately needs to go in order to get anything like a better Iran. An Iran under the Shah is no better than Iraq under Sadam.

The only alternative may be socialists or communists then, as Persepolis hinted at.
 
Top