WI: No Islamic Revolution in Persia

[Barbarossa Rotbart]

What would have happened if a certain article denouncing Ayatollah Khomeini ("Iran and the Red and Black Imperialism") was never published in 1978? With out this article there would not be any mass demonstrations against the Shah and for Khomeini which had to be dissolved by the military. The Shah would have stayed in power and Khomeini would have stayed in exile (and eventually died there).
But what would have happened next?

 

[Realpolitik]

The Iranian Revolution was one of the biggest in history in terms of a percentage of the population partaking. The Shah is in trouble, loathed by his people, and by 1978, something is bound to give. To keep him in power, you need an earlier POD. At the very least, Carter will need to change his foreign policy approach in 1977, and even that might not be enough.

However, the Islamists taking over is not inevitable. It's quite possible that a different faction takes over in Iran. That leads to some massive butterflies.

 

[Barbarossa Rotbart]

it is interesting that before that article Khomeini was nearly forgotten and had become unimportant. It is interesting that before that article there were no mass demonstrations every fourty days. The shah had problems with those who opposed his reforms and with those who demanded additional (and democratic) reforms, but I believe that without this article the whole Islamic revolution would not happened.

Sometimes these little things are the ones who spark a revolution and are forgotten as the reasons for the revolution. So I believe that it is possible that a tiny PoD in 1977 could prevent the rise of Khemeini to power.

 

[duke of bedford]

Well, the Shah was like South Vietnam's Ngo Dinh Diem, which hated by almost every Iranian, you'd have to get of him first and set up a moderate republican regime next.

 

[Opunium]

How would Iran look like if it become a 'normal' democracy? Would it be succesfull and western because of the earlier reforms by the Shah? What would its relation to religion be? Or would Iran end up as a generic Middle Eastern dictatorship with a poor population?

 

[Redhand]

I feel like women would actually be more supportive of the Shah, and his army was actually quite good for a Middle Eastern nation. He simply needed some guidance on how to curb his gross excesses and horrible PR with your average Shiite male. Maybe going hard core repressive army tactics could work if he commits to them, and the US would back this up if need be, but Carter probably wouldn't and that is a serious problem.

 

[Realpolitik]

The Shah was also sick by the close of the 70s-he probably would have been dying soon. His son would then take over-I imagine that might have a positive effect. Perhaps the Shah brutally cracks down(while also playing the carrot a little better), he dies, his son takes over, and HE can reform things. Defang the SAVAK a little, be a little more aware than Dad that he is ruling a Muslim nation and act accordingly, rising living standards, no Iran-Iraq war... it could be a very positive outcome, if not the best POD. Better than what happened at any rate.

Of course, that requires no Carter.

And again, this bears repeating-a successful revolution does not necessarily mean Khomeini gets in power if other players are more clever/lucky/ruthless.

 

[Shiva]

Iran wouldn't have become a democracy, besides the Islamists there was a very large Communist bloc, in the event of a mass overthrow I have very little doubt that the Communists would have taken over and the only difference between the People's Republic of Iran and the Islamic Republic of Iran would be the name.

 

[Barbarossa Rotbart]

Much more than the name. It would not be a theocracy with a guardian council supervising the government and checking if every single law is compatible with the Quran and Islamic (and not Persian) tradition.
And it would have prevented the rise of islamistic terrorist organizations.
No, comparing communists with islamist is like comparing apples and organes.The only similiarity is that they are both not democratic but that's all!

 

[Realpolitik]

Agreed. Tudeh taking over was a possibility.

Wonder how Washington would react to that. Remember, with the "Second Cold War" starting up, we might actually be even more involved against the new government. Reagan would have new fodder against Carter if that happens.

 

[Blackfox5]

I don't think Tudeh was a real factor by the late 1970s. The armed forces might not have been willing to quell a mass demonstration or even the ayatollahs, but I think they would have quickly moved against any Communists trying to take power.

There was a caste of liberal, democratic Westernizers who opposed the Shah. They were the ones who initially took over during the transition.

However, as often happens in revolutionary situations (Paris 1792 and St Petersburg 1918), the radicals ousted the moderates and seized control. (The original protests against the Shah was not in favor of Islamic revolution, but democracy and civil rights. The Ayatollah Khomeini was able to hijack it.)

The reason Carter and many others were not concerned about the Shah's overthrow was that they assumed it would be these people who took over the government. They had removed the Shah and would begin implementing all those nice reforms people had wanted to happen for a long time. It was merely necessary to give them several years to calm down the crowds, implement the reforms, and then the US-Iranian relationship would resume as if nothing happened. The idea that Khomeini could lead a religious take over of the government was simply not considered.

However wrong they might have been, this was a possibility. A scenario where various reformers like Bakhtiar and Bazargan and others from the National Front took power could have happened. They were seen as legitimate opposition. The military could have accepted them. The US would have welcomed them. And they would have been credible to the Iranian people.

 

[Realpolitik]

I don't think Tudeh was a real factor by the late 1970s. The armed forces might not have been willing to quell a mass demonstration or even the ayatollahs, but I think they would have quickly moved against any Communists trying to take power.

There was a caste of liberal, democratic Westernizers who opposed the Shah. They were the ones who initially took over during the transition.

However, as often happens in revolutionary situations (Paris 1792 and St Petersburg 1918), the radicals ousted the moderates and seized control. (The original protests against the Shah was not in favor of Islamic revolution, but democracy and civil rights. The Ayatollah Khomeini was able to hijack it.)

The reason Carter and many others were not concerned about the Shah's overthrow was that they assumed it would be these people who took over the government. They had removed the Shah and would begin implementing all those nice reforms people had wanted to happen for a long time. It was merely necessary to give them several years to calm down the crowds, implement the reforms, and then the US-Iranian relationship would resume as if nothing happened. The idea that Khomeini could lead a religious take over of the government was simply not considered.

However wrong they might have been, this was a possibility. A scenario where various reformers like Bakhtiar and Bazargan and others from the National Front took power could have happened. They were seen as legitimate opposition. The military could have accepted them. The US would have welcomed them. And they would have been credible to the Iranian people.

Thanks for correcting me BlackFox5-I will admit that Iran isn't my specialty area. I'm trying to improve my knowledge and this helps.

Agree with you when it comes to revolutions and our reaction to Iran. The idea that this 70 year old religious cleric would take over was unheard of-remember, this was big event that made political Islam heard of around the world. But when you look at revolutionary history... so often in foreign policy it is not to get the best, but to prevent the worst. The "dancing star" of change must be acknowledged and worked with, but it also must be tempered, or it will scorch its victims.

 

[Shiva]

I don't think Tudeh was a real factor by the late 1970s. The armed forces might not have been willing to quell a mass demonstration or even the ayatollahs, but I think they would have quickly moved against any Communists trying to take power.

There was a caste of liberal, democratic Westernizers who opposed the Shah. They were the ones who initially took over during the transition.

However, as often happens in revolutionary situations (Paris 1792 and St Petersburg 1918), the radicals ousted the moderates and seized control. (The original protests against the Shah was not in favor of Islamic revolution, but democracy and civil rights. The Ayatollah Khomeini was able to hijack it.)

The reason Carter and many others were not concerned about the Shah's overthrow was that they assumed it would be these people who took over the government. They had removed the Shah and would begin implementing all those nice reforms people had wanted to happen for a long time. It was merely necessary to give them several years to calm down the crowds, implement the reforms, and then the US-Iranian relationship would resume as if nothing happened. The idea that Khomeini could lead a religious take over of the government was simply not considered.

However wrong they might have been, this was a possibility. A scenario where various reformers like Bakhtiar and Bazargan and others from the National Front took power could have happened. They were seen as legitimate opposition. The military could have accepted them. The US would have welcomed them. And they would have been credible to the Iranian people.

So how about this, the 'Liberal caste' (for want of a better term) leads the revolt against the Shah as in OTL, Kohmeini dies before he can cause problems, but then the Iranian Communists launch their own coup (with deals made to at least part of the military) and begin talks with the USSR to get support.

While support for the communists is initially nil from the Iranian people, the US-backed Saddam regime in Iraq launches an invasion to 'quell the unrest' (i.e. overthrow the govt. and install puppets).

This gives the new Communist regime a much needed boost of support and after a brutal war they push Iraq out of the country and are all nice and settled in power.

The People's Republic of Iran!

 

[Essam]

As in Egypt, one must remember the Islamists do not just come out of nowhere and hijack the revolution of the standard-bearers of western "liberal democracy:" the former have the support of the uneducated and poor and pious masses; while the latter indulge themselves in politics and reform for the desire to wrestle power from an ancient imperial elite to themselves, but they were socio-economically well-off. I cannot think of the theory's name itself, but a French theorist proposes revolutions in modern Islamic societies are only successful if there is a real will and desire that unites both the radicalized poor and the pious middle-class, i.e. Iran, and not Algeria in the 90's.

The Islamist movements have been organised and well-entrenched for over a century by now, and 3/4 of a century by the late 70's. The proponents of western democracy have to distinguish themselves as rich westernized elites from the facade of democratization and modernisation the Imperial régime is purporting to have.

 

[SvoHljott]

The main issue is that you had a number of rival groups. You had the communist-marxists, the anarchists, the liberals, the western-style capitalism supporters, the Islamists and several smaller groups.

However, the key was that the Islamists were both the most united faction and the one with the most appeal to the masses - many Iranians live out in the countryside and are uneducated and extremely religious in the 1970s.

The suggestion though that "Extreme government is inevitable" is baloney. In fact, it's almost insulting. Many people fought hard and died for Iran to be a better place and I don't really like the suggestion that they did so for nothing.

 

[Essam]

The main issue is that you had a number of rival groups. You had the communist-marxists, the anarchists, the liberals, the western-style capitalism supporters, the Islamists and several smaller groups.

However, the key was that the Islamists were both the most united faction and the one with the most appeal to the masses - many Iranians live out in the countryside and are uneducated and extremely religious in the 1970s.

The suggestion though that "Extreme government is inevitable" is baloney. In fact, it's almost insulting. Many people fought hard and died for Iran to be a better place and I don't really like the suggestion that they did so for nothing.

Well-summarised and well-said.

 

[MarshalBraginsky]

It could have been possible if Ayatollah Khomeini had not gone to France though, because when he was in France he gained international attention.

 

[vuun]

If Iran went communist instead, wouldn't that be a big deal in the the context of the Cold War? Assuming they align themselves with the Soviets, doesn't that effectively mean the Soviets/Russians finally won the Great Game, expanding their bloc to the Indian Ocean? Might the US actually intervene in Iran and turn this into another proxy war? OTOH Afghanistan might turn out much better than OTL.

 

[Deleted member 14881]

If the Communists in Iran win out I would think the Soviets would throw money and advisors only.

 

[Matt Wiser]

If the Tudeh tried to seize power, the Iranian military, which was staunchly anti-communist, would have had a say in the matter.

Want to butterfly away Khomeni? He lived in Najaf, Iraq for several years, while his future arch-enemy Saddam was still Vice-Chairman of the RCC, and deputy to Iraq's then-President al-Bakr. Khomeini was no friend of Baathism, and Saddam decides that Khomeni has to go. An automobile "accident" is arranged.....