Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

dr_set t1_j1mpxso wrote

A large majority of the Iranian society wanted to remove the Shah, but the educated middle classes from the urban centers wanted democracy while the lower classes, specially from the small villages outside the big cities, wanted Khomeini. For a time both camps competed for power, but the religious faction was far more brutal and ended crushing the other side.

> Marjanes parents say they didn't vote for the Islamic republic

She was from a very educated family from the middle class, so its very logical that she or anybody around her didn't voted for the Islamic republic. They were in the opposing camp.

If you want to know more, take a look at this documentary that explains the fighting for power that took place between the two factions of Iranian society that joined to overthrow the Shah.

329

ozninja80 t1_j1nt6l8 wrote

I also read “Shah of Shahs” by Ryszard Kapuscinski. It’s a fantastic, easy to digest book which documents the downfall of Shah Reza, written by a journalist who spent years living and working there.

Toward the end of the Shah’s rule, the writer describes the growing collective rage of the Iranian people, having existed under the brutal, oppressive rule of the Shah for many years. During the Shah’s reign, anyone brave enough to challenge the authorities was likely to be either killed, imprisoned, or disappeared entirely.

When the people eventually rose up and overthrew his regime, at a cost of many lives, there was a large number who (quite understandably) were incredibly angry at the treatment they had been forced to endure. Whilst various factions, including socialists, were vying for power during this time, the ones who channeled this public anger most effectively were the Islamic fundamentalists. I think it’s fair to presume that the populous never knew or anticipated just how oppressive their rule would also turn out to be.

It also needs to be mentioned that the Shah was really just a corrupt, Western-backed puppet who lived a life of opulent excess. In contrast, Iran had previously democratically elected a leader decades before (Mossadegh) who had sought to nationalise their vast natural resources at the time. This was obviously an unacceptable proposition for the British & Americans (and the effected oil companies, eg. BP) who were heavily invested in exploiting Iran’s oil reserves . As a result, his government was swiftly overthrown in a British-American backed coup. I mention this for broader context, as there is a long, clear history of Western intervention in middle eastern and Iranian affairs, given the enormous wealth that has been at stake. This has most certainly played a part in shaping the anti-American rhetoric of the present day Islamic republic.

123

[deleted] t1_j1o9hbv wrote

[removed]

24

[deleted] t1_j1oduos wrote

[removed]

38

boluroru t1_j1pd1jm wrote

There's a tendency on the internet to assume the urban centres were how the majority of Iranians lived. Like those Iran before and after the revolution photos that get posted all the time

Majority of the population though was poor, rural and very religious. Why the revolution ended the way it did makes a lot of sense when you consider that

6

Abstract__Nonsense t1_j1oo55z wrote

It’s worth noting that the educated middle classes from the urban centers were a small minority, since the question is about the popular legitimacy of Khomeini.

5

MaybeTheDoctor t1_j1no8y0 wrote

I think the simple answer, is "less corruption, less nepotism, and democracy and/or rule of law for all"...

2

morismano t1_j1ngn40 wrote

Why did Iranians want to remove Shah? Iran was doing very well economically and was stable. So why did not people like him? And when they realized what kind of government Khomeini created, why did they not protest to remove him like they removed Shah?

−6

the_roguetrader t1_j1ni89e wrote

usually story - the Shah and his cronies lived a luxurious lifestyle while the majority of people were poor and the country run down.. plus the secret police, (the SAVAK ) were particularly brutal with thousands tortured / extrajudicially killed / disappeared during their time... if you look at pictures of anti-Shah protests from the late '70's there were MILLIONS of people on the streets - they really wanted him gone !

50

morismano t1_j1nlvn8 wrote

My knowledge on this matter is based on Wikipedia. Even with his lavish life, Was not there economic growth and relative stability in the country during Shah’s rule?

−9

Nicktune1219 t1_j1nu0tp wrote

There was economic growth if you consider that he kept the country a feudal state until 1963 or so. As a result a majority of the population was terribly poor and illiterate.

14

King--of--the--Juice t1_j1nn93j wrote

> Iran was doing very well economically

Well it wasn't. Inflation rate from 1964 to 1974 was on average %2.6. Then from 1974 to 1978 it reached %24.9, and the cost of living was doubled. There was just too much money pouring in Iran as a result of the 1973 oil shock and the economy overheated. More money more problems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_disease

36

Darkness1231 t1_j1o10ft wrote

Shah was corrupt, to a massive level. He did some good, some of which came back to bite him. He educated many. I don't have knowledge of the split between middle and lower classes educations. But, consider this, education involves many options of how to manage/govern a people/nation. What happened was more and more people were aware that the Shah was indeed on the bad side of history.

Existing order educates the masses. Masses realize exactly how bad their situation is. Masses rebel, establishing a new order. In Iran, the referendum allow the religious fanatics to outnumber the reasonable (to myself) middle, to lower upper classes. Bingo, theocracy. Middle class loses all the gains they had under the previous order.

8

sourcreamus t1_j1nndrv wrote

Iran did well in the early 70s, but oil markets adjusted, while the government kept spending. The economy started doing poorly and the newly empowered middle class wanted political power.

7

whynotzoidber t1_j1nmt7u wrote

the revolutionaries convinced people shah was compromised by uk/usa.

once they sized power with Khomeini return, Khomeini used the same trick to convince people that revolutionaries are against god and his new government.

Khomeini wasn't afraid to incite his followers to kill something which the shah didn't have it in him to kill his own people, as he had fled.

2

morismano t1_j1nogk2 wrote

So people did protest Khomeini but he had them killed which Shah did not do?

3

doc_1eye t1_j1o7gic wrote

No, the previous poster lives in a fantasy world. The Shah killed thousands of people. It's why people wanted to get rid of him in the first place. Khomeini managed to stay in power by being bad, but not quite as bad as the Shah

9