The Revolution

Meet Rou7alla Mousawi, a.k.a Al Khomaini. Rou7alla is his real name by the way (ay naby yo6lag 3alaih rou7alla ya 7elween?), and later on he has 'earned' the title: ayatollah.
Personal note: I'm not sure where ayatollah comes from, but semantically speaking, I don't like it. I also don't like the pragmatic use of the word "Imam" which is pretty common in Kuwait, derived, I would imagine, from the fact that 'x ya'emmo fi' the y mosque. Ironically, the ayatollah title is a pragmatic one, while the Imam use is a semantic one, when it's exactly the opposite if you really knew wassup. PhD thesis? Fouga?

Anyway, intersecting with where we left off last time, in 1963 he (Khomaini) denounced Shah Mohammaed Bahlawi. He was sentenced for 8 months in prison. When he got out, he denounced the United States. This time, and this was in 1964, he was exiled to Turkey.
Later on, he went to Iraq and stayed there until the SOB Saddam forced him out of Iraq also, under the urgance of the Shah himself.
Thus, he moved to France. This is 1978.

"Why haven't they killed him throughout all those years?"

In the 60s, who knows.

But in 1978 when Al Khomaini was on his way to France, the head of the French SDECE (French intillegence, their version of the CIA 3ishtaw) Alexandre de Marenches claims that France offered the Shah to assassinate Al Khomaini. But according to 'Monsieur' de Marenches the Shah refused on the grounds that, if they did assassinate him, he would be regarded as a martyr. I would imagine Monsieur de Marenches, holding the same position as the director of Jihaz Amn Il Dawla Il Kwaity, took his job seriously and did not make false accusations, and attribute them later to "ga3daat il shabab bel dowaneya, 7asha wel 7asha 3an alf yimeen mo ana ely gayel ya jema3at il rabi3". La bas agoul ya3ni.

Boy, the things 14% of a country's wealth will buy you, I'll tell ya.

Ya7lailah il Shah yekon saayidha. I would imagine that he thought murdering someone like Al Khomaini was known to have caused a revolution. So he decided against it.

Oh wait. This is supposed to be about history and politics.
Irony would have it that even keeping him alive would result in a revolution.

By September, 1978 (this is before Khomaini was back from France) witnessed a huge (peaceful) protest against the Shah a.k.a Black Friday. Despite its nature, the Shah opted to use the military (martial law in effect) in pushing the protests back. Hundreds (some claim thousands) of people died.
In turn, causing any support for the Shah in Iran to melt away. Things escalated and reached their peak that December. By the day, protests left hundreds of dead bodies. By the day, the protests grew larger.
One month later, now in January 1979, the Shah fled Iran, SAVAK was haulted, political prisoners were released, and only two weeks after the Shah fled, Al Khomaini was invited back to Iran.
This was all in hopes of calming down the tensions caused by September's Black Friday.
Obviously, it did not work.

The military declared impartiality, after soldiers turned on their leaders refusing to participate in any more of the killings, marking the completion of the overthrowing of the monarchy.

February 12, 1979. Revolution completed.

"Where was the US?"

First of all, the revolution wasn't what it sounded like. Ongoing opposition was existant since the overthrowing of Dr Mosadagh.

President Jimmy Carter, in 1977, somehow 'aided' in the revolution. He threatened to hault any arms shipments to Iran if the Shah did not loosen up a bit. This has led people to start demonstrating, political prisoners were released, demands for freedom started surfacing, and the like.
President Carter obviously wasn't the biggest fan of the Shah's regime, but he never really took any decisive action. He did not stand with another coup d'etat. Rather, he tried to 'work something out' with the Iranian military to set up a more moderate government.
This was all interrupted when Al Khomaini sought control. However, it must be noted that number-one revolutionary all along was Dr. 3ali Sharee3aty (who was very much different from Al Khomaini by the way), but he was assassinated in 1977 in London. Only then did Al Khomaini become the spiritual leader 'to it all' - which explains why the Shah urged Sadam to force him out of Iraq in 1978. Al Khomaini, being in Iraq, and "number one revolutionary" now, was too close.

History did not take a turn when Al Khomaini's revolution overthrew the Shah's regime. I wouldn't get carried away and say the US helped in, but I really don't see how anyone can argue that at least some prominent figures in the adminstration were just fed up with the Shah's ways. Homeboy had to go. Sure, Al Khomaini's rise to power came as a surprise. But it was not until the admittance of the Shah into the US that history did take a turn. Ever since, we have still been "in that turn". Now, more than ever.

Enter the Iranian Hostage Crisis.

Who's who:

1. Rou7alla Mousawi a.k.a. Al Khomaini : Known to be the Leader of the Revolution (1900 - 1989).
2. Jimmy Carter : President of the United States 1977-1981 (Born in 1924).
3. Alexandre de Marenches (no pic) : Head of French Intelligence, SDECE.
4. Dr Ali Shariati : Known to be the number one revolutionary until his assassination in 1977.


  • I'm starting to sympathise with the poor puppy ..

    By Blogger ScarlO, at 19.4.06  

  • say what now??

    By Blogger Temetwir, at 20.4.06  

  • Shah was a good man... Iran kanat stronger than most of the euro countries. Bs everything was halal thier so hatha ely ma 3ajab alot of people their ( el sha3b el irany) o 6ab3an 9arat el revolution. Look what happened to Iran now? who can believe enha the same country bel 70's? Its ok to be an Islamic country, but not like Iran these days.
    can't wait fot the next post man so keep it up :)
    Waiting 4 u etnawer my blog site ;)

    By Blogger ZiZoTiMe, at 20.4.06  

  • zizotime
    i really think u should read the other parts .. the shah was a good man?

    thabba7 bel 3alam + robbed the iranians out of their money + no real democracy + b kaifa shaal o 7a6

    only good thing he got out of that was the fact that the western countries (Especially the ones that were running the oil industry) were present in his country and helped build the infrastructure

    as for what iran turned into, personally, im not a fan of the revolution neither.. but yes, i would say its better than the shah

    besides, the US still has got frozen assets (something like 8 billion?) and not to mention the economic tensions between the two
    y3ni la US taby the current iran, wala iran taby the US adminstrations

    point being: the shah wasnt a good man

    and the ironic thing is that no one brought up "human rights" until the islamic republic started executing ex-SAVAK officers who were going around slaying and torturing ppl like it was nothing ..

    By Blogger Temetwir, at 20.4.06  

  • I was being ... sarcastic, I guess.

    By Blogger ScarlO, at 20.4.06  

  • chairz

    By Blogger Temetwir, at 20.4.06  

Post a Comment

<< Home