Was the Iranian Revolution the worst thing for Iran?

That's literally what I just said you fucking idiot. Why would Iranians think the revolution was good if the only difference is that they're now paying for the slaughter?

The revolution wasn't a bad thing, in fact it was inevitable.

Mohammad Reza Shah was a failure who whored out his country to every foreigner with money, he somehow had an even bigger ego than his father despite having none of his talent.

People were going to revolt anyways, he had little legitimacy when the Brits installed him in 1941, and he went from being looked down upon to being hated after the Brits reinstalled him in 1953.

The revolution itself did not begin as an Islamic Revolution. At the start everyone, communists, nationalists, leftists, and islamists were marching together yelling "Death to the Shah".

What happened was that Khomeini's camp (the islamists) were the most numerous, powerful, and wealthy bloc out of the revolutionaries, and so they simply waited until the Shah was gone, then they seized power and eliminated their opposition.

The Iran-Iraq war didn't help either, as suddenly if you protested against the government you were a betraying your people and helping the enemy (Saddam). MEK (and most other opposition groups) lost like 90% of their membership overnight once Saddam attacked.

TL;DR: The revolution was inevitable, and Khomeini's seizure of power was easily predictable, as they were the strongest revolutionary faction.

Best post here

Thank you user.

>The revolution wasn't a bad thing, in fact it was inevitable.
Being inevitable doesn't make it not bad. The Shah was shit and I don't think anybody really thinks otherwise, but the Ayatollahs are also shit.

No, but the Ayatollah seizing power was a mistake.

Islamic Persia is best Persia, hence why they converted.

>Of course he did, but the United States didn't pay for it

I mean, we kind of did. Iran-Contra and all that.

You didn't read the rest of my post, did you?

Nobody knew that Khomeini would be terrible. All they knew and cared about was that they wanted the Shah gone. Furthermore, Khomeini was very charismatic and a master speaker, he was also the most anti-Shah public speaker since the 60s.

He became the face of the revolution, and so once it succeeded he naturally assumed power, and people trusted him to be a just leader. Once people realized his true nature, they actually started to rebel (Iran in late 79- early 81 was basically a battleground).

The issue is that once Saddam attacked, every semblance of resistance died as people suddenly banded together to fight their new enemy. However much Iranians hated Khomeini, they hated the attacking Iraqis far more, and if you were still fighting the government during the war you were branded a traitor (not just by the government, by the people too).

Khomeini's real mistake desu was going for Islamic unity instead of sectarianism. If he originally went for Shia supremacy (which is pretty much the way it's going now, ironically), he could have preserved the alliance with Israel, who would probably be happy to help Iran destroy the Arabs.

The hostage crisis was also a retarded decision too, foreign reputation is an extremely powerful force, and ruining your own reputation lets your enemies (*cough Saddam cough*) get away with things they would never be able to otherwise.

I think you'll find the current regime in Iran is also quite happy to murder dissenters without trial.

>They converted

You realize it took until 1000 AD before Iran became majority-muslim, right?

The Shah was worse for the country, but the Ayatollahs were worse for the world as a whole.

No country should sacrifice its own people for "the world".

The best thing for the world would be for America, Russia, and China to be balkanized into 50 different states.

China was balkanized at the start of the century at that wasn't better for anyone, retard.

So you want the British empire back?

I can respect that.

>you were branded a traitor (not just by the government, by the people too).
So the people were just fucking idiots then?

but it is ok when they are sacrificed for the ayatollah

Didn't say it happened over night senpai, but they did convert.

It's a natural and common reaction when facing a war of aggression. When Sadam is at the gates and the country is being bombed a rebel is a traitor helping the enemy, be it directly or indirectly.

That just seems like an overreaction though considering that Saddam wasn't an existential threat to the Iranian people.

>If he originally went for Shia supremacy (which is pretty much the way it's going now, ironically), he could have preserved the alliance with Israel, who would probably be happy to help Iran destroy the Arabs.

This desu. Thanks to the revolution, Iran has become the Shia equivalent of KSA, even if they and their fanboys swear that Hezbollah isn't a terrorist org of the same cut as other Islamic "resistance" movements including Al Queda and ISIS. The whole "Palestinian Solidarity" thing the Islamists pushed is a joke considering Iran willingly sided with Israel while all the other Arab nations fought losing wars for 30 years. Iranians didn't owe the Arabs anything besides having common faith and that is the entire basis of Hezbollah - Iranians LARPING as Arabs they wish they could be. As jingoistic, hysterical and violent the anti-Iran/anti-Israel rhetoric is today, there is still a deep undercurrent longing for the warm relationship between Israel and Iran shared pre 1979. Unfortunately, a generation of Iranians have grown up with no memories of this relationship and raised to hate Jews reflexively, meaning even if the Islamists get the rope and moderates take power, there is no one who will be willing to return the relationship back to the way things were.

One can still dream...

The Islamic Revolution wasn't the worst thing for Iran

The Qajar wars with Russia that depleted the treasury and led to various capitulations to Western countries and capitalists, which led to the increasing influence of people like Ayatollah Shirazi, then leading to the Oil capitulation to the British that left the Iranian people with a tiny share of the oil revenue.

When Mossadegh nationalized the oil and the Parliament marginalized and eliminated the Shah from power it all could have been fixed, then in 1952-1953 Churchill and Eisenhower took power and led a CIA coup to bring the Shah back as a dictator.

The oppression from that dictatorship and the disgusting opulence shown by the Shah and his inner circle puked in the face of traditional Iranian values, the Shah wasn't good with Iranian businesses, so the money that would stay in the country was allied with the Ayatollahs.

The Marxists weren't organized enough and the USSR was too caught up trying to maintain their puppets in Poland and Afghanistan at the time so they didn't have the energy to dedicate to funding and fermenting the Tudeh party.

The Liberal Nationalists had their chance with Mossadegh, but in the end the money was with the mosque, as they were more organized and had the support of the conservative majority that was disgusted by the unislamic opulence.

Because they are now doing the killing and not a foreigner, its the privilege of sovereign power.
Also it is sanctified by their religion.
youtube.com/watch?v=PDzGhisTmYc

>That's literally what I just said you fucking idiot.
My misunderstanding. Work on your vocabulary. You are a a rude and foul mouthed user.
>Why would Iranians think the revolution was good if the only difference is that they're now paying for the slaughter?
/this
Only difference? What an odd thought.
It's got nothing to do with "paying" for it.
They are laying out Justice under the Sovereign Authority of the Islamic Republic. Of course they rejoice and find this better.

>Only difference?
I actually meant what you said, I just formulated it in a shitty way because I wanted an excuse to post iranian songs from that time, which have a grim exotic ring to them.

youtube.com/watch?v=XRF4VjnSCb0

How the fuck he wasn't? He was literally bombing Tehran and every important city he could, and people suffered terrible hunger and scarcity at some points. You're aware that the revolution happened in 1979 and Sadam invaded in 1980, right?

Are you literally unaware that the 80s happened?

>Topple democracy
>reinstall authoritarian monarchy
> American liberation.mov

Man if the republic of Persia had lasted things might not be so shit right now, could be on the same level as Turkey.

The coup against pic related was the worse.

Iran would be a secular state if not for Western imperialism. The US and UK supported a tyrannical regime, and that western-sponsored tyranny made the Iranians take extreme measures for freedom from this oppression. As such, the Islamic Revolution occurred.

It'd be better than turkey, if anything. That oil money could have worked wonders through the 50s/60s and onward.

It would also be a US ally and an immense stabilizing force in the region.

Do you happen to know why is the title in turkish and what it says?

why did they elect an islamic theocracy? Especially for the women and middle class. Why would they want islamic oppression?

Damn, i didn't know Sean Connery was into that shit.

Theocracy is pretty bad any way you look at it but it wasn't a worst case scenario as far as 20th century revolutions go. It could've gone A LOT worse. There were proposals from the more fanatical clerics to destroy the ruins of Persepolis, Pasargadae, and basically every other pre-Islamic archaeological site. Thankfully those zealots were reigned in by the people. Shit got worse for religious minorities but the majority of men ultimately benefited by having more representation in government. Once the reformists get some more power maybe we can have normalized relations with them again.