Revolutionary Iran - Book Summary

Unveiling the mysteries of the fascinating, yet tumultuous, Iran

Iran is a country with deep historical roots. For many centuries, the Western world referred to it as "Persia". From the sixth century BCE until the twentieth century, Iran was home to various imperial powers that wielded iron-fisted control. However, at the dawn of the twentieth century, the winds of change began to blow, carrying whispers of democracy and other political ideologies. Even though change was imminent, the direction it would steer the nation remained an enigma.

For many, it remains a mystery how, post the 1979 revolution, Iran morphed into a unique blend of democracy and Islamic theocracy. Today, as the Trump administration increasingly portrays Iran as an outcast nation, understanding the complex historical tapestry of Iran becomes more essential than ever. To illuminate the subject, we turn to the expertise of Michael Axworthy.

Through this narrative, we will dive into the birth of Iranian democracy, presenting you with a lucid understanding of Iran's journey through the twentieth century. A tale of a nation that remains intriguing and globally relevant in the modern era.

As we embark on this exploration, you will discover:

- How a simple poetry reading became the harbinger of a revolution;

- Strategies to maintain control while leading a revolution; and

- Fascinating insights into the Iranian constitution.

Unearthing the roots of the Iranian revolution from the dawn of the twentieth century

Iran, despite its ancient heritage, was no stranger to the tides of revolution and turbulence that swept across the globe in the early twentieth century. The year was 1905, and an escalating economic crisis fanned the flames of civil unrest in Iran, gradually pushing the people towards protest and defiance.

In July 1906, the situation took a grim turn when a theology student was killed by the police during a rally. This incident fuelled the fires of dissent, leading to more rallies, deaths of 22 more protestors, widespread strikes, and public condemnation of the reigning monarch, Mozaffar od-Din Shah.

By August 5, the inevitable was clear — the Shah had to capitulate. He accepted one of the key demands of the protestors, issuing a decree to establish an Iranian national assembly — the Majles. This assembly gathered for the first time in October 1906.

With an unmistakable urgency, the Majles began the task of drafting a constitution. The document, ratified by the Shah on December 30, merely five days before his demise, confirmed that the Shah’s sovereignty was vested in him by the people, not divinely ordained. The constitution also proclaimed Shi'ia Islam as the state religion and established a committee of ulema — Iranian clergy, tasked with reviewing legislation passed by the Majles.

Despite this political victory, the revolutionary fervor that had powered these changes began to fade.

By 1908, the ulema grew uneasy about the constitutional reforms, fearing an erosion of their traditional authority. In a striking parallel, the Shah’s successor, his son Mohammad Ali Shah, too, expressed doubts about the Majles. Embarking on a mission to reclaim absolute monarchy, with the support of the ulema, Mohammad Ali attempted a military coup in 1908.

While the coup succeeded in Tehran, it faltered elsewhere. The revolutionaries pushed back, and, by 1909, the Shah was compelled to flee into exile, passing the throne to his son, Ahmad. The constitutionalists had regained control.

Yet, the deeper issues within the nation — the political divide and a revolution spiraling out of control — remained unaddressed. Iran was teetering on the brink of chaos, with assassinations becoming a terrifyingly common occurrence on both sides.

In December 1911, the conservative factions within the cabinet staged a successful coup, and the Majles was dissolved. The revolution seemed to have come to a screeching halt. However, the seeds of future revolutionary movements had been subtly planted.

The rise of the Pahlavi dynasty and its lasting impact

In 1908, a stroke of luck led a British expedition to discover the first commercially exploitable oil reserve in the Middle East — nestled in the southwestern region of Iran. Owing to this monumental find, by 1920, Britain had established itself as the leading foreign power in Iran.

However, the reality was far from perfect. The British were stretched thin and looking for an exit strategy. Amidst this colonial turmoil, General Ironside, a senior British commander, took an interest in an Iranian soldier named Reza Khan. He elevated Khan's rank and entrusted him with a brigade to command. With a clear understanding that the British wouldn't interfere, Khan, with Ironside's tacit approval, staged a military coup in Tehran in 1921.

Khan seized control of Tehran, subsequently claiming power over the entire nation. After a few initial hiccups, Khan eventually established a regime that suited his vision. Initially, he set up a government with himself as the prime minister and even attempted to transition Iran into a republic in 1924. However, by 1929, even though he lacked royal or aristocratic lineage, he had himself crowned Shah, adopting the name Pahlavi and, thus, ushering in a new dynasty.

Interestingly, Khan's ascension to the throne didn't meet significant opposition. Both constitutionalists and the ulema viewed him as the catalyst for reform that the nation urgently needed for progress.

Khan's reformist agenda, characterized by its nationalist and secular tendencies, provided a bridge between the two groups. Notably, he reshaped the legal system, promoting secular judges and introducing European-inspired civil and penal codes.

Khan's reform initiatives were expansive and bold.

In the 1920s, he dedicated a significant 40 percent of state expenditure towards the development of a modern army. This force was then deployed to ruthlessly quell dissent in non-urban areas, a strategy accepted by most Iranians yearning for stability.

However, one of Khan's decrees sparked controversy — a ban on traditional attire and headwear, including the veil. A strong proponent of Western-style clothing, he ordered the people to adopt this attire.

One of Khan's most impactful reforms was his focus on education. By 1938, school enrollment had skyrocketed from 55,000 in 1922 to 450,000. Khan established Tehran's first full-fledged university, offering scholarships for Iranian students to study overseas.

In an intriguing shift, Tehran University's theology faculty adopted a new approach to religious teaching, transitioning from viewing religion as an absolute truth to understanding it in more relative terms.

The Pahlavi dynasty marked a profound period of transformation for Iran. However, this era was destined to be shorter than expected.

The late 1970s witnessed the brewing of a revolution in Iran

By the time the 1970s rolled around, Iran had experienced tremendous growth, primarily fueled by its thriving oil industry. However, beneath this prosperity, deeper issues were surfacing — rampant inequality and corruption were eating away at the fabric of society. Mohammad Reza Shah, son of Reza Shah and the then reigning Shah, was under the international microscope due to his regime's atrocious human rights record.

In response to this pressure, the regime began to loosen its previously iron-fisted control. Paradoxically, this move away from oppressive measures opened the floodgates for burgeoning political opposition.

Initial actions included the release of some political prisoners, and the Shah even met with Amnesty International to discuss prison condition improvements.

These subtle shifts galvanized activist groups such as the National Front and the Writer’s Association, allowing them to emerge from the shadows. Emboldened, they began advocating for a return to the 1906 constitution and the establishment of a constitutional monarchy.

The shifting political landscape was underscored when the Goethe-Institute hosted a series of ten poetry readings in Tehran, starting on October 10, 1977. In these gatherings, speeches criticizing the Shah's regime were interspersed between poetry readings, and one speaker even called for a minute of silence for writers silenced over the past half-century.

Despite the inherent risks, the audience swelled, drawing thousands of attendees, some even journeying from remote corners of the country. Ideas that were once considered radical had seeped into the mainstream discourse by the end of the 1970s.

On September 4, 1978, what began as open-air prayers to mark Eid-e Fetr — the celebration marking the end of Ramadan — transformed into an impromptu demonstration. By its end, between 200,000 and 500,000 protesters filled almost the entire length of Tehran, their shouts of support for the exiled religious leader Ayatollah Khomeini ringing through the air.

With the uprising gaining momentum, the political climate was akin to a tinderbox, awaiting just a spark to ignite widespread revolt.

The spark wasn't far off. Within a few days, soldiers unleashed automatic weapons on crowds at a subsequent demonstration, claiming around 80 lives. Instead of squashing the movement, this brutal act fueled the flames, leading to an exponential surge in demonstrations throughout the autumn.

While Iran had grown extraordinarily wealthy over the twentieth century, it was apparent that sweeping societal changes were necessary to address deep-seated grievances. Iranian society stood on the precipice of a profound transformation.

The Iranian revolution of 1979 overthrew the monarchy and established an Islamic Republic.

As 1979 dawned, Iran was once again teetering on the edge of a revolution. The preceding year had been marred by public protests against economic disparities, political suppression, and the Shah's autocratic rule.

A significant turning point came on February 1, 1979, with the return of Ruhollah Khomeini to Iranian soil, a clear signal that monumental changes were on the horizon.

Khomeini, a highly respected ayatollah or senior clergyman, had been exiled in 1964 due to his persistent criticism of the Shah's government. Despite his exile, Khomeini still had a substantial following within Iran and continued to opine on the country's political affairs from afar.

Khomeini's vision for Iran was an Islamic Republic, grounded in the principle of velayat-e-faqih. He laid out his political blueprint in his book, Hokumat-e Eslami, or “Islamic Government.” Essentially, his treatise propounded that the only rightful law was Islamic law, as interpreted by the Emams — the descendants of the Prophet Mohammad.

Taking his argument a step further, Khomeini declared the Iranian Constitution illegitimate because it sanctioned a monarchy — an institution he argued was fundamentally incompatible with Islam.

While these were radical assertions, the majority of Iranians in the 1970s were unfamiliar with the full extent of Hokumat-e Eslami's proposals. For most, Khomeini symbolized two primary ideas: the removal of the Shah and the establishment of an Islamic government. Additionally, Khomeini never explicitly detailed the structure of his proposed government.

Recognizing the changing political tides, the Shah fled Iran on January 16, before Khomeini's return.

Upon his arrival, Khomeini wasted no time. On February 5, mere days after his return, he held a press conference where he unveiled his chosen prime minister and announced plans for an Islamic state. This plan included a public referendum to gauge support for his ideas, followed by a constitutional assembly to draft a new constitution, and then elections to create a new Majles.

However, one hurdle remained: the existing government, helmed by the Shah's Prime Minister, Shapur Bakhtiar, was still in power. Violent clashes ensued between pro- and anti-government factions. Sensing the inevitable, the army declared its neutrality on February 11, leaving Bakhtiar with no choice but to retreat into hiding.

Today, this date is still celebrated as the anniversary of the ultimate victory of the Islamic revolution. However, the upheaval was far from over. The monarchy's fall marked a significant victory, but stability was yet to be restored.

The immediate aftermath of the revolution shaped Iran's trajectory for years to come.

While the Shah's downfall was relatively swift, the turmoil that followed would stretch on for years. The months immediately after the revolution would sculpt the very character of the new Islamic Republic.

Many Iranians rejoiced in the dramatic changes transforming their nation, but the scenario was far from idyllic — it was chaotic and marked with hardship.

Strikes that had paved the way for the revolution led to a severe scarcity of essential items, including food and cooking fuel. Shortages became a common reality. Meanwhile, bands of young men took to the streets, looking to settle scores with supporters of the old regime and occasionally targeting foreigners as well.

The once uniform government was replaced by a myriad of autonomous centers of power. Local revolutionary committees, in particular, functioned with little oversight. Thus, a prevailing sense of uncertainty, a multipolar political framework, and sporadic instances of extrajudicial violence characterized the nascent Islamic Republic — features that persist in the current era.

However, amidst the countrywide confusion, one thing was crystal clear: Khomeini and his allies had a strategic plan for their own ambitions.

Upon his return to Iran in 1979, Khomeini's true intentions were subject to speculation. Some believed he intended to seize power and establish a theocratic dictatorship.

Yet, Khomeini shrewdly refrained from unilateral decision-making. He engaged with his inner circle, courted support from a diverse array of groups, and even allowed secular politicians to assume significant roles within the government.

This tactful maneuvering helped avert the kind of sequential revolutions seen during the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the French Revolution of 1789, where the first wave of revolutionaries was subsequently overthrown by a second wave, leading to escalating chaos.

In contrast, thanks to his initial prudence, Khomeini managed to maintain his hold on religious, cultural, and social power — a grip that remained firm until his death in 1989.

The Islamic Republic wrestled with internal discord during the early 1980s.

In the wake of the revolution, Iran was grappling to regain its balance, while simultaneously confronting a host of other formidable challenges.

Sensing Iran's vulnerability, neighboring Iraq launched an invasion in 1980, setting off an eight-year-long war. Meanwhile, Iran's internal troubles were anything but subdued. By 1981, relations between Khomeini and the Islamic Republic's first president, Abolhassan Bani-Sadr, had deteriorated to the point of conflict. As a result, Bani-Sadr was ousted from office and forced into hiding.

However, even graver challenges lay ahead. Factional strife escalated and violence became a fact of life.

On June 28, 1981, a bomb went off at the headquarters of the Islamic Republican Party (IRP). Although it wasn't the ruling party at the time, the IRP echoed the sentiments of Khomeini's followers. The bomb, thought to be planted by the People's Mujahedin of Iran — an extremist political group mixing Marxist and Islamic ideology — caused the building's roof to cave in, leading to the deaths of more than 70 people.

In retaliation, the IRP launched a crackdown that witnessed widespread arrests, frequent executions, and a surge in armed street confrontations. According to Amnesty International, in the year following Bani-Sadr's removal from office, as many as 2,946 lives were claimed by executions, torture in detention, and street clashes.

Simultaneously, tensions arising from ideological contradictions inherent in the revolution were becoming increasingly evident, both within the IRP and between the left and the right factions more broadly.

The revolution was initially a confluence of varied political influences that came together over a set of shared issues. Both the left and the right harbored genuine aspirations to uplift living standards for the lower classes and improve education and health services.

However, Khomeini's conservative leanings, reflected in his restrictive rulings such as those curtailing the societal status of women, introduced discord into this unity.

This ideological conflict manifested in economic debates, particularly as the state began asserting greater control over various sectors due to the dual impact of the revolution and the Iran–Iraq War. The left faction supported this increasing state intervention, while the merchant-bazaari class largely viewed it with skepticism.

Thus, Iranian politics and society found themselves in a pressure cooker situation, on the brink of even more upheaval.

Iran's constitution underwent a crucial revision in 1989.

As Iran commemorated the tenth anniversary of the 1979 revolution in February 1989, its leader, Khomeini, was in poor health. Khomeini's rule had been formidable, and his impending demise was bound to open a new chapter for the Islamic Republic.

Khomeini had been wrestling with cancer and heart disease for a while, but his rapid health decline necessitated finding an immediate successor. Additionally, there were other pressing issues to address. For instance, Iran had a triumvirate of leaders sharing power: a supreme leader, a president, and a prime minister. This arrangement led to a politically congested scenario, with factionalism contributing further to the deadlock.

In anticipation of his death, Khomeini assembled a group to revise the constitution, aiming to resolve such conflicts.

Specifically, the existing constitution mandated that the supreme leader be a marja — a highly exclusive and revered class of clerics who serve as spiritual guides to the ulema and other Muslims.

However, Khomeini's chosen successor, Ali Khamenei, wasn't a marja, necessitating an amendment to the constitution.

On July 8, the assembly concluded its constitution review. The recommended changes were substantial.

Primarily, the constitutional revamp proposed the abolition of the office of the prime minister, transferring some presidential powers to the supreme leader, and diminishing the influence of the Majles, the Iranian parliament.

On July 28, these modifications were put to a referendum, even as a new president, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani — another of Khomeini's favorites — was elected.

Khomeini's decision to revise the constitution demonstrated his insightful foresight. He recognized that his unique combination of personal charisma and political prowess could not be replicated by any successor.

In his absence, the potential for factionalism to trigger civil unrest was a real threat. The purpose of the constitutional reforms, therefore, was to vest his preferred choices for the roles of the leader and president with robust legal authority to ensure the country's stability.

While Iran transitioned into a new governmental structure, beneath the surface, a wave of dissatisfaction was brewing among ordinary Iranians. The question remained — was the republic truly serving their interests?

A wave of new intellectual thought paved the way for political and social reform in the late 1990s.

Since the establishment of the Islamic Republic in 1979, discourse about political reform had been a recurring theme. However, it was only in the late 1990s that a specific ideology started gaining significant momentum.

A fresh religious movement was gaining traction. Its proponents presented reformist arguments, asserting that a better harmony between religion and politics could be achieved within the existing system.

Abdolkarim Sorush, an educator and author, propounded that religion ought to be evaluated in tandem with other forms of knowledge. In essence, Islamic law shouldn't exist in isolation but should be considered as a part of nature and science.

Simultaneously, he posited that religion and politics should be distinctly separated.

Specifically, he voiced concerns about religion becoming tainted by politics. This perspective resonated with a substantial number of ordinary Iranians who had grown disenchanted with the religious authorities, whose stronghold had been cemented by the revolution. To them, it seemed that the revolution had merely replaced a corrupt monarchy with an equally flawed sovereign.

In the face of malpractice, the issue of human rights emerged as a crucial concern.

For instance, intellectuals like the cleric-journalist Yusefi Eshkevari highlighted how the ulema misinterpreted the Quran to justify women's subjugation, when, in reality, the Quran endorsed no such oppressive interpretations. Rather, the ulema's biased interpretation served as a tool to reinforce existing conservative structures.

Notably, many advocates of the reformist movement faced persecution by the government. However, this only fueled activists' anger, gained publicity, and paradoxically facilitated the movement's expansion.

By 2003, reformist ideas had seeped into mainstream politics. Citizens thoroughly exasperated with the Iranian political system began to harbor aspirations of a progressive nation.

Nevertheless, their hopes were thwarted. Besieged by rampant government corruption, disheartened citizens either refrained from voting or actively boycotted elections. In 2003, voter turnout for the local council elections in Tehran plummeted to an all-time low of a mere 12 percent. Conservatives seized the opportunity and appointed Mahmud Ahmadinejad as the city's mayor.

When reformists repeated their tactics in the 2005 presidential election, all it did was expedite Ahmadinejad's meteoric rise. Consequently, Iran was now governed by an uninformed, combative hard-line nationalist.

The outcome of the 2009 Iranian presidential elections was met with disbelief and suspicion.

The election of Ahmadinejad as president in 2005 gradually became a cause for regret among many Iranians.

As a result, anticipation and public support grew around the opposition candidate, Mir Hosein Musavi, in the run-up to the 2009 presidential elections. Yet, in an unexpected turn of events, the incumbent Ahmadinejad secured his re-election on June 12, 2009, with a considerable margin.

This result left many astounded, and suspicions of foul play began to circulate. Upon examining the election results, these doubts seemed well-founded. No matter where the voting districts were located — whether urban or rural — the distribution of votes among candidates was alarmingly uniform. The absence of any local variation was peculiar.

An unprecedented wave of street protests erupted across the country. Three days post-election, an estimated million or more demonstrators poured onto the streets, demanding Ahmadinejad's expulsion. The sheer size and diversity of the protestors underscored the scale of discontent.

Adding to this was the tension-laden atmosphere resulting from the brutal assault and detention of women advocating equal rights in March 2009.

These protests marked the emergence of the Green Movement, named after the green theme of Musavi's campaign.

As expected, the regime responded to the protests with disdain rather than empathy. A crackdown on protests ensued, and when demonstrations persisted into the autumn, the regime retaliated harshly. Eventually, horrifying reports of deaths and torture in police custody emerged.

In a preemptive move on February 11, 2010, in anticipation of a massive protest marking the anniversary of the 1979 revolution, the government cordoned off areas earmarked for official celebrations, permitting only its supporters to enter.

The regime employed similar tactics successfully in February 2011, but this time they escalated their response. Feeling sufficiently threatened, they placed Musavi and another opposition candidate under house arrest, where they continue to remain.

At the time this was documented, the regime and its leader were still holding onto power. However, their legitimacy had been significantly tarnished. Post-2009, a substantial number of reformists, politicians, and journalists chose self-imposed exile over living in a state teetering on the brink of totalitarianism.

Today, Iran remains a compelling state, precariously straddling Islamic principles and democratic republican ideals. Though conflict has been incessant since the revolution, the pursuit of a balanced path persists.

Wrapping it all up

The primary takeaway from this enlightening narrative:

To truly grasp Iran's complexity, one must appreciate the significant role of religion in its historical narrative. However, it's not an isolated factor. The seismic shifts and transformations leading up to and following the establishment of the Islamic Republic also stemmed from a profound tension. This tension centers around the concept of governance and how a nation should be ruled. This issue has continually resurfaced throughout Iran's history and continues to be a contentious point within the Islamic Republic even today.