![iran-revolution-1978[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/wzrgjxu.jpg "iran-revolution-1978[1].jpg")
Tell me about the Iranian revolution and Iraq-Iran war era. All my exposure to it has been off film and I'm fairly ignorant, however as far as I've heard movies like Persepolis have a bunch of inaccuracies and it would be obvious that the West would have an anti-Iran bias. Would you say things went for the better or for the worse? Was the Iranian revolution really that popular, and the installment of the Ayatollah something the majority of Iranians wanted?
some ways better, some ways worse
Under the shah, despite the heavy investment from the west and the industrialization, many Iranians remained poor. Following the revolution, despite the fact that political and personal liberties freedoms were just as much if not more severely restricted as before, iran has surprisingly been able to build up its industries and economy to be on par or even better than what the shah was. more people are educated now then under the Shah and despite western embargoes, Iran doesn't really seem to slow down, unlike cuba or north korea.
While not all Iranians at the time of the revolution wanted an Islamic republic, most wanted the shah out. the revolution included marxist and pro democratic forces, but when it was clear that the islamists were the most powerful, their rivals either folded or were purged. Also the invasion by iraq served as an experience to bind the new the government and its people together against a foreign invader, whether they were had supported khomeini earlier or not
If the Shah had stayed in power, he would have died within the next decade or two and his son would probably liberalize the regime under international pressure, and through various spats of corruption and progress would probably be in a similar economic state to today. But the iran of today is what the revolution set out to achieve: a prosperous Islamically ruled nation with the power to project itself in order to fulfill its aims of supporting Shi'a islam as we have seen with its support for Syria or Hezbollah.
>>1042397
Good reply
>>1041695
>Iranian
>Islamic
>Revolution
>>1043549
>holy
>Persian
>empire
/pol/ loves to jerk off to the shah rule when in reality the islamic republic were better in any way
>>1041695
Happened what happens every time a Muslim country gets into democracy:
>people, mainly in the cities, is pissed of with the backwards and corrupt regime
>the regime is changed for a democracy, everybody gets to vote
>people in rural areas vote massively for the most Islamic thing they can
>Islamist win, impose an Islamic regime that ends with the democracy that the revolutionaries of the cities gave to everyone
>>1044220
Yes
>>1046072
you obviously know shit about Iran so let me break this down for you
> qajars are corrupt and ineffective as shit, constitutional revolution happens
>government still sucks so Reza Shah, an uneducated Army officer launches a coup, he eventually has himself proclaimed monarch, rules forcefully but advances the county quite a bit
>Institutes many modernization reforms to assert Iran's independence from its pseudo colonization, the veil is banned, the ulema clergy's power is severely curtailed
>forced out by USSR and UK because he wouldn't let them ship lend lease through his territory and he was suspected to have pro-axis leanings and with the Rashid Ali revolt in Iraq, they weren't taking any chances.
>His son, Mohammad Reza Shah succeeds him after the allied occupation ends. The democratcally elected prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh and him have different ideas on where the country should go and he forces the shah out of the country.
> USA and UK launch operation Ajax to restore the shah to throne, fearing that he will jeopardize their business interest or possibly align the country with the USSR. (We still don't really know if he would have, he wasn't like allende in chile)
>Once back on the throne, the Shah continues to push forward modernization with heavy investment from america. Launches the white revolution program. Promises land redistribution, education reform and gives women the right to vote among other things. He also sets up the SAVAK secret police to silence any opposition to his regime no matter who they are, they were notoriously brutal. Much of the new wealth in Iran did not got o the Iranian people despite the reforms since many of the jobs went to foreign expats and the shah saved vast amounts of money for himself and created a huge military. He also brought a more commercial view of westernization, as seen in the billboards of advertisements and continued forced ban of the veil.
>>1046329
>>1046072
> Discontent grows as many workers and peasants feel that they don't have opportunities and their old culture is being overtaken by something they can't participate in. Islamic scholars are angered by their loss of power and the combination of secular westernization and a corrupt ruler. Marxists continue to push for their reforms and democracy supporters push for transparency. This was a mix of high and low class individuals who educated and uneducated, rural and urban. All are angered by his repression by the secret police.
>the revolution happens, by weight of numbers and with the strongest rhetoric, the Islamists succeed over all of their opponents.
>>1046072
Except for the little fact that Iranians by themselves tried to institute a parliamentary democracy three times and each time they were invaded or coup d'etated by the Western powers, who installed progressively more authoritarian rulers. This happened in 1906 when Iran was the first central Asian country to get a constitution. Then Reza Shah wanted to form a republic, but was "persuaded" otherwise by the British. Then in 1953 with Mossadegh.
So in the end the Iranian people got sick of it and tried doing things in a different way.
>>1041695
>Was the Iranian revolution really that popular, and the installment of the Ayatollah something the majority of Iranians wanted?
The Muharram marches had 6-9 million people protesting the shah. That's like 10% of the population at the time. The French and Bolshevik revolution had hardly more than 1% participating. Although that obviously includes both the secular and islamist opposition, as well as some other branches like the islamic socialists that were pretty popular at that time.
Then, the Islamic Republic was voted in by a referendum and had its constitution approved in the same way. Both received more than 90% in favour, even if some groups like the communists boycotted the referenda.
>Would you say things went for the better or for the worse?
Obviously a lot of people were killed, and some draconic moral laws were instituted. On the other hand, the HDI growth between 1979 and now was comparable to Turkey's, despite the fact that Turkey didn't have to fight a 10-year long total war, with Saddam dropping scuds on their capital for months on end.
As for other developments, see pic related. It's quite eye-opening and contrary to what one might imagine.
>>1046460
this guy
Suprisingly good answers. I applaud you gentleman.
>>1046460
t. Gholamreza Alizadeh
