Pre-revolution

In the mid 1970's you could not be on a major American university or college campus without being exposed to the ISA: the Iranian Students Association.  And so it was that in the fall of 1976 I was first exposed to the ISA.  The Iranian Ambassador to the United States, Ardeshir Zahedi, was scheduled to speak on the campus of my school which was actually a small school and we had no Iranian students in attendance at that time.  Out of nowhere, early in the day he was to speak, young Iranian students from many places both near and far descended by bus and private car on my campus to protest his appearance.

It was well known back in those days that the regime in Iran was a puppet government of the United States that used brutal tactics to maintain power.  Like other Middle Eastern dictators, the Shah of Iran was a "strong man" whose dictatorship depended upon intimidation and repression.  The Shah's secret police, the SAVAK, was notorious for torturing people, for all sorts of thuggery not unlike one would expect of the Gestapo or the KGB.  Zahedi was, from the moment the US installed the Shah in the early 1950's, one of the top men inside the regime and was very close to the Shah himself.  The Shah, despite being universally recognized as a despot, was generally given credit in the American media for "westernizing" Iran and for holding the line against the USSR and creeping Bolshevism in Iran.  Iran was known as a prosperous, oil rich nation that was an important "strategic ally" of the United States and the west generally. 

The students of the ISA were intense, highly articulate, motivated, interesting, committed to democracy and throwing off the yoke of repression and tyranny the CIA had imposed upon them for the previous twenty years or so.  They made their case in compelling fashion and they were relentless in their organizing efforts and in demonstrating their implacable opposition to the Shah continuing on "The Peacock Throne".  They wanted a democratic government, responsive to the people of Iran and one that would serve the people of Iran instead of an oligarchy.  There was never any "anti-Americanism" coming from the students of the ISA though they did not hide their displeasure over American backing for the Shah or for the US providing all sorts of training for SAVAK in torture and other techniques of "persuasion" and repression generally. 

On the day of Zahedi's speech they chanted literally for hours: "Zahedi! Zahedi! Run!  Run!  Run!  The people of Iran are picking up their guns!"  That chant is forever burned in my memory.  It seemed at the time admirable that the Iranian students would be courageous enough to demonstrate against their government as they were doing, knowing what it was capable of.  It also seemed, at the time, highly unlikely the Shah would ever be going anywhere.  The Shah was facing increased opposition, but with America solidly behind him it was difficult to envision any popular uprising that would be able to withstand the military and police might the Shah could bring to bear on any such movement.  It appeared to most Americans that though he was despised by his people, the Shah was simply too well armed to be dislodged from power. 

But, as it turned out, the revolt against the Shah's tyranny was much deeper and gaining much more power than the American media was reporting.  Thus, few Americans understood the precarious hold on power the Shah had at the time.  Enormous pressure was building in Iran via a broad coalition of all those factions who opposed the Shah.  It was only near the end, when it was becoming clear the Shah's hold on power was not guaranteed that the US media started to cover what was, in fact, going on there.  The images broadcast at the time of vast throngs in the streets of Tehran in front of the freedom memorial were extraordinary and the whole world could see just how unpopular the Shah was with his own people.  His legitimacy was destroyed by those demonstrations.  Regardless of the form of government, all government depends upon the consent of the governed for legitimacy and cannot long last without it.  The government of the Shah was no exception and it was not long before he had to accept that reality. 

Fast Forward 30 Years 

In the past week, it appears the same sort of popular rejection of a new tyranny has been taking place.  This is the first time since 1979 that I remember seeing massive crowds demonstrating against an Iranian government. Even more significantly, we see those vast crowds around that very same memorial where the Iranian people so famously threw off the yoke of the Shah's tyranny in 1979.  Those images are what have made me really sit up and take notice of what is taking place right now in Iran since last week's election.

The protests that have been taking place seem to be being misrepresented (or perhaps more accurately misinterpreted) in the American media to a certain degree.  Our politicians and media apparently want to hope that these protests mean that Iranians reject the revolution of 1979.  I cannot imagine that to be the case because that would mean they are rejecting the decision of the people to get rid of the monarchy, it's repressive ways and American exploitation of Iran.  Despite what I believe to be this misunderstanding, a few voices have been expressing the viewpoint that the demonstrators are looking to restore the revolutionary potential of 1979 which they believe has gone awry for some time.  The former revolutionaries of 1979 who seized power---the mullahs and their fundamentalist supporters have become despots themselves in many ways that the people of Iran have grown weary of.  I could, of course, be wrong, but it seems to me that this revolution is more a social one than a strictly political one.  The Puritanism and intrusive requirements for compliance with many (particularly young people) with an out of date/out of step set of social norms and standards of a new generation are the spark that has ignited these protests.

It appears to me that all the Iranian protesters are demanding is what they see to be their basic rights.  They believe in the meaning of their revolution which was the throwing off of western (specifically American) domination and exploitation of their country.  They also believe, it seems to me, in their democratic rights.  Though the fundamentalist religious faction quickly seized power in Iran and has dominated the government since the fall of the Shah, they were not the only faction that brought him down.  They have maintained their dominant position to some extent by suppressing the other factions that helped bring down the Shah.   

A National Hero 

The great hero of the Iranian people since the early fifties has been Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh.  The fundamentalist religious faction that has consolidated its power over the past 30 years fears most, what the Shah himself feared most too and that is the assertion of a genuine democratic form of government along the lines of the vision of Mossadegh.  Soon after seizing power, the mullahs forbade all but the most fleeting and rare references to Mossadegh who is really the father of Iranian democracy and independence from the colonial and western imperial powers.  His vision was of a democratic Iran that protected its culture including its religion but was not ruled solely by Islam.  His was a secular democratic vision.  I believe that is what a vast number of Iranian revolutionaries had in mind back in 1979 despite the fact that Ayatollah Khomeini was the leader around which the revolution coalesced.  Certainly the young men and women I met who were members of the ISA were looking for a secular democracy.  One hears references to the coup in 1953 and to the man who was forcibly removed from power in it, but rarely is there any information about this great man in the American media.  He is an important figure in the history of the world during the past 50 years and worth learning about.  If interested, you can find out more about Dr. Mossadegh at this site:  http://www.mohammadmossadegh.com/biography/

I have often thought that what happened in Iran after the revolution was not, in one respect, unlike what happened in England in the 17th Century after the civil war there.  The parliamentary faction, in large part energized by the fiery protestant puritans and other religious "dissenters" defeated the King and eventually had him beheaded.  The protectorate formed in the wake of the elimination of the monarchy was dominated by the Puritans who, for a brief number of years, forced their dreary, gloomy, overly earnest form of Christianity, its morals and mores on the entire population to the extent that it could.  But their zealous Puritanism was not shared by the vast majority of their fellow Brits who chafed at the dour and colorless lifestyle of the puritans who held power.  When the monarchy was restored, the general population was overjoyed to welcome back the monarchy and break free of the priggish puritan rules and regulations on personal behavior, etc... as much as anything else.  The English did not want to have their personal behavior and lives regulated to the degree that the dead earnest puritans demanded.  So too in Iran we see a people whose revolution was dominated by overzealous puritans, in this case Islamic, who had played a critical role in the great revolution of 1979.   

Likewise, the fundamentalist domination of the Islamic Republic has been too overbearing for too long and a large swath of the people chafe against this.  The repressive demands have gone too far and so much so that the people are, to a certain extent, now resisting all that excess by proxy in demanding that their votes have real weight and meaning.   

The Iron Law of Oligarchy 

There is a concept in political science known as "The Iron Law of Oligarchy".  This concept is very simple to understand and refers to the phenomenon that all revolutionaries eventually become like the oligarchs they have displaced.  It seems the Iron Law is demonstrating itself in Iran where the fundamentalists have evolved into an oligarchy that uses means and methods not at all unlike those the Shah's regime used to keep people in line, in fear, and unable to challenge their authority.  As they have become an oligarchy on their own they have become increasingly alienated from a large portion of the society they govern. 

The belief of so many Iranians that the regime has manipulated and/or fixed the election results is the opening for giving voice to a plethora of complaints and grievances the people have with those who hold real power in the regime. The people demand that their fundamental democratic right to choose their leaders be respected by the regime and the real powers that be in Iran have obviously not done that.   

Unlike the American population in 2000, the Iranian people are unwilling to give the regime the benefit of the doubt on the stolen election and they are literally demonstrating that this is intolerable and unacceptable to them.  Good for them!  I don't believe, however, that they are rejecting the revolution of 1979, Islam, or much of what the fundamentalist rulers have done and I think it would be a mistake to believe that is what they are doing.  It appears that what they want is to see changes/reforms, they want more freedom, they want a modern vision for their nation, they want less rigidity overall with respect to the personal lives of individuals and families.  Iranians, I would think, want to be treated more like citizens and less like subjects.  At least that is what I see and interpret this all to mean given my limited exposure to Iranian citizens and what I've learned by reading and studying what has been going on there over the past 30 years. 

The Right of Self Determination 

Americans often forget that sovereign nations and peoples abroad have their own viewpoints, their own preferences, tolerances, desires, and ways of doing things that aren't necessarily in common with ours.  But there is nothing wrong with people having their own views and preferences.  Those differences in and of themselves do not demonstrate hostility toward the US.  What is going on in Iran now is the business of the Iranian people alone and they have every right to determine their own destiny free from any foreign influence especially American influence.  This burst of protest in Iran while limited in the strictest sense to the dispute over the election will, it seems to me, inevitably take on greater meaning and scope if it hasn't already whether it is intentional or not.  What the US needs to do is stay out of it.  We need to make sure we don't attempt to project what our desires are upon those of the people of Iran.  We should let them tell us and the world what their desires and intentions are.  In short, we have no role in this.  We are and can only be observers and rightfully so. 

No one can know where current developments will lead Iran and its people.  My own personal hope for Iran is that these protests might eventually push Iran down the path it should have been allowed to freely pursue, and that which it freely chose over half a century ago, and that is the path of Dr. Mossadegh.  If they finally find that path again, Iran will flourish and be able to become the nation it would have become had we not toppled their democracy in 1953: a free, prosperous, democratic, and progressive nation.   

For the past 30 years I have bitterly regretted how horrendously all our Presidents have misplayed our relationship with Iran.  I continue to believe the foolish, overblown hostility toward Iran we still refuse to fully relinquish has been the primary reason the Islamic Republic's rulers have been hostile to America.  President Obama's recent acknowledgement of the CIA coup of 53 was a good start at repairing our relationship with Iran but only a start.  Having said that, even Obama has continued the saber rattling toward Iran though to an obviously lesser degree.   

Our inexcusable imperial ambitions in Iran and our seemingly endless adolescent reaction to their revolution and their determination to govern their own nation in the manner of their own choosing have always been the root of our problems with that country.  Our governments have sabotaged numerous attempts at reconciliation over the years that have only caused the reactionaries in Iran to grow in power.  Perhaps with a little luck, America will begin to adopt a posture toward Iran based on respect for their sovereignty and right to self determination.  When that happens, our relationship with Iran can become not merely just no longer hostile, but we will someday become friends with that nation as we should be.  Demonizing and threatening Iran is a failed strategy.  Our ongoing hostility toward Iran only makes the situation worse.  We will never have any influence (except in the most negative manner) in Iran unless we build a relationship based on mutual respect instead of subservience for Iran.  By cultivating such a relationship we will simultaneously be able to eventually eliminate the potential threat of Iranian attack to Israel and, I would think, substantially diminish the level of armed violence and terrorism against Israel in Lebanon and in the occupied territories. 

As the people of Iran courageously demonstrate their anger at having their democratic rights ignored, I wish them the best of luck and hope fervently this represents a turning point for them that will lead to a return to the vision of a modern, democratic Iran by and for Iranians and one where their government is and remains independent from foreign influence so the people and society of this ancient and accomplished culture can reach its full potential at home and on the world stage.  The entire world is watching, waiting and hoping this will be a positive moment for Iran and her people.

I probably let the length of this post get out of hand.  Sorry for that, but hope some find it worth reading despite the length.

One final note... There are many excellent books about Iran, etc...  One that I highly recommend to anyone interested in Iran is a book called "All the Shah's Men" by Stephen Kinzer.  Kinzer is, I believe,  a retired NYT reporter.  The book looks back at the origins of American involvement in Iran back in the 50's.  It provides a good context for what has occurred in Iran since, how America so foolishly erred in installing the Shah and the roots of Iranian hostility toward and fear of America.  It's not a long book, is a quick read and is well worth one's time.  I read it in a couple of days on the beach.

MINOR UPDATE: Tonight, for the first time, in pictures of today's demonstrations in Tehran I saw pictures of Dr. Mossadegh being held aloft by the protesters.  The more the image of Mossadegh is seen, the greater the threat to the current powers that be.  I am encouraged by this and hope that we see more and more pictures of Mossadegh as the protests continue.