Transcription
Hello, I'm John Green and this is Crash Course World History, and today we're going to talk about Iran. Mr. Green, I know that country. It's in the Middle East, it's with Egypt. Okay, me from the past, we're going to talk about Iran. I was you in the past, so I remember that when you were looking at this part of the world, your attitude was: "Yes, this is a region of the world." And in your case, that "region" extended from Western China, I believe, to... Poland. Then you would make some generalizations about that region and you would undoubtedly use the terms "Arab" and "Muslim" to mean the same thing. But as usual, me from the past, the truth is not simple. So today we will talk about Iran and Iran only. Specifically, the Iranian Revolution of 1979. The Iranian Revolution of 1979 and its aftermath are usually considered by critics to be the first step in establishing an isolated and extremist state that supports terrorism, and you may be surprised to hear me say that there is some truth to this interpretation. Nevertheless, your way of thinking about the Iranian Revolution depends heavily on which part of it you are looking at. Regardless, it is very important because it represents another type of revolution from the revolutions we usually talk about. The uprisings of 1979 were aimed at getting rid of the Pahlavi dynasty, and this sounds impressive, but this dynasty had only two kings, Reza Shah and Mohammad Reza Shah. Before the Pahlavis, the Qajar dynasty ruled Iran, and before them, the Safavids ruled it. The Safavids and Qajars were responsible for two of the most important aspects of Iran: the Safavids made Shi'a Islam the official state religion starting with Ismail I in 1501, and the Qajars gave Islamic clerics, called ulema, political power. Most Muslims in the world follow the Sunni sect, but Shi'a are an important sect that began very early, around 680 AD, and they constitute the majority of Muslims in Iran and Iraq in our time. There are additional branches and many sects within Sunni and Shi'a, but we will only talk about the historical difference between them. Shi'a Muslims believe that Ali should have been the first Caliph, while Sunni Muslims believe that Abu Bakr, who was the first Caliph, was rightfully chosen. Since that disagreement, there have been many disagreements and other sectarian differences, but the most important thing is that, from the beginning, Shi'a Muslims have seen themselves as the party of the oppressed, standing against the rich and powerful, and recalling the standard of social justice set by the Prophet. This connection between religious faith and social justice was very important to the Iranian Revolution of 1979, and to earlier revolutions in Iran as well. Understanding this is very necessary because many historians argue that the Iranian Revolution represents what journalist Christian Caryl called "a strange fusion of Islam with the revolutionary politics of the late 20th century." But in reality, in the context of Iranian history, it is not very strange. Because the revolution of 1979 was not Iran's first revolution. The first major revolution was in 1906, and it forced the Qajar rulers to accept a constitution. It created a parliament and some restrictions on the king, allegedly, and made Shi'a Islam the official state religion, but it also protected the rights of minorities in Iran. It ultimately failed, partly because the clerics withdrew their support, partly because the Shah worked diligently against it, and perhaps most importantly, because the Russians and the British worked to keep Persia weak so they could continue to try to dominate the region. This reminds me to tell you that most people in Iran are not Arabs, but Persians. And most people in Iran do not speak Arabic, but Persian, or as we usually call it in English, Persian. After World War I, European rivalries intensified due to the discovery of oil in the Middle East. The British founded the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, which later became BP. They also extracted several concessions from the Iranian government in addition to extracting a large amount of oil. They helped engineer a change in the ruling dynasty by supporting military leader Reza Khan in his coup in February 1921. Reza Khan became Reza Shah, and then he tried to transform Persia, which he renamed Iran in 1935, into a modern, secular, Western-style state, somewhat like Turkey under Atatürk. But what Reza Shah is most famous for is his excessive dictatorial repression, and this turned the clerics against him. During World War II, Reza Shah abdicated, and his young son Mohammad Reza Shah became the leader of Iran. He remained so for the most part until 1979, when he undoubtedly stopped being the leader of Iran. After World War II, the British allowed for greater popular participation in the Iranian government. The main party that benefited from this opening was Tudeh, the Iranian Communist Party. Mohammad Mosaddegh was elected Prime Minister in 1951 and led parliament to nationalize Iran's oil industry, and here was the end of the democratic experiment. Most history books say that in 1953, the British and the CIA planned a coup to remove Mosaddegh from the presidency. This may be entirely true, it is undoubtedly true that we tried to plan a coup. It is also true that Mosaddegh resigned and fled Iran after demonstrations against him occurred. But we also know that Shi'a clerics encouraged those demonstrations. This is a somewhat strange decision for clerics, given that Shi'a Islam traditionally takes an extremist stance against oppression. But it is important to remember that Mosaddegh was supported by the Tudeh Party, and they were communists. The nationalization of the oil industry was one thing, but a move towards communism could mean the seizure of lands that supported the clerics, and perhaps a rejection of religion altogether. We have now seen two instances where the support of Shi'a clerics helped facilitate change, in 1906 and again in 1953. Let's move on to 1979. The Shah was certainly a tyrant, and he employed a ruthless secret police called SAVAK to suppress dissent. In 1975, the Shah abolished Iran's two political parties and replaced them with one party, the Ba'ath Party. And you'll never guess who was being resurrected, it was the Shah. There was a great deal of censorship, arrests, and torture of political prisoners, which indicated that authoritarianism was in Iran to stay. But before these events in 1975, roughly between 1962 and 1975, Iran saw huge improvements by most economic and social measures. In 1963, the Shah tried to establish what he called the White Revolution, a top-down modernization led by the monarchy, and it was successful in several ways. Especially in improving industry and education. Oil revenues rose from $555 million in 1964 to $20 billion in 1976. The Shah's government invested much of that money in infrastructure and education. The population increased, infant mortality decreased, and a new professional middle class emerged. But the White Revolution was not popular nationwide. For example, a certain Shi'a cleric, Ruhollah Khomeini, opposed it. Khomeini spoke against the White Revolution from Iran's religious center, Qom. One of his main complaints was that the reforms would grant more rights to women, including the right to vote, but he also attacked the government for "election rigging and other constitutional violations, neglecting the poor, and selling oil to Israel." In general, Khomeini felt that the king's power was inherently un-Islamic, and that the Shi'a tradition was to resist that power. With this observation about Khomeini, the 1979 revolution did not begin to establish an Islamic state. It was initially a very typical uprising by disgruntled Iranians to overthrow a government they felt was corrupt and unresponsive to their needs. Despite the oil-fueled economic growth, or perhaps because of it, many Iranians were not enjoying economic success. Universities were graduating more students than there were jobs, and the expected result of agricultural mechanization was the displacement of farmers who moved to the cities. Especially the capital, Tehran, where there were not enough jobs for the population. So I think it is unfair to say that the majority of the protesters who took to the streets in late 1978 were driven by an extremist vision of Islam. They were disgruntled by economic inequality, political repression, and a corrupt ruling system. Why, then, do we generally remember that the driving force behind the 1979 revolution was Shi'a Islam? Let's move on to the imagination bubble. The initial demonstrations began after an Iranian newspaper on January 7, 1978, published an article criticizing Khomeini. By the way, he was living in Paris at the time. These initial demonstrations were very small, but when government police and army forces began shooting at protesters and killing some of them, the demonstrations grew. Every time protesters protested the violent treatment of protesters, the government took harsh measures, and their violent reaction motivated more protesters. There was a lot of criticism directed at the West associated with the revolution. According to a woman who participated in the demonstrations: "American lifestyles became imposed as ideal, as the ultimate goal. American life was the model, American popular culture, books, magazines, and films swept over our country like a flood... We found ourselves asking: 'Is there room for our culture?'" The Shah never understood why so many people were protesting against him. He thought they were communists, or that they were supported by the British. He also thought that bringing prosperity alone would be enough to keep him in power, but it was not enough. On January 16, 1979, he left Iran. He ended up in the United States, and this had unfortunate consequences for diplomatic relations between the United States and Iran. But the point here is that the first part of the revolution was a relatively peaceful demonstration, followed by government crackdown and more demonstrations, which eventually led to the collapse of the monarchy. This seems somewhat familiar, especially if you have studied the French, Russian, or even American revolutions. Most historians argue that these demonstrations were not about Islam, but rather "resentment of living conditions, wage cuts, and the threat of unemployment combined with general disappointment with the regime and anger towards it." The government that eventually replaced the monarchy was from the second revolution, and in many ways, it was a much more revolutionary revolution. Thank you, imagination bubble. The new Islamic Republic of Iran was built on Khomeini's idea of what an Islamic government should be, a principle he called Velayat-e Faqih. Essentially, it stipulated that a scholar of Sharia would hold supreme authority, as he was more knowledgeable than anyone in law and justice. There would be a legislative authority, a president, and a prime minister, but any of their decisions could be overturned by the supreme leader, who was Khomeini from 1979 until his death. If democracy is about holding elections, then the new Iran was a democracy. I mean, Iran has elections for president and parliament. And for your information, despite what Khomeini thought in the 1960s, women can vote in Iran, and they do. They also serve in parliament and the cabinet. And in the referendum on the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the vast majority of Iranians voted freely and openly "yes." Governance in Iran is very complex, more complex than a single Crash Course video can cover, but in at least one sense, Iran is certainly not a democracy. The supreme authority enshrined in the constitution is not the will of the people, but the will of God, represented by the supreme religious leader. And the actions of the Islamic Republic, especially in the chaotic early days of 1979, but on several occasions since then, are not in line with most ideas of effective democracy. For example, one of the first things Khomeini did to strengthen his support was to establish the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Hezbollah to defend the revolution against coup attempts. Although there were opposition parties at first, their actions were restricted by the new "revolutionary courts" which applied Sharia very harshly. It is estimated that by October 1979, several hundred people had been executed. Under the new constitution, Khomeini was granted comprehensive power. He could appoint the heads of the armed forces, the Revolutionary Guard, national television, and radio stations. He also approved candidates for presidential elections and appointed six of the twelve members of the Guardian Council, who approved legislation coming from parliament before it became law. Structurally, Iran's government looked somewhat like other governments, but as Michael Axworthy points out, it was different because: "the jurist stood above everyone else, and held the power and responsibility to intervene directly in the name of Islam;" which is in fact a greater power than is granted to most monarchs in constitutional monarchies. By 1979, Iran had a long history of clerical involvement in protest and effective change, but it also had a long history of demanding constitutions and freedom. The current final outcome is the Islamic Republic of Iran, but it is worth remembering that both of these threads of history are still part of Iranian life. We saw this in 2009 and 2010 with the so-called Green Revolution, where there were massive protests after an Iranian election cycle. These protests included young people demanding more rights and freedoms. But they were also led and encouraged by reformist Shi'a clerics. In the United States, we often remember the Iranian Revolution of 1979 for the burning of American flags and the taking of hostages at the American embassy. This belonged more to the second phase of the revolution, the chaotic period when the Islamic Republic was being born. Life in the Islamic Republic of Iran remains largely oppressive. For example, Iran still executes a very high percentage of criminals. But it is inaccurate to say that Iran is just a dictatorship or just oppressive. One of the challenges for people in the West trying to understand Iran is that we must separate the different aspects of the revolution rather than simply relying on the images that have been presented to us. I hope this episode has helped you a little, and you can find other resources in the links below. Thanks for watching. Crash Course is filmed here in the Chad and Stacy Emigholz studio in Indianapolis, and is made possible by the hard work of all these people. Thanks for watching, and as we say in my hometown: "Don't forget to be awesome."