Was Iran better off under the Shah?

[ronki23]

Was Iran better under the Shah or under the Ayatollahs we see? Because under the Shah the state was policed and there were imprisonments, tortures and executions, and crushing of dissidence. However, I see many expatriate Iranians miss the Shah and many of them are not even Muslim; was the emigration because the Ayatollah took over or were they abroad to begin with. The only bad thing I hear about Khomeini was that he ordered the execution of a radical left wing group that was against both the West AND the Ayatollah

 

[Augustus]

Would have been better off under Mossaddegh.

Britain and the US helped install the Shah, and the Shah made it possible for the Ayatollahs.

Just as well they learnt the lesson from such foreign policy failures and haven't repeated them since....

You might be interested in the film Persepolis about a girl growing up in the revolutionary period. It's excellent.

 

[LuisDantas]

The only bad thing I hear about Khomeini was that he ordered the execution of a radical left wing group that was against both the West AND the Ayatollah

I can see you were not there during the 1980s.

 

[George-ananda]

Was Iran better off under the Shah?

Probably, Yes. His regime certainly had a bad side but maybe we are learning you have to have a bad side too to survive in that part of the world. If he had stayed Iran might be culturally a century or so further than they are now in religious freedom, freedom of expression, women rights, intellectual freedom, etc..

 

[bobhikes]

Just finished Persepolis about a Girl growing up through the Shaw's reign and fall and the religious take over. My opinion neither was better, certain people benefit under each reign but most suffer.

 

[ronki23]

I can see you were not there during the 1980s.

Elaborate?

 

[ronki23]

Would have been better off under Mossaddegh.

Britain and the US helped install the Shah, and the Shah made it possible for the Ayatollahs.

Just as well they learnt the lesson from such foreign policy failures and haven't repeated them since....

You might be interested in the film Persepolis about a girl growing up in the revolutionary period. It's excellent.

Wasn't the Pahlavi dynasty historically in power? I thought Mossaddegh was kicked out because he nationalised oil owned by the West without paying them for it

And it seems expats hate the Ayatollah and miss the Shah but were these expats who fled from the Ayatollah or were they already abroad for unrelated reasons?

 

[columbus]

Elaborate?

When westerners like the USA decided to punish Iran for having their own government we sicced our buddy Saddam Hussein on them. The death toll was gigantic, probably a million plus.
That was in the 80s.
Tom

 

[ronki23]

When westerners like the USA decided to punish Iran for having their own government we sicced our buddy Saddam Hussein on them. The death toll was gigantic, probably a million plus.
That was in the 80s.
Tom

But the question was whether the Shah was better than the Ayatollah or not because expats hate the Islamic Republic whereas those in Iran think it's better. Regarding Saddam, he shouldn't have invaded Kuwait or gassed the Kurds (methinks the latter may have been ignored had it not been for the former)

 

[metis]

The question in the OP is a lot like asking would you rather be executed by having your head chopped off or being burned at the stake?




Answer: a hot stake is always better than a cold chop.

 

[columbus]

But the question was whether the Shah was better than the Ayatollah

No it wasn't. LuisDantas' question was about your familiarity and understanding of the 80s.
Your response was what I was responding to.

The USA has been attacking Iran for decades. We overthrew their democracy. We supported a hellish war against them. We launched a punitive war of sanctions when they tried to defend themselves against US attacks.
The premise of the OP is painfully ignorant to people who know a bit of recent history.
Tom

 

[LuisDantas]

Elaborate?

Khomeini might as well be called bogeyman back in the day. He was not popular in the West, to say the very least.

As I recall it, the first worry signs came from the extreme conturbation of the movement he led in the late 1970s and that took power in Iran. The same one who kept about hostages in the American Embassy for well over a year.

Then there was the war with Iraq, famous for the "martyrdom" of tied Iranian children sent to find land mines. And it went downhill from there, to the point that Saddam Hussein was seen with some sympathy for being at war with Iran.

Even in those early days it was plain to see that post-Shah Iran was under the rule of a draconian, strictly theocratic regimen. One that raised Khomeini to such exalted levels of authority that even Brazilian authorities were instructed at one point not to depict his visage, in apparent imitation of a similar demand made by Muslims regarding Muhammad.

If Khomeini had qualities that went anywhere beyond being a voice against the Shah's oppressive regimen, those were never at all apparent. He was a theocrat, plain and simple.

 

[Shia Islam]

Was Iran better under the Shah or under the Ayatollahs we see? Because under the Shah the state was policed and there were imprisonments, tortures and executions, and crushing of dissidence. However, I see many expatriate Iranians miss the Shah and many of them are not even Muslim; was the emigration because the Ayatollah took over or were they abroad to begin with. The only bad thing I hear about Khomeini was that he ordered the execution of a radical left wing group that was against both the West AND the Ayatollah

You are unlikely to get an objective answer to this question, for the following reasons:

1. As for the Shia Muslims, they look to this question from a religious angle, as there are some Shia Muslims who think that making such a revolution is against the teachings of the Shia Holy Imams who ordered their followers to follow a pacific approach until the return of the Mahdi and Jesus.

2. Then, may be most of the Sunni or many of them look toward Iran with their sectarian eye, and hate anything related to Shia Muslim.

3. Then, the Islamic republic of Iran have gained many enemies who have tarnished the image of the Iranian revolution.

So, You will unlikely hear a balanced answer!

 

[ronki23]

No it wasn't. LuisDantas' question was about your familiarity and understanding of the 80s.
Your response was what I was responding to.

The USA has been attacking Iran for decades. We overthrew their democracy. We supported a hellish war against them. We launched a punitive war of sanctions when they tried to defend themselves against US attacks.
The premise of the OP is painfully ignorant to people who know a bit of recent history.
Tom

You're suggesting the Americans installed Khomeini? Where's your proof-tinfoil hat websites like David Icke?

 

[columbus]

You're suggesting the Americans installed Khomeini? Where's your proof-tinfoil hat websites like David Icke?

Uh, no. Just the opposite. We propped up the Shah with every dirty trick in the CIAs book.
The reason the Revolutionary Guard arrested all the embassy personnel is because they were effectively enemy agents. The USA responded badly to the Iranians picking a new government for themselves. We pushed the new government into hard line positions that they may not have taken if we hadn't been so determined to keep our puppet on the throne.
Tom

 

[ronki23]

Uh, no. Just the opposite. We propped up the Shah with every dirty trick in the CIAs book.
The reason the Revolutionary Guard arrested all the embassy personnel is because they were effectively enemy agents. The USA responded badly to the Iranians picking a new government for themselves. We pushed the new government into hard line positions that they may not have taken if we hadn't been so determined to keep our puppet on the throne.
Tom

Many Iranians I know hate the Revolution and most are not even Muslims; apparently Iran,like Lebanon, was a progressive and liberal country that was economically successful. But I've also read those within Iran said he wasn't that great

 

[ronki23]

Khomeini might as well be called bogeyman back in the day. He was not popular in the West, to say the very least.

As I recall it, the first worry signs came from the extreme conturbation of the movement he led in the late 1970s and that took power in Iran. The same one who kept about hostages in the American Embassy for well over a year.

Then there was the war with Iraq, famous for the "martyrdom" of tied Iranian children sent to find land mines. And it went downhill from there, to the point that Saddam Hussein was seen with some sympathy for being at war with Iran.

Even in those early days it was plain to see that post-Shah Iran was under the rule of a draconian, strictly theocratic regimen. One that raised Khomeini to such exalted levels of authority that even Brazilian authorities were instructed at one point not to depict his visage, in apparent imitation of a similar demand made by Muslims regarding Muhammad.

If Khomeini had qualities that went anywhere beyond being a voice against the Shah's oppressive regimen, those were never at all apparent. He was a theocrat, plain and simple.

What's your view on the Shah then? Because I've read he was heavy handed while those that supported him are expat, non Muslim Iranians

 

[LuisDantas]

What's your view on the Shah then? Because I've read he was heavy handed while those that supported him are expat, non Muslim Iranians

I was 11 when the Shah died, but word has it that his regimen was anything but honorable. Were it not for the extreme repression of the Ayatollah's own rule, odds are that he would be universally remembered as a bloody tyrant these days.

I can't claim to understand how the lines of support for and opposition against him are drawn, though. Because I have to this day failed to understand how Iran's current rule can be accepted by anyone, let alone with the passionate support that it seems to have at first glance.

 

[ronki23]

I'm confused because I read Khomeini executed thousands of MEK members but MEK opposed both the Shah and Khomeini. The West used to classify them as terrorists but not anymore

 

[columbus]

I'm confused because I read Khomeini executed thousands of MEK members but MEK opposed both the Shah and Khomeini.

It's difficult to avoid being confused when considering a culture and political landscape as foreign to most westerners as Iran.
Tom