Learning from Iran's Past Revolutions

The last one and a half centuries of modern Iranian history have been marked by recurring popular revolts in the streets of Tehran and throughout the rest of the country. Among the countless uprisings, three stand out as dramatic examples of a people imposing their collective will on a despotic regime: The Tobacco Protest (1891-92), the Constitutional Revolution (1906-11), and the Islamic Revolution (1978-79). Today, we are witnessing a fourth such movement.

There have been enough mass uprisings in Iran to identify the important trends they all share. One such trend has been the involvement of various segments of society with a common purpose. Grand coalitions of secular intellectuals, merchants from the bazaar, and the clergy, have always been the driving force behind any revolution. Clerics and bazaaris are especially critical, since they project traditional Islamic values and piety to the Iranian masses. Without their active participation it is hard to imagine any uprising succeeding.

Among the first, large-scale revolutionary coalitions was formed during the Tobacco Protest, which was organized by the clergy and the bazaar in a response to the shah's decision to hand over Iran's entire tobacco market to a single British citizen. After over a year of merchant strikes and demonstrations, it was Ayatollah Mirza Hasan Shirazi's fatwa calling for a boycott of the product that forced the shah to finally cancel the deal. (It is said that Shirazi's word was so powerful that even the shah's harem refused to smoke.)

A second common trend in Iran's mass demonstrations has been the length of time it has taken them to mature--over a year of demonstrations in each of the cases mentioned here. The Constitutional Revolution, which began as a grassroots movement of citizen councils demanding a parliament and a written constitution in early 1906, was not fully quelled until pitched street battles between constitutionalists and Russian-commanded forces came to an end in 1911. By then, the parliament and constitution had become staples of Iranian political life, even if those in power chose to systematically ignored them.

The third and arguably most important common denominator of revolutionary activity in Iran has been the ideals that protesters have embraced across the centuries. Repeatedly, Iranian movements have centered around two key premises: First, that Iran should be free of foreign meddling (whether it be British, Russian, or American); and second, that the country's politics should be reflective of popular will. In other words, modern Iranian revolutions have always sought a degree of democracy and national independence.

The Iranian Revolution of 1978-79 was in many ways a culmination of the previous century's upheaval. It ended with the toppling of Mohammad Reza Shah, a foreign-backed dictator who inspired a unique kind of hatred among his subjects. But while post-revolutionary Iran became the poster-child of political independence and self-reliance, the second goal of Iranian social movements, that of democracy at home, quickly fell by the wayside.

As Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini consolidated power over the emerging Islamic Republic and the country fought an eight-year war with neighboring Iraq, political development in Iran took a back seat to national security and survival. The millions who had taken to the streets in 1979 to demand political representation soon found themselves on the receiving end of an increasingly brutal regime, one that, like the shah's government before it, had few qualms about enforcing obedience through murder, rape, and torture.

It was not until the blatant theft of the June 12 election by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei that masses of Iranians from all walks of life have taken to the streets once again. Today, a revolution is underway in Iran, and democracy is once again on the table.

As with past revolutions, it is difficult to tell just how and when it will end. Should the regime beat and kill the revolutionaries to a standstill, it will only be kicking the ball forward, setting the stage for a future confrontation. If, on the other hand, the uprising can grow to include the massive bazaars of Tehran, Tabriz, Isfahan and Shiraz, and more active participation from clerics in the Shia holy cities of Qom and even Southern Iraq (yes, Iraq), it is hard to imagine how Ayatollah Khamenei would not change his tune, or even be forced to step aside.

Whatever happens, the world will look back on the 2009 Revolution as one in a long line of movements to reconcile the harsh reality of Iranian politics with the unresolved grievances and unmet aspirations of a population willing to fight for its principles. While coalitions from across all sectors of society finally succeeded in ridding Iran of its status as a Western puppet back in 1979, the Iranian masses have yet to achieve individual rights and self-determination; values that do not necessarily resonate with the rest of the world, but most certainly carry potent meaning in Iran.

One thing is certain: The current revolts are no longer about who won the June 12 election. They are the manifestation of a national ideal that not only pre-dates the Islamic Republic, but will most certainly outlive it.

Nathan Gonzalez, a Fellow with the Truman National Security Project, is author of Engaging Iran: The Rise of a Middle East Powerhouse and America's Strategic Choice.

Follow Nathan Gonzalez on Twitter: www.twitter.com/engagingiran

Comments

[Hempy]

Let's not overlook the power of social networking. Too, the nighttime rooftop calling is another extension of complex systems warfare. Ferreting out of the militia members and their families is another extension of complex systems warfare.

There also seems to be some sentiment afoot in Iran that suggests there is interest in the concept of separation of church and state. And that ultimate authority resides in the people, not the clerics.

There may be some recognition that there are universal rights that includes democracy, liberty and justice, economically, politically and socially.

The people are likely to stay one step ahead of the authorities until eventually there will be a democratic revolution that will take place in Iran independent of foreign influence. That's much like what happened in the American revolution.

[TAC4]

Only time will allow us to come to a conclusion on the situation in Iran, we can certainly speculate as to where it is headed. I agree that the current protests are now above and beyond calling for a justified election. Check out Asia Chronicle www.asiachroniclenews.comm) for the latest on Iran and Asia.

[kbdancer]

History repeats itself for sure. As a people's cultural ethos builds through the events of their history, consistent trends will occur as a result of this unified psyche. Iran's multiple revolutions demonstrate this truth.
I agree with WFall that it's best for our nation to remain interventionist in this case given recent interactions and the Middle East's resulting feelings towards our nation. While some aren't happy w/ Obama's initial hands-off tone, I commend his approach. As usual, he wanted to know everything about the situation before he did something he'd regret. If only our leadership of the past eight years had the same discretion­....

[stpmdn]

Veru good article. I do think there is a more democratic tone to this uprising. But to tell you the truth 1979 was similar to this and everything changed when the clerics took over and pushed out all the seculars.

[gevan]

We are worried that we may be seeing a Tiananmen Square like crack-down in slow motion. What we must not do is hand the regime a Reichstag fire like incident where the blame would be laid on "outside influences".
Tough talk like that coming from the McCainiacs may be just so much hot air, but I don't hear them coming up with any concrete steps that we should be taking. Our President seems to be taking the appropriate line of judicious prudence. We wonder how the Iranians will mark the anniversary of the July 1909 deposition of their Shah when they put an eleven year old replacement on the throne.

[DeWayne]

Here is a picture of these Tehran protester's in New York City, not a week or two later as in Tehran, but in the second day of breaking, trashing and burning the streets of New York City.

One the second day of this mayhem, New York Police with batons swinging, would have filled up New York City hospitals.

[Ardeschier]

Mr . gonzales this is not a revolution, it is a protest against the "unfriendly to the west" iranian govenment, cheered on and to some degree orchestrated by us, brits, israel, and arab puppet regims. it is CIA-BRITS 1953 COUP ALL OVER AGAIN. only this time arround more actors in the theater. in case you didn't know polls taken by brits and us before iranian election indicated mr. ahmadinejad would win.

[stpmdn]

come on man. More than a million people marched for over a week. This is more about the iranian people that anything outside meddling. Iranian people are pro western so this revelution may seem like its being organized by the west but its not

[DeWayne]

stpmdn,

Look at it this way, you have $400-Million dollars allocated by the US-Congress for the stated purpose to overthrow the Iran-Gov, this having already happened

Lets say that you needed 1-million people that would betray their nation for money, how much would you pay each person with $400-million to spend?

[wereeverywhere]

No. Trying to turn this rebellion into 1953 ignores rather than employs history. The specifics of this revolt, the young, labor, women agitating out of frustration are organic to Iran. The Iranians are hardly so backwards that they need US or UK to orchestrate unrest. US doesn't even have an embassy there. The election has been judged by the Iranians to be a farce.

Please forgive the Iranians if they don't conform to your ideology.

[DeWayne]

But, do you think it might help, maybe huh???

[JudgeMoonbox]

"it is a protest against the "unfriendly to the west" iranian govenment, cheered on and to some degree orchestrated by us, brits, israel, and arab puppet regims. it is CIA-BRITS 1953 COUP ALL OVER AGAIN."

If the CIA & co. wanted to bring down Iran, wouldn't they prefer a clown like Ahmadinejad?

On the other hand, if they were afraid of Ahmadinejad, wouldn't the Powers that Be in the Western regimes do a lot more to promote energy conservation?

This Conspiracy Theorizing is illogical, an d the onliest purpose for it is to garner sympathy for Ahmadinejad.

[Roozbeh]

----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­--

PART 1: ----- This is a very interesting article, but it misses out something very important. Namely, the British influence in every single and also other cases. The history of British involvement in Iran goes back to 1800-01 by sending John Malcolm to impress unsophisticated Qajars.

a) The Tobacco Protest (1891-92) ----- Shah Naser al-Din granted a tobacco concession to a British company. This concession gave the company exclusive rights to produce, sell, and export all of Iran's large tobacco crop. The shah was badly in need of money and had granted many such concessions to Europeans before

[Roozbeh]

PART 1: ----- This is a very interesting article, but it misses out something very important. Namely, the British influence in every single and also other cases. The history of British involvement in Iran goes back to 1800-01 by sending John Malcolm to impress unsophisticated Qajars.

a) The Tobacco Protest (1891-92) ----- Shah Naser al-Din granted a tobacco concession to a British company. This concession gave the company exclusive rights to produce, sell, and export all of Iran's large tobacco crop. The shah was badly in need of money and had granted many such concessions to Europeans before

[Roozbeh]

PART 2: ----- b) Constitutional Revolution (1906-11) ----- During the early 1900s the only way to save country from government corruption and foreign manipulation was to make a written code of laws. This sentiment caused the Constitutional Revolution.

Following Mozafaredin Shah’s death, his successor, Mohammad Ali Mirza pledged to respect the fundamentals of Constitution and Nation’s Rights, before taking the reign. But he contravened this from the very beginning which made Constitutionalists to react.

Capitalizing on the internal struggles, both Russia and Britain entered a pact to settle their own differences; effectively dividing Iran into two areas of influence for their respected countries. This made headlines in early September 1907 and united the various factions in Iran. The Iranian government was officially notified of this pact on September 7, 1907 by Russian and British Ambassadors.

... Ambassador Marling of Britain warn the Iranian Government to submit to Shah’s intents.

[Roozbeh]

PART 3: ----- c) Islamic Revolution (1978-79) ----- Before 1979 Shah Pahlavi refused to grant British Petroleum a 25 year almost free access to Iranian oil. Shah refused and Britain decided with the help of its friends in the clergy to topple the Shah. Dating back to1800s Britain had already bought out some influential clerics which continues to present. This is a common knowledge in Iran. The most obvious fact during revolution to expose Britain's malign intentions is without BBC the Islamic revolution would have never succeeded, period. Every single day BBC would read out something from Khomeini or others to keep the people on the streets. Now BBC is trying its best to encourage the protesters to in Iran to stay home because it is useless to go out. What one hears from BBC in Farsi is different from what one reads From BBC in English. The regime calling Britain "evil" is just a cover for not exposing itself.

[ploverinn]

This is all accurate, interesting and irrelevant. Ancient history by now. The greatest effect on the nation of Iran was the British Boundary Delimitation Commission. In an attempt to "divide and conquer" they divided the Kurds into three nations, Iran, Iraq and Turkey. They pushed the boundaries of iran well into Turkey, encompassing much of Turkish Azarbaijan into Iran. They divided Baluchistan into three nations, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan. They pushed the boundaries of Iran well out from the mountains into the Mesopotamian lowlands, into Arab territory. All that has served to create lasting tensions and conflicts. It was clearly an attempt to keep these cultural groups warring among themselves while the robbed the region blind. Iranians understand all this. They are highly suspicious of the British.

[ApolloSpeaks]

CIVIL WAR IS COMING TO IRAN

The Islamic Revolution in Iran is still very strong and very much alive with millions of pro-Khomenist Iranians ready to martyr themselves for the cause. Khamenie and Ahmad remain fanatically committed to their revolutionary ideology and ideal of Islamic imperial restoration-the hope and salvation of Allah and Islam. For them, as with Hitler and his genocidal Nazis, it's VICTORY OR DEATH! What is certain is that pro-democracy forces in Iran cannot prevail unless they go to war against the regime. Civil War is coming to Iran and we must back with training, funds and arms the pro-democracy forces fighting the regime.

[Roozbeh]

Grow up kid! Go look at the mirror once again. Our protests are peaceful and legal.

[Zheegool]

Great piece and historical contextualization of today's uprising.
1979 was about Independence, and secondarily democracy- there were a lot of nationalistic undertones which brought many disparate groups together (marxists, islamists, bazaris), none of which had strong democratic leanings.
Today nationalism is a lacking factor in the equation, and therefore movement has less cohesion. But no doubt the last week has radicalized and united the street. This will be hard to stop. I think the Mullahs are finished, but I'm not so sure Ahmadinejads military junta is not just beginning.

[Roozbeh]

The point here is to bring the large undecided segments of the society and especially the Bazzar to the fold of the lagal protests.

[FTP]

Could there have been a motive for all the neo-rethugs?
WASHINGTON - A subsidiary of Halliburton, the company Vice President Cheney ran between 1995 and 2000, won a contract this week to develop a much sought-after oil and gas field in Iran, a country accused by the White House in recent months of covertly developing nuclear weapons.

A Halliburton spokeswoman, Wendy Hall, confirmed to The New York Sun yesterday that the subsidiary, Halliburton Products & Services Ltd., won the contract first announced on Iranian TV to develop phases nine and 10 of the south Pars oil and gas field.


Yesterday, the Agence France-Presse news agency quoted Pars Oil and Gas Company's managing director, Akbar Torkan, announcing on state TV that Halliburton and an Iranian concern, Oriental Kish Co., won the final bid to drill in the oil and gas fields located on a field bordering Qatar. The Pars field is believed by industry analysts to be one of the world's largest reserves of natural gas.

[Pye Ian - Huffpost Blogger]

Although this news about Halliburton is a few years old, it nonetheless spells out some of the still remaining core US incentives for wanting to 'engage' Iran.

Russia's Gazprom is all over the South Pars field, as well as now offering to build out the Iran-to-Pakistan gas pipeline which was solidified recently. It is now a race against the Russians and Chinese for access to Iran, which contains the 2nd largest proven, conventional gas and oil reserves on the planet.

Great piece by Nathan Gonzalez, which presents some invaluable -- and rarely disclosed -- historical perspective for current events in Iran.

[mcmchugh99]

I am quite content with the fact that the US has had no diplomatic relations with Iran, and do not wish to see these restored--not with this regime. I am glad that it is against the law for Americans to even visit there as tourists, and have said all along that I do not want this to be changed. Americans have no business going to a country like that at all.

I have also said many times that it's up to the Iranians to change that regime to a more democratic form, and I am confident that they will do so. They have learned a very valuable lesson of never allowing a Shah, Supreme Furhrer, or group of clerics and Revolutionary Guards to have absolute, totalitarian power. These things have enslaved them, and they will have to find a way to free themselves from fascism.

[Libertarian09]

I am so tired of Americans labeling things as fascist. Kind of like the kettle calling the pot black. I suggest checking your dictionary before spewing words.

[Roozbeh]

It will be a huge pschological boost for normal Iranians with any semblance of US presence in Iran. That would be like opening a magic box. Everybody in Iran knows that the current US adminstration is the good old America before Kennedy assassination.

[AIPACDUDE]

i have four words for everyone:

LEAVE THE IRANIANS ALONE.

[Nanaama]

I SECOND THAT!

[Libertarian09]

How about leave everybody alone and concentrate on restoring America to a nation that inspires the world

[Roozbeh]

----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­-------
This is exactly what Ahmadinejad and his likes want. It is wrong to take the future hostage because of the past. Life is full of ups and downs but it is important to hold to one's inner strenght when it is down. Iran needs American public support.

[RWfall]

I agree with the sentiment, but it takes a few more than four words.

As appealing as it sounds, especially to Republican Talking Heads, to use our massive military/political influence to advance the cause of democracy, it is counterproductive. Whether you believe that democracy can be imposed on a people, or not, the last thing the US needs is to reinforce our reputation as a meddling outsider among the peoples of the middle east.

[Jeffrey Barea]

I will not stand by and watch them shot and beaten in the streets by a ruthless dictator.

Enjoy your mocha latte while watching the videos.

[Roozbeh]

I bow my head for your courage.

[BlueMrsKitty]

So, you're volunteering to fight in a war in Iran? Really? Doubt that. Iranians defeated the biggest super power in the world in 1979. If you don't think they have the spine to get their own country back, you obviously haven't known many Iranians. They are tough, determined, and smart--they won't stop without a big fight.

[Roozbeh]

This is exactly what Ahmadinejad and his likes want. It is wrong to take the future hostage because of the past. Life is full of ups and downs but it is important to hold to one's inner strenght when it is down. Iran needs American public support.

[Roozbeh]

----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­-------
This is exactly what Ahmadinejad and his likes want. It is wrong to take the future hostage because of the past. Life is full of ups and downs but it is important to hold to one's inner strenght when it is down. Iran needs American public support.