Tried to learn more about Iran, only became more confused

[a completely inoffensive name]

So over the past three weeks I bought and read Persepolis by Marjane Satrapi, which is an auto-biographical graphic novel of her growing up in Iran from the late 1970s to the early 1990s. I figured that I should try to understand better how Iran transitioned into the Islamic Republic that it is today. But after finishing it last night, my mind is still fucked from the massive disparity that the graphic novel seems to portray between the Iranian people and its government.

So I get that the Shah during the end of his reign was a really brutal dictator and overall bad guy like all the other dictators the US propped up in the region. And I get that out of the power vacuum, one of the stronger factions would be the Islamic fundamentalists to take up control. But I don't understand is how the Iranian people went along with the Islamic fundamentalists in the first place. YOu can google pictures right now of Iran before the revolution and you can see that both men and women were fairly westernized in their clothing at least and to a fair degree their social institutions. But the very first thing that the Islamic fundamentalists did after gaining control (from what I gathered from the novel) was literally enforce clothing rules, moral rules, etc. I thought it was a sneaky thing like with the surveillance state that Western countries have become, slow and steady. But no, the way it was portrayed was a like a stark night and day change where suddenly everyone woman in class had to cover themselves and were beaten for being with men who were not their husbands. And throughout the entire novel, the most that the Iranians (at least the Iranians she interacted with) do is to simply resist through fashion styles that toe the line or to do everything in the safety of their house, constantly on the look out for the party police. But why did it get to the point where there was no political resistance remaining by the time the book ends (early 1990s)? They just overthrew a government that was brutal and tyrannical but when the Imams tell them that they have to dress like this, looks like this, behave like this everyone just suddenly becomes more chill with it?

I guess the main thing I got from the graphic novel is that to a very large extent, the Iranian people are just like us. Except they live under this terrible regime that everyone (with a bit of education) acknowledges but they all act as if they can just wait it out or something.

The only thing that I can think of is that Iranians may have supported the new regime due to the Iran-Iraq war which happened like months after the revolution was successful. A large part of the book is about life during Iran while the war happened, and the propaganda that was pushed out. But even here, I don't understand because from what I know about the Iran-Iraq war, Saddam attacked first. But why did he attack a new regime that obviously would be looking for some sort of symbol to get the public to rally behind them during a period of revolutionaries? Did he honestly think he was going to be able to conquer all of Iran? Because otherwise the only thing that war was ever going to do was simply make the fundamentalists more legitimate in the eyes of the Iranian people.

There is so much that I just cannot wrap my head around right now. I guess the main question I have is how did such a fundamentalist government come to power and sustain it when to me it seems that the average Iranian citizen is just like your average American citizen (just swap Christianity with Islam), they are religious but it doesn't really define them completely as an individual or as their culture.

[Montmorency]

Did he honestly think he was going to be able to conquer all of Iran?

He wanted Khorramshahr/Khuzhestan/Shatt al-Arab. He made the Hitler Mistake with respect to the revolutionary regime.

And that's about all I know.

[PanzerJaeger]

But even here, I don't understand because from what I know about the Iran-Iraq war, Saddam attacked first. But why did he attack a new regime that obviously would be looking for some sort of symbol to get the public to rally behind them during a period of revolutionaries? Did he honestly think he was going to be able to conquer all of Iran? Because otherwise the only thing that war was ever going to do was simply make the fundamentalists more legitimate in the eyes of the Iranian people.

Fear of Shia ascendancy was the primary motivation. The invasion was actually defensive in nature, a reaction to the growing Iranian sponsored insurgency in Iraq. Iraqi leaders were being killed at an alarming rate. The Shia are often portrayed as the victims during Hussein's rule, but they were militant from the onset.

As for the goals, they were limited territorially to the Shatt al-Arab, but we're more focused on bringing down the Islamic Republic through counterrevolution. In hindsight it may seem misguided, but at the time Iran was in chaos and there was no great loyalty to the clerics.

[Fragony]

Doesn't answer any of your questions but cool docu https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F48SinuEHIk

If you can specifie your questions I'll ask my Iranian friends

[Ironside]

YOu can google pictures right now of Iran before the revolution and you can see that both men and women were fairly westernized in their clothing at least and to a fair degree their social institutions. But the very first thing that the Islamic fundamentalists did after gaining control (from what I gathered from the novel) was literally enforce clothing rules, moral rules, etc.

Revolutions often act a lot like pressure cookers. You get one explosion, then the pressure is out until it's regained. That's why revolutions often end up with brutal leaders. The loss of order gives a small but brutal group their chance to take power. Take the Spanish civil war for example, I don't think any city changed colours by internal revolution after one faction had won it, even if the population opposed the ruling faction. Zaragoza (a republican stronghold) went nationalistic and Barcelona was really expected to be nationalistic (one of the coup generals went in there), but quick republican action took control of the city.

Teheran is/was really western and relaxed about religion yeah, but afaik some parts of Iran are much more religious of the fundamental kind.

Revolution attempts also have a 20-year cycle, probably because a new generation has grown up that wasn't involved in the previous revolution.

[Fragony]

Key is that the middle-class for any revolution. Ironside is spot on, 20 years or so. This generation knows nothing but religious repression, the former nothing but the corruption of the Shah.

[Fragony]

Failpad hates edit-button it just refuses to react. I meant 'the middle-class is key to any revolution'

[Hax]

Many Iranians I know dislike Persepolis, for very different reasons. If there are a few authors I might suggest, take a look at Ervand Abrahamian's History of Modern Iran,which is relatively short but very good. Mark Gasiorowski also wrote some interesting stuff on the coup d'état of 1953.

As for the Iran-Iraq war, I can't see how anyone would say that Iraq was fighting a defensive war. Saddam Hussein had been considering invading Iran for some time and when the Revolution happened, he assumed that he would roll into and over the country no problem. The only thing in Panzer's post that is somewhat correct is that the position of the clergy had not yet been consolidated by this point, and it was partially due to Saddam Hussein's invasion that Khomeini and those surrounding him were able to extend their influence throughout the country and outlaw parties opposing them. I'm currently trying to go through my sources and find anything saying otherwise. Do you have sources for this, Panzer?

[Greyblades]

Exhaustion I would expect, a revolution followed by a costly war, resulting in a disillusioned and aprehensive populus who just want to get back to a semblance of peace.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I'm stating this as a thought rather than an argument - but maybe all this talk about a Westernized pre-Revolution Iran is based on a a pretty narrow view of the country. The culture in Tehran might not have been very representative of Iran as a whole. Certainly, if somebody is going to write an autobiography for a Western audience, it's going to be a well-off, Tehran-raised, foreign-educated individual like Satrapi, and not some conservative goat-herder.

[Hax]

One didn't have to be a goat-herder to be against the westernisation of Iran. Many intellectuals of the time were not at all in favour of the Shah's relations with western countries. Think Ali Shariati and/or Mehdi Bazargan, who were both western-educated philosophers.

The matter you raise is a valid one: to what extent was the Shah able to pursue his goal of modernising all Iran (urban and rural areas). Scholars are divided on this issue, although it is true that during the White Revolution, the illiteracy and infant mortality rate both spectacularly declined, although this also continued after the Revolution right up until the 1990s.

[Montmorency]

What happened in the 90s?

[Idaho]

Iran is complex nation with all the contradictions you would expect. There are various antagonisms: city versus country, middle class versus working class, educated technocrat versus religious fundamentalist. As has been said, one perspective will represent a particular facet and not the whole thing.

[Hax]

What happened in the 90s?

Rafsanjani happened. Nah, basically I think the level of literacy halted around 90% for both males and females.

To be fair, under Rafsanjani the economy moved towards a more free market-based system, improving Iran's economical position.

[PanzerJaeger]

Many Iranians I know dislike Persepolis, for very different reasons. If there are a few authors I might suggest, take a look at Ervand Abrahamian's History of Modern Iran,which is relatively short but very good. Mark Gasiorowski also wrote some interesting stuff on the coup d'état of 1953.

As for the Iran-Iraq war, I can't see how anyone would say that Iraq was fighting a defensive war. Saddam Hussein had been considering invading Iran for some time and when the Revolution happened, he assumed that he would roll into and over the country no problem. The only thing in Panzer's post that is somewhat correct is that the position of the clergy had not yet been consolidated by this point, and it was partially due to Saddam Hussein's invasion that Khomeini and those surrounding him were able to extend their influence throughout the country and outlaw parties opposing them. I'm currently trying to go through my sources and find anything saying otherwise. Do you have sources for this, Panzer?

Hi Hax -

Iranian agitation in Iraq pre-war is fairly common knowledge outside of Western circles. Some have even speculated that the clerics intentionally provoked a war not to spread the revolution but instead simply to solidify their own power, although I've never seen any solid evidence of that. It's even in Karsh's Osprey book on the subject. Here (http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/3114/can_saddam_be_contained_history_says_yes.html)'s an accessible article that references it.


Is Saddam Another Hitler?

Those who now call for preventive war begin by portraying Saddam as a serial aggressor bent on dominating the Persian Gulf. Indeed, he is often compared to Adolf Hitler, who is history’s poster child for an inveterate aggressor with a limitless appetite for new conquests. The war party also contends that Saddam is either irrational or prone to serious miscalculation, which means that he may not be deterred by even credible threats to retaliate. Kenneth Pollack, a proponent of war with Iraq, goes so far as to argue that Saddam is “unintentionally suicidal.”

The facts, however, tell a different story. Saddam has dominated Iraqi politics for about thirty years. During that period, he has started only two wars against his neighbors. He invaded Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990. Now compare that with Hitler. Once he had rearmed Germany, Hitler attacked Czechoslovakia and Poland in 1939, Norway, Belgium, Holland, and France in 1940, and Greece, Yugoslavia, and the Soviet Union in 1941. And to top it all off, Hitler declared war on the United States in December 1941, even though Nazi Germany was by then embroiled in a bloody campaign inside the Soviet Union and hardly needed additional enemies. By this standard, Saddam’s behavior seems rather tame.

Indeed, Saddam’s past behavior is no worse than that of several other states in the Middle East, and it may even be marginally better. Egypt fought six wars between 1948 and 1973 (five against Israel, plus the civil war in Yemen), and played a key role in starting four of them. Israel initiated wars on three occasions (the Suez War in 1956, the Six Day War in 1967, and the 1982 invasion of Lebanon), and has conducted innumerable air strikes and commando raids against its various Arab adversaries. Iraq happens to be located in a rough neighborhood, and it is hardly surprising that Saddam plays hardball, just like his neighbors.

Furthermore, a careful look at Saddam’s two main wars shows that his behavior was far from reckless. In fact, both times he went to war because Iraq was vulnerable, and because he had good reason to believe his targets were weak and isolated. In each case, his goal was to rectify Iraq’s strategic dilemma with a limited military victory. This does not excuse Saddam’s aggression, but his willingness to use force on these two occasions hardly demonstrates that he cannot be deterred.

The Iran-Iraq War

Iran was the most powerful state in the Persian Gulf during the 1970s. Iran’s strength was partly due to its large population (roughly three times that of Iraq) and its oil reserves, but it was also due to the strong support that the Shah of Iran received from the United States. Relations between Iraq and Iran were quite hostile throughout this period, but Iraq was in no position to defy Iran’s regional dominance. In fact, Iran put constant pressure on Saddam’s regime during the early 1970s, mostly by fomenting unrest among Iraq’s sizable Kurdish minority. Iraq finally got the Shah to stop meddling with the Kurds in 1975, but only by agreeing to cede half of the Shatt al-Arab waterway to Iran, a concession that underscored Iraq’s weakness at the time.

Given this history of animosity, it is not surprising that Saddam welcomed the Shah’s ouster in 1979. Indeed, Iraq went to considerable lengths to foster good relations with Iran’s revolutionary leadership. Saddam did not try to exploit the turmoil in Iran to gain strategic advantage over his neighbor and made no attempt to reverse his earlier concessions, even though Iran did not fully comply with the terms of the 1975 agreement. The Ayatollah Khomeini, on the other hand, was determined to extend his revolution across the Islamic world, starting with Iraq. By late 1979, Tehran was pushing hard to get the Kurdish and Shi’ite populations in Iraq to revolt and topple Saddam, and Iranian operatives were actively trying to assassinate senior Iraqi officials. Border clashes became increasingly frequent by April 1980, largely at Iran’s instigation.

Facing a grave threat to his regime but aware that Iran’s military readiness had been temporarily disrupted by the revolution, Saddam launched a limited war against his bitter foe on September 22, 1980. His principal aim was to capture a large slice of territory along the Iraq-Iran border, not to conquer Iran or topple Khomeini. “The war began,” as Efraim Karsh writes, “because the weaker state, Iraq, attempted to resist the hegemonic aspirations of its stronger neighbor, Iran, to reshape the regional status quo according to its own image.”

The Iran-Iraq war lasted eight years and cost the two protagonists over 1 million casualties and at least $150 billion. Iraq received considerable outside support from a number of other countries—including the United States, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and France—largely because these states all were determined to prevent the further spread of Khomeini’s Islamic revolution. Although the war cost Iraq far more than Saddam originally expected, it also thwarted Khomeini’s attempt to topple him and dominate the Gulf region. War with Iran was not a reckless adventure; it was an opportunistic response to a significant threat.

[Hax]

Very interesting!

I'll see if I can find anything that counters what dr. Mearsheimer says, if not, consider me corrected.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Hmm, after checking into this thread, I think I understand better.

1. Persepolis is probably very biased as a story due to the background of the author. The pictures I have seen from the internet is probably a very biased account as well. Western citizens probably are more eager to share pictures of the relative minority of westernized Iranian citizens under the Shah then share pictures that more accurately represent the majority of Iranians (conservative, rural).

2. As what Panzer shared, it makes sense that the Islamic fundamentalists provoked insurrections in Iraq and sparked retaliation from Saddam.

It looks like another very enlightening thread was started by the most ignorant person on the forum. I'm gonna give myself a pat on the back.

[Hax]

Meanwhile, Hassan Rouhani is leading in the exit polls. I didn't see that one coming.

[Strike For The South]

Persepolis is nothing but a western fueled circlejerk. It's hailed by the same liberals who decry the influence of the white man. I don't even know why you would read that as an into to Iranian anything. It would be a good introduction to one extremely privileged girl. It's as if entire criticisms of the great man theory and empiricism fetishization go out the window when a brown woman does it.

I'm also disappointed Hax was wrong, because now PJ is going to think he's right about everything. Iran has been backing shia insurgents since time immemorial(still doing it now). Combine that with the fact that the Persians never whitewashed their pre islamic roots (unlike the Arabs and North Africans) and it's a bit touch and go in the region.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I don't even know why you would read that as an into to Iranian anything.

Because I don't bother to research things I find interesting before I read them. I simply read what interests me. I take something in at face value so I can get the message clearly and then I do my homework to dissect what was wrong about it and what wisdom could be salvaged from it.

I'm very sorry I am an ignoramus, just keep me fed and I promise I won't bother you that much.

[Strike For The South]

Because I don't bother to research things I find interesting before I read them. I simply read what interests me. I take something in at face value so I can get the message clearly and then I do my homework to dissect what was wrong about it and what wisdom could be salvaged from it.

I'm very sorry I am an ignoramus, just keep me fed and I promise I won't bother you that much.

Bro, it's a bit of a joke

I still love you

[a completely inoffensive name]

Bro, it's a bit of a joke

I still love you

I know, I'm just off my game today. I love you too. <3

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Meanwhile, Hassan Rouhani is leading in the exit polls. I didn't see that one coming.

Which is unlikely to make much difference - he'll just make fewer combative statements.

To ACIN's original question:

Compare the pro-gun control, pro-choice American Liberal to the backwoods - militiaman who goes to a hardcore Baptist Church, hate Fags and would lay down his life for the Tea Party.

Who's going to win in a fight?

[Montmorency]

Who's going to win in a fight?

This is a trick question, right?

1. The biggest one

2. The fastest one

3. The most desperate one

Gotta be one of those, amirite?

[Tellos Athenaios]

Which is unlikely to make much difference - he'll just make fewer combative statements.

To ACIN's original question:

Compare the pro-gun control, pro-choice American Liberal to the backwoods - militiaman who goes to a hardcore Baptist Church, hate Fags and would lay down his life for the Tea Party.

Who's going to win in a fight?

The Liberal. Before the two even reach confrontation the militiaman has been tazed to death by law enforcement's finest and his case been posted to the police abuses thread.

[Fragony]

Exit goatbeard, enter Rohani. He is supposed to be a lot more moderate than goatbeard but experts say we shouldn't get our hopes up all too much when it comes to international policy. If these sick hangings stop and the women are less opressed I'm happy nevertheless. Neither will just vanish probably but this guy at least seems like a much better person than goatbeard

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The Liberal. Before the two even reach confrontation the militiaman has been tazed to death by law enforcement's finest and his case been posted to the police abuses thread.

Very funny - now explain Iran.

The fact is - after the revolution, the Liberals want to talk, the Fundamentalists want to eliminate anyone else who opposes them to secure their version of a "better" world. That's because, by their very nature, Liberals tend to give ground.