The Shah who had fled the country prior to this victory, headed to the US a few months after the Revolution. The Shah was responsible for massacring, imprisoning, torturing, and sending thousands of Iranians into exile with the support of the US during the pre-revolutionary period. Because of this, the revolutionaries took part in large gatherings, demanding his extradition to the country, to the point where this popular demand was supported by Imam Khomeini (ra), the founder and Leader of the Revolution.
The United States’ refusal to give in to the demands of the revolutionaries to return the Shah, was reminiscent of the coup that the US and England had launched against Iran’s legal and democratic government in 1953. This created concern and uncertainty that the US might once again conspire against the Iranian people and do something to embitter the taste of victory, thwarting the years of struggle and effort made by thousands of tortured and murdered men and women.
They still recalled how in 1953, the democratic government in Iran was overthrown by an American and British coup and Reza Pahlavi re-ascended the throne. In that ordeal, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and US President Eisenhower’s government argued that Mossadeq’s democratic government in Iran was unreliable. They feared it might lead to the domination of communists in Iran and decided to overthrow his government and establish tyranny and dictatorship in Iran. Following the overthrow of Mossadeq’s government, the Shah returned to Tehran and rose to power while being accompanied by the CIA director of the time, Alan Dulles.[1]
This dark image of the US and the skepticism towards its goals in Iran were rooted in both the short-term and long-term historical memory of the Iranian nation. As a matter of fact, even though the Iranian people’s Revolution bore fruit in February 1979, and shortly after, the Islamic Republic of Iran was established by holding a national referendum, the United States used all its agents and organizations in the hope of defeating the revolution both prior to and after it.
An example of this was when General Huyser came to Iran before the victory of the Revolution, after the Shah had left the country. He was on a secret mission to thwart the Revolution. His plan to cripple the Revolution included schemes of provoking a military coup.[2]
Regarding the United States’ actions against the nascent Iranian Revolution in the first few months of the newly established government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, all we need to do is to refer to one of the secret documents of the American Embassy in Iran. According to the notes in these documents, if the Kurds, Azerbaijanis, Arabs and other ethnic groups had made the effort to cooperate with and support each other in order to overthrow the current government, they could have succeeded by creating difficult challenges for the Islamic Republic of Iran.[3]
It was in these circumstances that the revolutionary students, who were worried about changing the course of the Revolution, entered the US Embassy and occupied it based on the logic of deterrence. This was followed by supportive statements from Imam Khomeini who described the occupying of the American Embassy as a "second revolution."
Now after the passing of several decades, the accuracy of this viewpoint has become clear. The action taken by the revolutionary youth and intellectuals was to break up the organization and connections of a well-equipped, intervening power called the United States who had always meddled in in the domestic affairs of a country it and now had the opportunity to overthrow and end this newly established system.
Some 30 years after the Islamic Revolution of Iran, the wave of Islamic awakening spread in the region of West Asia and North Africa, and the indignant voices of people in countries such as Egypt, Libya, Yemen and Bahrain resonated against the tyrannical rulers and dictators. The enraged sufferers took to the streets and held nationwide demonstrations, calling for the overthrow of these incompetent regimes, demanding they be replaced with a democratic and just system.
The uprising of the people in West Asia and North Africa generally did not lead to a desirable outcome. In the end, either the people’s demonstrations were ineffective, or those who came to power following the protests, failed to meet the demands of the people, maintaining the legacy of injustice and oppression of the previous regimes.
In response to the question as to why this Islamic awakening failed to achieve its goals, there was a common point in the events that took place in all these countries, which is the ongoing connection of the United States to the aforementioned countries. As a result, existing bases and facilities were used to divert revolutionary goals and direct the events towards imperialistic interests.
Just as the 1979 uprising of the Islamic Revolution of Iran surprised the US, the uprising in some of these countries such as Tunisia and Egypt also caught the west by surprise. The failure to predict these uprisings caused the White House and the US Congress to seriously question and criticize American spy agencies.[4]
Furthermore, just as the US had supported the monarchical regime in Iran up until its final moments, it also supported dependent regimes such as those in Tunisia, Egypt and Bahrain, making efforts for their survival. However, the series of events in these countries and other countries took place in such a way that they experienced an outcome that was different to that of the Islamic Revolution of the Iranian nation.
For example, when the resistance of the Egyptian revolutionaries and their advances ensured the fall of Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak, the US stayed connected with the new power structure in Egypt in order to maintain its infiltration so it could influence the course of the events that followed.
Consequently, it showed support for and cooperated with Egypt’s “Supreme Council of the Armed Forces”, which took power after Mubarak’s resignation. The same council also issued a statement in which it assured the US and the Zionist regime that the 1979 Camp David Agreement will remain in place.
It is interesting to note that in a speech given by one of the members of Egypt’s Supreme Council of the Armed Forces at the US Institute of Peace, it was announced that, “We [Egypt] have had strong strategic relations with the United States since the Camp David Agreement in 1979…and we need to expand on these relations.” [5] In the end, Mohamed Morsi, the democratically elected president of Egypt, was arrested, tried, and sentenced to death by the agents of that same council because of the interference of the United States.
The US was also able to maintain its influence in other countries and prevent the popular uprisings by either utilizing similar methods or by coming up with new initiatives. Another example of this was observed when White House officials took advantage of the revolt and crisis in Libya and announced their opposition to Muammar Gaddafi – the person who had evoked bitter memories of the US in Libya.
They penetrated to the heart of the crisis, along with the angry masses, and used all their efforts to secure and strengthen their interests and influence in this oil-rich country.[6] The outcome of the United States’ interference in Libya’s affairs were NATO’s airstrikes on the country, the killing of soldiers and civilians, and the provision of better conditions for Washington’s pursuit of economic and political interests in Libya.
As a result, the Islamic awakening which became known as the Arab Spring in the mainstream media, failed in the countries that, whether they liked it or not, could not cut off their connection with the US. Consequently, not only did the United States’ interests in them remain intact to varying degrees, they were also strengthened.
The only two countries in which the US lost its influence there were Yemen and Syria. In both these cases, the US embassies there were closed and with the passing of time, the party that was against the United States and was seeking independence succeeded.
In the case of Syria, the US tried to overthrow the government of this country by inciting a fake uprising, unrest and civil war, which ultimately resulted in the coalition’s attack on Syria. A number of people who wanted [to maintain] an independent country and were supporters of the legally-established government there, attacked the US embassy. They could see that the US president had publicly declared his opposition to the legitimate government of Syria and that Robert Ford, the US ambassador to Syria at the time, had joined the protesters.[7] By doing so, Ford was practically interfering in Syria’s internal affairs, encouraging the riots in the country to erupt. This protestive attack demonstrated the people’s awareness regarding the impact of the United States’ intervening and conniving connections and links in Syria.
The statements made by the director of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma were proof of this viewpoint. In the first few months of the Syrian unrest and before the closure of the US embassy, he clearly stated the important role that the American embassy played in Syria. He underlined how the employees of the embassy would go to the heart of where the riots were taking place, because the embassy employees were the best sources of intelligence information in Syria.[8]
Perhaps the US closed its embassy in Syria in the hope of returning after the overthrow of Bashar Assad, however, the legitimate and legal Syrian government made the most of the absence of a spying, interfering organization. With the help of its allies and those opposing Global Arrogance, especially the Islamic Republic of Iran, it advanced to the point of eradicating the interests and organizational influence of the US in Syria.
It is possible to see a successful example of what happened in Syria miles away from West Asia in Latin America. Juan Guaido, the leader of the opposition to the central government of Venezuela, announced that he was the "interim president" of the country in making an attempt to take over the presidency in a coup in January 2019. After Guaido’s announcement, America immediately declared they were recognizing Guaido as the next president in support of this coup. They also wanted other countries in the world to declare their support of the Venezuelans who had plotted this coup. The government of Nicolas Maduro, the legally elected president of Venezuela, responded to the White House’s decision without a pause by cutting Caracas' relations with Washington. They gave all the diplomats in the American embassy just 72 hours to leave the country.[9]
After the Venezuelan government took this decisive action, all of the attempts of the US to stabilize the position of those who had plotted the coup failed. Venezuela was able to overcome all their conspiracies to change the Venezuelan government by relying on national unity despite the heavy economic sanctions imposed by the White House. Venezuela's national resistance forced the Biden administration to reconsider using its ineffective “maximum pressure policy” against Caracas.
Fundamental, essential differences and conflicts exist between the Arrogant Powers – with the United States of America at the top of the list – and the popular, justice-seeking revolutions that are seeking independence. The political presence and influence of imperialist states and the Arrogant Powers in countries where people have carried out revolutions based on justice and independence have always weakened and will continue to weaken the revolutions and their achievements. Therefore, one of the most important ways to prevent this weakening and them bringing about deviations in anti- revolutions is to limit or suspend the political influence and interference of the domineering, colonizing countries. It is worth noting that in the current era, creating deviations in the independence and justice-seeking movements of nations is not limited to direct political interactions. The fields of soft, cognitive, and cultural warfare have become the most important means for creating deviations and destroying the achievements of the democratic movements.
[1] Ahmed, Eqbal (1980). "What's Behind the Crises in Iran and Afghanistan". Social Text (3): 44–58.
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/world/iran-blog/2015/feb/11/us-general-huysers-secret-iran-mission-declassified
[3] https://b2n.ir/x06366
[4] https://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/05/world/middleeast/05cia.html
[5] https://www.usip.org/publications/2011/07/beyond-tahrir-trajectory-egypts-transition
[6] Gamal M. Selim. (2013). "The United States and the Arab Spring: The Dynamics of Political Engineering." Arab Studies Quarterly, 35(3), 263
[7] https://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/world/middleeast/12syria.html
[8] https://www.businessinsider.com/why-are-regime-loyalists-attacking-the-us-embassy-in-syria-2011-7
[9] https://www.telesurtv.net/news/venezuela-nicolas-maduro-rompe-relaciones-diplomaticas-eeuu-20190123-0027.html
