You were supposed to have read this article by Maziar Behrooz for today's class lecture. It analyzes the guerilla movements in Iran during the 1960s and 70s. A couple of questions to contemplate:
- How important was the role of the guerillas in creating resistance to the Shah's rule?
- To what extent were they successful? What were their mistakes?
Please reply to this entry with your thoughts.
- Keyan
Please reply to this entry with your thoughts.
- Keyan
5 comments:
Many of the guerilla groups, which had Marxist- Stalinist tendencies, were ultimately unsuccessful in their goals for a new Iran. These groups did however open pathways toward resistance against the Shah when other roads to resistance had failed.
Political groups like the Tudeh Party and the ROPTI had been taken down by SAVAK before they could even get off the ground. The guerilla movements had an answer to the problems faced by these other groups. They used neither "underground political activity" or one "single act of violence" to bring about change. The guerillas used a method of sustained violence to help achieve their goals.
For me, the confusion with Behrooz's article comes from how they achieved this. How did the guerillas create a movement organized enough to shake up the power of the Shah and SAVAK when many other movements had failed?
The article is interesting in several respects: firstly, it doesn't appear that there was really any nonviolent resistance movement in Iran, and secondly, leaders of the various guerrilla movements said they modeled their fight on Palestinian and Algerian resistance movements.
This is purely speculative, but this sort of underground, revolutionary movement may have exacerbated the Shah's desire to remain in power and silence the opposition. Violent revolution is also a hallmark of Marxist revolution, so this must have been unacceptable to the Shah's "western" allies. It would have been interesting had there been a strong nonviolent movement in Iran, calling, not necessarily for revolution, but reform, at the very least. It sounds like SAVAK kept everyone in line, but public perception of a nonviolent movement, esp. internationally, would have been much different.
I also think using the tactics of groups with foes so politically different from the Shah was, from a purely strategic perspective, poor planning indeed. Algeria gained independence because colonialism was falling everywhere, and there was no longer public support for the French gov't to keep the colony. Israel/Palestine is a territorial dispute with structural violence as well as actual violence that hasn't ceased since... well, Zionists gained power.
It really shows any revolutionary movement that intends to have liberal reforms must do much more than ally itself with people it perceives to share the same goals, and that, perhaps violent revolution, with hopes of gaining a lasting peace, isn't the best answer...
For me, I was amazed at the swiftness and ability of the SAVAK. Although tensions mounted as a result of poorly executed reforms and stifled political freedoms, it took a massive wave of discontent and anger to to get the revolution to occur. Until that point, each attempt at mobilization or action was stopped quickly by breeches in their ranks or powerful resistance.
I think the guerrillas did a good job of getting the ball rolling and much like the article talks about, they did a good job of giving people hope that they could resist an army that seemed invincible. Initial dissenters can inspire others to assemble as well and I think this is where the guerrillas are most important.
Their greatest success comes from their ability to inspire and influence. However, some of the groups were rather unstable and had rather different beliefs than others. They were together in their common goal, but groups such as the MKO never had their vision recognized.
After reading this article, it seems as if the MKO, Fadaiyan, and other anti-shah groups united, to achieve a common goal (the ousting of the Shah and obliteration of the monarchy), without coming to any tangible and consensual agreement on alternative modes of government. The political philosophies of such groups were similar, but there were blatant areas of disagreement between them. A restless people, disillusioned by the monarchy's reckless use of brute force, made a collective decision to fight for the destruction of a regime without seriously considering the later ramifications. Although the guerrilla movement itself failed, it is stated that it definitely maintained a revolutionary spirit in Iran that ultimately played a major role in the revolution of 1979. As mentioned in the article, however,leftist groups served as the strongest opposition against the Islamic Republic after the revolution. It is understandable that such a group would interpret the repression of civil liberties as the result of an archaic and outdated mode of government gone awry. My question is, with all the skepticism towards the government and its policies, how were the people so quick to lend the Grand Ayatollah Khomeini so much credibility? Granted that he had established a following in Iran years prior to the revolution, how were the masses convinced that he could follow through with the promises that he made to various groups? Groups like the MKO vied for power after the revolution, but were promptly defeated by the well-organized Islamic Republic. Did these factions fail to foresee the "struggle after the struggle", so to speak (namely, the struggle to consolidate power after it had been entirely disassembled)?
i think whats interesting about iran before and after the shah is that it seems that things in iran were just as bad, if not worse, before the revolution when the shah was controlling the people. i think the image of iran before the revolution, with people being happy and westernized, is one we see often, but it is clear that people were not safe. there were these groups going around, like the SAVAK, that made sure people werent thinking, talking, acting against the shah. so the people of iran were clearly not free. the iranian people were living in a state of violence.
also, just knowing this, i think it becomes clear that even though the revolution came with many problems, it was crucial for this form of government control to change. the shah era was not a good time for the iranian people. i am anxious to see the real changes after the revolution because i feel like the media depicted iran after the revolution as evil because of its religious affiliation.
Post a Comment