İran Şahı: Muhammed Rıza Pehlevi | İran Halkı, İslam Devrimine Giden Yola Nasıl Girdi?

İran Şahı: Muhammed Rıza Pehlevi | İran Halkı, İslam Devrimine Giden Yola Nasıl Girdi?

How did a 2,500-year-old monarchy end with a revolution led by the mullahs? While the people wanted a republic, how did they say yes to an Islamic Republic? What did the people expect when the Shah was overthrown? Who were the real invaders? Let’s begin. In Iran, kingship was not just a form of government, but was seen as the earthly representative of a divine order. Kings carried the title of Shah not only with political power but also with divine rule . This monarchical chain, stretching from the Achaemenids to the Sassanids, from the Safavids to the Qajars, was part of a grand narrative in Iranian history through which not only the ruling dynasties but also the people defined themselves. But at the beginning of the 20th century, this narrative began to crumble. The constitutional monarchy declared in 1906 was a turning point in voicing the people’s demands for a constitution, a parliament, and the rule of law. However, the Qajar dynasty could neither understand nor carry these demands. The constitutional monarchy was declared once . Then it was suspended. It was forced upon them again. There was not an institutional reconciliation between the palace and the people, but a constant arm wrestling. Suddenly, the bazaar, allied with the mullahs, Suddenly, there were tradesmen and intellectuals demanding a constitutional order. And they faced a Qajar government that was losing its legitimacy with each passing day, offering privileges to the West, and failing even to protect the country’s territorial integrity. In this climate of weakness, the people turned their attention not to parliament but to armed discipline. That is, to the army. And it was at this very moment that an officer at the head of the Kazakh Brigade appeared on the scene: Reza Khan. In 1921, a military coup was carried out in the capital, Tehran, almost without firing a shot. Reza Khan declared himself first Minister of War and then Prime Minister. Within four years, he had the parliament liquidate the now-defunct Qajar dynasty, and in 1925, he established the Pahlavi dynasty and ascended to the throne. That day, only one dynasty in Iran remained unchanged. For the first time, Iran’s 2,500-year-old tradition of kingship was inherited by a non-noble soldier. Reza Khan was neither descended from a holy lineage nor a member of a cleric family. He was neither a sheikh nor a prince. He was an ordinary soldier. A new era had begun. It was not blood, but arms, discipline, and modernization that would govern Iran. But this modernization would be achieved by force, not with the people, but in spite of them. With Reza Shah’s rise to power, he set about transforming Iran from top to bottom. In his own words, he would destroy the old Iran and establish a strong and modern state in its place . But for this transformation , he decided not to persuade the people but to shape them . His priority was to establish a Western-style nation-state. This required the influence of religion in the public sphere. The power of the madrasas was limited. Control over the ulema was increased, and endowment properties were confiscated. Women were banned from wearing chadors. Men were required to wear hats. Islamic classes in schools were reduced. Arabic education was restricted. Wide segments of society viewed these reforms as a moral decline. This was not only a reaction from religious circles, but also an expression of an identity crisis. The Iranian people were caught between modernization and alienation. They could neither reconcile with their traditions nor internalize the imposed Westernization. By the late 1930s, Iran It was not an isolated country. Ersine was a state striving for rapid industrialization, investing in railways and infrastructure, and striving to establish a national economy. During this modernization process, Reza Shah needed technical support from the West. However, he wanted to avoid the tutelage of traditional powers like Britain and the Soviets. Therefore, he turned to Germany. He established relations with the Nazi regime, and Germany quickly became Iran’s largest trading partner. Hundreds of German engineers, teachers , and experts worked in Iran. German companies participated in infrastructure projects. Some strategic investments were awarded to German firms. Reza Shah’s admiration for Nazi Germany wasn’t solely economic; it also stemmed from his ideological affinity for discipline, centralization, and the philosophy of national power . However, this preference came at a price. With Germany’s advance in Europe, the British and Soviets became concerned about the German population in Iran. For the two great powers, Iran was more than just a neighbor; it possessed oil reserves, railway networks, and a strategic gateway to Central Asia. Furthermore, the spread of Nazi influence in Iran in the midst of World War I directly threatened the interests of the Western Allies in Asia. In the summer of 1941, this tension escalated into an open invasion. British and Soviet armies entered Iran in a coordinated operation. The justification was clear: Iran did not sever its ties with Germany or expel pro-Nazi experts. Although Reza Shah declared neutrality, he was effectively punished for collaborating with Germany. Allied troops quickly took control of northern and southern Iran. Resistance was virtually nonexistent. Reza Shah was unable to order his army to fight. On September 16, 1941, under intense pressure, he was forced to abdicate. His 21-year-old son, Mohammad Reza, succeeded him. Thus, Reza Shah abdicated and was exiled first to India and then to South Africa . He died in Johannesburg in 1944, a lonely and ill man . I now turn to September 1941. The young man who ascended the Iranian throne under the shadow of British and Soviet tanks was just 21 years old, Mohammad Reza Pahlabi. He had been meticulously groomed by his father for this role. But the truth was, in the public eye, he was neither a hero nor a savior. He was a prince forced onto the throne. Mohammad Reza was known not for his father’s harshness, but for his hesitation. Unlike his father, he hadn’t come from the military. He grew up not on the battlefield, but in boarding schools . He received his education at Leroze, one of Switzerland’s most elite schools . There, he shared desks with the children of kings, princes, and bankers . He learned French, becoming acquainted with Western thought, lifestyle, and the concepts of individual freedom. In the face of his father’s dominant character , this young man lived as a mere shadow for many years. But the expected fate came to him early. He was no longer just a student but a representative of 2,500 years of monarchical tradition. This legacy was heavy. Iran was under occupation. The country was divided among the great powers: the Soviets in the north, the British in the south. Mohammad Reza Shah would strive to maintain the balance of power while simultaneously providing strong leadership to the Iranian people. In reality, these two goals were opposed. Yenishah’s first significant move came in his personal life. In 1939, before ascending to the throne, he married Princess Fawziya, sister of King Farouk of Egypt . This marriage was not merely a love affair or a diplomatic gesture; it carried profound symbolic meaning. Iran and Egypt represented two important centers of the Shia and Sunni worlds . This dynastic marriage served both to convey a message of unity in the Islamic world and to strengthen the traditional legitimacy of the Pahlavi dynasty. The Pahlavi dynasty was not based on a noble background, as they had been known to flee. In the public eye, they were still seen as a new and wealthy dynasty, kings who had been imposed by force. The marriage to Princess Fawzi was, in fact, an attempt to bridge these gaps. However, like the Pahlavi regime, this marriage, while shiny on the surface, was fundamentally fragile. Fawziye was troubled by the oppressive environment in Iran, the conflicts he had with the Shah’s mother, and the regime’s contradictory attitude toward the West. This marriage ended within a few years. But what remained was the Pahlavi dynasty’s attempt to establish a lineage, a sense of grandeur, and a history for itself. Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who ascended to the throne in 1941, was not initially a powerful figure in the public eye. He was young and inexperienced, sitting in the palace under the shadow of British and Soviet occupation. Those who actually ruled the country were generals, bureaucrats, and pro-Western technocrats. But the Iranian people longed to escape the ravages of war, the remnants of exploitation , and the crushing burden of poverty. And one man answered these demands: Mohammad Mosaddegh. Mosaddegh was a politician from a noble family, educated in France and Switzerland, and steeped in modern legal understanding. But it was the nationalization of Iranian oil that made him a hero in the eyes of the people. When he was elected Prime Minister in 1951, one of his first actions was to cancel all privileges of the Anglo-Indian Oil Company, today known as BP . This company was under British control and was selling Iran’s underground resources to the West, despite the poverty of the Iranians. Muslik said, “Oil is not just an economic issue. It is our honor. This coup roused the people. Oil refineries were occupied . The entire country began chanting the slogan, ‘Oil belongs to the people.'” The Mossadegh administration sought not only economic but also political reforms. It wanted to limit royal powers, civilianize the army, and increase parliamentary oversight. As his struggle with the Shah over power-sharing intensified, tensions mounted, and Mossadegh ultimately forced the Shah out of the country. For the first time in Iranian history, the popular vote and an elected parliament had prevailed over the palace. But this victory did not last long. In August 1953, a historic rupture occurred in Iran. A coup plan supported by the CIA and MI-6 was put into action. Codenamed Operation Ajax, the coup was carried out by US President Eisenhauer and British Prime Minister Churchill. The aim was clear: to control Iran’s oil resources and to curb Mossadegh’s anti-Western tendencies. The first coup attempt failed, but the army was brought into play in the second attempt, and the streets were in chaos. British intelligence officers distributed money. Newspapers fabricated false reports, and Mossadegh was eventually detained at home. He was arrested, tried, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest. No international institution, no power, remained to defend him. After this coup, the Shah returned to the country, but he was no longer the same Shah he once was. He was no longer protected by the people, but by tanks, diplomats, and oil deals, and he never again allowed a genuine power-sharing agreement by popular vote. Iran’s first and last experience of freedom was crushed under the heel of an intelligence plot in 1953. This crushing laid the foundation for a massive anger that would last until 1979. By 1963, Mohammad Reza Shah was no longer a young man who had ascended to the throne under the shadow of occupation. He now ruled the country as an autocrat who had consolidated his power, controlled the army and bureaucracy, and suppressed dissent . Now it was time to reshape Iran according to his own vision . To this end, he called the series of reform packages he announced to the public that same year the White Revolution. This name was deliberately chosen. On the one hand, it signified a bloodless transformation. On the other hand, it held the promise of an anti-Red, anti-left modernization against communist revolutions. But what was the true purpose of these reforms? According to the Shah, Iran needed to integrate with contemporary civilization. The people’s standard of living should rise. Women should participate in social life, peasants should own land, and the literacy rate should increase. However, there was a deeper motivation behind these goals. The Shah’s regime, which had begun to lose the trust of the West, was trying to recreate its own domestic legitimacy. The White Revolution was ostensibly the Shah’s domestic political move, but the United States was directly behind it. The Western powers, who overthrew the Mossadegh government in 1953 with the support of the CIA and MI-6, wanted a stable regime in Iran. Iran was a key point of the Cold War due to its oil reserves and its border with the Soviet Union . The White Revolution, orchestrated with American support, was essentially a social antidote. The aim was to break the influence of leftist movements on the population . Land reform, women’s rights, and education campaigns, on the one hand, carried the slogan of development. On the other hand, it aimed to attract public sympathy towards the regime against communist ideologies. This is why this program was called a revolution. Revolutionary ideas were now the biggest threat. The Shah redefined this concept to his advantage. A revolution is beneficial if it is under his control. Land reform was at the forefront of the reforms initiated as part of the White Revolution. The property of large landowners would be expropriated and distributed to the peasants. This meant that hundreds of thousands of peasants would have their own fields for the first time. However, in practice, things turned out somewhat differently. Land reform disadvantaged large landowners but did not empower the peasants. Land was divided, but infrastructures such as irrigation, machinery, and subsidized loans were not provided. Within a few years, peasants either sold their land or left the village. This initiated migration to large cities. Women were granted the right to vote and be elected. A mobilization campaign was launched. Steps such as the privatization of state-owned companies, the promotion of private sector investment, and the expansion of health centers were taken. However, these reforms were implemented not with the people, but in spite of them. There were no participation mechanisms. There was no transparency. The opposition was silenced. The Shah was making decisions on behalf of the people, which made the reforms ineffective in their eyes. Over time, these initiatives created a perception of faux modernization. Peasants were left unemployed. Shopkeepers went bankrupt. Workers were attempted to be integrated into the system without the right to strike. Another significant consequence was that these reforms did not alleviate criticism of the regime; on the contrary, they intensified it. Following the White Revolution, the Shah’s regime claimed to transform Iran into a development miracle. The main basis for this goal was oil. From the 1960s onward, global oil prices had been rising, generating millions of dollars in revenue for Iran. This revenue represented a major opportunity for development. However, how and for whom this revenue would be spent would be the decisive factor. The Shah’s administration directed this revenue towards major infrastructure projects. Highways, dams, airports, nuclear power plant projects, and industrial zones were built. Tehran, in particular, took on a modern face with skyscrapers, wide avenues, and imported automobiles. However, most of these projects served urban centers and groups close to the regime. Rural areas, working-class neighborhoods, and provincial cities were left out of this transformation. While there was development in Iran, this development was not for everyone. The growth model financed by oil revenues created an unproductive structure. Domestic industry failed to develop, agriculture failed to modernize, and thus income distribution deteriorated rapidly. The social symbols of the new era were striking: American refrigerators, imported clothes from European designers, imported automobiles, imported ideals. A minority rising above the middle class. While accessing a Western lifestyle, the vast majority of the country was excluded from this ostentatious display. The majority of oil revenues went to imports or ostentatious projects. Investment decisions were determined not by the needs of the people but by the regime’s prestige objectives. This widened the gap between the people and the state. The state’s planning bodies and economic decision-makers were largely Western-educated technocrats. For them, development was measured by numbers and graphs. For the public, however, development was empty refrigerators, muddy village roads, unemployment, and disorganized urban shantytowns. This paradox revealed how economic growth deepened social injustice. And with each passing year, economic inequality began to become not just a financial problem but a political outrage. By the mid-1970s, the Shah was no longer just a regional leader but aspired to make Iran one of the modern world’s nuclear powers. Construction of nuclear reactors began through agreements with Germany, France, and the US . Iran was announcing to the world that it had taken a major step toward industrialization . However, these investments remained abstract for the broader public. Iran was still dependent on imports, had an unplanned development model that excluded public participation. The modernization process had become a showcase without a social foundation . Iran quickly acquired large buildings, large figures, and ambitious goals. But this growth failed to capture the spirit of society. People uprooted from their villages could not find a foothold in the cities. As traditional structures were disintegrating, a social balance could not be established. Women were given the right to vote. Education was expanded. The state had introduced technology to people’s lives, but it had not brought meaning. Modernization did not mean a better life for Iranians. It had become a crisis that triggered the question of who is better. This crisis would become the deepest vein feeding the revolution’s ideological foundation. For Mohammad Reza Shah, development meant not only economic but also the consolidation of political control . After the overthrow of Mossadegh in 1953, the Shah began to establish a systematic internal security apparatus to eliminate any threat to his authority . This structure eventually became the most feared institution in the country. The Savak initiative, the National Security and Information Agency, Savak was established in 1957 with the support of the CIA and the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad . Initially, its mandate was limited to espionage, but over time , it gained a much broader mandate, including monitoring, profiling, interrogating, punishing, and intimidating the opposition . Tens of thousands of civilians, journalists, students, clerics, and workers were detained simply for opposing the regime. A significant number of those arrested were imprisoned for months or even years without being formally charged. Savak’s interrogation methods were described by international human rights organizations as systematic torture. Many disappeared simply for reading a book, attending a speech, or being suspected of opposing the ‘Rash . ‘ The security apparatus he established against mullahs, leftists, nationalists, and all dissenting voices grew steadily. By 1975, the Shah had eliminated political pluralism in Iran. He shut down all political parties and replaced them with a single party he founded, the Rastakis Party . Party membership was no longer an option; it had become practically a civic duty. Civil servants, students, public employees— everyone was obligated to join this party. Those who refused were blacklisted, exiled , or fired. Sometimes they were directly prosecuted. Political opposition was driven underground or forced to flee the country. Elections were a sham. Parliament was dysfunctional. Newspapers were under strict control. Censorship was pervasive. Television, radio, and cinema had become instruments of state propaganda. The Shah was no longer merely the ruler of Iran ; he had become an absolute authority, dictating how the people would think, what they would believe, and whom they would love and whom they would reject. In 1971, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi held an unprecedented ceremony to celebrate 2,500 years of the Iranian monarchy. The venue was chosen to be the heart of the Achaean Empire: Persepolis, the ancient city where Darius and Cyrenai the Great ruled. The purpose of this ceremony was clear: to portray the Pahlavi dynasty as a deep-rooted and uninterrupted continuation of Iranian history. To declare to the world that he was not just a modern kingdom, but the heir to an ancient empire, the cradle of civilization . A giant tent city was erected for the celebrations. The design was commissioned by French architects. 250 tons of food and drink were transported from France to Iran on private planes. Nearly 60 heads of state and monarchs from around the world were invited. The meals served by the Shah to his guests were prepared by Paris’s famous Maxims restaurant. No expense was spared to ensure everything was perfect. The ceremony became a showcase where the ancient past merged with Western luxury. Magnificent processions were held. Gold-leaf thrones were prepared. Troops dressed as ancient Persian soldiers marched on stage. The Shah declared himself the king of kings . Yet, much of Iran still struggled with poverty, unemployment, and inadequate infrastructure. Villages still lacked electricity. The literacy rate was low. Thousands of villages lacked running water. The Persolis celebrations were not a symbol of national pride in the public eye; they were perceived as the ostentatious aberration of a government completely divorced from the state . When Iranians watched these celebrations on television, they saw not only the luxury but also how they were marginalized. Two worlds now existed in Iran. One was diplomatic spectacle, centered around tables served with gold cutlery . The other was a vast public struggling with unemployment, high prices, and censorship. The Shah tried to obscure the present by glorifying the past. But for the people, these celebrations heralded the approaching end of an era. At that time, the people were not the ones being applauded, and a regime that the people did not applaud could not survive by clinging to history . This silent crisis, which began in 1974 , paralyzed the regime’s decision-making mechanisms and profoundly shook the masses’ perception of leadership. Let’s examine this collapse piece by piece. In 1974, at a private clinic in Paris , Mohammad Reza Shah was diagnosed with a rare cancer originating in the lymph nodes. The disease’s course was slow but inevitable. It was a type of cancer that progressed over years and destroyed the immune system. The diagnosis was made by a French physician. At first, doctors concealed the condition. Even the Shah’s inner circle remained unaware of this information for a long time. However, the real problem was not the illness itself, but the decay caused by its concealment. Because in an authoritarian regime like Iran, the leader’s health is not just an individual matter. It is also the state’s capacity for determination. As the illness progressed, the Shah’s decision-making power weakened. He became physically more fragile and mentally more unstable. This situation became increasingly evident from 1977 onwards. The regime was unable to respond coherently to either protests or political crises. The Shah’s speeches became shorter. His attention span in meetings diminished. Some decisions were postponed, while others were contradictorily cancelled. Disagreements grew among government technocrats. Uncertainty reigned in the bureaucracy. But most importantly, no one within the government could openly address this weakness. Had the Shah admitted his illness, this admission would have signaled a weakness in power. But the more he concealed it, the deeper the decay. The Shah’s treatment protocols were complex given the circumstances of the time. However, an examination of his medical files reveals this. Drugs inappropriate to the nature of the disease were administered. Chemotherapy was delayed. Preventive treatments were not initiated before the immune system collapsed. The Shah’s advisors were divided among different doctors, each offering a different prescription. Each imposing their own solution based on political calculations. This confusion further weakened the Shah’s physical resistance. The disease paralyzed not only his body but also the regime’s nerve endings. By 1978, while the cries of revolution rang out in the streets of Iran, the palace was silent. The Shah was alone. Neither his palace advisors, nor the US embassy, nor his European allies reassured him. Intelligence reports in Washington now read: The Shah had lost his power. The regime was unsustainable in the long term. Meanwhile, Britain had begun contacting alternative actors to protect its interests in the event of a potential change of power. France was opening its doors to Iranian dissidents, and this isolation was felt not only internationally but also among the public. The Shah, who had once held the image of a strong leader, was now seen as a dejected, silent man, unsure of what to do. Ruhollah Musavi Khomeini was born in 1902 in Khomeini, a small city in central Iran. His family was a family of scholars of both noble birth and religious stature . His father, a cleric, was assassinated when Khomeini was still a child due to Reza Khan’s oppressive policies. This event remained not only a traumatic event in his personal history but also the first seed of his reckoning with the Shah’s regime. Khomeini received religious education from an early age in the city of Qom, one of the central centers of Shiism. He studied jurisprudence, theology, ethics, and Sufism. However, what distinguished him from other religious scholars was not only his knowledge but also his political acumen and organizational acumen. From the 1950s onward , he began to speak out against the Shah’s secularization and Westernization efforts. He particularly targeted practices such as the mandatory headscarf requirement in public spaces for women and the ban on religious symbols . However, these criticisms were not merely nostalgic or traditional. For Khomeini, the problem was not only moral decay but also the denial of Islam’s role in establishing social order. Khomeini’s real point of difference was his political theory: Velayati Jurist. According to this theory, the Islamic state should be governed not only by popularly elected rulers but also under the supervision of a jurist, equipped with justice and knowledge and knowledgeable of God’s commands . In other words, clergy should not be mere preachers but also direct state officials. This view marked a radical transformation in Iranian Shiism. According to the traditional Shiite approach, clergy should remain aloof from politics during the period of occultation, which would last until the Day of Judgment. Khomeini overturned this understanding and defined political Islam as not only a legitimate but also a necessary responsibility. Madrasa students in the Qom, young mullahs, and the religious masses among the people quickly embraced this theory. Khomeini was no longer just a scholar but a political leader proposing an alternative order to the system . In 1963, he implemented the White Revolution reforms. He was arrested for labeling him a puppet of American imperialism. The protests that began in the sand that same year were suppressed. Hundreds were killed. Khomeini was first placed under house arrest. Then, in 1964, he was exiled to Iraq. He trained students in Najaf for 15 years. He wrote treatises and secretly sent proclamations to Iran. However, in 1978, the Iraqi government deported him at the Shah’s request. This decision unwittingly paved the way for the revolution. This was because Khomeini now moved to Paris, the capital of France. He was no longer just a cleric in Iran. He became a global figure , giving interviews in European media accessible to international media and distributing his audio recordings to the world . His statements from a farmhouse in Paris were reproduced and distributed to the public through the Iranian mosque network . Using the technology of the time, his audio recordings were sent to Iran. These recordings were duplicated in Iran and circulated from city to city through clandestine networks. His name is mentioned in every sermon. His voice echoed at every rally. Hum. It was no longer an idea, but a movement . A group emerged that responded directly to the regime’s secularization policies with violence . This organization, the Fedayeen of Islam , was one of the early Islamist militant groups that combined religious fanaticism with political violence. Its leader was Navvab Safavi, a young madrasa student. In his 20s , he believed that the state had become irreligious and that Islam must be protected with blood. The Fedayeen characterized Iran’s Westernization as the elimination of faith , declaring any act contrary to religion as apostasy . This logic drove them not only to intellectual but also to physical struggle. The most striking characteristic of the Fedayeen of Islam was their embrace of political assassinations as a tool. According to them, anyone who enacted laws against religion, obstructed the Islamic way of life, or served the West was a legitimate target. To this end, they carried out several high-profile assassinations. In 1946, Ahmed Kasravi, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Appeals, was stabbed to death in front of the court for his reformist and secular views. In 1949, Prime Minister Abdel Hussein Hasir was shot at point-blank range during Friday prayers. In 1951, Education Minister Ahmed Sangene was targeted for secularizing the school curriculum . The most striking action was the assassination of Ali Razi, who had become Prime Minister in 1951. These assassinations shook the regime not only physically but also psychologically . This was because radical Islamism was no longer limited to criticism from the clergy but was directly killing. The upper echelons of the state were clearly targeted. In 1955, the regime decided to purge this radical group. Navvab, Safavi, and their close associates were arrested. The death sentence against him was swiftly carried out. He was executed by firing squad at just 27 years old. However, his death did not end his ideology. On the contrary, Navvab Safavi became a martyr figure for many of the Islamist movements that would rise in the 1970s. Many, including Khomeini, cited his courage and spirit of self-sacrifice as an example . The ideology of the Islamic Fedayeen paved the way for movements like Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and the People’s Mujahideen in later years . The Shah’s oppressive rule pitted not only the religious but also leftist intellectuals, students, and workers against them. The rising leftist opposition in Iran, especially from the 1950s onward , sought to construct an ideological counterpoint to the system’s class inequalities and imperialist foreign policy. These organizations’ fundamental goal was to transform Iran into an independent, secular, and egalitarian people’s republic . However, the Shah’s regime permitted neither opposition in parliament nor street organizing. This inevitably drove leftist movements underground, even into the mountains. The spearhead of the leftist movement in Iran was the TUDEF party, founded in 1941. This organization, whose name means People’s Party, followed a Marxist-Leninist line. Its intellectual cadres were strong , establishing significant influence in universities, unions, and cultural circles. By the late 1940s , they had even established a significant presence within the Iranian army. However, after the overthrow of Mossadegh in 1953, the TUDE party was driven completely underground. Some were executed. The rest fled to the Soviet Union. In the 1970s , however, they failed to demonstrate sufficient effectiveness to pose a direct threat to the regime. Their organizational structure had become cumbersome. Their dependence on Moscow created a perception of external control in the public’s mind. TUDE continued to develop ideas, but its revolutionary practices would be carried on by new generations. Now, let’s turn to the people’s fedayeen. Founded in 1971 by young socialist cadres who advocated armed resistance against the oppression of the Shah’s regime , they attracted attention with guerrilla warfare in the countryside and assassinations and sabotage in the cities. They made their greatest impact in the mid-1970s. Ideologically, they were inspired by revolutionaries like the MAO. They believed the people had been lulled into slumber, and armed struggle would be the first spark of this awakening. The fedayeen descended into villages and launched attacks on regime representatives. They targeted Savak agents and raised funds through bank robberies. However, many militants were neutralized by the Shah’s intelligence network in the mid-1970s. Hundreds were arrested, tortured, and executed. Despite this, the organization remained largely unraveled. On the contrary, it became legendary among young people. The People’s Mujahideen is a hybrid resistance uniting Islam and Marxism. Founded in 1965, the People’s Mujahideen held a unique place in Iranian political history because it sought to combine the Marxist idea of equality with the Shiite Islamic idea of justice. According to them, Hazrat Ali was a revolutionary. Karbala was a popular uprising, and today’s oppressor was none other than the Shah. The Mujahideen were extremely well organized, both theoretically and practically. They received armed training. They established urban cells. They organized in poor neighborhoods and gained popular support. The active participation of female militants distinguished them from other organizations. However, between 1971 and 1975, the organization split as some groups shifted to a more secular and openly Marxist line. Some retained their Islamist stance, while others became purely Marxist. Both factions were targeted by the Shah’s regime. However, the surviving groups would resurface during the 1978-79 revolution , this time reaching a level where they could compete with the Islamists. Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, overthrown in a Syrian-backed coup in 1953, became not only a political figure but also a symbol of the anti-Shah constitutional opposition. He challenged the West with his drive to nationalize oil, defended the will of parliament, and sought to limit the Shah’s powers. After the coup, he was sentenced to house arrest. But his intellectual legacy served as a guide for younger generations, particularly in the 1960s and 1970s. It was institutionalized within the political movement called the National Front. The National Front espoused a secular nationalist stance advocating constitutional reform, the rule of law, freedom of expression, and independence . They neither took up arms nor embraced violence. Yet, they were not allowed to participate in politics. They were not represented in parliament. Their newspapers were censored, and their leadership was regularly detained. This repression did not weaken them. On the contrary, it strengthened their identity as a legitimate opposition outside the regime . It provided a secure base, especially among urban bourgeois officials, intellectuals, and students . In the 1970s, Iranian universities were centers not only of scholarship but also of political criticism. Revolutionary posters hung in engineering faculties. In law faculties, the Shah’s constitution was questioned. In literature departments, dependence on the West was criticized. Among intellectuals, Ali Shariati was one of the most influential figures of this period. This thinker, who blended Marxist analysis with Islam, had a profound impact, especially on the younger generation of devout believers. In his thought, the tragedy of Karbala transformed class exploitation into Imam Hussein into modern revolutionaries. Sharia’s teachings became mass conferences, and his books became leaflets circulated . During the same period, thousands of Iranian students studying abroad joined political organizations in France, Germany, and the United States. These students were not only active in their own country but also part of a global anti-imperialist resistance movement . The Palestinian issue, the Vietnam War, and the revolutions in Latin America were sapping the intellectual capacity of Iranian youth. The Grand Bazaar, Iran’s traditional economic center , became a surprising focal point of resistance to the regime . Large merchants, artisans, and craftsmen had historically been associated not only with trade but also with social movements. During the Constitutional Revolution, the Musad period, and the 1970s, the mosque and the bazaar always walked side by side. The Shah’s industrial modernization policies sought to diminish the importance of the Grand Bazaar. Tax reforms, import restrictions, and privileges granted to large corporations all disadvantaged the traditional business class. As the people of the Grand Bazaar felt economically marginalized, they drew closer spiritually and politically to the Islamist opposition. This unification became the social engine of the Iranian revolution. The ulema, the Grand Bazaar, the Intellectual Youth triangle, and each corner of this triangle spoke different languages, yet they stood together against the Shah. On January 7, 1978, an article published in Etelat, one of Iran’s leading newspapers, initiated a chain reaction that would fundamentally alter the country’s political climate . Mr. The anonymous article, titled “Handy and Red Revolution,” described Ayatollah Khomeini as a British agent, a morally corrupt cleric, and a fraud who deceived the public. The article’s purpose was clear: to publicly discredit Khomeini, who had gained influence in exile, especially through interviews he gave in Paris . However, the result was the opposite. On the morning of January 8th, students and clerics began gathering around religious schools and mosques in the city of Qom. Demonstrators raided the newspaper’s distribution centers. They chanted slogans such as “No death for Khomeini” and “Long live the voice of Islam.” Police intervened. They opened fire directly on the demonstrators. More than 20 people lost their lives that day. The bloodshed in Qom was not just the first drop of a protest but the first drop of an uprising that would engulf the entire country. The memorial ceremonies held 40 days after the deaths in the Iranian Sheikhdom are rooted in a deep social and religious tradition. This time, Tabriz was in revolt as the 40th anniversary of the Qom massacre was commemorated . Hundreds of people took to the streets. Police intervened again, and this time, deaths occurred in Tabriz. The 40-day mourning cycle that followed each death transformed from mourning into political action. Mourning, commemorations, sermons, banners, cassettes, and flyers. Everything unfolded systematically. Tehran, Meshed, Isfahan, and Shiraz. If a funeral occurred in one city, it would be commemorated in another 40 days later. Then came another massacre. And so the revolution began to grow with the rhythm of mourning. By the summer of 1978, the protests were no longer limited to students. Oil workers went on strike, bank employees walked off the job, the press, the public bureaucracy, and teachers took to the streets. The people were no longer crying out for bread, freedom, or justice; they were crying out directly for death to the Shah. The tapes Khomeini sent from Paris circulated across the country. Mosques, bazaars, and coffeehouses became the venues where this voice echoed. These tapes contained neither a call to arms nor a direct plan for insurrection. But every sentence declared the Shah’s regime morally, politically, and spiritually illegitimate. One of the most fundamental slogans in the streets was: Istiklal (independence). Azadi ( freedom); Cumhuri-i Islami (Islamic Republic). This slogan had now clearly declared the direction of the revolution. On August 19, 1978, a fire broke out in a crowded cinema in the southern Iranian industrial city of Abadan. The hall was called Cerex. It was a luxurious screening center. Approximately 500 people were inside that day. The fire spread so quickly that the building’s front doors were closed. Emergency exits were locked , and those inside were unable to escape. Those trapped in the flames screamed for help, cried for help, and banged on the windows, killing themselves. 422 people burned to death. This incident was not just a fire; it was a national trauma. Immediately after the fire, two major rumors circulated among the public. The first was that the fire was orchestrated by the sluice gate. The aim was both to create a pretext for suppressing the protests and to intimidate social opposition. According to this view, the state had orchestrated a massacre. Some eyewitnesses described how the cinema’s front doors were locked from the outside, and how the fire department arrived late at the scene. Secondly, radical Islamists were responsible for the incident. Cinema is considered a symbol of Western culture. It was alleged that immoral films were being shown inside. According to this view, the Sinirex attack was the work of a militant group seeking to intimidate the public into Islamization. The truth of the incident remained unclear for many years. Initially, anti-regime groups were blamed. Subsequently, some arrests were made. However, these accusations were clouded by political considerations . According to some investigations, the attack was actually carried out by a radical anti-Shah cell. But the truth was clear from the start in the public’s eyes: the Shah had set it on fire. The Sinirex fire was a psychological threshold for the Iranian people. No summer appeals, no compromises, no reform proposals were credible anymore. This fire became a public symbol that the Shah’s regime was already dead . Protests intensified. Cultural centers were burned. Public buildings were occupied. Molotov cocktails were no longer used against the police, but rather stones. Prayers in mosques were turning into anger in the streets. A chant was now heard frequently : The end of the bloodthirsty Shah is near. By September 1978, the streets of Iran were almost completely out of control. Strikes, marches, boycotts, sermons, and leaflets. The Shah’s regime was unable to quell this wave. Every day, people in different cities poured into the squares demanding the Shah’s departure. So the regime declared martial law. The aim was to regain control and clear the squares. But this decision wasn’t just an administrative reflex; it was a harbinger of disaster. Early that morning , thousands of people gathered in Tehran’s Jaleh Square. Most of them were young. They held photos of Khomeini and chanted slogans of independence, freedom, and the Islamic Republic. Women wore headscarves, students were enthusiastic, and the elderly were silent. But everyone was there: workers, teachers, imams, and shopkeepers. Regime forces surrounded the square. Tanks were positioned. Snipers were on the roofs of buildings. This gathering had been declared illegal due to the declared martial law . But the crowds didn’t disperse, and around 9:00 a.m., the first shots were fired. The shots were random. There was no warning, no attempt at arrest, just gunfire. Panic spread within minutes, and people fell to the ground. The square turned into a bloodbath. The wounded couldn’t be transported. Ambulances didn’t arrive. Soldiers opened fire on those leaving the square . Officially, 64 people died in Jaleh Square that day, and independent sources say at least 100. Since then, the square’s name has been changed. It became Shahada Square, meaning Martyrs’ Square. And the massacre that day has gone down in Iranian history as Black Friday. Black Friday has created a single feeling across all segments of Iranian society: reconciliation is no longer possible. For conservatives, this was the true face of a regime that declared war on religion. For leftists, it was fascism trying to silence the people with bullets. For the middle class, it was a state that could no longer be trusted. A few days later, the Shah addressed the people on television. His tone was calm, dull, and uncertain. “Mistakes may have been made,” he said. But the people no longer heard these words. Because there was blood on the ground, and the people were determined to demand accountability for that blood. After Black Friday, a nationwide general strike began. Oil refineries, electricity companies, banks, and government offices all fell silent. Even radio and television workers went on strike. The country was paralyzed, the regime was frozen, and the streets were no longer just walking. They were preparing for destruction. By the fall of 1978, the Shah’s regime was seeking ways to stop Khomeini’s influence, which had grown through tapes, leaflets, and mosques. Khomeini had been in Najaf, Iraq, for 14 years at the time. He had trained dozens of students there, written pamphlets, and guided the resistance in Iran with tapes and letters. But Naja had now become a base. The Iranian government demanded Khomeini’s deportation from Iraq under Saddam Hussein . Saddam agreed to this request to preserve relations. In October 1978, Khomeini was ordered to leave Najaf. He first tried to go to Kuwait, but was prevented from crossing the border . He was not accepted. Then he made a surprising decision. He would go to Paris. Upon arriving in France, he settled in Nuflulu Shatu, a small town on the outskirts of Paris. At first, it was a quiet and simple house, but it soon turned into a center that attracted journalists, academics, and political representatives from all over the world . His presence accelerated the revolutionary process in several ways. For the first time, the Western press was able to follow Khomeini’s words directly. He gave daily interviews, giving clear, concise, and decisive answers to questions. He opposed secularization, but by combining this stance with a promise of a moral order, he attracted the attention of many commentators in the West. The Iranian diaspora began to gather around his Paris home: students, former opposition politicians, leftists, and religious believers. Interestingly, different ideological lines tried to develop a common political line in this town. Tapes were now produced more professionally and were delivered to Iran through the media. Printed leaflets, video recordings, and open letters brought the revolution to the attention not only of Iran but also of the world. Lemonde, The Guardian, The New York Times, and Time Magazine all sent reporters to his home. Khomeini’s photos appeared on magazine covers. A man in a black turban, quietly spoken but calling for the overthrow of the state. Was he dark or a savior? This movement, seen as a popular uprising against the oppressive modernism of the Shah’s regime, was met with sympathy among Western intellectuals . The potential of Khomeini’s radical rhetoric was overlooked . At the time, the world was focusing on the anti-imperialist aspect of the Iranian movement rather than its Islamic content. This gave Khomeini international legitimacy. In the face of these developments, the Shah became isolated not only domestically but also in foreign policy. Western allies, particularly the UK and the US, concluded that the Shah was no longer a sustainable leader. France, however, far from silencing Khomeini, allowed him freedom of expression. This was an embarrassing situation for the Shah. By the end of 1978, there was only one thing openly discussed in Iran: the Shah would go, and Khomeini would replace him. While the streets burned, the ruler was not only ill, but also indecisive, tired, and afraid. He issued contradictory orders regarding military intervention. ” One day we wanted a harsh intervention, the next, no bloodshed,” he said. While some commanders waited for orders, others disobeyed them. The regime had begun to disintegrate. This indecision led to low morale within the army, cracks in the chain of command , and a hesitant distance between the soldiers and the people . Many soldiers no longer wanted to fire on crowds. They said, “If only an order came, we could go home.” Seeking to offset this despair, the Shah attempted one last maneuver: compromise with the opposition. In November 1978, some clerics were contacted. Proposals for a new constitution were discussed. The constitutional monarchy system was revived. A reform package was prepared. A political amnesty was declared. Some young people arrested during the protests were released. But it was too late. For the people in the squares, these attempts at compromise were a declaration of weakness. If a regime that had been silent for years was now trying to talk, it meant it was finished. Indeed , Khomeini had sent a very clear message from Paris: nothing would be acceptable until the Shah left . This statement completely erased any possibility of compromise, and the Shah found himself literally in a vacuum. In December 1978, millions of people took to the streets of Tehran and other major cities, flagless, unarmed, yet furious. The army was passive, the bureaucracy paralyzed. Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was silent. He issued no orders, made no speeches, or appeared before the people. By the beginning of January 1979, in the midst of the Atlantic, the Shah was no longer a source of stability for the imperialist powers . Strikes had halted the flow of oil in the country. Western economies, dependent on Iranian oil, were directly affected by this crisis. Millions were in the streets. The army was on the verge of disintegration. The Shah was unstable. The people were angry. And most importantly, there was no one left to control the masses except Khomeini. Seeing this situation, Western leaders concluded that the Shah had become a liability. The US and its allies began to consider that a new order in Iran could be established with Khomeini . From that moment on, the Shah’s irreversible diplomatic isolation began. By the first week of January 1979, the Shah had lost touch not only with his country but also with the world. It is reported that he said the following words during the meeting: “Nothing is different now. I’m leaving.” And indeed, just a few days later, in the morning hours of January 16, 1979, He left the country on a military plane. He left behind a shattered army, a people in revolt, a silent state. A collapsed regime and a rising revolution. Before takeoff, the Shah turned to the officers on the runway and said, “I’m leaving for a while.” But there was no turning back. There was no king, no crown, no throne in the country anymore. And for the first time in centuries, the people stood on the threshold of a future they would determine themselves. Exactly two weeks after the Shah’s departure, on the morning of February 1, 1979, an Air France passenger plane landed in Tehran from Paris. On board was a figure who had overthrown a regime that had spent 15 years in exile and was preparing to return to his country: Ruhollah Khomeini. Those who greeted him at the airport weren’t just a delegation of officials. Hundreds of thousands had poured into the streets to see him. The voice they had heard on tape for years was now with them in reality. That day, Iranians perceived Khomeini not just as a leader, but as a voice of justice against oppression, a sign of a divine return. That day, Khomeini shouted no slogans, issued no threats. He was simply silent. But that silence was louder than any regime. And so, one of history’s most ancient monarchies collapsed, and a regime rising from the voice of the people was born. But this birth was painful , and the true nature of its life was yet to be seen. The people were friendly enough to catch just a glimpse of the man they revered like a god. We will follow his evolution step by step in our next documentary.

İran Şahı: Muhammed Rıza Pehlevi | İran Halkı, İslam Devrimine Giden Yola Nasıl Girdi?

İran halkı, “Şah’tan kurtulalım” derken…
İslam Devrimi’ne giden yolun taşlarını nasıl döşedi?

#pehlevi #belgesel #iran #irandevrimi #şahmuhammedpehlevi

2500 yıllık krallık geleneği…
Modernleşme vaatleriyle iktidara gelen bir askerî hanedan…
Ve sonunda, kontrol edilemeyen toplumsal öfke, kitlesel grevler ve “Şah gitsin” sloganıyla büyüyen bir halk hareketi.

Bu belgesel, İran’ın son şahı Muhammed Rıza Pehlevi’nin hikâyesini anlatıyor.
Ama sadece onun değil; bir rejimin, bir sınıfın, bir çağın çöküşünü…

📌 Rıza Han’ın 1921 darbesiyle başlayan Pehlevi döneminde neler yaşandı?
📌 Beyaz Devrim’in vaatleri neden toplumsal desteğe dönüşmedi?
📌 1953 darbesiyle devrilen Musaddık kimdi ve neden hedef alındı?
📌 Petrol zenginliği toplumu neden kalkındıramadı?
📌 SAVAK’ın kurduğu korku rejimi toplumsal hafızayı nasıl şekillendirdi?
📌 Hangi muhalefet grupları devrime zemin hazırladı?
📌 Ruhullah Humeyni kimdi? Hangi fikirle yükseldi?
📌 Şah neden yalnızlaştı ve ülkeyi neden terk etti?

Arşiv görüntüleri, tarihsel belgeler ve dönemin toplumsal dinamikleriyle zenginleştirilen bu belgesel; sadece bir liderin değil, halktan kopmuş bir rejimin nasıl çözüldüğünü bütün yönleriyle anlatıyor.

Katıl butonuyla kanalımıza destek olabilirsiniz🙏🏻

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCDQY48ToLrEMq1qlKsTPBQ/join

Bizi sosyal medya hesaplarımızdan takip ederek daha fazla kitleye ulaşmamıza destek olun🙏🏻
Instagram https://www.instagram.com/sokakkedisi.tv
Twitter https://www.twitter.com/sokakkedisitv
Facebook https://www.facebook.com/sokakkedisitv