by gitdoun ver.2.0

My eyes have been opened recently to this satanic regime. and i am in the beginning phase of understanding the totality of what this regime represents and how it came to be. But I have a some very naive questions to ask and i hope to hear from people who remember the revolution as i was born some years after it.

My question is a very simple one, albeit naive and stupid, still i need real human voices to paste with allll the books/empirical data i am sifting through here at the library.

I am reading Professor Hamid Algar's book Writings and Declarations of Khomeini in which Khomeini paints his vision of a government that safeguards individual rights, liberty, dialogue, respect for human rights, freedom of speech etc etc. but in 1979 when he comes to power he basically did the EXACT OPPOSITE and establishes a Clerical Kingship.

1) I mean is it me or was he a conniving liar ??? Is that why the older generation/parents DID NOT SEE the avalanche that was to come ??? WHY DIDN'T YOU SEE THE I.R.I. COMING !!??

--thank u in advance for your time--


If u do choose to answer my question please be thoughtful, sincere, and academic. saying "phuck khomeini" or "khomeini screw you" has little bearing. -thanxx


Recently by gitdoun ver.2.0CommentsDate
Humor Reflects Mentality of Islam Haters
Aug 29, 2009
Tehran Letter: 'It Is A Gut Feeling That All Of Us Have'
Jul 19, 2009
Ahmadinejad Comedy
Jul 13, 2009
more from gitdoun ver.2.0
rosie is roxy is roshan

Gitdoun, from the dream to the nightmare

by rosie is roxy is roshan on

I read a story several years ago translated from Persian to English that helped me understand a missing piece of the puzzle. It is called 'The Victory Chronicle of the Magi' by Hushang Golshiri. I am sure you can find it in Persian but the English one is in an anthology called Strange Times, My Dear (edited Mozaffari and Karimi Hakkak, Arcade Publishing).

It takes place in a town among a group of young men who meet regularly in the local tavern run by their Zoroastrian friend immediately after the Revolution. There are thugs in the town (I guess Basij types...) and of course they start to terrorize the Zoroastrian and want to close the tavern. It shows the different responses and choices the friends had and consequences they could face as the terror worsened. I am sure it is based on real events. It is a missing piece of the puzzle as to how the (manipulated) people who had supported the Revolution with other expectations 'allowed' it to take the form it shortly after took.

I think you would like it very much. Remember, I started off with the same question as you...

rosie is roxy is roshan

Well I agree and disagree with Vildemose about Ben Ross

by rosie is roxy is roshan on

making a fresh blog about it. I do agree that this is one of the most important topics, the question Gitdoun asked, and that it has been revisited over and over with absolutely no progress exactly for reasons Ben and I alluded to--sense of guilt, problem of 'black and white' thinking I explained to Gitdoun down below, and more. So I really think it's about time the whole thing should be looked at with an open mind to all the different, intelligent input.

Making a separate blog on the one hand would draw more attention and more input but on the other hand that input would include all the black and white thinkers, and then all they do is yell at each other from the viewpoint I am God and you are the Devil (but of course they're always all Secularists, lol).

Well we know how they are and we are always free to choose not to get deviated from the course of an honest discussion on a new blog. Or we could keep it here on this 'old' blog where not too many new people willl hop on board and the discussion will be more contained to begin with.

What do you think Ben? Maybe you don't even have much time to pursue it at all now. Up to you.

gitdoun ver.2.0

thank u benross

by gitdoun ver.2.0 on

your posts , as well as posts from other friends , has been most illuminating.  -thanxx!!!!


Dear Benross: Your argument

by vildemose on

deleted: double posting!


Dear Benross: Your argument

by vildemose on

Dear Benross: Your argument is of outmost significance and should be put in a stand-alone blog so people can learn from you and each other. Open this up for disucssion, if you have time.

I do agree that shia Islam and Mahdi's archetypical power on our collective is highly exagerrated. 



'I want to believe'

by benross on

Yes Rosie you are absolutely right. He let everybody dreaming about the spirit of Islam because he knew when it comes to the practicality, he and only he owns the gun which is the Fegh'h and Sharia. Even there, of-course there are different interpretations but he already established his supremacy over the clergy.

You are also right that it was our responsibility to decipher what he was saying and we absolutely did nothing, not then and not after when we became the apologists of any repressive action the regime took. Even the current 'peaceful resistance' dogma (not the desire) is the continuation of the same apologist thinking to me.

Our participation to this historic fraud, our 'collective guilt' that has to be faced without any reservation, is a centerpiece of my arguments.

I personally don't read too much in the cultural impact of Islam (shi'a) in the whole society. The dream of arrival of a savior, whether it's the 12th imam or messiah or charming prince is pretty much the same to me and a universal phenomenon. Iranians may be religious. But they are not stupid. The 12th imam was a centerpiece of regime propaganda for 30 years but it didn't add -or subtract- anything to this issue. The story I told earlier, was about an educated young man who 'wants to believe'. This is a psychologic need and condition that can happen anywhere. In U.S there are those who want to believe in U.F.Os. It doesn't make them stupid. Only in Iran, this happened in an incredibly large scale.What makes Islam relevant in this case is only as an element of resistance toward modernity which was looked at differently by those 'who wanted to believe'.

Bear in mind that up until Reza Shah reforms, the center of religious activities and the center of cultural activities was the same. The modernity movement in Iran which led to the constitutional revolution was carried out on the shoulders of intellectuals a good part of whom were the clerics. Some of these clerics during or after the revolution abandoned the typical cleric dress, some didn't. But the issue of modernity was not a *foreign* issue to Iranian intelligentsia which comprised the clerics.

Reza Shah reforms by creating modern schools and university isolated clerics from modernity process but by then, there was not much left in substance in traditional camp. Just the pure reactionary thoughts. Some say that this separation was the seed of Islamic revolution. Well obviously it was. But not the separation per se. The lack of continuity and freedom of speech within this new infrastructure caused it. Otherwise the clerics that mattered were already moved to this new infrastructure. If you look at our literature and art from 900 years ago onward, our intellectuals were begging for this separation. Only Reza Shah had the power to do so. It was the lack of dialogue that caused the reactionary revolution.

rosie is roxy is roshan

Hi Ben,

by rosie is roxy is roshan on

So would you agree with what I said below, that Khomeini promised' 'beach parties according to Islamic law' and the most educated, sophisticated sector of the Middle East did not bother to find out that it meant Shariah, and that there are no beach parties under Shariah? And that now many people here will tell you they were 'swept up' like leaves by the winds of Revolution but that they had also had enough education in critical thinking to ask and figure it out. And that each not asking was an individual choice and a dereleiction of individual and collective responsibility? 

That the belief in the coming of the Twelfth Imam is deeply emblazoned subconsciously on even some of the most ardent Iranian secularists (atheism itself being a religion) and that ts similar to adolescent wish fulfillment?

Because whenever I ask about the beach parties according to Islamic law, eobody ever answers me.



by benross on

It was manipulation not lying. Khomeini did exactly as he said he'd do... as he always understood and believed the meaning of the words he was saying. As a formidable politician, he was also careful in phrasing his words depending the situation, one way Najaf, another way in France and different way in Iran. But always the same thing. He did change his mind on some issues over his life time. That happens to all of us. But for the essence, he always remained the same.

When he was asked about women's rights, he'd reply 'Islam has the most respect for women and their rights'... and he knew everybody would read this as he or she wishes.

But this is only his side. His power of manipulation. The other side was us, a modern generation created by Pahlavi modernization, yet deprived of its basic needs for freedom of speech, which has become a generation asking for being manipulated.

Picture this (true story):

One day during the revolution and the nights of 'allah-o-akbar', the rumor had it that the picture of Imam will appear on the moon that coming night. Night arrived, a young man, graduated from university, architect and very much into modern art and being hip, very interested in scholarly articles, someone pretty much like yourself, quite amused from this rumor and trying to ignore it, finally decided to walk outside 'to smoke a cigarette in open air'. Incidentally -quite incidentally ofcourse- he looked up and saw the moon. And guess what. He did see his face. What a surprise!



There Was Nothing Personal

by Anvar on

*gitdoun ver.2.0* - Just to make a quick clarification about the statement you made:  “(although only the baha’i community knew kind of person he was).

For the most part, the Baha’i community’s lack of participation was not necessarily based on the level of sincerity of any individual(s).  It was more based on the principle of Separation of Religion & Politics.  The Yes/No referendum made it clear that a Theocracy was about to take place.

I don’t speak for all and these are my personal views.


gitdoun ver.2.0

it makes Sense

by gitdoun ver.2.0 on

as long as i can remember whenever i was talking to someone about the I.R.I the number 1 sentiment always expressed was not that Clerics were rapist, murderers, or thieves, although such notions were in the rankings as well, but the #1 notion always repeated over and over and over again was that CLERICS were LIARS. And i never understood why this idea was so prevalent. 

....until i began reading khomeini speeches and writings from 1960-1979.   and then it hit me. i thought maybe just maybe this is the main reason why our parent's never saw the I.R.I coming; because his speeches were full of false promises and half-truths. (although only the bah'ai community knew kind of person he was)

here is a good example of Khomeini giving false promises. in this video he pretty much expresses the guarantee of FREE PRESS which never materialised in Iran !



Dear Gitdoun: also,

by vildemose on

Dear Gitdoun: also, remember Khomeini lied through his teeth.

I once saw a site with the collection of his lies. I'll try to find it for you.


Great question which should be analyzed by scholars

by vildemose on

 from various disciplines.


Gitedoun: Read this article in Persian. Our society is a deeply misogynistic one and khomeini exploited that sentiment to turn the people against the shah. Had the Shah wore a turban or not emancipate women in 1936, he probably would not have been over thrown.



rosie is roxy is roshan

Gitdoun, parents /Second referendum video ps

by rosie is roxy is roshan on

you asked about parents, about a specific generation. What I said below applies to the educated generally urban sectors of the society, which are the ones here and which I assume you meant.

The majority, the rural poor,, it's a very different story. But the leaders of the Revolution came from the first sector and couldn't have led it without their followers from the same sector. Without them there wouldn't've been a Revolution.

Anyway I put just one link twice for the Referendum videos. Here is the second link:


I also wanted to say something to you about black and white thinking but I wound up saying on Faramarz Fateh's Ramazan blog first. You can see it here too. This one says it's all because of the CIA, that one says it's all because of Islam, someone else will say it's all something else. And each one will have many proponents. There is only ONE reason, it is this.

When in reality this very all or nothing, black and white mentality was a lot of the reason for what happened.

PS Finally, in case you were wondering the reason why I also wrote about the present and future in my first post here is because I felt your concern with the past also implied a concern about how it impacts the future, how to avoid the same mistakes.


Anahid Hojjati

Dear gitdoun vers. 2.0, most of us were very young back then

by Anahid Hojjati on

Dear gitdoun, most people in this comment thread were probably very young during revolution.  I was myself 15 so I did not have a great vision. One important reason that we did not see it coming was that situation after 1979 gradually became worse. For couple years there was freedom and many political parties were operative in Iran.  Yes, even in 79 and 80, there were worrisome trends such as execution of some people from Shah's time that was not warranted.  But overall, there was also freedom.  In my high school, different groups had rooms for political activities.  In Tehran, people were forming "shoras" to take care of their neighborhood.  Kids refused to take exams since they thought that was being revolutionary.  There were so many political parties that there was a joke that when a group became 3, then it would break up.  Like I said, gradually things got worse. And even then, people thought that maybe some of loss of freedom was because of war with Iraq or the fact that regime lost tens of its leaders as result of terrorism.   Also, in response to your question, many people were put in jail, executed or forced into exile so this was the fate of the most active political people who were against IRI. 


Plain And Simple

by darius on

If you are looking for an academic response please write directly to

1.Akbar Ganji,Khamenie,Mousavi,Ahmadinejad, Rafsanjani

2.The student who was pictured in Foreign Magazine and as soon as he came to USA become a award winning journalist or freedom fighter of kind and turned up to be on ly a gigoloo.

3.Fadayian, Tudeh,Mojahedin,Jebhe Meli.Dr.Yazdi would be a good pick.

4.Traitors of Royal Court

5.You can wait  to meet Khomeini

6.You should not bother to write reza pahlavi,he has no clue.

7.Writing to CIA and other foreign agencies might be helpful but

they won't tell you a damn thing,they all need to keep their jobs.

who knows may be the real answer is in our own heart,plain and simple.

wrong is wrong and right is right.Our fathers wanted what they lacked,

honesty, dignity,honor and love of the country.I guess Khomeini

was a good pick to be our temporary AAA.So , naturally ,

we let a  liar becomes saint,Imam,Imam Mehdi  and all kind of falsehood to avoid jail .

I guess  this sad state of affair will continue as long as we have not left and stopped our bad addiction for real, another khomeini of kind is awaiting for us again.




by Faramarz_Fateh on

Coming from a creature like you, thats a compliment.  Thank you bro.

gitdoun ver.2.0


by gitdoun ver.2.0 on

faramarz khoda shoma'ro hedayat kone.  to ravaan'ee haste

rosie is roxy is roshan


by rosie is roxy is roshan on

The first question is, it is definitely true that there were ballots saying "Islamic Republic Yes No". That's also what the wiki entry, Islamic Republic 1979, is (only it's not an article, it's just a couple of lines, which means it probably hasn't had more than one contributor. Which means it's not god's truth (not that they ever are, but the more revised, the better a pciture they give). But Iroonman says he is sure his said "Islamic Republic or Monarchy". So the question remains: is it humanly possible that some ballots could have said 'Islamic Republic ye no" and others "Islamic Republic Monarchy"? I don't think so.

The next question is Iroonman says that the people were told the ballots would say "Democratic Islamic Republic" or "Monarchy. Is this true? I never heard it before.

The third question is were there armend Pasdaran at all the polling places, scary-looking ones checking how you voted. Was that univesal? I have heard about that several times before.

The last question is just for Iroonman: I know pretty much everything you said in the first post is more or less what I've heard from others. It's just this Referendum part I have so many questions about. So my questionon it specifically to you is: Are you aware that in your two posts you give two different versions? In the first version the ballot was changed but people were still euphoric and figured anything is better than the Shah, or I guess Republic could be Democracy or other reasons but says nothing about people being motivated by fear.

Anyway while I was googling for the Referendum I found two youtube videos on it. They seem to be propaganda but I think  you will find them interesting (and nostgic, but probably in a bad way, unfortunately...)






Real world to Farokh2000....anyone home?

by Faramarz_Fateh on

Since you are under the impression that you read a lot more than I do, maybe you can send me your used books or lend them to me.

The U.S. went to war and still is in war with Afghanistan.  There was nothing covert or secret about that.  They told the Taliban to hand over Osama or we'll invade.

Same goes with the Iraq invasion.  Saddam was given an ultimatum.  Although both actions were and are unjust, they are completely different than the situation in Iran.

Everything that has happened in Iran, since the time of Ghajar dynesty has been done by Iranians.  Exactly the same that is happening now.

All the killings, rapes, thievery, deciet and corruption in all aspects of politics and business is being done by Muslim Iranians.

First accept the fact that as a ethnicity, culturally speaking and as a nation we are fucked up, then we can fix it.  Blaming others for our ills does not solve anything. 

The root of all these evils is Islam.  Exponging it from our national psyche is the only way to freedom and salvation. 

Kaveh Nouraee


by Kaveh Nouraee on

You have probably posed one of the best questions/raised one of the best topics on this website in a long time. The last thing it can ever be considered is naive or stupid.

I would really love to read the responses. Hopefully there will be more.


Rosie is absolutely right

by eroonman on

The referendum choice was definitely switched on us at the last minute. The choices that were reported in the papers I read days before the vote, did
not match the printed choice on my ballot the day of the vote.

My ballot, very specifically stated the choice as being between Monarchy and
Islamic Republic. Unfortunately I can't prove what my ballot said in 1979,
because under armed guard, I was required to place the green ballot
(IR) into the ballot box, and surrender the red ballot (M) to the
attendants. I was stopped as I walked out with the red portion, and asked to deposit it in a box next to the table of officials watching people vote.

This was my experience. I don't know if others in other precincts had the same experience.

You are absolutely right we should have all become outraged, and walked out at that moment. But had we done that, I am positive we would have been arrested on the spot, possibly killed, or at a minimum running for our lives to this day. It was too obvious that the PASDARs who walked past you  were looking for the slightest signs of defiant expression.

However, as we were waiting for our turn to vote, we could see and witnessed the PASDARs interrogating every person who voted "Red" (M) and recording their names and stamping their passports and ID cards. Later those stamps allowed round up arrests, and the travel restrictions we all remember.

Those who voted "Green" (IR) were not hassled and did not have their ID cards stamped, and were allowed to leave.

Cowardice? Momentary reflex of the self preservation motive? Feeling that you should not have to give your life for political change? Or faith in the new revolution to ultimately do the right thing?

I don't know what others thought. I know that I was angry at the switch, and at the same time, scared for my life, and intimidated by the scowls of angry automatic weapon armed youth, who had apparent full control over me and the rest of the people I was standing in line with.

And out of fear, that's why I voted the way I did.

Was it wrong for all of me/us in that line to vote for fraud? Absolutely!

Would we have been able to change the course of the last 30 years, had we refused to vote or walked out as you suggested, or confronted armed PASDARs at a time when shooting those weapons was easy and prevalent? It wasn't as obvious to me on that day, as it is to you now. Guns being pointed in a crowd, are a little hard to ignore.

But I think the bigger question is this.

Were we duped and ultimately betrayed by an oppressive power that promised us freedom of choice, and then slyly replaced that choice with a sneaky ballot manipulation through fear and intimidation?

Based on my experience reading the papers I read the days before, standing in line with the ballot I was given, at the ballot box, and ultimately voting out of fear for my safety that day, the answer is a resounding HELL YES!

I am certainly not proud of my vote and cowardice that day. But I am also not ashamed of surviving to explain what really happened.

Based on how many innocent political opponents and prisoners that have been killed first by the Shah, and now, by this government, I don't lose too much sleep wondering if my objection then and there, would have been the one key focal moment to change the course of history.

I think I would have been arrested, tortured, and then killed like everyone else was.

The assumption that regular people will automatically be brave and stand up against oppression, at the precise time their bravery is needed, is not a given.

All the more reason why the events of this summer are so unique and compelling. 


The real World says hello to Faramarz

by farokh2000 on

Dear Mr. Faramarz;

I don't argue with the fact that the criminal Mullahs are the problem.

My argument is with people who have helped them survive from outside of Iran .

I am really surprised at your reaction. You sound like you don't really live in the real World, or are hiding your head in the sand for some reason.

The Mullahs would have never come back if it were not for the outside help.

Shah himslef admitted to his mistake of not having Khomeini killed, like his Father while he had the power to do it.

According to your World, CIA and US would not be resposible for the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan either, right?

Hope you read a little, once in a while.

rosie is roxy is roshan

Not meaning to hog the blog, but Iroonman, adding to my post

by rosie is roxy is roshan on

below on the referendum, don't you see what you're saying starting with saying you were duped when you walked into the polling place and saw different wording from what you'd been told? That that was the first major sign you were duped?

Supposedly you people made that Revolution. Supposedly you kicked the Shah out. I already know you were promised beach parties "under Islamic law".  But it was supposed to be your Revolution. So...

If I went into a polling booth thinking I were choosing between Obama and McCain and it were McCain and Ted Kennedy (healthy lol), even though Obama and Kennedy are similar, I'd walk out of the booth and scream bloody murder and refuse to vote, and so would everyone else in the polling place.  So if it's true that the wording was changed (first time I heard it but let's say it is...), it still doesn't say much about the people being just the dupees. They were also the dupers. Of themselves



The answer is simple

by Q on

it WAS the right thing to do at the time. Shah sealed his own fate by his excesses, stupidity and mistrust.

Islam was rather coincidental to the revolution. It became the central unifying force because it provided a widely accepted language (metaphores) and organizing facilities (mosques) and it happened to be the charimatic leader's background.

Gitdon, you sound like a smart guy, so don't fall for Tehrangelesi remorse and self-hatred. These people still haven't accepted that Iranians are Muslim, how in touch do you think they are? It was not a black and white situation. People felt politically empowered for the first time in their lives and they wanted to do something great. A contrast that was exacerbated by the Shah himself.

PS. to Rosie: relatively speaking very few military people were "executed". Only the very top brass of the military was arrested and even many of them were simply forced to retire. The military had declared neutrality during the revolution and was still fully in tact and functional by the time Iraq invaded.

rosie is roxy is roshan

The referendum gave the choice, IR yes OR no

by rosie is roxy is roshan on

which many argue was much more open-ended. There was no choice Monarchy.

For some reason half the people here can never remember the four words on the ballot no matter how many times this issue comes up.. And indeed it does come up. 

Actually it's part of what confirms my suspicions that the people were in fact 'duped' but not only by Khomeini, also by themselves.

C;mon, half the people misremembering four little words? If it was such a shock that the wording was changed at the last minute (I never heard that one before though), wouldn't that make them MORE likely to remember the actual wording BETTER?




by Faramarz_Fateh on

How long did it take you to create the imaginary world you live in?

Stop blaming others for your problems.  Recongnize the problem, acknowledge it, accept it, own it, fix it.

As long as we as a nation blame others ( CIA, Israel, U.S., U.K. etc etc) we will live the same miserbale fate.

We are the problem.  Islam is the problem. 


Reason is very simple

by Faramarz_Fateh on

Its because most of us Iranians are stupid.  We think we know everything but we don't know jack.

Its true that Khomeini was supported by western powers.  But, who came to the streets by hundreds of thousands chanting death to the Shah?  It was us, our parents, our grand parents.

Our stupidity comes from the Islamic culture.  Islam and Islamic culture propagates stupidity by preventing people from educating themselves.

Even now, there are Friday cermons in Tehran.  Content of ANYTHING that comes out of the mouth of an Islamic clergy is always crap. 

Instead of reading, holding civil discussions at schools or elsewhere, we are told to shut up, shut off our brains and listen to Mullahs talking about 1400 year old garbage.

Why is there a need for an intermediary between God and his creatures?  Why do we need clergy?  



We Were Duped!

by eroonman on

The simple answer is that replacing a murderous and brutal Shah (sometimes people forget the sheer terror and fear that the SAVAK conjured during those times), with what appeareed to be a kindly old priest preaching love and freedom, seemed obvious.

After the revolution was over, and the Shah left, the collective relief was nothing short of euphoric. We/Iran had finally won our freedom!

Or so it seemed. Later during the famous referendum, which the IRI still today points to as it's legitimizing edict of the people, did we see the first signs of false advertising.

The referendum was supposed to ask the people to choose a monarchy or a democracy. On the day, the ballots displayed the choice between Monarchy and Islamic Republic. No mention of democracy.

Again, partially under the euphoria of getting rid of the Shah, and to make sure that the voice of NO MONARCHY was heard, the majority chose the Islamic Republic option without any real opportunity to learn what that option would mean. They assumed it was better than the Shah, especially with all the speeches Khomeini was making about freedom and rights.

Later, as the details of the new government panned out, and it became clear they were using the qoran to run things, we learned that the deal was not what we signed up for. Most objectors left Iran.

By then the brutality of the security forces of the militia Pasdars (who later became the Revolutionary Guard), took effect and everyone realized that the old oppression of the Shah, had merely been replaced with new oppression under God. In some ways the new fear of the PASDARs, was worse than the fear under the SAVAK. Since going against God was a holy crime, you don't go against God. Even if it makes sense.

The middle class and intellectuals seeing their friends jailed for being "anti-revolution" ran to their homes and hid, or packed up and left Iran. Since most of the protesters during the revolution came from the poorer more religious sections of Tehran and other cities, they were looking for a windfall, and clearly supportive of the change in government.

Enlightened politicians who had opposed the Shah and left Iran under his rule, came back naiively thinking they would be able to infuence a democracy, and some (Bazargan, Bani-Sadr etc) even framed the first constitution (which was later decimated after Khomeini died and was safely out of the way)

Soon after the revolution it became clear that one oppressive regime had merely replaced another, and the people who knew better, were too afraid to go through it all over again and try to change things. The Iran-Iraq war conveniently put any discussions on hold for almost 12 years.

Until this summer. This is the first sign since the revolution, that a lot of people are now dis-satisfied.

It is also a sign of how entrenched the power of the revolutionary guard is and how serious they are about keeping power. Willing to risk being caught faking an election.

And here we/you are. What do you suggest we do now?

rosie is roxy is roshan

Members of the CIA in Tehran

by rosie is roxy is roshan on


You would need to see who brought them in first

by farokh2000 on

Khomeini was under CIA protection in Iraq under Saddam's watch for over 25 years and when Shah's health got worse and he was losing his battle with Cancer and therefore not serving his Masters effectively, they brought him in and kicked the Shah out.

Does that answer your question?

Even if people had known about this evil criminal, they did not have the power to stop it since he had a much bigger army behind him.

The power of propaganda, which is what the Super Powers have used frequently(1953 overthrow of Mossadegh, 2001 Invasion of Iraq, etc.) overwhelmed the entire Nation under false perception.

All of the Political Parties came out in the open helping him, under the impression that he was going to be a Religious Leader and nothing else.

When they brought him in, all these Political leaders were exposed and caught and murdered.

That ended all the resistance.

Then, before you could think what happened, they set up the Iran, Iraq War, that would last 8 years and cost them over 2 Million innocent lives. Who was supporting Saddam in that War?. You guessed right, CIA.

Did people get a chance to have a say?. I don't think so.