Do you think we could see another Revolution in Iran within the next few decades? If so, why? Check out the full Modern History Playlist: ru-vid.com/group/PLiPhmAD3I2Jz6goEJlQ1zh6KkbeBWZ2pP
@@HikmaHistory Very well done and excellent work as usual!! 👍🏻 And regarding your question, yes I believe there’s another revolution or some sorts of drastic change in the progress in Iran.
Im from Iran, and sir, your video is a masterpiece that truly captures this nations struggles for democracy that started more than hundred years ago and still exists today. Thank you for masterfully documenting this sad story.
Aslamualaikum Hikma History. I am an author who has written a book on the impacts of this revolution. Coincidentally, my book is coming out next week. Is there any way that you can use it or maybe publicise it? How can I contact you, sir? I love your content tho. Keep up the good work!!
I love how he shows Mossadegh when it says strong leaders .. instead of Reza Khan.. who is literally the founder of the modern Iranian state .. I like your content but you are definitely biased against the Pahlavis
Come on dude, you’re nitpicking aren’t ya? In hindsight, I’d agree Reza Khan is a far better example of strong leadership but Mossadegh is more relevant to the topic of the video
If only the United States and Britain didn’t initiate a brutal and illegal military coup against a democratically a elected socialist who granted women rights, all to preserve british petroleum’s dominance in the region.
1979 revolution was just 1952 coup 2.0, as you pointed out Shah was becoming independence of the West and manipulated Oil Price, US didn't like that, at the same time they didn't want Tudeh Communists to take power so Islamists were the best option
Hard to say. Zand dynasty was still weak and decades behind the modern world. Imho the best scenario for Iran was if constitutionalism survived, for example if the national front of Iran took over, they were highly educated Iranians from different fractions.
Iranians are some of the smartest people in the world. Their science and tech with sanctions is incredible. But their government is their business. Not yours. Not mine. Cheers.
Khomeini 👳♂️ is really a special leader. Most of the revolutionary leaders in the history are not able to establish their values in a long term. They either get corrupted or are too principialist. Khomeini was none. He was always realistic, changing the constitution and those who were to radicals or irresponsible. He also, importantly, was a intelectual and a fighter. He created his own theory of "Guardianship" and, when he could be in a comfortable position, he instead lived a life of exile fighting the Sha he eventually destroyed, and after this conducting the unification of the country and a whole new government establishment. He was a spiritual, intelectual and formidable leader.
Here in iran we live in shit. rip the great shah Also : Khomeini wrote in his book that if you fall d*k first into your aunts V the child born isn't a bastard but s*x with that child is wrong
@@kurdistanfedaisi Iran is not all muslim. Iran is not just Persian. It's an ancient country. Kurds come from Medians - Medians are Iranians. Kurds are Iranians.
hikma you are biased mossadegh and protest against him has been proven that has been agrivated by brits and americans by rosevelts had two attempts at coup which the first one failed mossadegh was the most compotent person if you call islamic republic a regime i prefer it to saudi clan regime so excuse my anger
@@emmanuelucrosacosta1845 then he procceded by mentioning post reveloution protests as peoples just uprising not mentioning arab spring and soros colour reveloutions
That’s because of American imperialism. Iran voted for democratic leaders but the CIA ousted them and put in brutal dictators , which is what led to a backlash. dumdum victor knows nothing thinks he knows everything
I'm surprised that you didn't mention the White Revolution that the Shah himself initiated in 1963. Overall, it's another fine work from Hikma History.
Revolution wasn’t hijacked by Ayatollah Khomeini and Islamists Again amazing substance excellently presented. I just would like to raise the following points: A- The Farsi text was read very effectively. And hearing it really contributes to the contextualisation and authentication of your piece of work, which endorse the idea that language is much more than just words. B- To say “the 1979 Revolution was hijacked by Ayatollah Khomeini and Islamists”, in my opinion, isn’t fair because they didn’t hijack. What they did was, they outperformed others by their overwhelming presence and deeply resonating slogans. They skilfully took other’s slogans of Justice, equality and freedom and attached them to Islam and left out the others almost disarmed ideologically. And Dr Ali Shariati played a very significant rule in this regard.
Thank you for your polite answer. I see your point (this might just be an issue of semantics) - I meant hijacked in the sense that what people expected to come out of the revolution and what they were promised did not materialise under the Islamic republic. In fact, in many ways, one authoritarian despot was replaced by another. I hope that makes sense.
@@HikmaHistory You are probably correct to have done what you did. Great work, by the way. Maybe you can do a vid on how the secularists/liberals got wiped out by Khomeni in the early 1980s and took total theocratic power?
The title if the video is false. Iran had many revolutions, the revolution of 1979 that resulted in the Islamic Republic wasn't simply an Islamic revolution, it later became that. It started as a revolutionary anti-imperialist movement for economic justice and national independence. Before that there where two revolutions, the islamisation of Iran during the abbasid era and the re-establishing of Persian culture and language that followed it. Revolutions come from social forces en-masse pushing society and history in a certain direction. Pahlavi and Mossadeq where not revolutions. They where preludes to 1979. The revolution wasn't against the shah, that's a simplification and doesn't explain the dynamics of history. It was a revolution against Anglo-American imperialism for independence and Iranian agency.
Says "Strong leader" then shows Mosadeq...utter B.S. He is often said to be the 'democratically elected prime minster' yet as soon as he got the power..he shuts down the 'majlis' or parliament when the elections result dont match his preference, this was done against the constitutional law and very undemocratic to say the least. The shah had the constitutional right to assign and depose prime ministers and he had every right to get Mosadeq out of office especially after what he acted outside of his domain of influence. When he is lawfully fired...Mosadeq and his minions play the victim card. Typical leftist strategy..they're bully when in power, when they don't get the outcome they want, even when the law and votes confirm it..they blame everyone else and play the victim card.
38:40 This paper, which did not exist in the world until a few years ago and has appeared in cyberspace in the past few years, is fake. Because at that time there was no green automatic in Iran. In fact, the nationalization of the oil industry had two main urban leaders: Mossadegh, the leader of the wealthy and elite, Kashani, the leader of the masses and the masses. Besides these, there were also sub-leaders: Baghai, Makki, Haerizadeh, Zahedi...and of course Shah. The Tudeh Party (pro-Soviet), which opposed Mossadegh's government in the first year, became its supporters in the second year. Because they realized that they can use him to overthrow the royal regime, without defending the nationalization of the oil industry against Russia and England. All these were only in the cities. The majority of the people, who were rural, were in favor of traditional institutions that had nothing to do with politics. After Mossadegh's failure to solve even the smallest political and economic problem, subordinate leaders who saw the growth of the masses among the press, workers and officers (see Khalil Maliki's letter to Mossadegh in this context) joined Kashani to oust Mossadegh. Unfortunately, fans of 70-year-old Mossadegh first call Mossadegh the only leader of the nationalization of the oil industry and others are against nationalization and even Islamists! Secondly, he calls this legal removal an American coup and divided the nationalists into two branches, Shahi and Mossadegh. While Kashani was a supporter of the Shah for only six months, and immediately he, his son, Bagai, Makki, Haerizadeh, etc., opposed the consortium contract. Mossadegh himself congratulated the Iranian nation on the assassination of the former Prime Minister Razm Ara and his supporters in the parliament approved the law for the freedom of terrorists. In the first year of his government, he used the right-wing to intimidate the masses, in the second year of his government, he used the masses to intimidate the right-wing. In a fake referendum, he said that ninety-nine percent were his supporters, but a few days later, no one came to the streets to support him. Razmara's sin was that he correctly told Mossadegh and other supporters of the nationalization of Iran's oil industry that we do not have the ability to manage the oil industry. Mossadegh understood this when he came to power and wanted to take oil concessions from England and give them to America. America said that it should first pay the damages to England. Both Truman and Eisenhower proposed to pay the loss of England over several years from oil sales to end the oil issue. But Mossadegh did not accept because he knew that if the oil issue ends, his government will end. When Iran's oil was sanctioned, Saudi Arabia and other oil producers increased their production. But later, the Shah, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela formed APEC to be united. Shah was given the title of the Eagle of APEC, because everyone knew that the main operator of APEC was Shah. He spent this income to improve the lives of Iranian people, such as: establishing institutions such as knowledge, health, civil and development corps, free meals in schools, schools, universities and free libraries, free summer camp for elite students of schools, scholarships abroad from the country for the elite students of the universities, eradicating many deadly diseases, eliminating unemployment, increasing the wage rate equal to the inflation rate, reducing the Gini coefficient in the last years of his rule, equaling the daily wage of a simple worker with the price of nine hundred grams of red meat.
Hello, I discovered your channel from LetsTalkReligion. I've been listening to both of your contents for days now. Can I ask for the references you used for this video documentary?
How and where the hell did u find the Info? Why you cutting reza shah the greats reforms? Father of modern iran? And what we have achieved in mohammad reza shah's era? That our army and economy was between the first 10 countries in the world irans money the most valuable money in the world
Armchair Historian sent me. This was a very educational overview of modern Iranian history. I hope they can manage to find peace both internally and with their neighbors one day soon. Thank you very much for the video! God be with you out there, everybody. ✝️ :)
Can you make a video about the persian culture of weeping and crying which is deeply rooted in Persian literature? The story of Siavash is a good example of that where in Ancient Persia his martyrdom was celebrated yearly with funeral parades accompanied by public wailing and weeping. The same is observed and carried over after Islam in the Iranian version of Islam in the tradition of Ashura which commemorates the death of Hussain at Kerbala. The story of Siavash was mentioned in the “Book of kings” which was compiled by Firdosi at the order of one of the Saminid kings in the 10th century during the Persian Renaissance.
You’re correct about Siavash Koshan and even its more ancient predecessor which is Nowruz itself being the very origin of Shia festival of Ashura and Jewish festival of Purim, but keep in mind that those traditions weren’t meant to mark an occasion via mourning however that became more and more the case as Islam took over and the celebrations were replaced by acts of mourning also influenced by Christianity and other forms of Iranian mysticism like Mithraism which has influenced Christianity directly also. A celebratory version of this holiday and ritual has survived in forms of Charshanbe soori (last Wednesday night before Nowruz) and Omar koshan (celebrating The heroic act of Piruz Nahavandi the Magi against Omar)
@@Hermesborugerdian There was so much of religious syncretism in Persia and of course this was inevitable since persian culture and traditions is deeply rooted in history. However Arabia was a blank slate as there was not so much civilization to influence Islam and the new ethos was established on mostly pure islam.
it seems to me that a likely cause for places like Iran's instability is that, due to culture and geography, much of the world is not compatible with the idea of the modern concept of a state. the idea of nations as they exist today is a fairly recent, European idea. Instead of having the history to back up why a nation is a nation, much of the world only exists as nations because of colonialism, and the governments of those new nations had to use force to maintain their power, and now they're kinda all stuck like that. In a cycle of optimistic revolutions and oppression. Its unfortunate, but it seems that events were set in motion over the last 2 centuries that can not be undone.
Dear HIKAMA, Thank you for another well developed piece, I look forward to viewing your work to gain a greater understanding of Middle Eastern, and Islamic political history. The power fluctuations between Religious and the Secular has many historical precedence, in the end power in any political system is created via the consent of the people, or it eventually collapses. No political philosophy is more unstable, than a Theocracy. The signs of this are apparent in Saudi Arabia, Israel, and of course Iran. Only after the people have come to understand over time, and time again, and again, that neither ruling Elites, nor Religious Beliefs, or Religious Leaders are sufficient to govern. Only then will they take on ( of their own free will ), the disappointing, dirty, difficult, and complicated job of a Democracy.
these problem arose only in modern nation states, all the Islamic and Catholic empires didn't have problems because the Church or the Ulama were important. The kings knew how to bypass them when needed.
@@commercialandresidentialpl7337 if waging war and then turning blind to the thousands of kids just hanged or shot for mere street protests and demonstrations isn't concerning, then I am amazed with your notion.
@@abc_cba Waging war against whom? Stop watching western news regarding Iran. There is basically zero Hindu blood that was spillt by the Persian Shias, so why do you harbour such enmity to them?
This total nonsense of (forg)umentary have nothing to offer but the mainstream Narrative of events in Iran. I am glad to see such things because it makes me sure that our adversaries have no realistic understanding of us. On the one hand this propaganda makes things a little bit hard for us but on the other hand it ensures we will continue to surprise our enemies, those who are abhorred by seeing a powerful economic and political Block in Western Asia that can be a peer competitor to the east and west.
