Well, I don’t doubt that SAVAK did their job in a heavy handed and brutal fashion. I believe they were responsible for keeping tabs on people who opposed the Shah (both at home and overseas) and were responsible for censorship within the regime, etc.
But to say that whatever those problems were justified what happened in 1979 and made the The Iranian Revolution preferable to the rule under the Shah is a stretch, in my opinion.
It is like trying to justify the French Revolution. As bad as the French monarchy was to its subjects, the violence and blood that flowed indiscriminately during and after (and also paved the way for Bonaparte to come to power)was beyond the pale. Likewise, in my opinion with Iran. Look at all the bloodshed that has happened in the Middle East and around the world since then. I don’t think it is inaccurate to say that if there had been a strong, pro-western Iran, the Iran-Iraq war would have never happened, and the Soviets may have thought twice about invading Afghanistan, etc.
I know it is all conjecture, but I think on the whole, it is safe to say there was nothing redeeming about the Iranian Revolution.
(and by the way, I do recognize your role as devil’s advocate here, I think it is a valid point)
Interesting points also. It’s always easy to play Monday morning quarterback, and of course at the time the CIA toppled Mossadegh he appeared to be a real threat. And the Shah himself was, of course, pro West, which was at low ebb in the Middle East. The 79 revolution was, as it turned out, a cataclysmic event not just for Iran, but for the freedom-loving world. But I think an honest appraisal of the events leads one to conclude that things could’ve been handled better so that the foundation for the rise of the extremists was never laid. And you’re absolutely right about France. As P.J. O’Rourke said, France’s problem is that they guillotined all the smart and productive people in 1789.