On June 3, 1989, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the undisputed architect of Iran’s Islamic Revolution and the country’s Supreme Leader since 1979, passed away in Tehran. His death marked the end of an era defined by the rapid overthrow of a pro‐Western monarchy, the establishment of a theocratic state, and a decade of profound social, political, and military upheaval. To appreciate the full significance of his demise, it is necessary to consider both his rise to power and the transformative legacy he left behind.
Born in the autumn of 1902 in the small town of Khomeyn, Ruhollah Khomeini was the scion of a family distinguished in Shiʿi scholarship. His father’s early death thrust him into religious study, and by his formative years in the holy city of Qom, he had memorized the Qur’an and immersed himself in Shiʿi jurisprudence and philosophy. As he matured, Khomeini adopted the title of ayatollah, eventually achieving the higher rank of grand ayatollah. Throughout the 1940s and 1950s, he built a reputation as a principled, articulate critic of secularization and Western influence in Iran. W
hen Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi embarked on his “White Revolution” in 1963—an ambitious reform program that redistributed land, expanded women’s rights, and curtailed religious institutions—Khomeini publicly denounced the shah’s agenda as antithetical to Islamic values. His sermonizing and written denunciations sparked widespread unrest. Arrested that November, he emerged even more popular, only to be exiled to Najaf in Iraq in 1964. From there, he continued to issue religious edicts and critiques of the Pahlavi regime, cultivating a network of students and followers who transmitted his ideas back into Iran.
By the mid‐1970s, dissatisfaction with Shah Mohammad Reza’s authoritarianism and perceived subservience to Western interests had reached a fever pitch. As the shah lavished millions on an extravagantly orchestrated 2,500th‐anniversary celebration of the Persian monarchy in 1971 and replaced the Islamic calendar with a pre‐Islamic imperial one, traditional clerics and ordinary citizens alike felt increasingly alienated. When nationwide protests erupted in 1978, Khomeini’s messages, recorded on tapes and smuggled into Iran, provided a rallying point. In October 1978, the Iraqi government, under pressure from Tehran, expelled Khomeini from Najaf.
He relocated briefly to Neauphle‐le‐Château, a Parisian suburb, from which he dispatched weekly audio communiqués to emboldened demonstrators. By January 16, 1979, the shah had fled the country, leaving a power vacuum. On February 1, 1979, Khomeini returned to Iran—in a moment broadcast around the world—declaring that sovereignty belonged unequivocally to “the oppressed and to God,” not to the shah or his Western backers.
In the immediate aftermath of the shah’s departure, Khomeini deftly consolidated authority. Within days, the existing provisional government crumbled under competing factions; mass referendum in April 1979 confirmed the establishment of an Islamic republic; and, by December, a constitution was ratified, enshrining the principle of velāyat‐e faqīh, or “guardianship of the jurist,” with himself as Supreme Leader for life. His vision of governance rejected parliamentary dominance, secular legal codes, and Western cultural norms, replacing them with a theocratic framework in which jurists interpreted Sharia law and clerical oversight permeated every institution.
Women were required to adopt the veil, Western music and alcohol were proscribed, and punishments derived from traditional Islamic jurisprudence were reintroduced. While Khomeini’s regime initially enjoyed broad popular support—rooted in his promise of social justice and national independence—his consolidation of power came at a steep human cost: thousands of political opponents, leftists, secular nationalists, and moderate clerics found themselves imprisoned, tortured, or executed in the early 1980s.
One of the defining crises of Khomeini’s leadership was the Iran hostage affair. On November 4, 1979, exactly fifteen years after his own exile, a cadre of student militants, emboldened by Khomeini’s uncompromising posture toward the United States, stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. Though the students claimed autonomous action, Khomeini’s public endorsement effectively lent them legitimacy. Sixty‐six American diplomats and civilians were taken hostage; fifty‐two remained in captivity until January 20, 1981.
The seizure of the embassy not only cemented the rupture between Iran and the United States—precipitating a prolonged economic embargo and diplomatic isolation—but also galvanized conservative forces within Iran who argued that only rigid opposition to Western “imperialism” could ensure national sovereignty. The hostage crisis thus became inseparable from Khomeini’s revolutionary narrative: Iran, having thrown off the shah’s dependence on Washington, would not suffer foreign meddling again.
Almost concurrently, Khomeini faced external aggression when Saddam Hussein’s Iraq invaded Iran in September 1980, seeking to exploit perceived weakness in the aftermath of the revolution. What became a brutal eight‐year conflict left over a million combatants and civilians dead, devastated border regions, and sank Iran’s economy deeply into crisis. Early on, Saddam’s forces captured portions of Khuzestan province, but Iranian resistance, bolstered by revolutionary fervor and Khomeini’s exhortations, managed to reverse the initial advances. In 1982, Iraq offered to withdraw in exchange for negotiated peace, but Khomeini—viewing the conflict as an extension of his broader struggle against “apostate” regimes—overruled his generals and pressed on.
Indeed, by recasting the war as a divine test of Iran’s commitment to Islamic principles, he ensured the unwavering dedication of troops and volunteers. The war ground on at great cost until a United Nations‐brokered cease‐fire took effect on August 20, 1988. In a rare departure from his usual posture, Khomeini’s acceptance of the cease‐fire reflected recognition that protracted hostilities threatened to fracture the revolutionary state he had created.
By the late 1980s, Iran’s domestic landscape had shifted. Economic hardship, war fatigue, and the harsh repression of political dissent had taken a toll on popular enthusiasm. Still, Khomeini remained revered as the embodiment of Iran’s resistance to both Western imperialism and secular authoritarianism. When his health began to deteriorate due to complications from diabetes and deteriorating kidney function, the question of succession loomed large.
Though he had designated Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as his successor, many within Iran’s clerical establishment doubted Khamenei’s theological credentials and questioned whether he could command the same charisma. Nevertheless, on June 3, 1989, Khomeini succumbed to a heart attack. More than two million mourners flooded the streets of Tehran during the funeral processions, reflecting both genuine grief among his supporters and fear of what his death might usher in.
In the wake of his passing, Iran faced a crossroads. The immediate elevation of Khamenei to Supreme Leader demonstrated continuity in clerical rule, but also signaled the beginning of a more pragmatic, if still circumscribed, era. Within months of Khomeini’s death, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a pragmatic conservative who had served as speaker of the parliament and overseen reconstruction efforts, assumed the presidency. Under Rafsanjani, Iran embarked on cautious economic reforms and tentative openings to the West, even as it sustained strict controls on political expression.
By the mid‐1990s, a new generation of Iranians—raised entirely under the Islamic Republic—began to push for greater social freedoms and political participation. In 1997, the election of Mohammad Khatami, a moderate reformist who championed the idea of a “Dialogue Among Civilizations,” underscored that desire for change.
Looking beyond Khomeini’s tenure, his ideological legacy has proved both enduring and paradoxical. On one hand, his doctrine of velāyat‐e faqīh remains at the core of Iran’s political structure. The Supreme Leader, wielding ultimate authority over the military, judiciary, and media, continues to shape domestic and foreign policy in ways Khomeini would recognize. On the other hand, successive waves of reformist and conservative struggle attest to the inherent tensions within a system predicated on clerical guardianship.
Younger Iranians, educated in the post‐revolutionary ethos, have increasingly challenged the restrictions on social expression, gender equity, and political dissent that were hallmarks of Khomeini’s rule. Internationally, too, the model Khomeini established—an Islamic state asserting its independence from both American and Soviet spheres—has captivated Islamist movements across the Middle East. However, his uncompromising resistance to pluralism and continued support for proxy groups have also contributed to regional schisms and reciprocal isolation.
On the thirtieth anniversary of his death, one can discern that Ayatollah Khomeini’s passing on June 3, 1989, inaugurated a slow but inexorable transformation within Iran: a transition from revolutionary absolutism toward pragmatic adaptation. The immediate years following his death saw economic liberalization under Rafsanjani, reformist activism under Khatami, and renewed conservative retrenchment under Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Throughout these oscillations, the core theocratic framework that Khomeini forged has remained intact, yet its rigid contours have become more porous. Iran of the 2020s is a society where women pursue higher education in large numbers, digital connectivity enables cross‐cultural exchange, and insurgent youth movements leverage social media to call for accountability. These developments would have struck Khomeini as abominations; yet they illustrate how the seeds of change—sown even in the darkest decade of his rule—could not be entirely uprooted.
In retrospect, Ayatollah Khomeini occupies a singular position in modern Middle Eastern history. He was a consummate political strategist who harnessed Shiʿi symbolism and anti‐imperialist sentiment to overthrow a dynasty backed by global superpowers. His vision of an Islamic Republic, with itself as guardian, reconfigured not only Iran’s domestic institutions but also set a precedent for the assertion of religion in statecraft across the region.
Yet in celebrating his accomplishments, one must also acknowledge the human costs: political purges, suppression of basic freedoms, and the calamitous loss of life during the Iran‐Iraq War. Even as Iran continues to navigate the competing demands of social aspiration and ideological orthodoxy, the question remains whether Khomeini’s revolutionary fervor can coexist with the imperatives of a dynamic, interconnected world.
Ultimately, the historical judgment of Ayatollah Khomeini will hinge on how future generations reconcile his undeniable role in forging Iranian sovereignty with the equally undeniable burdens his theocracy imposed. In death, as in life, he remains a contested figure—venerated by some as the vanguard of authentic Islam and vilified by others as the architect of repression.
The trajectory Iran has followed since 1989—from reconstruction to reformism to renewed conservatism—testifies to the enduring influence of the man who once declared, “Our philosophy is a philosophy of life and death, like every religion.” Whether his vision will evolve to accommodate the aspirations of a modern populace or whether it will ossify into a relic of the twentieth century remains a question that continues to shape the region’s political landscape.
No comments:
Post a Comment