I periodically collect postings of similar subject matter into a compound posting. I waited for a while to see if I came up with anything else about this one.
This posting is closely related to another compound posting, "America And The Modern World Explained By Way Of Paris", December 2015. That posting centers on the French Revolution while this is about it's successor revolutions.
The modern political era began with the French Revolution of 1789. It was a popular uprising in which the king and queen, Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, were overthrown and guillotined. But the revolution was messy and bloody and ultimately ended in the rule of Napoleon, who became the prototype of the modern dictator, although he did not start the revolution. Napoleon was actually a general, who went on to conquer much of Europe and thus spread the ideals of the revolution.
There have been two major, and numerous minor, reenactments of the French Revolution. What I mean by this is not how important each revolution was but whether it changed the basic direction of the French Revolution. There have been two changes of direction, with the two major reenactments.
Since the original French Revolution there had been widespread industrialization. This brought about a very wealthy upper class of people, and the millions of exploited and underpaid laborers who worked for them. This brought about the first major change in direction, with what we could call the Second Revolution. This was the October (Russian) Revolution, of 1917, which was the beginning of world Communism.
The original French Revolution was hostile to the Catholic Church. The Second Revolution, based on the theories of Karl Marx, was even more hostile to religion. But the second major reenactment, what we could call the Third Revolution, was the Iranian Revolution of 1979. This turned the world back toward religion, and not only Islam.
But all three revolutions overthrew a monarchy and all three had a "storming" as their signature event. The signature event of the original French Revolution was the Storming of the Bastille, of the October Revolution it was the Storming of the Winter Palace, and of the Iranian Revolution it was the Storming of the U.S. Embassy.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1) THE RULE OF SUCCESSIVE REVOLUTIONS
2) THE WEST IN THE COLD WAR
3) HOW THE METRIC SYSTEM AFFECTS HISTORY
4) CALIPHATES AND THE REVOLUTION SERIES
5) THE PHOTO OF THE RETURN
6) THE KHOMEINI LETTER
7) THE 1979 SEIZURE OF THE GRAND MOSQUE
8) MULTIDIMENSIONAL HISTORY
1) THE RULE OF SUCCESSIVE REVOLUTIONS
I have noticed something very important about understanding recent history.
While I was a child, the Vietnam War was on television every night. The actual war in Vietnam was only part of it. The war was very divisive at home and the anti-war protests were almost as much a part of the news as the war itself. Drawn everywhere was the peace symbol and people would make the peace sign, a V formed by the first two fingers.
In January, 1973 there was rejoicing as the Communists agreed to a truce and America pulled out of the war. The people who understood the situation seemed skeptical that the truce would last, and they were right. Two and a half years later, seeing America distracted by Watergate and with a new president, the Communists launched a general offensive, gambling that America wouldn't get re-involved in the war, and finally conquered South Vietnam. At age 14 I watched the Fall of Saigon live on the news.
But there is so much mystery about this war. The first mystery is that American forces never lost a major battle in the war, and reportedly dropped a greater tonnage of bombs than were dropped by both sides in the Second World War, yet still didn't win the war. The second mystery is that North Vietnam won the war, in the name of Communism, but today is an ally of the U.S. and displays the bustling entrepreneurial spirit that is typical of free enterprise. It was as if the war was really over nothing.
There was an economic reason for the war, that we saw in the section 17) AMERICA'S WAR IN VIETNAM in the compound posting "Investigations", December 2018, but that is separate from what we are discussing here.
The first thing to understand is that Southeast Asia was a French colony, and most of it's leading people spent time in France. The mausoleum of Ho Chi Minh, in Hanoi, resembles Napoleon's La Madeleine. Image from Google Street View.
A monument that Thailand claims commemorates a military victory against France ironically resembles the obelisk in Place Concorde. Image from Google Street View.
The monuments of Laos (top) and Cambodia that celebrate independence from France are actually a version of the Arc De Triomphe. Images from Google Street View.
The Narva Arch in St. Petersburg, built to commemorate the Romanov Dynasty victory over Napoleon, is, ironically, a virtual copy of Napoleon's own Arch de Triomphe du Carrousel. Except that the Narva Arch has six horses, instead of four. Two images from Google Street View.
Anywhere that has been associated with France will be closely familiar with the French Revolution. This was the opening of the modern political era. I consider the French Revolution as the "Big Bang" of the modern political era.
The French Revolution began in 1789 and resulted in the overthrow and guillotining of the king and queen, to establish a republic. This was the prototype of the modern republic but what ultimately arose out of it was Napoleon, who was the prototype of the modern dictator. The revolution was also very hostile to the Catholic Church. One reason that the revolution is so memorable is the monuments. Napoleon's two famous arches form an axis in Paris and the Eiffel Tower is to commemorate the centennial of the revolution.
There have been two major reenactments of the French Revolution, as well as many minor ones. The two major reenactments both changed the direction of the revolution, as far as it's interpretation by the world, as the prototype of modern politics. So we can describe it as a series of three revolutions. Each revolution superseded the one before it.
1) The French Revolution of 1789
2) The October (Communist) Revolution of 1917
3) The Iranian Revolution of 1979
Suppose that a nation went to war but the outcome of the war had already been decided? No matter what the nation did, or how many battles it won, nothing could change the outcome of the war because it had already been decided. That is what happened when America entered the Vietnam War because the war was really all about the French Revolution and that had already been decided.
The First Vietnam War was the Vietnamese Communists against France. But the battle had already been decided. This was the era of the Second Revolution, which favored the Communists. This is why Communism spread so far. Not only that but France was allied with the Vietnamese Emperor, Bao Dai, while the original French Revolution had been about overthrowing the king. Finally, French forces constructed a great fortress, at Dien Bien Phu, while the signature event of the French Revolution was the storming of a fortress, the Bastille. So, no matter what France achieved in battle, it already had three strikes against it in terms of history.
America's involvement is sometimes referred to as the Second Vietnam War, and it followed France into a war where the outcome had already been decided by history. Emperor Bao Dai, who had been close to France, had been overthrown but replaced by a Catholic president, Ngo Dinh Diem, in this mostly Buddhist country. When Diem was overthrown he was ultimately replaced by Nguyen Van Thieu, who was also a Catholic.
This represented France before the revolution, as the revolution was as hostile to Catholicism as it was to monarchy. We saw in the compound posting, "America And The Modern World Explained By Way Of Paris", December 2015, that America, unlike most other western countries, represents the France before, rather than after, the revolution. The king and queen who were overthrown and guillotined were actually America's first allies who helped it gain independence. America's Republicans are actually the continuation of the Bourbon Dynasty, which is why America's Democrats were generally the anti-war protestors.
So no matter what America did in the Vietnam War, the outcome had already been decided by history. The amazing thing is that American forces never lost a major battle during the war, but that didn't matter at all. The 1968 Tet Offensive, where the Communists simultaneously struck at targets all across South Vietnam, was actually a military defeat for the Communists as they suffered heavy losses. But it ended up as one of the turning points against America because it was like a national level "Storming of the Bastille", and those who stormed the Bastille were the winning side. The American base at Khe Sanh also represented a Bastille that was stormed during the Tet Offensive.
During the Third Vietnam War, in 1975 after America's withdrawal, the helicopters evacuating staff from the roof of the U.S. Embassy in Saigon, with news cameras from across the world recording it, as the Communists surrounded it, was a final and perfect reenactment of the Storming of the Bastille to conclude the war, because the war had been all about the French Revolution and no military force was going to change that.
What I find really interesting about Southeast Asia is that the countries that had been French colonies, Vietnam, Cambodia and, Laos, became Communist, but none of the countries that hadn't been French colonies, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand or, Myanmar, became Communist. Yet France itself wasn't Communist and certainly didn't introduce the idea of Communism. What France did do was to introduce the idea of it's own revolution and the October (Communist) Revolution was now the successor of that.
But then if Communism had history on it's side, as the successor of the French Revolution, and it did conquer about a third of the world, then why did it just seem to evaporate like it did? Not many years after great victories like this in Vietnam, came the spectacular collapse of Communism in eastern Europe, and the Soviet Union ceased to exist in 1991.
What happened is that the Second, October or Communist, Revolution had been supplanted by the Third Revolution. This is the Iranian Revolution of 1979. Like the Second Revolution, this had contact with France. The ideals of the French Revolution had been brought to Russia by the conquests of Napoleon and the Iranians who fermented the Iranian Revolution did so in exile near Paris.
Not so long ago the superpowers had nuclear missiles pointed at each other over competing economic systems. But now, when nations deal with each other, no one seems to care much about economics anymore. The First (French) Revolution was secular and hostile to religion. The Second (Communist) Revolution was even more so. But the Third (Iranian) Revolution is moving back toward religion, and not only Islam.
Does anyone remember when there used to be lewd and crude bumper stickers on many cars, that we don't see anymore? Could anyone have ever imagined, in the days of "Godless Communism" that Russia would one day refer to a military campaign as it's "Holy War", and soldiers who were killed in it would have their sins forgiven? Albania once declared itself as an officially atheist nation, where any expression of religion was forbidden. But it recently established a Vatican-like area for a religious group.
It is all the result of the Third Revolution superseding the Second and bringing the world, at least the west, back toward religion.
But then why is there still Communism in the Far East? China, North Korea and, Vietnam are ruled by Communist parties, although that Communism has been considerably modified, even though Communism is of the Second Revolution and we are now in the era of the Third Revolution?
We find a simple answer in the posting "Understanding The World In Terms Of The South And West And The North And East" April 2016. The two parts of the world operate differently and are defined by religion. The South And West is the realm of the monotheistic religions, primarily Christianity, Islam and, Judaism. The North And East is the realm of the eastern religions, primarily Hinduism and Buddhism. The primary difference between the two realms is that nations tend to come into being with ideas in the South And West, while the same nations have mostly existed since ancient times in the North And East.
Since the Iranian Revolution was about Islam, which is a monotheistic religion, we should expect that the Third Revolution would apply more to the South And West that to the North And East, and this is why some degree of Communism, at least in name, remains in the Far East.
We have seen the significance of the Iranian Revolution in the posting "The Great Revolution Of Our Time", January 2017.
So when first France, and then America, went to war in Vietnam, they were up against more than the Communists, they were up against history. This was the era of the Second Revolution, which was about Communism, while America and France were still in the past, and no amount of bombs and bullets and victories were going to change that.
In the Second World War, Hitler was the new Napoleon figure. Hitler made a point of visiting Napoleon's tomb and his field of conquest was virtually identical to that of Napoleon. But the era of the Second Revolution had begun, and this made inevitable the come-from-behind triumph of the Soviet Union. Napoleon never knew it but his own apparently unsuccessful invasion of Russia succeeded in planting the seed of the Second Revolution, about Communism.
But when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan it turned out similar to the American venture in Vietnam. That's because it was now the era of the Third Revolution, which began not long before in neighboring Iran. This is what brought Communism as we knew it to a conclusion. It was not capitalism that "won" the Cold War. It is true that Communism "crashed" in Russia but, during the tenure of Boris Yeltsin, capitalism crashed even worse and global democracy has been in slow decline since the end of the Cold War. What happened is that the Second Revolution had been supplanted by the Third Revolution.
You can see that the Rule Of Successive Revolutions always holds true, and no amount of military force can change it.
2) THE WEST IN THE COLD WAR
The U.S. and it's western allies were suspected of being somewhat hypocritical during the Cold War. We claimed to stand for democracy and self-determination for everyone, based on free elections, but often ended up supporting autocrats because they were anti-Communist. Many countries across the world were our allies not because they were democracies but because they were NOT democracies.
As many colonies of European imperial powers gained independence, following the end of the Second World War, the concern of the west is that they would become Communist. There were struggles in these countries between pro-democracy and Communist factions, with the west supporting the pro-democracy side and Communist countries supporting the Communists.
But it had to be this way and the reason is "The Rule Of Successive Revolutions".
I see the French Revolution, which began in 1789, as opening the modern political era. We could call it the "Big Bang" of the modern political era. In this revolution the king and queen were overthrown and guillotined, in favor of a republic. But it ultimately resulted in the rule of Napoleon, who is considered as the prototype of the modern dictator, although he wasn't involved in starting the revolution. Napoleon's conquests spread the ideals of the French Revolution across Europe.
There have since been two major reenactments of the French Revolution, as well as many minor ones. What I mean by major and minor is not a matter of how important it was. The French Revolution is very much still with us but the two major reenactments have each changed it's basic direction.
Napoleon's invasion of Russia was ultimately unsuccessful. Could he possibly have imagined that, over a century later, the Romanov Dynasty that he was up against would be overthrown by the first major reenactment of the revolution that had brought him to power? This was the October Revolution, in 1917, that was the beginning of world Communism. The difference was that the Romanovs were executed by firing squad while Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette had been executed by guillotine. The October Revolution began the Soviet Union and it set about spreading the ideals of Communism just as Napoleon had spread the ideals of the French Revolution to Russia.
Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette had actually been America's first allies, and had helped it to gain independence. The government of the new U.S. must have been very displeased at the news of their overthrow and execution but, as explained in "America And The Modern World Explained By Way Of Paris" December 2015, America's Republican Party became the continuation of the French Bourbon Dynasty. This was why America was so resistant to the Metric System, it had been invented by the bloody revolutionaries who had overthrown and guillotined America's first allies. America's Democrat Party represents France after the revolution.
The means that, during the Cold War, America's Republicans represented the pre-revolution monarchy, while it's Democrats and western allies mostly represented the First Revolution. The Communists represented the Second Revolution. This explains why the west sometimes found itself supporting autocrats, instead of the popular self-determination that was professed.
The Cold War was not won, and could not be won, by conflict with the west because the Communists were ahead in the successive revolutions. What happened is that the first major reenactment of the French Revolution, the October Revolution which we could call the Second Revolution, was supplanted by the second major reenactment of the French Revolution, the Iranian Revolution of 1979 which we could call the Third Revolution.
What the Third Revolution is all about is religion, and not only Islam. The First Revolution was generally hostile to traditional religion, the Second even more so. In contrast to the Cold War, when nations deal with each other today no one seems to care much about economic systems. The world, at least the west, is moving back toward religion. Can anyone believe that Russia, once the land of "Godless Communism" is now "Holy Russia", standing against the west that has fallen into apostasy and decadence?
There is a definite move back to religion in the U.S., although it doesn't always mean real faith. The 1973 ruling on access to abortion was considered as a victory for secularism but is now in the process of being reversed. There used to be numerous lewd and crude bumper stickers that are now generally considered as unacceptable. Making fun of religion on television is not usually acceptable anymore. This is the Iranian Revolution arriving in America.
I see this "Rule Of Successive Revolutions" as inviolable in explaining the modern world.
3) HOW THE METRIC SYSTEM AFFECTS HISTORY
I have no doubt that the French Revolution initiated the modern political era. It is effectively the "Big Bang" of the modern era. The revolution was against the monarchy and the church. The king and queen were overthrown and guillotined, and replaced by a republic. But it ended in the rule of Napoleon, who became the prototype of the modern dictator, although he had nothing to do with starting the revolution.
But why did this particular revolution turn out to be so important?
One reason was certainly that Napoleon's conquests spread it's values across Europe. Napoleon's invasion of Russia was ultimately unsuccessful. But could he have imagined that, more than a century later, a virtual reenactment of the French Revolution would begin in the Romanov Dynasty capital of St. Petersburg that would topple them?
Another reason was that the ideals of the French Revolution were uplifting and empowering. It basically said "We do not need a king and a pope to think for us, and tell us what to do, because we have our own reasoning to guide us". The anti-religious slant of the revolution fit with the coming era of secularism.
But there is a third reason why the French Revolution, and it's successor revolutions, have so dominated world history ever since. That reason is the Metric System that has pervaded the world. What the revolutionaries managed to do is to get the world using the measurement system that they created.
The French revolutionaries were obsessed with the number ten. They had a calendar with ten months and a week with ten days. There are still their clocks in museums that have a day with ten hours. None of these lasted but what did last is their measurement system, based on ten and water.
The Metric System centers around the meter, the basic unit of length. The revolutionary measures of time didn't last but the rest of the system is based on the meter. A meter was originally supposed to be one-ten millionth of the distance between the north pole and the equator, along the meridian that passes through Paris. The meter today is actually an arbitrary length.
Starting with the meter, units are formed from multiples of ten. Ten meters is a decameter, a hundred meters is a hectometer and, a thousand meters is a kilometer. A tenth of a meter is a decimeter and a hundredth of a meter is a centimeter. Obviously we tend to use some multiples more than others. The volume of a cubic decimeter is defined as a liter and the mass of a liter of water is defined as a kilogram. The mass of a cubic meter of water is defined as a metric ton.
The Metric System has become the world's measurement system, and this is one of the things that ties the world to the French Revolution. A measurement system is like a language, and we are speaking the revolution's language. It is easy to see how history and politics go together with the Metric System in how slow the U.S. and Britain have been to adapt it. That is because Britain, unlike the French revolutionaries, kept their royals instead of putting them under the guillotine and the French monarchy had been America's first ally and helped it to gain independence.
4) CALIPHATES AND THE REVOLUTION SERIES
The modern political era began with the French Revolution of 1789. It was a popular uprising in which the king and queen, Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, were overthrown and guillotined. But the revolution was messy and bloody and ultimately ended in the rule of Napoleon, who became the prototype of the modern dictator, although he did not start the revolution. Napoleon was actually a general, who went on to conquer much of Europe and thus spread the ideals of the revolution.
There have been two major, and numerous minor, reenactments of the French Revolution. What I mean by this is not how important each revolution was but whether it changed the basic direction of the French Revolution. There have been two changes of direction, with the two major reenactments.
Since the original French Revolution there had been widespread industrialization. This brought about a very wealthy upper class of people, and the millions of exploited and underpaid laborers who worked for them. This brought about the first major change in direction, with what we could call the Second Revolution. This was the October Revolution, of 1917, which was the beginning of world Communism.
The original French Revolution was hostile to the Catholic Church. The Second Revolution, based on the theories of Karl Marx, was even more hostile to religion. But the second major reenactment, what we could call the Third Revolution, was the Iranian Revolution of 1979. This turned the world back toward religion, and not only Islam.
But all three revolutions overthrew a monarchy and all three had a "storming" as their signature event. The signature event of the original French Revolution was the Storming of the Bastille, of the October Revolution it was the Storming of the Winter Palace, and of the Iranian Revolution it was the Storming of the U.S. Embassy.
But history repeats itself and rarely, if ever, is there anything that is completely new. So there must have been precedents to this series of revolutions that have shaped modern times.
The first thing that comes to mind is the overthrowing and execution of England's King Charles I by the forces of Oliver Cromwell. He wanted to abolish the monarchy, in order to create a theocracy in the Name of God, and had the Crown Jewels destroyed. But when Cromwell died, his son didn't inspire the same devotion and the Royalists were able to reestablish the monarchy.
What about this series of revolutions though? There is another series that was actually quite similar. It was the Islamic Caliphates.
While Europe was going through the "Dark Ages", it was the Islamic part of the world that kept learning alive. The intellectual center of the world was the House of Wisdom, in Baghdad. Among many other things, they brought the numerical digits that we now use as well as the concept of zero from India, developed mathematics such as algebra, and this era is why so many of the stars have Arabic names and the digits 1-9 are called the Arabic Numerals. Spain was ruled by Moslems for about seven hundred years and, during this time, students from across Europe sought to study at the great university in Cordoba.
What finally brought Europe out of the Dark Ages was the conquest of Constantinople, which was Christian, by the Ottomans. Many Christian scholars loaded manuscripts onto pack animals and headed westward. This brought about the intellectual awakening that is now referred to as the "Renaissance", which means "rebirth". The city most associated with the Renaissance is Florence. Out of the Renaissance grew the Reformation, the Industrial Revolution and, the French Revolution.
So it shouldn't be surprising if some of the concepts that have shaped modern Europe came from the Moslem countries.
There were four well-known successive caliphates in the early days of Islam, and each was centered around it's capital city. The Rashidun Caliphate was centered on Medina and was the first four caliphs after the death of Muhammad. During the Rashidun Caliphate was the split between Sunni and Shiite, over who should be caliph after Muhammad.
The Rashidun Caliphate was supplanted by the Umayyad Caliphate, which was centered on Damascus. It was the Umayyads who built the two mosques on the Temple Mount, the Al Aqsa and the Dome of the Rock.
The Umayyad Caliphate was supplanted by the Abbasid Caliphate, which was centered on Baghdad. Unlike Damascus, which was an ancient city, Baghdad was especially built as the Abbasid capital, and is where the House of Wisdom was located, but the Umayyad Caliphate did continue on in Spain.
The Abbasid Caliphate was supplanted by the Fatimid Caliphate, which was Shiite. The Fatimids especially built Cairo as their capital, just as the Abbasids had built Baghdad.
You can see that this series of revolutions follows the same pattern as the caliphates, with one supplanted by the next, except that it is informal. Each revolution also centers around a major city, although informally, just as the caliphates did. The original French Revolution was centered on Paris, the October Revolution on St. Petersburg and, the Iranian Revolution on Tehran.
Another way that we can see the historical impact of these long-ago caliphates is in the lack of unity in the Middle East. There used to be discussion of Syria and Iraq uniting. The two neighboring countries were led by the same Baath Party, which promoted Arab unity. But what was against the merger was history. The Abbasids, centered in Baghdad, had defeated and supplanted the Umayyads, centered in Damascus. Syria and Egypt united for a while, as the United Arab Republic. The Fatimids, based later in Cairo, had not had direct conflict with the Umayyads, but even so the history of different caliphates was enough to doom the merger.
5) THE PHOTO OF THE RETURN
The French Revolution of 1789 was like the Big Bang of the modern political era. There have been two major reenactments of the French Revolution, and many minor ones. In the French Revolution the king and queen, Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, were overthrown and guillotined. The chaos of the revolution eventually ended in the rule of Napoleon, although he had nothing to do with initiating the revolution or executing the king and queen. The revolutionaries were obsessed with the number ten, and the measurement system that they developed is what we refer to today as the Metric System.
The first major reenactment of the French Revolution was the October Revolution of 1917. Tsar Nicholas was overthrown and the family ultimately executed. Every reenactment of the revolution has it's own version of the Storming of the Bastille, which was the signature event of the French Revolution. In 1917 it was the Storming of the Winter Palace. The conquests of Napoleon had earlier spread the ideals of the revolution, the modern secular republic. While his invasion of Russia was ultimately unsuccessful could Napoleon have imagined that, just over a century later, the tsars would be overthrown by a reenactment of the revolution that had brought him to power?
The second major reenactment of the French Revolution was the Iranian Revolution of 1979. The revolutionaries, led by Ayatollah Khomeini, were in exile in France not far from Versailles, which was the home of the French monarchy that was overthrown. Khomeini returned home, after the royal family had fled into exile, on an Air France jet which has the revolutionary tricolor painted on it.
The Iranian version of the Storming of the Bastille was the Storming of the U.S. Embassy, which resulted in the Hostage Crisis. The reenactments are not exactly the same as the original French Revolution, each rearranges the pieces in it's own way. The Iranian Revolution, in contrast to the French and October Revolutions, was a move back toward religion. The Eiffel Tower was a monument of the centennial of the French Revolution but the Iranian version of the tower, the Azadi Tower, was a monument of the 2500 year anniversary of the monarchy that would be overthrown by the reenactment of the French Revolution.
The Azadi Tower looks like a cross between the Eiffel Tower and the Arc De Triomphe, both of which are post-revolutionary symbols in Paris. But the Azadi Tower is to celebrate the 2500 year anniversary of the Persian Monarchy. I remember from childhood the news of when it opened. Image from Google Street View.
I also remember this famous image of Ayatollah Khomeini triumphantly returning to Iran, in February 1979, from exile in Paris. He returned on an Air France jet and the following photo from the Wikipedia article "Ruhollah Khomeini" is of the elderly ayatollah being helped down the steps from the plane by the Air France pilot.
The Shah and his family had left Iran by this time but there were still forces in the country that were loyal to the Shah. Some have wondered if so many foreign journalists were allowed on the plane as insurance that the Shah's forces wouldn't preclude the budding revolution by simply shooting it down.
What I wonder about is whether this photo of the return was carefully pre-planned. Was Khomeini's team well-aware of the importance of the French Revolution, and how it was the beginning of the modern political era? Did they know that the French Revolution had been reenacted, early in the Twentieth Century, by the October Revolution in Russia, and planned this photo to portray this unfolding Iranian Revolution as another reenactment of it?
Khomeini's team, who had been in exile with him near Paris, knew that journalists would take photos as he descended the steps of the plane. Being helped down the steps of the plane added to Khomeini's aura. Some leaders try to portray their physical vigor, which implies their capability of doing their job. Instead this photo implied that Khomeini's great power was entirely spiritual, and not of this world.
But why was it the pilot who helped him down the steps? Khomeini's son is right behind them and could have been the one to help. The pilot is dressed in a military-like uniform, which is reminiscent of Napoleon, and the tricolor, which was the revolutionary flag, was painted on the plane. This definitely implied that the budding Iranian Revolution was picking up where the all-important French Revolution left off.
This explains why the Hostage Crisis had to happen. Revolutionaries stormed the U.S. Embassy, and fifty of the staff were held hostage in the crisis that went on for 444 days. If the French Revolution was being reenacted then there had to be an event that corresponded to the Storming of the Bastille, which was the signature event of the French Revolution. The fact that the Bastille had been a prison meant that the staff of the embassy had to be held as prisoners.
6) THE KHOMEINI LETTER
Early in 1989 the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini, sent a letter to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. In the letter Khomeini pointed out that Communism was falling apart and the real reason was spiritual, rather than economic. Khomeini also advised Gorbachev not to be led into capitalism but to embrace Islam.
Gorbachev politely declined Khomeini's invitation. But, all these years later, let's have another look at this. It shows how inviolable my Rule of Successive Revolutions is.
During the 1980s, Communism was in a gradual decline. But the reason was that Communism was the Second Revolution, with the original French Revolution being the First, and the Second Revolution was in the process of being supplanted by the Third Revolution, which was Khomeini's Iranian Revolution. It was this Third Revolution in the series that moved the world back toward religion, and not just Islam.
What happened to the Soviet military venture in Afghanistan is that it was there to implement the Second Revolution but it had already been supplanted by the Third Revolution, in neighboring Iran. No amount of military force was going to permanently change that. The ultimate outcome was the rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Khomeini, as the herald of the Third Revolution, proved to be right about a number of things. In the early 1960s, before being forced into a fifteen-year exile, warned that the Shah of Iran would have to leave if he didn't change. Years later, that is exactly what happened.
In the letter, Khomeini warned Gorbachev against capitalism. Sure enough Gorbachev was followed by Boris Yeltsin, as President of Russia after the breakup of the Soviet Union, and Yeltsin enthusiastically embraced capitalism for Russia. State-owned industries were sold off to what became known as the "oligarchs", and capitalism ended up crashing worse than Communism did.
Khomeini warned Gorbachev that Communism was basically falling apart and the reason was spiritual, rather than economic. Remembering that the Third Revolution is about turning back to religion, and not only Islam, just look at Russia today.
"Godless Communism" is long gone. The relationship with the West is no better, but now it's "Holy Russia" standing against the West that has fallen into decadence and apostasy. Soldiers going to war in Ukraine are told that this is a holy war and their sins will be forgiven if they are killed in combat. It is like a Christian mirror image of Iranian soldiers being sent to fight against Iraq during the 1980s.
Gorbachev didn't accept Khomeini's invitation to accept Islam but today Russia is most certainly a Christian version of what Khomeini was inviting it to be.
While Khomeini was certainly the herald of this Third Revolution, and this letter to Gorbachev was an important part of it, I think the revolution was an inevitable part of history and it would have been someone else who would initiate it if Khomeini hadn't been there.
7) THE 1979 SEIZURE OF THE GRAND MOSQUE
The militant seizure of the Grand Mosque, in 1979 followed by a demand for reforms and proclamation of one of their number as the Mahdi, fits with my scenario of the three successive revolutions that have defined the modern world.
The Third Revolution, the second major reenactment, was bound to happen. The world had grown too secular and had moved too far from religion. It was inevitable that it had to turn back. The year of the Third Revolution would be 1979 and the revolution would actually start, independently, in two separate places. Since Moslems never had a Darwin, and hadn't moved toward secularism as much as Christians had, both beginnings of the Third Revolution would be Islamic. One would be Sunni and the other Shiite.
The time had come for this revolution. One of the beginnings of the Third Revolution would succeed directly, and the other indirectly.
The one that succeeded directly was the Iranian Revolution. It was the second major reenactment of the French Revolution, and it turned the world back toward religion and not only Islam.
It seemed that everyone underestimated Ayatollah Khomeini and his budding religious revolution. There was a strong Communist presence in Iran and the Shah had been more concerned about a Communist revolution. The Communists in Iran seemed content to let Khomeini overthrow the Shah, confident that they would then be able to remove him. The West seemed skeptical that this medieval religious figure would be able to govern a modern country for long.
They were all wrong. The time had come and this revolution was here to stay. It is a great credit to the Iranian Revolution that it survived the Haft-e Tir Bombing, which killed most of the top government figures, in 1981.
The one that succeeded indirectly was the militant seizure of the Grand Mosque, in Mecca. This is the most important place in the Islamic religion. They proclaimed one of their number as the Mahdi, an awaited redeeming figure.
The seizure began on November 20, 1979, not long after Khomeini had taken power in Iran. But the two events were completely separate. The militants didn't mention Khomeini or his revolution and he condemned the seizure.
Unlike the Iranian Revolution, the seizure of the Grand Mosque didn't succeed directly. The Saudi Government was able to recapture the mosque after two harrowing weeks. The one that the militants had proclaimed as the Mahdi was killed during the siege and the surviving militants were all publicly executed.
But it changed Saudi Arabia. To forestall this from happening again, the country got much more strict in implementing Islamic law. Although relations with Iran were never very good. I believe that this was not only due to the Sunni- Shiite divide but goes back to, again, the French Revolution. The French Revolution was all about overthrowing the king. Khomeini had overthrown a king while Saudi Arabia was still ruled by a king.
We can see how the seizure of the Grand Mosque was also a reenactment of the French Revolution because the signature event of the French Revolution was the Storming of the Bastille and each reenactment has also reenacted this. The signature event of the October Revolution was the Storming of the Winter Palace and of the Iranian Revolution was the Storming of the U.S. Embassy. The signature event of the would-have-been Donald Trump Revolution was the Storming of the Capitol, on January 6.
This seizure of the Grand Mosque was most definitely such a "storming". Since this seizure of the Grand Mosque succeeded only indirectly, the militant effort was more unofficial, in comparison with Iran. The Soviet war in Afghanistan was to the Saudis what the war with Iraq was to Iran. Saudi Arabia wasn't officially at war in Afghanistan but many Jihadis went there.
8) MULTIDIMENSIONAL HISTORY
I have always been interested in both science and history and, as time goes on, it seems more and more as if the repetition of history is like a law of physics. It is as if there is only a certain amount of information out there so that the information must repeat itself. But the repetition of history is not quite as neat as the laws of physics. It is more like a multidimensional repetition where there is likely a number of historical threads in the repetition.
Let's have a look at the Iranian Revolution of 1979 as an illustration of how there tends to be multiple threads in a repetition of history.
The modern political era began with the French Revolution of 1789. I see it as the "Big Bang" of the modern political era. The king and queen were overthrown and guillotined, by popular revolt, in favor of a republic. But it ended with the rule of Napoleon, who became the prototype of the modern dictator, although he didn't initiate the revolution.
As an illustration of how influential the French Revolution was remember that Napoleon, who eventually became the all-powerful leader, wasn't actually born in France. He was born in Corsica, which had only just come under French control. This pattern was followed by two other powerful Napoleonic figures. Adolf Hitler wasn't born in Germany, he was born in Austria, and Josef Stalin wasn't born in Russia, he was born in Georgia. Corsica is just southeast of France, just as Austria is just southeast of Germany and Georgia is just southeast of Russia.
There have been two major reenactments of the French Revolution, as well as many minor ones. The difference between major and minor is not how important the revolution is, but whether a basic change is made in the direction of the French Revolution in the modern era.
The first major reenactment of the French Revolution, what we could call the Second Revolution, was the October Revolution of 1917. This was the beginning of world Communism. The difference is that the Romanov family was executed by firing squad, rather than guillotined, and the signature event of the revolution was the Storming of the Winter Palace, rather than the Storming of the Bastille.
The October Revolution, this Second Revolution, changed the direction of the French Revolution because of an outside factor that had been added. That factor was widespread industrialization. The development of industries in the last third of the Nineteenth Century made a few people extremely wealthy but some perceived the millions of people who worked for them as underpaid and unfairly exploited. Communists referred to the exploited workers as the Proletariat and the exploitive wealthy as the Bourgeoisie, based on the theory of Karl Marx.
The second major reenactment of the French Revolution, what we could call the Third Revolution, was the Iranian Revolution of 1979. This was the Islamic Revolution. It changed the basic direction of the French Revolution in that the first two revolutions had been against religion but this turned it back toward religion, and not only Islam. In contrast to the first two revolutions, the Shah of Iran managed to escape into exile and, instead of the Storming of the Bastille or the Winter Palace as the signature event, it was the Storming of the U.S. Embassy.
The Iranian Revolution has turned the world, at least the west, back toward religion, thus changing the basic direction of the French Revolution. Not so long ago, in the era of the Second Revolution, nations had nuclear missiles pointed at each other over competing economic systems. Now, when nations deal with each other, no one seems to care much about economics anymore. Russia, once the land of "Godless Communism", is now "Holy Russia", standing against the west that has fallen into decadence and apostasy. The Second Revolution is over and we are now in the era of the Third Revolution.
The influence of the French Revolution on Iran was compounded by the exile of Ayatollah Khomeini, who was sent out of the country because of his opposition to the Shah. Khomeini spent years in neighboring Iraq, as a teacher in the Shiite holy city of Najaf. Iraq had undergone it's own repetition of the French Revolution, with the king overthrown and killed. In fact the revolution had been on July 14, which is Bastille Day. The Iraqi Revolution ended up, just like the French Revolution, with a powerful leader in a military uniform. Saddam Hussein was Iraq's version of Napoleon.
Then Khomeini, joined by his supporters, relocated to a town near Paris. It was actually near the Palace of Versailles, the splendor of which had sparked the French Revolution. It was where the French king and queen who were executed had been living. So the time that Khomeini spent in Iraq and France, during his exile, contributed to the repetition of the French Revolution in Iran.
But there were multiple historical threads in the Iranian Revolution, the French Revolution wasn't the only one. Before the partition of 1947, India bordered Iran. The saga of Ayatollah Khomeini was very much influenced by that of Mahatma Gandhi. An ascetic elderly religious leader, in non-western clothing, leading the country away from foreign influence and back to it's traditional values. This doesn't mean that Khomeini himself was influenced by Gandhi, who was a Hindu, just that the whole story of Khomeini leading the Iranian Revolution was.
The emergence of Mahatma Gandhi, along with the postwar leaders of other Asian countries, is the result of a repetition of history that began with Napoleon, who was the end result of the French Revolution. Spain had a vast empire in the western hemisphere, virtually all territory from what is now the southwestern U.S. southward, except for Brazil which was ruled by Portugal. Napoleon conquered Spain and Portugal. While the two countries would regain their freedom, their colonies managed to break away. Portugal had actually moved it's capital to Rio De Janeiro. After the Napoleonic war, Spain tried to hold onto it's colonies but only managed to keep Cuba, Puerto Rico and, the Philippines, all of which it would lose in the Spanish-American War nearly a century later. European powers held colonies in Asia and this history was repeated after the Second World War. Britain gave up it's colonies mostly peaceably, with France trying to hold onto Vietnam and the Netherlands to Indonesia. Mahatma Gandhi emerged to lead this postwar independence.
The fact that Khomeini spent years in exile before the triumphant return to lead his country resonates with other Asian leaders who came before him. This includes Sun Yat-Sen(China), Chiang Kai-Shek (China), Ho Chi-Minh (Vietnam) and, Syngman Rhee (South Korea). Gandhi had spent more than two decades away from India, mostly in South Africa.
With Iran in possession of much oil, the U.S. and Britain managed to involve themselves in the country. Their influence shows up in the Iranian Revolution, although it was against western influence in the country. Ten years before the Iranian Revolution the U.S. was riven by widespread demonstrations against it's Vietnam War. The demonstrations against the Shah, during the Iranian Revolution, closely resembled America's anti-war demonstrations. Bell-bottom pants were even in style in Iran at the time.
As for British influence, the whole story of Khomeini and his revolution is like a modern reenactment of Oliver Cromwell. Like Khomeini, Oliver Cromwell overthrew the monarchy in the Name of God. He had the Crown Jewels destroyed and the king, Charles I, executed. The son of the king famously escaped by hiding in an oak tree. After Oliver Cromwell died his son took over, but didn't inspire the same devotion, and the son of the executed king was able to restore the monarchy as Charles II.
A mostly forgotten episode of Twentieth Century history is that Britain and the Soviet Union sent forces into Iran during the Second World War. The intention was not to permanently occupy the country but to secure a corridor whereby supplies could be gotten to the Soviet Union, which had been invaded by the Nazis. The Soviet occupation resulted in two short-lived republics, one Azerbaijani and the other Kurdish, attempting to declare independence from Iran. But could anyone have imagined that, thirty-five years later, a revolution would take place in Iran that would be along the lines of, but would supplant, the one that brought the Soviet Union into existence but would be religious in nature, led by a figure that was like a modern Islamic version of Britain's Oliver Cromwell?
This Revolution Series explains why the Iran Hostage Crisis had to happen. Revolutionaries stormed the U.S. Embassy, and fifty of the staff were held hostage in the crisis that went on for 444 days. If the French Revolution was being reenacted then there had to be an event that corresponded to the Storming of the Bastille, which was the signature event of the French Revolution. The fact that the Bastille had been a prison meant that the staff of the embassy had to be held as prisoners.
But the Storming of the Bastille wasn't the only factor in the Hostage Crisis. I believe that the wall around the U.S. Embassy compound actually helped to bring about the crisis. In the early days of the Persian Monarchy it achieved a great victory over Babylon and supplanted it as the most important power. Babylon was centered around a walled city and while a drunken royal party was going on the Persian engineers managed to partially dam the Euphrates River, which flowed through the walled city, and the Persian warriors were able to get inside the walls. As anyone who has read the Bible knows, the Persians released the Jews from captivity in Babylon and they returned and rebuilt the Temple, which is now referred to as the Second Temple.
In September 1980 Iraq launched a full-scale invasion of Iran, concentrated on Khuzestan province. This is what unintentionally got the hostages released. With Iran actually being invaded the hostages were no longer needed as a rallying point for the revolution, the guards holding the hostages were needed at the battlefront, and soon the hostages were released.
The irony is that the victory that started the Persian Monarchy as a great power involved getting inside the walls of Babylon, after which the Jews were released from their captivity. The signature event of the revolution that ended the Persian Monarchy was getting inside the walls of the U.S. Embassy and taking the staff captive. Babylon was in what is now Iraq and Saddam Hussein considered it as being very important and had much of it rebuilt. So then he had to get back at Persia, at least subconsciously, and get it's captives released.
Notice also that the Persian conquest of Babylon, in ancient times, revolved around a river. The Persians dammed the Euphrates River to get inside the walls of the city. The rematch in 1980 between Iran, as the modern name of Persia, and Iraq, as the modern incarnation of Babylon, also officially started over a river. The Tigris and Euphrates Rivers join to form the Shatt-al-Arab River, which forms the border between Iraq and Iran. There had been a long controversy over where exactly the border line was on the river. Saddam Hussein marked the beginning of the war with Iran by withdrawing from a treaty over the river.
This shows how history repeats itself. The repetition of history is almost like a law of physics. But it is not quite as neat and there tends to be multiple historical threads woven together.
(1).png)
