What We Missed at the Revolution

 Scott Anderson's book "King of Kings" provides a detailed exploration of the Iranian Revolution of 1979, focusing on the political dynamics and key figures involved. It highlights America's misperception of Iran and the various factors leading to the downfall of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi's regime.

1. Historical Context: The book highlights the struggles Iran faced in the late 1970s, such as corruption, class divides, and an out-of-touch elite. Despite these issues, predictions of a revolution were not widely anticipated, given the Shah's long-standing rule and previous crisis management.

2. Main Characters: Anderson tells the story through four central characters:

• Ebrahim Yazdi: An Iranian-American who left his research career to join the revolutionary efforts.

• Henry Precht and Gary Sick: Midlevel officials at the U. S. State Department and National Security Council, respectively, who provide insight into U. S. policy and reactions.

• Michael Metrinko: A colorful Foreign Service officer in Tabriz, offering a ground-level view of events.

3. U. S. Political Missteps: Anderson critiques U. S. officials for failing to foresee the revolution. He acknowledges that while the CIA documented Iran's problems, there was an ingrained belief that the Shah could handle challenges, possibly due to historical precedents.

4. The Role of SAVAK: The Shah’s secret police played a significant role in monitoring dissent but proved ineffective in addressing the growing discontent among the populace, which the regime was unprepared to manage.

5. Carter Administration: Anderson points out that President Jimmy Carter's administration is often critiqued for their handling of the situation. However, he argues that Carter and his advisers did seek to restore order, but the Shah refused to take the necessary actions. There is some criticism directed at national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski’s hawkish stance.

6. Character Limitations: While focusing on key personalities offers compelling narratives, it may dilute broader historical truths. For instance, Yazdi was not a crucial member of Khomeini's inner circle, and the absence of Carter in the narrative limits understanding of executive decisions during the crisis.

7. Ambassador Sullivan's Perspective: The depiction of William Sullivan, the last U. S. ambassador to Iran, suggests he misjudged the potential for reconciliation between revolutionaries and the military, contributing to inaccurate assessments of the political landscape.

Anderson’s "King of Kings" is an insightful account of the Iranian Revolution, revealing the complexities of U. S.-Iran relations and the numerous miscalculations that allowed a sudden regime change to unfold. The book serves as a reminder of the difficulty in predicting revolutions amidst visible societal issues and challenges dominant narratives around U. S. responsibility in the Shah's downfall. 

https://freebeacon.com/culture/what-we-missed-at-the-revolution/