Listen to the article
Iran’s Deadly Crackdown Evokes Memories of 1979 Revolution
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — Within days, what began as economic protests across Iran escalated into a violent crackdown that has surpassed the casualty figures of demonstrations seen in the country for decades.
The level of bloodshed draws stark parallels to the chaotic period surrounding the 1979 Islamic Revolution, presenting what may be the greatest challenge to Iran’s theocracy since its founding. The government now confronts a population increasingly willing to defy authorities despite their demonstrated readiness to use lethal force against dissent.
The current unrest began on December 28 with traders protesting the collapse of Iran’s currency, which has plummeted to 1.4 million rials to the dollar. For comparison, the exchange rate during the 1979 revolution was approximately 70 rials to the dollar. What started as economic grievances quickly transformed into widespread demonstrations challenging the government itself.
Initially, reformist President Masoud Pezeshkian appeared open to negotiation. The government revised a subsidized currency exchange system plagued by corruption allegations and offered households the equivalent of $7 monthly to offset soaring food prices. However, as demonstrations swelled, authorities reverted to familiar tactics: internet blackouts, severed international phone lines, and what appears to be a deadly crackdown using live ammunition, based on video evidence and activist accounts.
The violence today mirrors the revolutionary period of 1978-79, when street battles erupted between forces loyal to the U.S.-backed Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and demonstrators. That era saw attacks targeting cinemas, nightclubs, American interests, Iranian officials, and minorities. Each funeral for slain protesters spawned new demonstrations, eventually bringing millions to the streets and forcing the cancer-stricken Shah to flee.
Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini returned from exile in France to assume power under his concept of “Velayat-e Faqih,” or “Guardianship of the Jurist.” What followed was the execution of thousands of former government and military officials, writers, and activists; an eight-year war with Iraq; and the imposition of mandatory hijab for women. Tensions with the United States intensified after the 1979 U.S. Embassy seizure and 444-day hostage crisis.
Iran’s current leadership clearly remembers this revolutionary history—and fears its recurrence. State television has recently broadcast footage from the early 1980s unrest, when fighters aligned with the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK) broke with Khomeini. Officials have revived terminology from that era, labeling detainees as “mohareb” or “enemies of God,” a charge carrying the death penalty that was used during mass executions in 1988 that reportedly killed at least 5,000 people.
Pro-government demonstrators have echoed historical slogans, shouting “Death to the Hypocrites!”—a phrase long applied to the MEK. This deliberate invocation of revolutionary language reveals the government’s deep concern about the current protests and its attempts to reframe them.
What remains unclear is why this round of demonstrations has resulted in significantly greater bloodshed than previous movements, such as the 2022 Mahsa Amini protests or the 2009 Green Movement. Independent assessment has been severely limited by Iran’s restrictions on journalists and communication blockades.
One factor may be that these protests center on economic grievances, which transcend Iran’s political, ethnic, and religious divisions among its 85 million citizens. Hard-liners might still be angered by recent military conflicts. The size and scope of protests could also be a factor, particularly as authorities repeatedly warned gatherings were illegal and signaled willingness to use force.
Unlike during the Shah’s final days—when millions of protesters were allowed to march during Ashoura in December 1978 without being fired upon—today’s government has taken a more immediately aggressive stance. It has organized counter-demonstrations, bringing tens of thousands of supporters to the streets, while labeling protesters as “terrorists” allegedly organized by Israel and the United States, without providing evidence.
The Shah similarly blamed “Islamic Marxists,” Communists, and foreign influences for his troubles, once claiming: “If you lift up Khomeini’s beard, you will find ‘Made in England’ written under his chin.”
Despite notable differences between 1979 and today—including U.S. President Donald Trump signaling potential willingness to intervene and Western condemnation of Iran amid ongoing sanctions—the historical parallels suggest continued turbulence ahead for the Islamic Republic, even if authorities believe they have temporarily suppressed the demonstrations before reaching a point of no return.
The fundamental question remains whether Iran’s leadership can address the economic and social grievances driving citizens to risk their lives in the streets, or whether the cycle of protest and crackdown will continue to escalate, potentially threatening the system established in 1979.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
13 Comments
The scale of the protests and level of violence is certainly alarming, recalling the chaos of the 1979 revolution. However, the underlying drivers – economic hardship, corruption, and lack of political freedoms – are not new issues in Iran. It remains to be seen if the government can address these root causes before the unrest escalates further.
The parallels between the current protests and the 1979 revolution are striking, particularly in terms of the economic factors fueling unrest. However, the geopolitical landscape has changed significantly, and the government’s response will be a critical factor in determining how this crisis unfolds.
Absolutely, the regional and global dynamics at play today are quite different from 1979. The Iranian government will need to carefully navigate this situation to avoid a repeat of the chaotic and violent events that led to the Islamic Revolution.
While the article draws parallels to 1979, it’s important to note that the current situation in Iran is unfolding in a very different geopolitical landscape. The government’s response and the international community’s reaction will be critical factors in determining how this crisis plays out.
That’s a good point. The regional dynamics and global context have shifted significantly since 1979, which could impact both the government’s approach and the protesters’ tactics and support. It will be a complex situation to monitor in the coming weeks and months.
The parallels between the current protests and the chaos of the 1979 Islamic Revolution are quite striking. It will be interesting to see how the Iranian government responds to this growing unrest and whether they can avoid a similar level of upheaval.
You’re right, the economic factors driving the protests today seem very similar to what sparked the 1979 revolution. The government will face a tough challenge in maintaining control if the protests continue to grow in scale and intensity.
The economic drivers behind the protests, such as the currency collapse and corruption, are certainly valid concerns that the Iranian government will need to address. However, a heavy-handed crackdown runs the risk of further radicalizing the protesters and escalating the unrest.
The currency collapse and corruption issues highlighted in this article are certainly valid concerns that could fuel wider anti-government sentiment. However, the government’s willingness to use lethal force is a concerning escalation that could backfire and further inflame the situation.
Agreed, a heavy-handed crackdown often serves to radicalize protesters and strengthen their resolve. The Iranian government will need to strike a delicate balance between addressing economic grievances and preventing the unrest from spiraling out of control.
This analysis provides a sobering reminder of the potential for further unrest and instability in Iran. The economic drivers behind the protests are certainly valid concerns, but the government’s willingness to use lethal force is a worrying escalation. It remains to be seen whether they can address the root causes before the situation spirals out of control.
This report provides useful context on the historical parallels, but it’s difficult to predict how the current situation in Iran will unfold. Much will depend on the government’s response and the protesters’ willingness to keep demonstrating in the face of repression.
This analysis provides a useful historical perspective, but the current situation in Iran is highly fluid and uncertain. Much will depend on the government’s response and the protesters’ ability to sustain their momentum in the face of repression. The potential for further violence and instability is concerning.