Exclusive; Andrew Scott Cooper, Author of 'Falling from Heaven': The People of Iran Did Not Take to the Streets for the Islamic Revolution

Andrew Scott Cooper is the author of the book 'Falling from Heaven; The Last Days of the Pahlavi Family in Iran.' He is an expert at the Middle East Institute in Washington and currently teaches at the Hellenic International University in Greece. On the occasion of the 45th anniversary of the revolution in Iran, he spoke with Kambez Tavana about the achievements of the Islamic Revolution, the legacy of the Pahlavi monarchy, and the perspective of the younger generation on the 1979 revolution amid the 'Women, Life, Freedom' movement. Thank you for speaking with the Persian section of Voice of America. We are in a period coinciding with the 45th anniversary of the revolution in Iran. You wrote a book titled 'Falling from Heaven; The Last Days of the Pahlavi Family in Iran.' As someone who has researched and written about Iranian history, especially during the revolution, has Iran become a part of your life that follows you wherever you go? Always and everywhere. In fact, I am currently writing my third book focused on Iran, but I am approaching it from a different angle. My focus is on Iran's role in the Cold War, not just Iran, but four other monarchies in the region and how their relationships with the United States were. Interestingly, I am still learning new things about the pre-revolution and revolutionary periods in Iran. I think the further we move away from the revolution, the more significant that period becomes because it impacted everything and everywhere. It was not a national event; it encompassed the entire Middle East and the Islamic world, and as we see now, its effects are still felt in places like Gaza, Lebanon, the Red Sea, and even in Europe. For example, I am from New Zealand. New Zealand has also joined the naval coalition in the Red Sea because New Zealand's economy is directly affected by disruptions in commercial shipping. Even a small country on the other side of the world like New Zealand is currently witnessing the impact of what is happening in Iran. It is interesting that you mentioned your new book and the Cold War. Let me ask you right now: What do you think about the fact that the Islamic Republic is currently involved in one of the main wars in Europe in favor of Russia? To be honest, I think one of the main lines regarding Iran, both during the Pahlavi monarchy and during the Islamic Republic, is that Iranians have a very good sense of filling the vacuums that arise. I think this is part of the survival instinct in living in the Middle East, especially in the specific geographical area they inhabit, as it is very vulnerable. I believe they have taken this trait very well to ensure survival first, and then even if they do not have territorial power to show strength beyond their borders, they find another way to do so. The Islamic Republic's presence in the Ukraine war is quite bold. It reminds me of the 1970s and the 1973 war between Israel and the Arabs when oil prices rose. The Shah's plan at that time was to expand Iran's power from the Indian Ocean to the farthest points, including Australia and New Zealand. He even traveled to Australia and New Zealand in the fall of 1974. The Shah had plans for diplomatic and economic ties in West Africa. Empress Farah Pahlavi visited Senegal in 1977 and also traveled to China. The idea that Iran seeks power beyond its borders is not new, but this time it is different in that it uses military power and proxies to do so. However, the Shah was very law-oriented. He had a serious belief in the United Nations and in the institutions and organizations that were created after World War II because Iran's security was very important to him, having been subjected to aggression and occupation during the war. The Islamic Republic, however, has no particular inclination towards this kind of outlook. This method carries higher risks, the risk of conflict and dispute, and the danger of miscalculation between the two sides; and it reaches a point of confrontation. Many are currently examining the U.S. and Iran in this way. When you have a regional power and a global superpower that do not have diplomatic relations, both are very close to direct military conflict but keep pulling back, you inevitably wonder when and which of these lines will cross further. You said the Islamic Republic has taken a bold step. After the revolution, the Islamic Republic made a strategic decision to remain in a hostile relationship with the U.S. forever because it benefits them, but at the same time, they have always pursued some form of communication or closeness with Europe. What they have done has a very serious impact on relations with Europe and the European Union. What do you think we will witness in the future in terms of impact or change? I really want to know what Iran's financial interests in Ukraine are. You can hardly find anyone who has a correct answer to this question; other than saying they are obliged to pay back to Russia, and that is why they are providing them with military equipment. I think it is a form of greed because I still do not see a clear benefit that they are gaining in return. As you rightly said, for European countries, Ukraine is their red line. When I lived in Brussels and was in the atmosphere of the European Commission and formal spaces, they were very focused on Ukraine, and from their perspective, Ukraine is European territory. This is a future member of the European Union, and anyone who takes a step to sabotage it or wants to destabilize Ukraine will gain nothing from it. Iran needs trade or investment from Europe. They may not count on it right now, but they will in the future. Just think about what will happen in five years. People in Europe have a good memory regarding these matters. The fact that drones made by the Islamic Republic are solely used to attack Ukrainian civilians and take their lives is a very serious step. Another interesting point is that after the start of the Russia-Ukraine war, I don't know if you noticed, but at least in the realm of social media, the people of Iran were supportive of Ukraine, while the Islamic Republic completely went the other way. I ask many people what is going to come to Iran, and they say now is the time to pay back to Russia. Moreover, it has shown a serious duality that the people of Iran still show no support for Russia. If the calculation is that Ukraine must be bombed to settle previous debts to Russia, it is not a sign of power. It is a sign of some vulnerability or isolation. Because there are other ways to settle debts with Russia. I think they are relying on Putin's diplomatic guarantees in the United Nations or other international bodies. I return once more to the example of New Zealand. The people of New Zealand are averse to any conflict, but why would you risk the kiwi trade flow? Why should the Houthis do such a thing? Of course, New Zealand has had a good relationship with Iran since the revolution, especially in trade. Many prominent families in Iran send their children to study quietly and without publicity in New Zealand, and they study at New Zealand universities. Why should they risk that now? So I think there is something more serious and specific for the leadership of the Islamic Republic at the moment that they are sacrificing themselves for Russia, and I think it will become clear soon. I say this from a news perspective and from my own viewpoint, but I wanted to ask you academically. For a long time, the successful simulation that the Islamic Republic had was Hezbollah in Lebanon. But now Iraqi militias, the Houthis in Yemen, and - I am not even sure about this - perhaps even the Taliban in Afghanistan may have such an influence; because the Taliban has remained in power and wants to gain legitimacy. Are you also witnessing this simulation? Or the formation of groups that would carry out their tasks? To be honest, it heavily depends on oil prices. I mean, do they have enough money to do these things? Those who pay taxes in Iran fund these expenses. Oil is a national wealth, but its revenue is spent on supporting proxies. A few years ago, I was in the city of Tyre in southern Lebanon, which is one of Hezbollah's power centers, and coincidentally, I was working on the same book 'Falling from Heaven.' I was with a Shiite friend who had been active in Lebanon for years. In fact, he was the last Lebanese ambassador during the Pahlavi monarchy and before the revolution. We were driving, and I saw Lebanese women and girls who were moving with hijab and chador, but at the same time, they were made up and wearing high-heeled shoes. I thought such images were strange for southern Lebanon, and it turned out that these girls were getting paid to wear hijab in addition to their makeup and clothes, and it was their source of income. My friend told me this money comes from the people of Iran that is spent here. Just think about the money that belongs to the people of Iran, who are struggling with their own economic survival, being given to these young girls in southern Lebanon to wear hijab. And of course, for the people of Lebanon, it is a kind of game; it is clear they want money. But it is strange. We are talking about tens of billions of dollars being spent this way. This still depends on oil prices, and if oil prices remain high, they have the money to do such things, and if oil prices drop or we witness a global recession, the money they spend on these activities will also decrease. Now that you have written two books about Iran and are in the process of writing a third, I wanted to ask this. Do you still come across information or documents that surprise you? I don't mean years ago; I mean right now as you are researching, do you still find something strange? If so, can you share it with us? I am still, like many, grappling with understanding how the Shah lost power in 1978. I am especially focused on the liberalization and the space that had begun. You hear a lot that people complain that Jimmy Carter, the U.S. President, pressured the Shah to soften his stance, and this caused everything to spiral out of control. However, the Shah had started the process of liberalization and opening up since the spring of 1976. Jimmy Carter had not even become the Democratic Party candidate for the U.S. presidency at that time. It has been quite a while. From the spring of 1976 until the end of 1977, and at the end of that year, he announces the open space, and at that time, you see opposition groups starting to coordinate with each other. How the open political space was managed and implemented, especially for the security and intelligence community, how they managed it. Because I am firmly convinced that the Islamic Republic will never allow a political open space or real reforms. You see sometimes a little allowance is given to them, but if they can come out to protest, this is also a strategic step to see who comes to the streets. They want to see who is willing to act. The Islamic Republic has learned many lessons from the 1970s in Iran because it was these groups that benefited from the open political space. When I was in Tehran, I went to a center called the Islamic Revolution Document Center, which is actually a think tank established to research what caused the fall of the Pahlavi monarchy. A lot of what they do is research on what happened to the Shah. There are still activities on this. Regarding what the Shah was doing and implementing democracy and liberalism, there are commendable aspects, and although it ended unhappily, it is hard to see that when the Shah was implementing these reforms, no one trusted his words. The people did not believe that the Shah would voluntarily relinquish some of his executive powers. However, around June 1978, he gave an interesting speech in Niavaran, and it is a fascinating moment. Because in his speech, he calls on the middle class and the intellectual class to join him. He tells them we have a forward movement, and I will not step back. I will continue the process of liberalization, and I want democratization to continue, and the time has come. It was the same day that he replaced the head of SAVAK, ousting Nasiri and appointing Moghadam in his place. I do not think he intended to do anything temporarily at that time. His real intention was to implement reforms and pursue democratization because he knew he was battling cancer. He knew his time was running out. He had come to the conclusion that Iran had become more powerful and complex than one person could manage, and no longer could one person govern it. As a result, it has more impact on the dire consequences of the revolution to know that at the same time, he was implementing reforms but suddenly faced arrests and pressures and saw that the people wanted change. Of course, change is good until it reaches you. And suddenly you look around and say, is this really what we fought for? We know that the people of Iran did not take to the streets for the Islamic Revolution.