The Free Press
NewslettersSign InSubscribe
Niall Ferguson: The Myth of Revolution in Iran
Protesters against the veil, protected by young men, march in central Tehran on March 10, 1979. (via Getty Images)
The West wants a revolution in Iran. What’s actually happening is a counterrevolution—and history shows those are usually doomed to fail.
By Niall Ferguson
01.13.26 — The Big Read
--:--
--:--
Upgrade to Listen
5 mins
Produced by ElevenLabs using AI narration
145
167

There is a difference between a revolution and a counterrevolution. It is a recurrent mistake of the American media to conflate the two. That is because the success of 1776—the 250th anniversary of which we celebrate this year—predisposes us to sympathize with revolutions. I can think of no better explanation for the naivete of much liberal commentary on subsequent revolutions: France in 1789, Russia in 1917, China in 1949, Cuba in 1959, Nicaragua in 1979, Egypt in 2011 and, most relevant to today, Iran in 1979.

Let it never be forgotten that, in The New York Times on February 16, 1979, the Princeton professor Richard Falk confidently asserted: “The depiction of [the Ayatollah Khomeini] as fanatical, reactionary, and the bearer of crude prejudices seems certainly and happily false. What is also encouraging is that his entourage of close advisers is uniformly composed of moderate, progressive individuals.” Moreover, “the key appointees” in the new revolutionary government had “a notable record of concern for human rights and seem eager to achieve economic development that results in a modern society oriented on satisfying the whole population’s basic needs.”

Ends tomorrow: We’re celebrating a new year and new additions to our newsroom. Enjoy 20 percent off a subscription to The Free Press.

Get 20% off

“Having created a new model of popular revolution based, for the most part, on nonviolent tactics,” Falk gushed, “Iran may yet provide us with a desperately needed model of humane governance for a third‐world country.”

Nope.

It turns out the commentators Falk was refuting were right. Khomeini really was “fanatical, reactionary, and the bearer of crude prejudices.” They were also right to associate him “with efforts to turn the clock back 1,300 years, with virulent antisemitism, and with a new political disorder, ‘theocratic fascism,’ about to be set loose on the world.” As there is no accountability whatsoever for liberal professors, Falk was subsequently appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council as Special Rapporteur on the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories. The Iranian people, meanwhile, have endured close to 47 years of theocratic fascism.

Continue Reading The Free Press
To support our journalism, and unlock all of our investigative stories and provocative commentary about the world as it actually is, subscribe below.
Annual
$8.33/month
Billed as $100 yearly
Save 17%!
Monthly
$10/month
Billed as $10 monthly
Already have an account?
Sign In
To read this article, sign in or subscribe
Niall Ferguson
Sir Niall Ferguson, MA, DPhil, FRSE, is the Milbank Family Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and a senior faculty fellow of The Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard. He is the author of 16 books, including The Pity of War, The House of Rothschild, and Kissinger, 1923-1968: The Idealist, which won the Council on Foreign Relations Arthur Ross Book Award. He is a columnist with The Free Press. In addition, he is the founder and managing director of Greenmantle, a New York-based advisory firm, a co-founder of the Latin American fintech company Ualá, and a co-founding trustee of the new University of Austin.
Tags:
Foreign Policy
Iran
History
Political Violence
Comments
Join the conversation
Share your thoughts and connect with other readers by becoming a paid subscriber!
Already a paid subscriber? Sign in

No posts

For Free People.
LatestSearchAboutCareersShopPodcastsVideoEvents
Download the app
Download on the Google Play Store
©2026 The Free Press. All Rights Reserved.Powered by Substack.
Privacy∙Terms∙Collection notice