Revolutions and counter-revolutions

One must acknowledge the passing of the years when you have lived through a revolution and its counter-revolution. This has been my experience with Iran. 1979 was America’s post-war nadir. It was reeling from a myriad of malaises: post-Watergate shock, post-Vietnam war withdrawal, the new economic phenomenon of stagflation, reacting to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the overthrow of Iran’s Shah in an Islamic revolution. America’s then emasculated status was writ large when the new Iranian ‘government’ allowed hundreds of America’s embassy staff in Tehran to be held as humiliated hostages for 444 days as retribution for America giving the Shah safe passage to America.

Fast forward to 2026: America cuts the head off what they see as an evil, satanic snake that has sponsored terrorist movements in Lebanon, Palestine, and Yemen. In moments of ‘Epic Fury’, the Ayatollah who led the Iranian Revolution is assassinated as America and Israel hope for a popular uprising that will restore popular democracy in the former Persia. The last Shah’s son, currently waits in the USA for a call to return to his homeland.

That’s the thing about political revolutions. Typically bred from despair and anger they will not succeed unless they deliver their promises. Consider the fate of some of the most famous revolutions.

The Russian revolution of 1917- It may have taken a tick over 80 years to implode but the failure of the Bolshevik government to deliver economic progress for the proletariat it championed, and the oppression of its beloved masses sealed its fate. As in 1917, the end of Soviet rule in 1991 brought about a brief flirtation with democracy, before another slide into tyranny under Putin’s regime, which will just as surely unravel.

The Chinese revolution of 1949 has seen its communism survive, but without Deng Xiaoping’s policies of economic liberalism in the late 1970s, it is arguable that the one-party state would not have.  Remember, this was a nation in which millions died in pursuit of Chairman Mao’s nihilistic Five Year Plans and the mania of the Cultural Revolution.  Continuing support for China’s central government is intimately connected to continued economic prosperity and rising living standards.

The Cuban communist revolution of 1959 has seen communism survive, but after Fidel Castro’s death, in a highly attenuated form. As low as their living standards may be, most Cubans believe that their lives have improved from the days of General Batista.

Whilst the French soldier on in the fifth iteration of their Republic, no-one could seriously suggest that the French have a desire to return to the days of the Estates. Despite the Great Terror, Napoleon’s equal doses of grandeur and havoc, Hitler’s occupation, and the legacies of their colonial history, especially in Algeria,  no one can deny the clout of post-revolutionary France.

Another thing about revolutions is, like Tolstoy’s unhappy families, that they are all unique to their setting.

The English rightly celebrate the grandeur of the Glorious Revolution of 1688. The absolute rejection of the Divine Right of Kings through the expulsion of King James II (you really think the Stuarts would have learned their place after the execution of King Charles I) confirmed with a minimal loss of blood that the people would govern their society through their parliament. Inexplicably and worryingly, too many today choose not to acknowledge the glories and securities of parliamentary democracy.

Similarly, America regards the expulsion of the British from their 13 colonies in the revolution of 1776 as the birth of its democratic modernity and the constitutional freedoms of its peoples.

Notwithstanding the convulsions of its policy of slavery that almost saw its nation collapse just under a century later, it is impossible to contemplate America’s modern power without its rejection of the British yoke.

Some things never change. In the same week that saw the 80^th anniversary of Churchill’s Iron Curtain speech which seemingly cemented the Atlantic Alliance, President Trump has once again made clear America’s distaste of English rulers, bemoaning Keir Starmer’s refusal to co-operate in his nation’s campaign against Iran.

So, what to make of the latest convulsion in the Middle East? It was probably inevitable in the light of Iran’s refusal to give up its ambition to develop nuclear weapons. Not to mention the regime’s vicious suppression of protesters and heretics. As much as the American strike has unilaterally shattered principles of international law, even a limited nuclear conflict in the Middle-East does not bear thinking about. Iran’s retaliatory strikes on its fellow Arab nations says much about the former Ayatollah and his regime’s apocalyptic view of the world. Whether America’s vision of the rebirth of a democratic, humane Iran is achieved remains the cardinal question.

History has taught us that no matter how inevitable a revolution might be, there is never a time when its consequences are not profound and brutal. The ripples are many and often permanent.

Away from political revolutions, consider consequences of other revolutions that have forever changed us.

The Industrial Revolution shattered centuries old patterns agrarian and rural life and ushered in the modern world of urban living. Machine powered trains, boats and planes transformed our sense of place and time.

The post-industrial revolution of technology similarly changed the way we live our modern urban lives. As much as we relish the freakish power of technology, have we also lost much in terms of our ability to communicate in a genuine manner? The fact that Australia’s lead in legislating against certain social media activity by under-16s is being followed by other countries says much about the questionable social consequences of this revolution.

Moral revolutions are no less profound. Australia revolted against its very own White Australia immigration policy in the late 1960s, ushering in our multicultural society. Sixty years later, a political counter-revolution against the consequences of multiculturalism has begun. When the progressive left-wing Premier of Australia's largest State recently condemned services in suburban Sydney mourning the death of the Ayatollah as "atrocious" and was criticised by leaders of Islamic communities for having an "anti-Islam fetish", you know that social unity is strained.

Abortion, same-sex marriage and euthanasia are now legal rights in most Western countries that are as firmly established as they were unthinkable only a few decades ago. But who would have thought that we would ever see a counter-revolution against vaccines that have saved millions of lives?

So, finally, there must be a word about tennis. The genteel game has also had its own revolution. In 1968 tennis became an ‘open’ sport when professionals were allowed to play. The revolution of sport began. Have we, no pun intended, paid too much of a price for the professionalism of sport? Drug-taking, bizarre salaries, shamateurism, diluted club loyalties with players traded as commodities are now commonplace features of modern ‘sport’.

As we live with the circumstances that give rise to political, economic, technological, and social revolutions, so we must live with their intended and unintended consequences. Different perspectives will always colour the judgements we make about the success and failure of various upheavals. Events in Iran are further confirmation of the tectonic movements in our world’s polity that continue to shape us.

There do not seem to be many moments where events enable us “to take from our souls the strain and stress and let our ordered lives confess the beauty of thy peace.”