Mikhail Krutikhin: Iran Between Revolution and Reform —Tthe Expert's Point of View

Today, ASTNA welcomes Mikhail Krutikhin — a Russian analyst, renowned specialist in the oil and gas market, translator, journalist, historian, and orientalist specializing in Iran and Arab countries. His deep knowledge and extensive experience in studying the Middle East, as well as the economic and political situation in Iran, make him one of the leading experts in this field.

Mikhail Krutikhin is the author of numerous publications and analytical reviews that provide a unique understanding of the complex processes taking place in this region. In his recent book, "Playing Revolution: Iran's Kremlin Agents," he offers a fresh perspective on the history of Iranian communism, revealing the interactions between Soviet agents and Iranian political processes.

In this interview, we will focus on issues related to Iran — its historical and modern challenges, political intricacies, and economic prospects. Mikhail will share his views on the Islamic Revolution, the role of ethnic groups in Iranian politics, and the country's future on the international stage. We will also discuss his opinion on the paths that might lead Iran to democratic transformations and how this could affect regional stability.

* * *

Question: Dear Mikhail Ivanovich, you are a well-known oil market analyst and an authoritative specialist on Iran. Both areas of your research are very close to our readers: Iran is our close neighbor and an oil-producing country. However, in this interview, we will talk only about Iran. Your book "Playing Revolution: Iran's Kremlin Agents" was recently published. We inform our readers that the book can be ordered on the Freedom Letters website. The title of the book makes it clear that you have a distinctive approach to the Soviet actions towards Iran's internal political processes. The book's annotation states that communist ideology served only as a cover for the game of power and influence. Please elaborate on this thesis for our readers.

Answer: This book is a brief history of the communists in Iran from 1920 to 1990. For Soviet and Russian historiography, this is a new approach, as Iranian "leftist" forces are viewed without the emotional Soviet perspective — not as patriots and heroes persecuted and destroyed by the Shah's regime but as traitors to Iran's interests, paid agents of Moscow, albeit adorned with beautiful ideological masking (they wished Iran a "happy" future under the aegis of Stalin and the Gulag). For the USSR, which was planning control over Iran, and later for the International Department of the CPSU Central Committee, which financed and directed Iranian communists, they were simply agents ready to betray their homeland.

The book provides examples of how clumsy management of this agency from the Kremlin and betrayal by these agents led to numerous failures in Iran.

Question: Do you agree with the traditional versions of researchers about the causes of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, or do you have your own special view? In your opinion, was the situation catalyzed by external forces, or did the revolution occur only because of mistakes made by the Shah, with external players joining in later?

Answer: The main reason for the fall of the Shah's regime (I write about this in detail in my new book — the diary of a TASS correspondent in Iran during the last days of the monarchy) was the Shah's mistakes. Having taken the right course on modernization in the form of the "White Revolution" of the 1960s, he ignored millions of Iranians who found no place in his "great civilization." The attempt to build a progressive economy without democratization, relying on repression and colossal military expenditures, was unsuccessful.

No external forces organized or directed this revolution. Attempts by Americans to intervene, their recommendations to suppress the uprising, were unsuccessful. Even Moscow could do nothing through its agency in Iran, maintaining overall neutrality.

Question: Iran is one of the oldest states in the world with an imperial past, which has managed to retain most of its historical lands. This country has always been distinguished by its high level of civilization. Despite such a rich experience of statehood, the current Iranian government has chosen a policy of confrontation not only with major power centers but also with the countries surrounding its borders. After the Islamic Revolution, Tehran declared Washington and Moscow to be devils and has cold relations with Turkey and the Arab world. Why did Khomeini choose the path of confrontation, which weakens the regime and negatively affects the country's development? This seems somewhat strange, given that Khomeini found refuge in the West (in France for 15 years) after being expelled from the country, and his return was the result of secret agreements with the United States, after which Washington managed to dissuade the Air Force command from not allowing the spiritual leader's plane into Iranian airspace. Why didn't Iran follow the path of the Persian Gulf countries, which maintain harmonious relations with the surrounding world while preserving traditional values?

Answer: Partially, this can be attributed to the peculiarities of Khomeini's character and views, but the main reason is the current Iranian government's radical opposition of Shi'ism to other Muslim sects.

Question: The significant role of Azerbaijanis in the Islamic Revolution is well-known to specialists. Tabriz, the capital of Iranian Azerbaijan, was a center of revolutionary activity. Azerbaijanis were also very active in Tehran. What motivated them? It is unlikely they could have been adherents of the Islamic regime, as they had recently had an autonomous government oriented towards socialist ideas. Were their expectations from the revolution justified? What sentiments prevail among Azerbaijanis now? Are they active in Iran's political field today?

Answer: Iranian Azerbaijanis did not play a special role in the revolution. Tabriz was one of the major cities, like Shiraz, Mashhad, and Isfahan, where mass demonstrations against the Shah took place.

The current government's focus is on completely ignoring the role of such a factor as ethnic origin, as it was with Khomeini. There are Muslims (Shiites) and everyone else. There is no division by nationality in this government's ideology. All nationalities in Iran experience the same pressure from the regime, and there is no reason to single out Azerbaijanis.

Question: In one of your Facebook posts, you note that you were critical of the Tudeh Party of Iran. You wrote that Moscow bought and sold Iranian communists, and they betrayed and sold their country in the interests of the USSR while also informing on each other. I would like you to elaborate on this issue. The Tudeh Party was considered one of the likely contenders for power after the Shah's fall, but it lost to Khomeini's supporters. What was the reason for their defeat?

Answer: Tudeh was a completely submissive and even blind tool of the Kremlin. In Iran, they said: "If it gets cold in Moscow, Tudeh in Iran starts sneezing." Hence the sharp turns in strategy following Moscow's instructions.

The book contains documented examples of how Tudeh members reported on each other to curators from the International Department of the CPSU Central Committee. Separately, quarrels and splits between Azerbaijani and Persian members of the party are described, which even the Kremlin could not resolve.

Before the revolution, Tudeh had no organizations or supporters in Iran. The party played no role in the events. Even the Fedayeen had more strength and supporters, but they too were weaker than Khomeini's forces.

Question: Observing the confrontation between Iran and the United States over the years, one involuntarily comes to the conclusion that Iran's aggressive policy is beneficial to the Americans, as it increases the significance of the United States in the Persian Gulf as an alternative force, which Washington skillfully uses. Therefore, the Americans appear inconsistent in their intentions to overthrow this regime. I would like to know your opinion on this view.

Answer: I cannot agree with such speculations. The United States gained significantly in the region when Trump forced Iran into restraint. Americans need stability in the Middle East, not games with regime changes.

Question: At first glance, Iran's state system seems archaic, a relic of the past. But it has been functioning successfully for 45 years, despite being in confrontation and under sanctions and facing regular popular unrest. So, what resource allows it to survive? According to Russian journalist Nikita Smagin, who worked in Iran for a long time, the Islamic Republic is born from modernity, it is an attempt at progressive, leftist (sometimes Marxist) reinterpretation of Islam. They took a modern secular state and added Islamic content to it. The laws are the French code with the addition of Islamic norms, higher education is the American system with the introduction of Islamic subjects. Do you agree with this approach?

Answer: I think this is only partially true. There is no "leftist reinterpretation" of Islam in Iran's Shiite leadership. But the conflict between the regime and the educated, Western-oriented strata of the population (remaining in the minority) is evident. There is movement toward compromise with these strata, but it is hindered by radical militant Islamists.

Question: Iranian tourists are frequent visitors to Baku. In conversations with them, one can hear criticism of the mullahcracy, but there is no desire to change the situation. What is your vision of the prospects of this political system in Iran? Does Iran have a chance to build a democratic society with a change of power, given the absence of political parties in the country?

Answer: I cannot make assumptions about a possible change in the Iranian regime. I already mentioned this in the previous answer.