A decades-old article from the New York Times, which presented a surprisingly optimistic view of Iran's future Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, has found a new audience online. Its reappearance coincides with ongoing, widespread protests across Iran that are directly challenging the country's clerical establishment.
The 1979 Article and Its Controversial Argument
Published in 1979 just days after Khomeini's triumphant return from exile, the piece was titled 'Trusting Khomeini'. It argued that Western fears of a theocratic dictatorship taking root in Iran were largely exaggerated. The article portrayed Khomeini not as a future political ruler, but as a restrained religious figure who would act primarily as a moral guide for the nation.
It further suggested that political pluralism would continue in post-revolution Iran and highlighted that some of Khomeini's close associates were moderates with genuine concern for human rights. This perspective was formed during a highly uncertain period. The Shah had fled, state institutions were in complete flux, and many observers believed the broad coalition that overthrew the monarchy would naturally prevent any single faction from seizing absolute power.
The Authors and Their Later Reckoning
The article was authored by Richard Falk, then a professor of international law at Princeton University, who had met Khomeini briefly before the revolution's success. Falk wrote at a time when Western support for the repressive Shah regime was being widely reassessed.
In later years, Falk acknowledged that his early optimism was misplaced. He stated that the New York Times headline was not his choice and admitted that the speed and ruthlessness with which the clerical authority consolidated power was critically underestimated. Looking back, he described Khomeini as a rigid, uncompromising revolutionary figure, not the symbolic guide he initially envisioned, and conceded that hopes for pluralism were sadly mistaken.
Falk was not the only Western intellectual to misread the revolution's trajectory. The renowned French philosopher Michel Foucault visited Iran in 1978 and wrote a series of essays celebrating the uprising as a unique 'political spirituality'—a potential alternative to both Western liberalism and Marxism. Foucault downplayed the risk of religious leaders dominating the political sphere, a view that events would soon contradict. His writings later served as a cautionary study in how intellectual fascination with revolutionary ideals can obscure the practical mechanics of power seizure.
Why This History Matters Today
The article's revival is directly linked to the sustained protest movement in Iran, notably led by women and youth, against strict social codes and political repression. These protesters are openly questioning the very legitimacy of the clerical rule established after 1979.
The resurfaced analysis serves as a stark reminder of how transitional, revolutionary moments can be misjudged. The focus today is less on blaming past analysts and more on understanding how a mix of optimism, ideology, and incomplete information can shape flawed early judgments with long-lasting consequences.
For Iranians on the streets today, the significance of the 'Trusting Khomeini' article lies in the enduring impact of the political system it misread. It underscores a recurring global challenge: the overthrow of an authoritarian ruler does not automatically lead to a more open or pluralistic society. The episode highlights the inherent uncertainties of revolutions and how initial assumptions can harden into realities that define generations.
