here 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\u2014the 250th anniversary of which we celebrate this year\u2014predisposes 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Let it never be forgotten that, in The<\/em> New York Times<\/em> on February 16, 1979<\/a>, the Princeton professor Richard Falk confidently asserted: \u201cThe 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.\u201d Moreover, \u201cthe key appointees\u201d in the new revolutionary government had \u201ca 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\u2019s basic needs.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cHaving created a new model of popular revolution based, for the most part, on nonviolent tactics,\u201d Falk gushed, \u201cIran may yet provide us with a desperately needed model of humane governance for a third\u2010world country.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Nope….<\/p>\n\n\n\n Read it all<\/a>.<\/p> The West wants a revolution in Iran. What\u2019s actually happening is a counterrevolution\u2014and history shows those are usually doomed to fail, writes Niall Ferguson. https:\/\/t.co\/WjZRsgcy5R<\/a><\/p>— The Free Press (@TheFP) January 13, 2026<\/a><\/blockquote>