Could the US have prevented the Iranian revolution in 1979?

[President Johnson]

Could the US government in 1978/79 have prevented the Iranian revolution from happening? It's probably fair to say that the Shah couldn't last much longer (he died shortly after anyway). Was Khomeini underestimated by the CIA or why was there no attempt to stop him? He was pretty radical in French exile, and if the US intelligence had known what danger he poses they could have taken care of him?

I think there may have been a small time window after he arrived back in Tehran because the Iranian military was neutral between all factions in the beginning. Once he was in power, it was probably too late. The only solution to take out his mullah regime would have been a ground war that may have ended up like Vietnam or Afghanistan ended for the Soviets.

Any thoughts?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Khomeini was an incredibly shrewd man, capable of deceiving and easing his foes and reluctant allies alike. The State Department believed that he'll be more interested in the spiritual leadership than political one, and thus saw him as less of a danger.

Exactly the same mistake many moderate revolutionaries have made, like Prime Minister Mehdi Bazargan, with whom Khomeini initially shared power just to outplay and force out more secular elements later.

There's a tendency to think of the Iranian revolution and Khomeini's coming to power as one and the same, which is simplistic to say the least. The revolution was a broader process that was underway and would've happened regardless, as the Shah was hated from all corners. Unfortunately the Mullahs emerged as the only force capable of forming an enduring system as progressive forces suffered a crippling blow after U.S.-led overthrowing of Mosaddegh in the 50s and years of propping of the Shah's regime, and thus making the revoilution inevitable.

As of the question if Khomeini could've been prevented from coming to power the answer is, of course, "yes". As of the question whether the revolution would still have happened, the answer is "yes". Everything else is purely speculative. There were other strong islamist leaders.

[CEO Mindset]

not with carter as potus

[Anna Komnene]

What Kal said. And considering the extent that anti-American/anti-imperialist rhetoric and propaganda permeated the Iranian revolution, I think it's safe to say that the answer is no and that if there was suspicion that Khomeini had been taken out by Americans, it might have just made things even worse for the opponents of the revolution.

Besides, if you agree with Skocpol's take on social revolutions, when the circumstances are ripe for a revolution, it's pretty much inevitable. Leaders of the revolution are opportunists that express and stoke the sentiments that already exist in the people.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

There are steps the US could have taken, but not by 1978/79. Even by acting earlier, it would have taken a good deal of effort and luck.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Besides, if you agree with Skocpol's take on social revolutions, when the circumstances are ripe for a revolution, it's pretty much inevitable. Leaders of the revolution are opportunists that express and stoke the sentiments that already exist in the people.

Having read her piece on the Iranian Revolution, speculatively, it would have required some sort of preemptive economic and social reorientation to better embed the Shah's regime in society/better incorporate a variety of classes into the regime. It's generally much harder for personalistic autocracies to do this. The other factors as I recall were an oil bust in 1977 and substantial inflation, the latter of which at least could have been prevented with shreweder investment policies.