---

The Night the Cinema Became a Furnace of Death

On the night of 28 Mordad 1357 (19 August 1978), Cinema Rex in Abadan caught fire while hundreds of people were seated inside watching The Deer, a film made by Masoud Kimiai and Gholam-Hossein Saedi. The name of the cinema, “Rex,” means “king” in Latin, and the tragedy occurred precisely on the anniversary of Mossadegh’s removal from office on 28 Mordad 1332 (19 August 1953)—two details that cast a political shadow over the horrific fire from the very beginning. The fire started at around 9:45 p.m. and rapidly engulfed the cinema. Many of the audience members were trapped inside, and after hours of efforts to contain the blaze, the building was almost completely destroyed. Initial reports put the death toll at at least 377. [1] [2]

Yet the significance of Cinema Rex did not end with the scale of the human tragedy. The incident became an example of a pattern for the Islamic Republic: committing a horrific mass killing, then constructing a political narrative about who was responsible, and turning that narrative into a force for shaping public opinion and political power. A pattern that would later be repeated in the history of the Islamic Republic in tragedies such as the downing of the Ukrainian airliner and the mass killings of January 2026 (Dey 1404/2584). [3] [4]

In the days following the fire, the question of “Who set the cinema on fire?” became one of the country’s central political questions. Different answers were proposed, but the anti-Shah narrative quickly came to dominate all others.

Hundreds of Victims

The death toll was disputed from the very beginning. Iranian newspapers initially reported an official figure of 377 dead. [1] The Washington Post, citing official information, published the same figure on 21 August and estimated that around 700 people had been in the audience. [2]

In Abadan, however, many people did not believe the announced figure. Reports in the following days, citing witnesses, victims’ families, and local sources, spoke of a much higher death toll. On 25 August, the Washington Post reported that many residents of Abadan believed that more than 600 people had died, while the official figure remained 377. [5]

The scale of the tragedy was especially horrific because the fire spread through an enclosed space and many audience members had no chance to escape. Images of burned bodies and lines of families arriving to identify their loved ones plunged Abadan into shock.

Cinema Rex was not merely a local tragedy; it took place in one of Iran’s most important oil cities, at a time when protests by Marxist and Islamist groups against the Pahlavi government were rapidly expanding. A few weeks later, oil strikes intensified in Abadan and other oil-industry centers, and oil workers became one of the decisive forces in the course of the revolution. [6]

Who Lit the Match?

Years later, at a special tribunal established after the revolution to investigate the Cinema Rex case, Hossein Takbalizadeh was identified as the principal perpetrator of the arson.

In court, Takbalizadeh described how he and Faraj Bazrkar, Yadollah Mohammadpour, and Fallah Mohammadi had initially planned to set Cinema Soheila on fire, but their plan failed. They then went to Cinema Rex. According to his account, flammable material was poured around the entrance, and he himself lit the match. [7]

Takbalizadeh also spoke of his connections with religious circles in Abadan and activities such as reproducing and distributing Khomeini’s leaflets. [7]

The names of individuals such as Mohammad Rashidian, Mohammad Kiawash, and several clerics active in Abadan were also raised in accounts of the period and during the trial. Takbalizadeh spoke about some of these connections and meetings, although not all of the accusations made against other individuals led to the same outcome in court. [7] [8]

Importantly, the evidence concerning the arson is not limited to accounts that emerged years later. Touraj Atabaki, a social historian and university professor, writes in his book Toiling for Oil, in his chronology of the revolution, that Cinema Rex was set on fire by followers of Ayatollah Khomeini in order to push oil workers and employees toward a more radical revolutionary movement. [6]

This interpretation has also appeared in other academic research. Cinema Iranica, citing the work of Abbas Amanat, attributes the fire to Islamic extremists and emphasizes that, after the incident, responsibility was attributed to officials of the Pahlavi government and that the tragedy was used to intensify anti-government protests. [9]

Constructing a Narrative Against the Pahlavis

While investigations into the actual perpetrators of the fire were still underway, another narrative spread rapidly through society: that the Shah and his security apparatus were responsible for the fire.

Just one day after the tragedy, this narrative had become dominant in the country’s political climate. Opponents of the government portrayed the fire as an act carried out by the authorities to suppress dissent and create fear. On 22 August, the Washington Post reported that around 600 Iranian students in the United States had gathered in protest and claimed that the Shah’s security forces had set the cinema on fire. [3]

Inside Iran, too, the narrative spread rapidly. In his message of 31 Mordad 1357 (August 22, 1978), Khomeini attributed the fire to the ruling apparatus and presented it as part of the government’s crimes. [10]

Various political groups opposed to the Shah also reinforced this narrative. In publications and statements by religious, National-Religious (Melli-Mazhabi), leftist groups and the Tudeh Party, responsibility for the tragedy was attributed to the Pahlavi government and SAVAK. [11] It is noteworthy that the word “Rex” means “king” in Latin, and that the fire occurred precisely on 28 Mordad (August 19, 1978), the anniversary of Mossadegh’s removal from office in 1332 (1953). The coincidence of these two details, together with the prominent role of political forces opposed to the Shah—some of which saw themselves as continuing Mossadegh’s path—raises serious questions about the motives behind the crime and the way the political narrative surrounding it was constructed.

As a result, before the judicial investigation could establish a clear picture of who had carried out the fire, the political narrative of the tragedy had already taken root in society.

The reaction of the people of Abadan also demonstrated the depth of this narrative’s impact. On 25 August, the Washington Post reported that the mood in the city had turned sharply against the Shah and that many people held the government responsible for the tragedy. [5]

The Cinema’s Fire, the Revolution’s Flames

Cinema Rex was set ablaze at a critical point in Iran’s history: a time when the Pahlavi government was facing a growing wave of protests from Marxist and Islamist groups, but the future of the revolution was not yet certain.

The Cinema Rex fire changed this situation.

The tragedy in Abadan triggered a new wave of demonstrations and mourning ceremonies. The government deployed forces in Abadan to control the situation, and ceremonies mourning the victims also turned into anti-government protests. [13]

At the same time, Abadan was of exceptional importance as the heart of Iran’s oil industry. In the weeks and months that followed, widespread strikes spread through the oil industry and Iranian oil production fell sharply. Touraj Atabaki’s research on the social history of the oil industry places Cinema Rex within this chain of developments, before the widespread oil strikes of 1357 (1978). [6]

Thus, Cinema Rex did not merely result in the deaths of hundreds of Iranian citizens; the narrative constructed around it became one of the forces contributing to the social mobilization against the Pahlavi government, which in the events surrounding the Islamic Revolution and in the decades that followed led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iranians. In fact, the fire that began at Cinema Rex eventually set the entire country ablaze.

The Confession That Changed the Narrative

After the revolution and the Islamists’ seizure of power in Iran, the Cinema Rex case was reopened. Judicial proceedings initially began at the Abadan General Prosecutor’s Office, were then transferred to the Revolutionary Prosecutor’s Office, and finally, in the summer of 1359 (1980), a special tribunal headed by Seyyed Hossein Mousavi Tabrizi was established in Abadan. [7]

But the path that brought Hossein Takbalizadeh to that tribunal was itself an important part of the story. After the fire, he remained on the run for some time before being arrested and imprisoned. When the prisons in Abadan were opened on 23 Bahman 1357 (February 12, 1979), amid the victory of the Islamist-Marxist revolution, he was released. After his release, he went to Isfahan and then Qom and, according to his own account, tried to introduce himself to Khomeini or those around him and explain his role in the fire, but he was unsuccessful. [7]

Takbalizadeh eventually returned to Abadan with a letter of introduction from Khomeini’s office, but before he could use it, he was arrested again on 6 Khordad 1358 (May 27, 1979) and remained in custody until the special tribunal was convened. During the trial, Takbalizadeh admitted his participation in setting the cinema on fire and described the plan, his three accomplices, and his religious connections before the revolution. The trial was held over 18 sessions and involved dozens of defendants. [7]

Ultimately, Takbalizadeh and five other defendants were sentenced to death, and the executions were carried out in Shahrivar 1359 (September 1980). [7]

But this story leaves important questions: Why was a man who had been arrested before the revolution for allegedly taking part in the fire released during the revolution? Why, after his release, did he try, according to his own account, to introduce himself to the leaders of the revolution? And why was he ultimately tried and executed again more than a year later?

These questions, together with contradictions in his statements during different stages of interrogation, became one of the most controversial aspects of the Cinema Rex case. At the same time, the trial of the perpetrators of a crime that had been one of the most important factors in radicalizing the protests and changing the regime took place several years after the Islamists had seized power—when it was already too late for the truth to be fully revealed.

A Pattern of Crime Repeated Again and Again

The Cinema Rex tragedy did not remain merely a horrific fire; the way it was narrated also became part of the political history of the Islamic Republic. The actors of the Islamic Republic learned that they could commit the most atrocious crimes and, amid the public emotions surrounding them, use denial and media manipulation to evade accountability and trial.

Years later, in cases such as the downing of flight PS752, the Islamic Republic once again resorted to denial and narrative construction. In the first days, Iranian authorities attributed the crash to a technical failure, rejected reports that the aircraft might have been hit by a missile, and described them as “psychological warfare.” [4] In this tragedy, all 176 people on board were killed, including citizens of Iran, Ukraine, Canada, and Sweden. Eventually, an official investigation by the Government of Canada concluded that an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps air-defense operator had fired two missiles at the aircraft and brought it down; Canada characterized the operator’s firing of the missiles as “intentional,” although its investigation found no evidence that the downing had been pre-planned or ordered by senior officials of the Islamic Republic, which made later court prosecutions challanging. [4] One day after this reality became public, Iran’s armed forces accepted responsibility for the missile strike and described it as “human error.” [4]

This pattern was seen again in the mass killings of January 2026, a crackdown that resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of people. [14] Officials of the Islamic Republic, including Abbas Araghchi, attributed the protests and a large part of the killings to armed actors, Israel, the United States, and foreign forces. In an interview with ABC News, Araghchi said that the protests had been peaceful from 28 December to 7 January and that, according to his account, they became a “terrorist operation” from 8 to 10 January. He also claimed that orders for the killings had been issued by Israel, with the aim of increasing the death toll and drawing the United States into the crisis. [15] In another press conference, he likewise called the protests a “terrorist war” and spoke of evidence of U.S. and Israeli involvement. [16]

In reality, the same pattern that brought the Islamic Republic to power was later repeated in the downing of the Ukrainian airliner and the mass killings of January 2026: first the killing, then denial, and finally an attempt to seize control of the narrative and shift responsibility onto someone else. It is possible that the same tactic was used in the Metropol building disaster and the Sanchi oil tanker disaster, although the government’s precise role and motives in those two cases remain unclear.

From this perspective, Cinema Rex is not merely the memory of a bloody night in Abadan; it is a historical example of the power of narrative in the politics of the Islamic Republic—a narrative that was able to turn a crime into fuel for revolution and the seizure of power in Iran.

---

Sources