Just a clarification, The Munich Massacre was not done by Muslim extremists but by the secular Black September group who named their operation after two Christian Palestinian villages. Black September has been tied to the secular Fatah party of the PLO and not Hamas, the Muslim extremist group.

Putting the Munich Massacre aside due to the reasons stated by /u/TheOneFreeEngineer, let's start by saying that I have never heard of such a rise in Muslim extremism, and the Iranian Revolution is not a one sided matter. The actual rise of Arab nationalism took place in the 1960s, in part facilitated by the Soviet Union and it's puppet Ba'athist parties (think Saddam and Al-Assad).

First off, Iran is not a part of the Arab world. Only %1 of Iranians are Arabs, the rest are various ethnic groups who speak Indo-Iranian languages, the majority being Persian.

When oil was first discovered in Persia (Iran), it was to be extracted by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC, later British Petroleum or BP) while paying Iran a small fee in royalties. This was known as the D'Arcy Concession, which in itself was an effort by the British to strengthen the grip on Persia and also secure India from the Russians at the time.

Fast forward a few years. The dynasty that had signed the previous concession is now no longer on the throne and a new progressive and Western minded (a la Ataturk) former Cossack is now the Shah of Iran, putting emphasis into shifting the poor, backwards agrarian state into a 20th century mode. Similar to Ataturk, he sought to rid the country of any association with the "East", primarily by spouting eerily similar racial theories as Hitler.

Fast forward to WWII and the Anglo-Soviet request to remove all Germans from the neutral-but-not-so-neutral state of Iran, the Shah declines and an invasion follows. The Iranians who are already weary of the British and Russians, finally get to experience a full blown invasion by both, including the creation of the "Persian Corridor", a supply route through Iran.

The people aren't happy...

The Shah abdicates the throne to his son, Mohammad Reza Shah, who is crowned King at the age of 21. He slowly begins to build up his power base (he was a constitutional monarch, but with less than a 1/4 of the pull and influence of his father), yet he is immediately stopped by a nationalist by the name of Muhammad Mossadeq, who, among other things, is looking for a fairer deal on the oil flowing through Iran.

The Shah leaves, and becomes known as the "Suitcase King". All while the bankrupt MI6 is collaborating with the CIA (the former for the AIOC and the latter for fear of Soviet invasion of a weak Iran with a strong socialist party), together they organize a coup in 1953 to return the Shah to power, and oust Mossadeq.

The people aren't happy...

Throughout the 1960s, a series of drastic reforms take place, known as the white revolution. Industry suddenly boomed, schools increased in size, the literacy rate rose from 26% to ~40%, women gained the right to vote and to run for elected office and all that good stuff. Not everyone was happy though, the clergy (major landowners) had lost most of their wealth in the land reforms, the rural population was coming into the spotlight, threatening the urban folks and turning the Shah into an even larger enemy in their eyes. The future leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini comes into the spotlight and is arrested.

"The White Revolution had been designed to preempt a Red Revolution. Instead, it paved the way for an Islamic Revolution." - Ervand Abrahamian

This progress started a burst of megalomania, the Shah had himself officially coronated, and began seeing himself as taking his place among his natural "aryan" brethren. He became the "Light of the Aryans", the bullets that missed him confirmed his divine bond, and various ceremonies showed the world that he is the natural successor to the kings of the Persian Empire.

The clergy's vast influence and expanse in Iran facilitated the spread of anti-Shah sentiment, and also the creation of the Islamic Republic, after the culmination of all the frustrations of the people was expressed in 1978-9.

First, neither the Iranian Revolution nor the Munich Massacre were manifestations of Arab Islamism (the first because it was not Arab, the second because it was not Islamist).

Having said that, a great deal of the rise in Arab Islamism in the 70s-80s can be considered a reaction to the perceived failures of secular social movements like pan-Arabism, Ba'athism, Nasserism.

Virtually the entire Arab world (Iraq, Syria, Algeria, Libya, Tunisia, Sudan, Lebanon, Egypt) has spent its post-colonial history under the rule of one secular authoritarian regime or another, most of whom came to power with promises of economic revitalization and renewed Arab dignity through modernization, Westernization, and socialism.

Of course, those secular authoritarian leaders proved to be brutal, corrupt and (often) puppets of the Cold War binary. Then they fought two catastrophic wars with Israel, and lost whatever idealistic cachet they had left.

In that context, it was quite easy for religious leaders to claim that the economic/political humiliation of the Arab world was rooted in the moral and spiritual bankruptcy of its leaders, and that rededicating their societies to Islam was the remedy.