Iran: overthrow the fundamentalist cabal – by Ali Abbas Inayatullah
Related articles: LUBP Archive on Iranian theocracy
Who will free Pakistan’s Shias from the Iranian-agenda scholars?
After watching the hundreds of thousands of protesters in Iran being dismissed as Westernized toffs from Northern Tehran by Islamist groups and self-declared leftists, one could not initially help wondering at the number of elites in Iran. If one is to take the Islamist critique, than Iran must be a very rich country if it has hundreds of thousands of elites who can turn up to march in the capital square! Surely, for those unfamiliar with Iran’s politics and people, it would be easy to misrepresent the situation. Furthermore, for those non-Iranians who look upon Iran as the culmination of their Islamist fantasies, it would be imperative to prove that the large scale demonstrations in Iran were nothing more than sour grapes by a limited elite section of the population.
However, on closer examination, nearly 70% of Iran’s population resides in urban areas and as per unofficial Tehran is home to over 12 million of Iran’s total population of nearly 80 million. Traveling in Iran, one is stuck by the fact that Iranians are very particular about their culture and 3 decades of enforced Islamization have done little to erode a cultural ethos that extends back to 6 millennia. From Darius to Ahura Mazda, Iranians maintain strong ties to their historical past. It is not uncommon to find portraits that are artistic impressions of the Holy Prophet (PBUH), Imam Ali (AS) & Imam Hussain (AS) in many Iranian houses and shops. These are important icons for the average Iranian. Of course, one of the most important icons is the 8th Shia Imam, Imam Raza (AS) whose shrine in Mashad is the gathering place for hundreds of thousands of Iranians and non-Iranians on a daily basis. In looking at the importance of Imam Raza to the present situation, one can draw some useful parallels.
In order to add legitimacy to his rule, the Abbasiad Caliph, Mamun Rashid had come up with a ploy to make Imam Raza his successor. If the Imam accepted, he would be viewed as a sellout to power; if he didn’t, the fate meted out to him would be the same as his ancestors, a swift death. The Imam accepted but on doing so, ensured that his mandate was accepted by the people and not just the court of Mamun Rashid. In subsequent public appearances, the Imam was promptly given a warm and rousing reception by the public and that was enough for the Caliph to order the murder of his own successor.
In embracing martyrdom for his stand, the Imam applied the same principles as Maula Ali, Imam Hasan, Imam Hussain and their progeny; i.e., political power rests with the mandate of the people and spiritual ascendancy is a deeply private and esoteric act that is between the self and a Divine entity. They separated the spiritual office of the Imam from the political office of the Caliph. This separation remained largely intact in classical Shiaism and survived the Safavid and Qajar dynasties. In 1979 however, it was dealt a glancing blow by a power hungry cleric who hijacked a people’s revolution against monarchy. To legitimize his power grab, Khomenini subverted the arcane clause of Wilayat-e-Faqih, that was narrowly passed by the Usooli Shia jurisprudents in the 18th century and that was not even a mainstream part of Shia doctrine.
Inspite of their best efforts, the hardline regime in Iran has not been able to supplant itself in the consciousness of the average Iranian. The Iranians love Maula Ali; they can barely tolerate Ali Khamenai. The Salafist efforts of the hardline clerics to marginalize Iranian culture have met with no success. For the average Iranian, Shiaism forms a part of their identity. However, unlike an increasing number of their neighbours in Pakistan, the Iranians have not divested themselves of their Pre-Islam identity and have amalgamated their religious beliefs and culture in a manner that allows them to function effectively in a modern world and practice their religion non-intrusively.
The dispute on the current elections results hightlights a cathartic moment in Iran when an increasing number of its people are voicing their protest, not just against a stolen election but against the rule of the Jurist itself. Contrary to its founding principles of secular humanism, much of the New Left has become overly romantasized by the Islamist Right and their support for Ahmedinijad displays a shocking ignorance of modern Iranian culture and politics. As for the Islamist right and its spokespeople like Zafar Bangash in Toronto, the hundreds of thousands of protestors in Tehran represent a wake up call. Even if these current protests cannot sustain their momentum, they represent a turning point in the future of Islamism. Even if Ahmedinejad and Khamenai are able to use the Basij thugs to suppress the current protests and regain temporary control over the situation, the tide of history is clearly against them. Like the despotic caliphs who usurped political power by misusing religion, they too are likely to be consigned to the dustbin of history, along with the Yazids and Mamuns of the past.
Advocating the cause of these despotic theocrats are mostly more-royal-than-the-king Islamists and Leftists of South Asian Origins. Peer back in history and the same phenomena took place in 1918 in India under the Caliphate “Movement”. In this movement, a certain section of elitist muslims were advocating for the Caliphate in Turkey, even while the Turk nationalists under Attaturk were busy dismantling it on the populist mandate of their people. While the very institution of Caliphate was being scrapped in Turkey, South Asian and Arab Islamists clung on to it and furthered the misery of all those who fell prey to the resultant Jamaat-e-Islami and Muslim Brotherhood.
The protests in Iran highlight that the collapse of the Wahabist theocracy is eminent. The Iranians have expressed their democratic and secular aspirations. The only long-term losers are the theocratic elites based in North America and Pakistan. They will no longer have an Islamist model as a basis for their regressive narrative; as sooner rather than later, the Iranians are likely to cast aside, the politicized model of the Wilayate-e-Faqih. This will be a boon to muslim communities worldwide and it will free Shiaism from the clutches of power hungry mullahs and allow for it to once again concentrate on the regeneration of its mystical, esoteric and spiritual aspects and be the basis of progressive, secular and representative politics that it was before a certain Ayatollah cabal hijacked it in 1979.
Cross-posted from Pak Tea House, First published on 26 June 2009
Two relevant comments from PTH website:
Munir Pervaiz
June 26, 2009 at 6:08 pm
I fully agree with Ali Abbass. However I do not foresee a move towards secular democracy in Iran soon. It will be one Mullah if not the other who will continue to impose Vilayat e Faqih. Another Canadian Irshad Manji wrote today:
“Rather, the danger is that dissidents will content themselves with dying for a moral victory, as some interpret the Prophet’s family to have done. In that case, the power-mongers can continue to inflict suffering at will.
Any narrative that fetishizes oppression cannot end that oppression. No doubt, Iranian protesters are upholding Shia tradition by fighting back. It remains to be seen whether they can invoke tradition to replace, once and for all, martyrdom with freedom. ”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/reciprocity-hypocrisy-and-the-great-iranian-betrayal/article1197516/
Sam
June 27, 2009 at 11:53 pm
Pretty simplistic and ignorant article especially this part here:
“The protests in Iran highlight that the collapse of the Wahabist theocracy is eminent. The Iranians have expressed their democratic and secular aspirations. The only long-term losers are the theocratic elites based in North America and Pakistan. They will no longer have an Islamist model as a basis for their regressive narrative; as sooner rather than later, the Iranians are likely to cast aside, the politicized model of the Wilayate-e-Faqih.”
even a cursory glance at the Iranian constitution would have shown that it never aspired to be an alleged “Islamist caliphate” but a secular, theocratic shi’ite REPUBLIC:
http://www.iranonline.com/iran/iran-info/Government/constitution.html
second, Iranian clergy have STRESSED that they consider the will of the people more impt. than religious interpretation:
Iran: Senior cleric warns against advocate of “caliphate” instead of “republic”
Monday, 27 November 2006
BBC Monitoring Service – United Kingdom
Text of report by Iranian Students News Agency (ISNA) website
The Assembly of Experts representative for Esfahan has described the existence of certain people who prefer an Islamic rule to an Islamic
republic, as dangerous.
Speaking to an ISNA reporter, Ayatollah Jalaleddin Taheri-Esfahani highlighted the significance of the Assembly of Experts and Imam Khomeyni’s view of it. He said: “The generalities of the Assembly of Experts are the same as they were when the imam was alive. Imam Khomeyni, however, did NOT favour any particular individuals; but his idea was to have an assembly of pious experts.”
He added: “Now they have set tests as a means of gauging the competency of candidates. In the past individuals were elected without having to do tests.”
Ayatollah Taheri-Esfahani said: “In view of Imam Khomeyni, it was the people who lend the system legitimacy. Staging elections that bar individuals with different opinions from participating in the system do not give it legitimacy.”
He added: “Currently we are witnessing how individuals who had not even participated in a single session with the imam seek to enter the ruling establishment. They are, in fact, not of the same mindset as the imam. ”
Complaining about individuals who have never been to the front, yet claim to be the guardians of the system, the Experts Assembly member said: “So much has happened on the frontlines. So, should certain individuals not have gone to the front, at least once, to be able to call themselves Muslims and guardians of the system, so that we would rest somewhat assured?”
Highlighting an ideology that says yes to an Islamic rule but no to an Islamic republic, he said:
***”The fact that there are some that prefer an
Islamic rule to an Islamic republic is very dangerous. And that danger is clear; it is, in other words, a return of government to [the era of]
caliphate.”***
The former representative of the vali-e faqih in Esfahan noted: “Had the late imam been alive today, he would have REJECTED such an ideology. The imam believed that any government that is not based on the votes of the people is meaningless.”
Noting that as a firmly established cleric he feels dutybound to warn the people of any future threat to the system, he said: “The return of
government to a form of caliphate is a great danger that must be avoided. The people should stand against such a threat; I take refuge in God from those who are currently in favour of such a rule. ”
Highlighting a recent meeting he had had with the managers of the office of [Reformist Grand] Ayatollah Sane’i in Mashhad, Ayatollah Taheri-Esfahani said: “I outlined my views during that meeting.”
The member of the Assembly of Experts added: “The imam’s view of Velyat-e Faqih-e Motlaqeh [Absolute rule of a supreme jusrisoncult] was not that a government should be absolute. The late imam believed in religious democracy [mardomsalari-e dini].”
Reiterating that an Islamic rule is different to an Islamic republic, he said: “Imam Khomeyni always spoke of an Islamic Republic. He never spoke of an Islamic rule.”
He added: “The imam’s decision was to establish an Islamic republic, and nothing other than that. And I regard the imam’s viewpoint as benchmark.”
Taheri said: “When the imam stipulated that there should be an Islamic republic and nothing other than that, it means that we should not pursue anything other than a republic. It means, in fact, that the late imam was not willing to rule over the people at any cost, but that [he believed] the people should determine their own governments.”
He added: “The imam used to say in his speeches: ‘I wish they would call me a servant instead of a leader’. This shows for certain that he did not
favour an Islamic rule, since anyone who has claims of leadership never makes such remarks.”
Source: ISNA website, Tehran, in Persian 1042gmt 13 Nov 06
BBC Monitoring
But the notion of velayat-e faqih (guardianship of the jurist) has proved to be controversial as a religious doctrine and tricky in practice. The turbulence now sweeping Iran has many causes, among them a simple urge for freedom. Yet the tensions, inconsistencies and hypocrisies generated by trying to impose velayat-e faqih lie at the heart of its troubles.
Divisions among top Shia scholars are nothing new. In the main seminary towns of Najaf in Iraq and Qom in Iran, followers of competing ayatollahs have frequently clashed, sometimes with fists. One recurring split has pitted scholars who believe they should stay outside politics against those who believe they must engage in it. Ayatollah Khomeini pushed this argument to a new level. His revolutionary constitution created the post of supreme leader, placing an unelected senior scholar in overall command of the country.
http://www.economist.com/node/13927326
Cleric Wields Religion to Challenge Iran’s Theocracy
By MICHAEL SLACKMAN
Published: November 21, 2009
CAIRO — For years, Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri criticized Iran’s supreme leader and argued that the country was not the Islamic democracy it claimed to be, but his words seemed to fall on deaf ears. Now many Iranians, including some former government leaders, are listening.
Ayatollah Montazeri has emerged as the spiritual leader of the opposition, an adversary the state has been unable to silence or jail because of his religious credentials and seminal role in the founding of the republic.
He is widely regarded as the most knowledgeable religious scholar in Iran and once expected to become the country’s supreme leader until a falling-out with Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the 1979 revolution and Iran’s supreme leader until his death in 1989.
Now, as the Iranian government has cracked down to suppress the protests that erupted after the presidential election in June and devastated the reform movement, Ayatollah Montazeri uses religion to attack the government’s legitimacy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/world/middleeast/22ayatollah.html?_r=1
Dictatorship of any kind is an insult to human rights and freedom. This includes theocracy; separation of state and religion is the way forward!
My Status on Feb 16
Ali Arqam
We Will Welcome Regime Change in KSA and Iran!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
16 February at 17:06
Comments
AM: KSA seems difficult but Iran is a posibility though with a lot more violence and effor than Egypt but I am looking forward to whetver happens there since after being ruled by mullahs for 30 years, the change would most likely be an enlightened one.
16 February at 17:39
Ali Arqam: Iranian regime does not represent its people, who are not delusional like their rulers, Iranian “Baseej” are a symbol of fear and tyranny
16 February at 17:41
SKR: @ Ali, it surprises me to hear that you could lump KSA and iran in the same sentence
16 February at 17:41
Ali Araqam: But mother of revolution will be Regime change in KSA
16 February at 17:41
SKR: as a matter of fact the only revolution we need is in KSA
16 February at 17:43
Ali Arqam: No they are different as Iran is not pursuing a global agenda but it keeps its people oppressed and is not different from Pakistani state which has created Farces of imagined enemies
16 February at 17:44
SKR: @ Ali, i disagree with you my friend
16 February at 17:46
Ali Arqam: You are entitled to disagree…buddy!
16 February at 17:46
RO: Mine good, urs bad= the usual rant.
Let’s honest.
16 February at 17:51
Ali Arqam: As am half Shia= Ali, and Half Sunni= Arqam, I wished for both
16 February at 17:52
YF: I have my fingers crossed for Iran and Bahrain personally. KSA seems pretty impossible at this point. Yemen too would be great. It’s just time for Shias to stop accepting victimhood as their fate.
16 February at 17:59
RO: KSA would do everything to crush Bahrain uprising for it can infect its eastern boundary.
16 February at 18:06
YF: It would be nice if Shia countries could support one another but sadly Iran itself has its own domestic problems.
16 February at 18:08 · LikeUnlike
YF: *Shia majority
16 February at 18:09
Ali Arqam Iranian revolution for its theocratic lines and other issues has missed an opportunity to influence 65% of gulf, Now a democratic change in Iran will have great impact on the region
16 February at 18:10
YF: What do you foresee for Iran?
16 February at 18:11
RO: Let’s now do away with this sectarian wishes. Let freedom and democracy rule rather than Fiqa & Mullahs. Aren’t you fed up with Talibans and Khomenies.
16 February at 18:12
YF: do away with sectarian wishes when sectarian violence ends which happens to be a one-sided thing. I haven’t see the Ayatullahs killing too many Sunnis.
16 February at 18:14
RO: @AA’ Avalanche has started from Tunis and it shall take the world into its folds. Democratic muslim world is a head. No need to invest hope in Mujahids sitting in bunkers. People want equal opportunity, justice, freedom, cheap commodities, jobs, education and health which ever party can provide.
16 February at 18:17
RO: @YF: So you wont support democracy in Iran as long as your sect targetted in Pakistan? You ll keep the ‘minimum deterrence’? How do we progress then.
16 February at 18:19
Ali Arqam Agree..hope an electoral change in the next Iranian elections as this time due to changing circumstances, it will be difficult o steal the elections, hope moderates will win and with time the mullahs powers will be seized via more democratisation
16 February at 18:19
YF: ”My sect” is targeted everywhere, not just in Pak. I do of course wish for democracy in Iran (which btw currently exists anyways). But I hope the outcome will be different.
16 February at 18:21
Linda Taylor: I think the two countries where it will be hardest to get democratic changes by people power is Iran and China both countries will shoot people that go out and challenge them
16 February at 18:27
Ali Arqam @Linda… What about KSA
16 February at 18:28
Ali Arqam: When Pakistani Shias write banners like “Wilayate Khomenai, Wilayate Ali Hai” It doesn’t look much different than “Khadimul Haramain Alsharifain”
16 February at 18:30
Linda Taylor: I don’t know who KSA is?
16 February at 18:31
Ali Arqam: How a political head of the state of one country can be a religious aspiration for citizens of another country
16 February at 18:32
Ali Arqam: Kingdom of Saudi Arabia= KSA
16 February at 18:32
Ali Arqam: It means blind support and avoid tyranny and oppression of their own people via theocratic tactics
16 February at 18:33
Linda Taylor: Oh well the Saud’s have learned very well how to keep people busy being pious while they do as they wish, I guess they just spread that around, one thing religion does is stop people from questioning things, if they are told they shouldn’t question things in the name of Allah/God, I see the same in the US with the right wing Christians
16 February at 18:34
WAR: Super points YF and this vuctim-ness is mostly mythical Shias have been ferociously rising (and getting brutally oppressed) in all regions of the gulf, if they were taking it quietly lying down such an elaborate mechanism of repression if t…he sheikdoms wouldn’t be required, for instance in Bahrain alone a large (50000) contingent of savage wahabi police recruited from Pakistan exists to beat the majority literally to pulp. Iran,s revolution took 27 years of relentless struggle against the combined imperial forces of the world, and saddam had to kill about a million Shias during his murderous reign just to name a few instanced of contemporary butchering of Shias (almost all of it with full sanctioning of Sunni religious establishment) so we are may get killed a lot but we do go down swinging :)See more
16 February at 18:43
WAR: Pardon the typos this iPhone is hard to use 🙂
16 February at 18:45
RO: The majority ignorant & illustrate Rural population bonded by religion and anti west rhetoric support Islamic Regime and their military, the main beneficiary of sanctioned economy. Living in Pakistan makes it easy to understand the situation…n. It is the Urban Iranians called Reformists that finds the Theocracy a vulture feeding on their corpses.
Infrastructure is battered. Business activity halted. Even the centuries old carpet industry is almost instinct. Power shortages common. Main economy depends on Government contracts and refineries.
They believe on their experience that their elected Representatives can do nothing while the selected and powerful clerical assembly is the ultimate authority to decide change to constitution. Hence it cannot be called a democracy.
They did voted out Rafasanjani for Khatmi, who felt helpless even to stop baton charging of students. Tens of reformists candidates were debarred on charges of liberalism.
Reformists were angered less by Ahmdinjaad’s success and more by disappearance of their votes. MInd you students and voters rose first to ask where was their vote and not Musvi or Khatemi or any other.See more
16 February at 18:55
RO: They Muslim world has hardly woke up and we Pakistanis have started praying theocracies for them. Let them choose for they are scarifying. In the mean while let’s live with hell we have ablazed for ourselves in Pakistan.
16 February at 19:03
YF: @RO: I am not sure how Pakistan came into the discussion. Besides any uprising on Pakistan is a mere dream at this time so its not even on anyone’s radar.
WAR: thanks. 🙂
16 February at 19:19
Ali Abbas Inayatullah Lets wish for a change all over the Gulf. There is no doubt that Shias have been brutally suppressed in KSA, Bahrain, Jordan, Yemen. However, that should not make us blind to the issue of human rights abuses in Iran. Yes, they have a far more functional democracy than others and given the level of education and awareness there, they will evolve much faster than the other countries around them.
Naheed Mirza: Yes, all American agents will welcome Chaos in the Muslim world.
17 February at 01:22
YF: Not when it involves one of their corrupt puppet monarchs/dictators whom they like to cuddle in bed with. They already let one go but how many more can they let go???
17 February at 01:36
YF: Oh and you also forgot to mention the other devil Israel, the cause of all problems in Pakistan and the Muslim world, Naheed.
17 February at 01:37
A Alam Khan: in iran also need of change….
17 February at 01:38
Ali Arqam: Naheed Mirza is a fake, let him say what he wants, as he himself has put a fake pic, though his name reminds me of a male lawyer in Karachi, Naheed Afzaal, who was called at a meeting as Naheed Afzaal Sahiba by the organizers
17 February at 08:39
RO: @YF: You said “Israel, the cause of all problems in Pakistan and the Muslim world, Naheed.
How? When did find Jewish Ajmal Kasab in Pak?
17 February at 15:19
WAR@@RO, let me introduce you to the wonderful world of Tri-State sarcasm & irony 😉
17 February at 15:51
WAR: sorry YF…taking liberties on your behalf….:)
17 February at 15:51
YF: By all means Wasif, though you may also need to explain what the Tri-state is. 😉
17 February at 16:07
Ali Arqam @RO, You have misunderstood YF Comments about Israel
17 February at 20:15
RO: but she believes in conspiracy theories too.
17 February at 20:56
Mir-Hossein Mousavi ‘involved in massacre’, says report
Mir-Hossein Mousavi, the leader of Iran’s opposition green movement was involved in the massacre of more than 10,000 political prisoners in 1988, according to a report.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/7811996/Mir-Hossein-Mousavi-involved-in-massacre-says-report.html
BBC Admits to Using Fake Photo in #IranElection Coverage
Friday, June 19, 2009 18:43
In their June 19th post entitled “Obama refuses to ‘meddle’ in Iran,” the BBC used a photo from a pro-Ahmadinejad rally in Iran and passed it off as a pro-Mousavi rally photo.
The website WhatReallyHappened.com, one of the most visited blogs in the United States, was the first to break the story which shows that the same group of supporters had been used in an LA Times article photo which is complete with the Iranian President waving to his supporters.
The BBC issued the following correction in response the the article on WhatReallyHappened.com:
The crisis over the Iranian election has been our lead story for most of the week. As with all our coverage, we have been careful to report what both Ahmadinejad and Mousavi supporters are saying. Similarly, we have taken care to label the pictures we use, explaining what they are of.
However, on Wednesday 17 June we made a mistake in a picture caption published on BBC News online. In the story Obama refuses to ‘meddle’ in Iran, we mistakenly stated that a Getty agency picture of a pro-Ahmadinejad rally was a pro-Mousavi rally.
Some blogs, including WhatReallyhappened.com, are pointing out that the LA Times used a similar photograph which showed President Ahmadinejad waving to supporters. The Getty pictures we received did not show Mr Ahmadinejad.
When a reader contacted us about it, we checked our caption and corrected it. We’re sorry for the mistake and have added a note explaining the correction to the story.
http://www.chartingstocks.net/2009/06/bbc-admits-to-using-fake-photo-iniranelection-coverage/
Iran’s Green Movement Lie
by Shirin Sadeqhi
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shirin-sadeghi/irans-green-movement-lie_b_825737.html
The Iranian people have been in the streets for decades. The big moments are crystallized in media memory — 1979, 1999, 2009, and now. There are people in the streets in Iran this week, as they were last week. They do not want an Islamic Republic of Iran. They want Iran.
In 2009, it was declared all across the international media that these people — young, old, men, women — are part of an organized movement called the Green Movement. “Iran’s Green Revolution” flashed across cable news networks and front pages worldwide.
Immediately, in the moments, then days, weeks, and now years of the discontent surrounding the election dispute, this green thing — the scarves, the flags, the color, the word — suddenly appeared in the protests and from the mouths of Mir Hossein Mousavi, Mehdi Karroubi and other figures who ultimately did not secure a win in the presidential election against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
And then the phrase “where is my vote?” appeared. In English. On placards and posters, and t-shirts, and buttons.
You haven’t seen any of this behavior in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Bahrain, Yemen — anywhere where similar anti-government protests have taken place in the last month. It is not how people protest — they don’t get together and name their revolution, then color it, and choose a catchphrase for it, then pour into the streets to let everyone know.
It didn’t happen in Iran either.
The millions — and there were millions — who were in the streets in 2009 could care less about the Green Movement — in 2009 or today. They want rid of the Islamic regime — whether it is Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, or the old guard of Mousavi, Karroubi and the “Greens” who were and still are, so powerful in the Islamic establishment.
The Green leadership is a morally-compromised faction of the establishment — as any other element of the establishment — that wants power in an Islamic Republic of Iran, but cannot seem to get it or regain it because old friends have become new enemies in the regime.
As their individual histories and powerful political records have clearly reflected, they are not secular, they are not democratic, and they do not care about the inherent rights of the Iranian people, let alone see them as a priority.
For most Iranians, the Green Movement is what the international media is calling the massive mobilization to dismantle the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Even outside of Iran, if you attend rallies claiming to be of the Green Movement, many of them are actually rallies against the Islamic regime. Some of the speakers openly address the fact that the Iranians do not want more figures from that regime, they do not want the Green Movement’s leaders, they want the whole regime to be replaced with a government that is elected by the people.
And yet, the irony is that while so many Iranians say this, they know, and so does the US State Department and the UK Foreign Office and the other governments who support the Green leaders, that the Iranian people are so miserable, so trapped in a nation overtaken by Islamists and their massively powerful military and security complex, that they will accept the Greens.
Iranians will accept them — there is no other option anymore. The hope is that change — any change — will finally open the door to serious reform. In a poverty so deep as that which the Iranian soul has experienced in the last 32 years, hope is the only chance for survival.
But Iranians are not nearly as politically and internationally naïve as they were in 1979 and 1999. After the current Green Leader, former President Mohammad Khatami, crushed the student protests of 1999, refusing to support the students, many of whom died or suffered in the violent prisons of the Islamic Republic, everyone in Iran realized that the Islamic Republic’s establishment — a boy’s club of unshorn Islamists, many of whom are actually clerics — has not produced individuals who care about changing Iran into a government that represents the people.
In the last 32 years, any individual who displayed any loyalty to the people of Iran above the Islamic Republic has been eliminated. Anyone who could have been a sincere leader of the people — a person who valued inherent rights, a person whose religion did not supersede the people’s needs — that person was not allowed to live. So there remains no one powerful but those from the regime. The Green Leaders know this very well.
But what they don’t know — and the reason they shuffled into the background when they didn’t get the power they wanted — is that in this Internet age, in this age when Iranians are some of the most educated and knowledgeable people in the world, they do not need a leader to change their country. They are doing it themselves in the streets.
Listen to them this year as compared with 2009 — they are no longer merely denouncing Ahmadinejad — they are denouncing the system itself.
They have been shouting “down with the system”, “down with the velayat-e faqih.” Iranians have for millennia been of different tribes, religions and ethnicities but they have always survived as a nation. They do not want this ‘velayat-e faqih’ system — rulership of the supreme Islamic cleric, to put it simply — which is the foundation of power of the Islamic Republic establishment and the Green Leaders.
So as you watch the new protests — these demonstrations that were inspired by recent Arab revolts which were in turn inspired by Iran’s earlier demonstrations — remember this: the Iranian people do not want the Islamic Republic, whatever shade it comes in.
They want a government of the people, for the people, and by the people. When the Green Leaders win the power they have sought for years — and they will eventually win — they will not be off the hook, because the people want real change, not another game of musical chairs.
Ayatullah Khomeini, Ronald Reagan & Iran Contra Scandal Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8Tvzh7_CN8&feature=related
Ayatullah Khomeini, Ronald Reagan & Iran Contra Scandal Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hi-NzdfjSgk&feature=related
Ayatullah Khomeini, Ronald Reagan & Iran Contra Scandal Part 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfaI3YZbwYM&feature=related
Ayatullah Khomeini, Ronald Reagan & Iran Contra Scandal Part 4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDW_kUkXi2Q&feature=related
Ayatullah Khomeini, Ronald Reagan & Iran Contra Scandal Part 5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0CI0yS-nAE&feature=related
Ayatullah Khomeini, Ronald Reagan & Iran Contra Scandal Part 6 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Mx94j6m4U0&feature=related
Ayatullah Khomeini, Ronald Reagan & Iran Contra Scandal Part 7 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Stw-UABLcx8&feature=related
Ayatullah Khomeini, Ronald Reagan & Iran Contra Scandal Part 8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIF9bnsC9lE&feature=related
“The mullahs are going to rule now. We are going to have ten thousand years of the Islamic republic. The Marxists are going to go on with their Lenin. We are going to go on in the way of Khomeini.” Ayatollah Khalkhali
“What he [Stalin] did in Russia we have to do in Iran. We, too, have to do a lot of killing. A lot.” Behzad, Iranian interpreter for Western journalist V.S. Naipaul
“I inform the proud Muslim people of the world that the author of the Satanic Verses book which is against Islam, the Prophet and the Koran, and all involved in its publication who were aware of its content, are sentenced to death.”Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini FATWA issued February, 1989 against Salman Rushdie
“The mullahs are going to rule now. We are going to have ten thousand years of the Islamic republic. The Marxists are going to go on with their Lenin. We are going to go on in the way of Khomeini.” Ayatollah Khalkhali
“What he [Stalin] did in Russia we have to do in Iran. We, too, have to do a lot of killing. A lot.” Behzad, Iranian interpreter for Western journalist V.S. Naipaul
“There is no room for play in Islam… It is deadly serious about everything.” Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini Speech at Qum, reported in Timemagazine January 7, 1980
Khomeini fatwa ‘led to killing of 30,000 in Iran’ By Christina Lamb, Diplomatic Correspondent 12:00AM GMT 04 Feb 2001 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/1321090/Khomeini-fatwa-led-to-killing-of-30000-in-Iran.html
CHILDREN as young as 13 were hanged from cranes, six at a time, in a barbaric two-month purge of Iran’s prisons on the direct orders of Ayatollah Khomeini, according to a new book by his former deputy.
More than 30,000 political prisoners were executed in the 1988 massacre – a far larger number than previously suspected. Secret documents smuggled out of Iran reveal that, because of the large numbers of necks to be broken, prisoners were loaded onto forklift trucks in groups of six and hanged from cranes in half-hourly intervals.
Gruesome details are contained in the memoirs of Grand Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri, The Memoirs of Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, one of the founders of the Islamic regime. He was once considered Khomeini’s anointed successor, but was deposed for his outspokenness, and is now under house arrest in the holy city of Qom.
Published privately last month after attempts by the regime to suppress it, the revelations have prompted demands from Iranian exiles for those involved to be tried for crimes against humanity. The most damning of the letters and documents published in the book is Khomeini’s fatwa decree calling for all Mojahedin (as opponents of the Iranian regime are known) to be killed.
Issued shortly after the end of the Iran-Iraq war in July 1988 and an incursion into western Iran by the Iranian resistance, the fatwa reads: “It is decreed that those who are in prisons throughout the country and remain steadfast in their support for the Monafeqin (Mojahedin) are waging war on God and are condemned to execution.”
It goes on to entrust the decision to “death committees” – three-member panels consisting of an Islamic judge, a representative of the Ministry of Intelligence, and a state prosecutor. Prisoners were to be asked if they had changed loyalties and, if not, were to be executed. Montazeri, who states that 3,800 people had been killed by the end of the first fortnight of executions, includes his own correspondence with Khomeini, saying that the killings would be seen as “a vendetta” and would spark opposition to the regime. He wrote: “The execution of several thousand prisoners in a few days will not have positive repercussions and will not be mistake-free.” The massacres, which came just before the Lockerbie bombing, were seen as a sop to the hardliners at a time when Khomeini was already in failing health and the battle for succession had begun between fundamentalists and moderates. He died the following year.
According to testimony from prison officials – including Kamal Afkhami Ardekani, who formerly worked at Evin prison – recently given to United Nations human rights rapporteurs: “They would line up prisoners in a 14-by-five-metre hall in the central office building and then ask simply one question, ‘What is your political affiliation?’ Those who said the Mojahedin would be hanged from cranes in position in the car park behind the building.” He went on to describe how, every half an hour from 7.30am to 5pm, 33 people were lifted on three forklift trucks to six cranes, each of which had five or six ropes. He said: “The process went on and on without interruption.” In two weeks, 8,000 people were hanged. Similar carnage took place across the country. Many of those in the ruling council at the time of the 1988 massacre are still in power, including President Mohammed Khatami, who was the Director of Ideological and Cultural Affairs.
“The massacre may have happened 12 years ago, but the relevance is that these atrocities are still happening”, said Mohammad Mohaddessin, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Iranian National Council of Resistance (NCRI), the main opposition group, who was in London last week to present evidence to MPs. The NCRI has prepared files on 21 senior members of the regime whom it alleges were “principal protagonists of the massacre”, including Mr Khatami and Ayatollah Ali Khameini, Iran’s “Supreme Leader”. Mr Mohaddessin will travel to New York to present the files to the UN and call for a tribunal to try them for crimes against humanity. Mr Mohaddessin said human rights abuses were continuing in Iran despite the election of Mr Khatami, who “presents himself as a reformist”.
Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh, Former Prime Minister of Iran [28 April 1951 – 19 August 1953]Mosaddeq was removed from power in a 19 August 1953 coup supported and funded by the British and U.S. governments and led by General Fazlollah Zahedi.[Secrets of History: The C.I.A in Iran By JAMES RISEN http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html
Secrets of History: The C.I.A in Iran By JAMES RISEN http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html
The Central Intelligence Agency’s secret history of its covert operation to overthrow Iran’s government in 1953 offers an inside look at how the agency stumbled into success, despite a series of mishaps that derailed its original plans.
Written in 1954 by one of the coup’s chief planners, the history details how United States and British officials plotted the military coup that returned the shah of Iran to power and toppled Iran’s elected prime minister, an ardent nationalist.
The document shows that:
Britain, fearful of Iran’s plans to nationalize its oil industry, came up with the idea for the coup in 1952 and pressed the United States to mount a joint operation to remove the prime minister.
The C.I.A. and S.I.S., the British intelligence service, handpicked Gen. Fazlollah Zahedi to succeed Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and covertly funneled $5 million to General Zahedi’s regime two days after the coup prevailed.
Iranians working for the C.I.A. and posing as Communists harassed religious leaders and staged the bombing of one cleric’s home in a campaign to turn the country’s Islamic religious community against Mossadegh’s government.
The shah’s cowardice nearly killed the C.I.A. operation. Fearful of risking his throne, the Shah repeatedly refused to sign C.I.A.-written royal decrees to change the government. The agency arranged for the shah’s twin sister, Princess Ashraf Pahlevi, and Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf, the father of the Desert Storm commander, to act as intermediaries to try to keep him from wilting under pressure. He still fled the country just before the coup succeeded.
There is not much in the NYT article itself that is not covered in my article on the coup (“The 1953 Coup d’Etat in Iran” published in 1987 in the International Journal of Middle East Studies, and available in the Gulf2000 archives) or other sources on the coup. The most interesting new tidbit here is that the CIA’s agents harassed religious leaders and bombed one’s home in order to turn them against Mossadeq. The article does not say, but this was probably done by Iranians working in the BEDAMN network, which is described in my article. There are also some new details on how that US persuaded the shah to agree to the coup, including a statement that Assadollah Rashidian was involved in this effort and that General Schwartzkopf, Sr. played a larger role in this than was previously known. There are also a few details reported in the article that I knew about but chose not to reveal, including that Donald Wilber and Norman Derbyshire developed the original coup plan and that the plan was known as TPAJAX, rather than simply AJAX. (The TP prefix indicated that the operation was to be carried out in Iran.) The NYT article does not say anything about a couple of matters that remain controversial about the coup, including whether Ayatollah Kashani played a role in organizing the crowds and whether the CIA team organized “fake” Tudeh Party crowds as part of the effort. There may be something on these issues in the 200-page history itself.
Much more important than the NYT article are the two documents appended to the summary document giving operational plans for the coup. These contain a wealth of interesting information. They indicate that the British played a larger—though still subordinate—role in the coup than was previously known, providing part of the financing for it and using their intelligence network (led by the Rashidian brothers) to influence members of the parliament and do other things. The CIA described the coup plan as “quasi-legal,” referring to the fact that the shah legally dismissed Mossadeq but presumably acknowledging that he did not do so on his own initiative. These documents make clear that the CIA was prepared to go forward with the coup even if the shah opposed it. There is a suggestion that the CIA use counterfeit Iranian currency to somehow show that Mossadeq was ruining the economy, though I’m not sure this was ever done. The documents indicate that Fazlollah Zahedi and his military colleagues were given large sums of money (at least $50,000) before the coup, perhaps to buy their support. Most interestingly, they indicate that various clerical leaders and organizations—whose names are blanked out—were to play a major role in the coup. Finally, the author(s) of the London plan—presumably Wilber and Derbyshire—say some rather nasty things about the Iranians, including that there is a “recognized incapacity of Iranians to plan or act in a thoroughly logical manner.”
Perhaps the most general conclusion that can be drawn from these documents is that the CIA extensively stage-managed the entire coup, not only carrying it out but also preparing the groundwork for it by subordinating various important Iranian political actors and using propaganda and other instruments to influence public opinion against Mossadeq. This is a point that was made in my article and other published accounts, but it is strongly confirmed in these documents. In my view, this thoroughly refutes the argument that is commonly made in Iranian monarchist exile circles that the coup was a legitimate “popular uprising” on behalf of the shah.
In reply to Nikki Keddie’s (UCLA) questions about whether the NYT article got the story right, I would say it is impossible to tell until the 200-page document comes out. Nikki’s additional comment that these documents may not be entirely factual but may instead reveal certain biases held by their authors is an important one. Wilber was not in Iran while the coup was occurring, and his account of it can only have been based on his debriefing of Kermit Roosevelt and other participants. Some facts were inevitably lost or misinterpreted in this process, especially since this was a rapidly changing series of events. This being said, I doubt that there will be any major errors in the 200-page history. While Wilber had his biases, he certainly was a competent historian. I can think of no reason he might have wanted to distort this account.
Here are a few other notes. It is my understanding that these documents were given to the NYT well before Secretary Albright’s recent speech, implying that they were not an attempt to upstage or add to the speech by the unnamed “former official” who provided them to the NYT. I think there is still some reason to hope that the 200-page document will be released with excisions by the NYT. I certainly hope they do so.
“What’s New on the Iran 1953 Coup in the New York Times Article (April 16, 2000, front page) and the Documents Posted on the Web” By Professor Mark Gasiorowski
19 April 2000 http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/
sorry for my english so i write in polish witam podoba mi sie twoja stronka niestety brak mi czasu i ciagle ta praca
Conversation with a Pakistani Shia Muslim (Twitter, 2 March 2012):
Abdul Nishapuri @AbdulNishapuri
Pakistan’s Shias have been routinely exploited by two entities: ISI (Inter Services Intelligence) and IRI (Islamic Republic of Iran)
Abdul Nishapuri @AbdulNishapuri
For an example of ISI-influenced propaganda within Pakistan’s Shia community, read Islam Times – Urdu, an ISI rag: islamtimes.org/ur/
Abdul Nishapuri @AbdulNishapuri Close
@Mujeeb_Malik Shias are killed by Saudi-funded, ISI-backed Jihadi-sectarian monsters, IRI influenced mullahs misguide Shias to burn US flag
Ahad Hussain @ahadhussain · Open
@AbdulNishapuri This sounds like opinion of people who used to say Ali(as) is to blamed along with the one who wages war against him.
1h Abdul Nishapuri @AbdulNishapuri · Open
@ahadhussain Iranian authoritarian regime is not equal to Imam Ali. There are many Shia scholars who disagree with the Vilayat-e-Faqih.
1h Ahad Hussain @ahadhussain · Open
@AbdulNishapuri Even I dont agree with Vilayat-e-Faqih but against US,KSA and ISI, I support the islamic republic.
Abdul Nishapuri @AbdulNishapuri Close
@ahadhussain Absolute support or opposition are meaningless. We may support West in certain respects and support Iran in certain others.
Ahad Hussain @ahadhussain · Open
@AbdulNishapuri Atleast for us, we don’t discriminate based on ethnicity & nationality! One nation under one Imam(as), my life for my nation
1h Abdul Nishapuri @AbdulNishapuri · Open
@ahadhussain Our nation is Pakistan and humanity. Ethnic and religious identities must be recognized, not negated.
57m Ahad Hussain @ahadhussain · Open
@AbdulNishapuri A shia calling himself a part of Pakistani nation is delusional, establishment here hates that we breathe same O2
54m Abdul Nishapuri @AbdulNishapuri · Open
@ahadhussain Majority of Shias, Sunnis, others are proud & peaceful Pakistanis. ISI-backed ASWJ-SSP-Taliban are a noisy minority.
51m Ahad Hussain @ahadhussain · Open
@AbdulNishapuri If I am on a hijacked plane I would be worried about the intention of pilot not fellow passengers or plane.
Abdul Nishapuri @AbdulNishapuri Close
@ahadhussain Public can be educated & opinions can be mobilized to have an impact on the governance and direction of a country. Long process
Ahad Hussain @ahadhussain · Open
@AbdulNishapuri The improvement after educating all is an impossible task in Pakistan. There will be no change for next 50 years.
Abdul Nishapuri @AbdulNishapuri · Open
@ahadhussain Iranian authoritarian regime is not equal to Imam Ali. There are many Shia scholars who disagree with the Vilayat-e-Faqih.
58m Ahad Hussain @ahadhussain · Open
@AbdulNishapuri Even I dont agree with Vilayat-e-Faqih but against US,KSA and ISI, I support the islamic republic.
56m Abdul Nishapuri @AbdulNishapuri · Open
@ahadhussain Absolute support or opposition are meaningless. We may support West in certain respects and support Iran in certain others.
50m Ahad Hussain @ahadhussain · Open
@AbdulNishapuri Guess we are on same page here, but west is being ruled by CIA on Isreal payroll. They see Syria but ignore Bahrain.
48m Abdul Nishapuri @AbdulNishapuri · Open
@ahadhussain Similarly, there are Iranian-influenced Shias who see Bahrain but ignore Syria. Selective morality of both West & Iran is bad.
45m Ahad Hussain @ahadhussain · Open
@AbdulNishapuri I knew you would say that but there is no such thing as iranian influenced shias, just one shia nation follower of Imam
Abdul Nishapuri @AbdulNishapuri Close
@ahadhussain You remain silent on selective morality of those Shias who see Bahrain, not Syria.
38m Ahad Hussain @ahadhussain · Open
@AbdulNishapuri Homs in Syria gets more than their share of attentions and its Al Qaeda vs Assad over there. Y would we support Al qaeda?
36m Abdul Nishapuri @AbdulNishapuri · Open
@ahadhussain Al Qaeda is active in most Muslim countries. This doesn’t mean Shias should support Assad’s repressive regime.
27m Ahad Hussain @ahadhussain · Open
@AbdulNishapuri Its Assad vs Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda lost me with their Yazid Ibn-e-Mavia Brigade in Homs attacking innocent civilians
Abdul Nishapuri @AbdulNishapuri
@ahadhussain In case you don’t know our stance on US-Saudi-Pakistani hypocrisy on Bahrain, visit this: http://t.co/EsWP2zC8
Abdul Nishapuri @AbdulNishapuri
@ahadhussain We are not selective moral. We support Syrian people’s right to democracy and condemn Assad regime. AQ is only a tiny part.
Ahad Hussain @ahadhussain · Open
@AbdulNishapuri The whole world speaks for Al Qaeda in Homs, Syria ! no one speaks for majority in Bahrain except already oppressed Shia
21m Abdul Nishapuri @AbdulNishapuri · Open
@ahadhussain Clearly our view point is not acceptable to those who are either Saudi-influenced or Iranian-influenced.
Ahad Hussain @ahadhussain
@AbdulNishapuri Well, you can relax because America is working on bringing “democracy” to Syria. While Iranian Infuenced will continue 2die
Abdul Nishapuri @AbdulNishapuri
@ahadhussain You are entitled to your views. We will keep rejecting all those who are selective moral and foreign influenced.
Ahad Hussain @ahadhussain Close
@AbdulNishapuri Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, hope you find luck with the corrupt groups from whom you expect the impossible.
I do believe all the concepts you’ve offered in your post. They are very convincing and will definitely work. Nonetheless, the posts are very short for novices. Could you please extend them a little from next time? Thanks for the post.
Very great post. I simply stumbled upon your blog and wanted to mention that I’ve really enjoyed surfing around your blog posts. After all I will be subscribing in your feed and I hope you write once more very soon!
Very energetic blog, I loved that bit. Will there be a part 2?
mulberry outlet http://www.tnsi.com/pinterests.aspx