Morphing a Theocracy

An alternative to those disillusioned by the breadth of poor political choices available


Morphing a Theocracy
by LalehGillani

There is election fever in the air, not in Iran but on The mounting excitement transmitted through a number of consecutive articles and a barrage of favorable comments has been contagious. Iran’s reform movement has been mobilized to silence the critics and downplay the significance of daunting issues.

The showdown, however, doesn’t appear to be between the opposing candidates from the conservative camp and the Reforms Front. Here, on, the face-off is between those seeking to rehabilitate the Islamic Republic of Iran and the political activists in quest of overthrowing the regime. After all, the prevalent fear amongst the reformists isn’t losing an election by large or small margins. Quite to the contrary! What keeps the reformists awake at night is the forfeiture of the underlying premise that a theocracy can be morphed into a democracy by gradual reforms imposed through theatrical elections.

The missing ingredients as advocated by the reform movement are patience and perseverance, but an ironclad commitment to the unconditional survival of the Islamic Republic of Iran is also evident. The benefits of such approach are explained to be multifaceted, the least of which is the peaceful transition of power from one camp to another.

Accordingly, after every election cycle, the fate of our nation is placed either in the hands of the hardliners or the reformists, resulting in revolving periods of death and destruction followed by relative redress and recovery. This solution, we are reminded, is preferable to the alternative: total death and destruction without periods of relief or, God forbid, contemplating a secular democracy without the mullahs.

Since the former Prime Minister Mir-Hossein Mousavi, in an article published on, pledged to safeguard and protect human life and dignity, his ability to uphold such a commitment based on past performances has been scrutinized. As a result, the reform movement is hampered by those disheartening bygone years as it struggles to thread its way through the current election. Amongst the controversial subjects brushed under the rug is a pair of inconvenient reminders that refuse to fade away: The leaders of the reform movement are not dissidents but rather government insiders whose career trail leads to the massacres of political prisoners in 1980’s while their financial interests are traceable to the daily looting of our national wealth.

Unable to address such issues, the reform movement has either downplayed the enormity of such crimes or simply asked the critics to comprehend the circumstances under which such crimes have occurred. Nonetheless, whether out of sheer incompetence, absolute helplessness, or blatant criminality, the reformist leaders have become a material liability for the movement.

To revitalize the public persona of its leaders, the reform movement has capitalized on Iran’s current state of affairs only to remind the nation that last time one of their own held the Office of the Presidency, the conditions were more tolerable and prosperous. Not surprisingly, after hailing Ayatollah Khatami’s era, the reformists are dumbfounded by any attempt to spoil his accomplishments or dispute his effectiveness. Although the historical conditions that necessitated the emergence of the reform movement in Iran are often overlooked, in the light of the current election, a rudimentary understanding of those years is long overdue.

In essence, there were two political and social circumstances that attributed to the rise of the reform movement in Iran: First, the mounting opposition and discontent with the regime amongst the upper and middle class Iranians became apparent to Shi'a intellectuals who feared for the future of Islam in Iran. Second, the brutality of the regime after the massacres of 1980’s and the chain killings of 1990’s left absolutely no room whatsoever for possible expressions of political dissent.

Consequently, any twinkle of opposition had to emerge from within the establishment to withstand mullahs’ wrath, to boast of any likelihood of survival, and finally to live to tell the tale. Once this phenomenon was born, political activists seized the opportunity to form NGOs and human rights organizations to combat the regime. As a result, the successful election of Mohammad Khatami to become the fifth president of Iran was not the cause but rather the effect of the reformists’ mobilization.

Another controversy plaguing the reform movement is the vetting process through which presidential candidates are permitted to enter the race. Deriving the selection criteria from Article 115 of Iran’s constitution, the Guardian Council hand-selects only candidates with “religious and political personalities” who have demonstrated their belief in “the fundamental principles of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the official religion of the country.” Simply put, with a single stroke of their pen, the members of Guardian Council eliminate all opposition candidates but retain “the faithful.” Believe it or not, even the reform movement is struggling to legitimize this mockery as an election but stops short of withdrawing from it.

Regardless of the upcoming election’s outcome on June 12, 2009, the reform movement remains to be a decisive force in reining the masses on behalf of the Islamic Republic of Iran and in shaping the regime’s chances of survival. As hardliners eye the Office of the Supreme Leader and consolidate the Faqih’s hold on the armed forces, Iran’s moderate Shi'a clergy is pushing the limits to test our nation’s resolve and thirst for fundamental, meaningful changes in economic, social, and political arenas. At the same time, the reformist leaders are assessing the tolerance of the hardliners with cautious overtures to share the levers of authority before it is too late. In other words, the reformist candidates are asking our nation to place one of them at the helms of power out of sheer desperation and utter apprehension of the alternatives.

Today, running on a reform agenda but hand in hand with the hardliners, the leaders of the reform movement, having benefited from the imprisonment and murder of political activists throughout the country, have apparently emerged as the only viable alternative to the merciless inquisitors of Tehran. Simultaneously, in league with their blood brethren, the reformist leaders have also looted the country lock, stock and barrel and pocketed the fruits of our labor while the populace is destitute and distraught.

Once again, Iranian political activists are outwitted to follow the mullahs’ lead. Once again, the nation is bamboozled into placing their fate and future in the hands of the Shi'a clergy. Once again, Iranians are told to choose between the bad and the ugly. Once again, we are gambling with our future and blindly settling for a change, any change.

Meanwhile, the temporary, lax and jubilant election environment has been seized by few political activists to form a coalition encompassing grassroots organizations that represent pro-democracy groups from all walks of life. The Solidarity for Democracy and Human Rights in Iran (SDHRI) has brought together organizations dedicated to the causes of women and workers while unifying secular movements such as the United Students Front, the Association of Liberal and Nationalist University Students, and Democratic Front of Iran. Additionally, our nation’s best and brightest legal scholars, human rights advocates, and seasoned patriots have joined forces to offer an alternative to those disillusioned by the breadth of poor political choices available.

The seed for this solidarity was planted by Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh in 1944, but the sapling was axed down long before it poked through the darkness. There, in obscurity, it lay dormant, spreading its roots silently but determinedly. Sixty five years later, after the failure of all flavors of Islam in Iran and after the collapse of all communist organizations, our path has taken us full circle to that seed, to that sapling, to that dream.

It is due time to nurture this sapling with light and guard it with our blood…

I would like to extend my sincere gratitude to Dr. Masoud Kazemzadeh for his informative and timely article: "Prospects and Obstacles: Solidarity for Democracy and Human Rights in Iran"


more from LalehGillani
Flying Solo


by Flying Solo on



I would like to ask the reformists

by Mehrban on

How do you see this metamorphoses take shape?  That at some point during the presidency of Mousavi (for example),  the position of the Velayat Faghih is abolished and the guardian council is also disbanned and the Islamic reformists will form a coalition with the secular democrtic factions and free elections take place?  Is this what the end game is in the reformist view?  I am just curious what is the end game for the present Islamic Reformists?  


PS.  I have read the comments only selectively so please all forgive me if I am out of turn.


Why Can’t a Theocracy be Morphed into a Democracy?

by LalehGillani on

Yesterday, I posted a comment on this thread, asking Q the following questions:

“So let’s talk about what principles can be barriers to democracy. Why couldn’t Soviet Union become a democracy? Why can’t Saudi Arabia become a democracy? What do you think is the underlying reason(s)?”

Although none of the reformists engaged on this thread have addressed these fundamental questions, I would like to share with you my answer.

Simply put, Soviet Union couldn’t evolve into a democracy because a communist system derives its legitimacy from a totalitarian ideology. Similarly, Saudi Arabia can’t morph itself into a democracy since another totalitarian ideology, Islam, is the driving force in the Kingdom.

However, the United State’s constitution draws its principles not from an ideology but from idealisms spelled out in the Bill of Rights. Granted that the initial version of this constitution reduced the worth of a black slave to be a fraction of other human beings and didn’t prohibit the federal or state governments from abolishing women’s voting rights, the same constitution has been morphed into what is today.

Iran’s theocracy can’t be morphed into a democracy because its underlying principles are drawn from Islam. Islam is a totalitarian ideology incapable of tolerating other belief systems.


Amzaing - How far we are from a Democracy !!

by masoudA on

I am amazed of those who keep harping on the fact that majority of Iranians are Moslems - .... so waht ?  Democracy is meant to protect the rights of minorities - do you understand ?   Apparantly not.  When you call Iran an Islamic Republic - is just as if Germany calls itself a "white" republic and starts establishing white-rules, because the majority are whites in Germany.  get it ?    Theocracy is a backward anti-human rights concept - when are you going to get it?  When it comes to basic rights, there are no differences between white and black, men and women, moslem and jew, turk and fars...... when are you gonna get that?  What vote? - what democracy? when the foundation is laid on an anti-human constitution.    

Again - a Democracy is not set-up to tend to the needs of the majority - it is intended to preserve the rights of those who are not armed, powerful or in the majority.   

Also - I have nothing to say to professional IRI posters - their role is very similar to the omat who must attend rallies in the streets of Tehran - all part of the show IRI needs to survive.   But to those who feel like the only way to a free Iran is through a slow and gradual process - I say this;   I felt exactly like you do when Khatami materialized.  I gave it all the chances, even participated in the elections.   I was so encouraged to see Iran and America engaged in discussions with the Clinton Admin - it was so great to see Iran participate in the debates of cultures, etc....  only to find out, during Khatami's 8 years, the mullahs got the chance to devastate any sort of opposition (ala zangirehii killings of anti IRI intellectuals) - and even more importatntly, during the 8 years of Khatamis so called reforms IRI focused on hiring every illeterate teenager who was or was willing to pretend to be an Islamist - while at the same time doubling the unemployment rate amongst the educated Iranian youth.    There are no reformseven possible under the Islamic Regime - with every passing year we are moving further away from human rights, democracy and prosperity. 





by babakkhoramdin (not verified) on

perfectly put brother....I couldn't have said it better myself.....
all our suffering and misery is directly related to the british thirst and greed for our national wealth....that's it, nothing more...
your statement...."the british conned the americans out of the iranian pie..." is right on!
I grew up in ahvaz, and my whole family was in sherkate naft.....everyone knew that the sleezy brits always felt as if iran's oil was fact there's a lot of evidence that they wanted to have the mullahs take over back in 1963....but kennedy's assasination threw a wrench in their plans!
as long as we have self serving akhoonds like rafsanjani, khamenei, etc....that put themselves and their pockets over iran and it's people, the brits can do whatever they like....
javid iran!



by Parham on

Without really wanting to get on a tangent about Mossadegh and 28 Mordad, since this is not really a discussion about that event, I've looked at Abrahamian's claims as well and for what my opinion's worth, I believe his claims are just an amateurish (at best) spin on historical facts. Meaning don't take him too seriously!


TO All Readers

by RealityIs Another (not verified) on

To those who forget the great knowledge of Abarmard, Q, Mammad, Niloufar Parsi and like (Those people have actually spent time to study history and sociology of Iran unlike these bunch) and listen to voices that are so distant from the true realities of Iran, don't deserve more than this kind of thinking (Bowl shit), where the author sees putting an article that these days are published in the Islamic Republic as "Fighting" against the regime for the sake of the people. Doing nothing and thinking so high of herself. While those who truly know Iran and the situation in Iran, are humble and bring about facts.
The bottom line, these bunch have either never lived in Iran, or they lived when Shah was there. They have no idea how the country has changed, NO IDEA.
I bet that those who think like the author have not been to Iran. I will put my life as a bet. That's how sure I am since they are so distant.

Some don't understand that democracy is a process. Iran is not Saudi Arabia! Surprised? Based on the LalaGilani yes, you should be shocked.



by Parham on

No, I was mostly a reader/observer on that board, although I did intervene on a few occasions, two of them being with you, actually. I think we disagreed about Bani Sadr. There was also something about the Hezbe Jomhoori Eslami and Bani Sadr's role in it; but mostly historical discussions as opposed to ways to tackle the thugs. There was another thing we discussed as I now recall, and it was a topic about the late Dr. Varjavand and the "other" Dr./Mr. Varjavand.

I think I also tried to develop a discussion with the person who named him/herself Hamvatan (or was it "Ham-mihan"?) about how that sort of extra-strong rhetoric could backfire, but then I got insulted extra-strongly and I decided to leave the board! :) I believe in that case, time (and the various L.A. TV channels) have proven me more or less right though...

Anyway, nothing healthier than a healthy disagreement, eh? :)

I also voted FOR Khatami on his first round, without following anyone's directives, merely because I felt maybe this softening of the tone will make a lot of the links looser inside the system and perhaps that would lead to major change pushed by the people themselves. Of course that theory didn't come to fruition, and I never voted again.

About the numbers both you and Q referred to, this is what I wanted to say:

The truth is, we don't have meaningful and/or solid statistics anywhere -- as in what percentage of the people would vote what, why they would vote, if they'd vote only to change a hardliner to a "softliner" (as I call them), wjether when they voted for Khatami it was just because they wanted to change the system (or not), etc.

These are things no one can really make a claim on, although theories can run abound, and so can guesswork based on permutations. The reason why we don't have any of these useful numbers however, is because they would actually get on the way of the ruling class in Iran to push their agenda. So it would be fair/correct to assume the numbers are most likely in favor of the opposition than the ruling class. One doesn't hide something unless there's something to hide, does one?

As for the distribution of non-vote vs. vote as opposed to the number of voters for each candidate, I'm convinced the first calculation would be more significant while the second just good for self-service.



Laleh Jaan

by R2-D2 on

I just wanted to drop you this note, expressing the fact that there are many who appreciate your work towards better understanding the situation in Iran, and the possible remedies to improve things.

As others have mentioned, your writing is pretty well developed, and you express your thoughts and ideas in a very coherent manner.

I do want to encourage you to continue writing articles like this, and engage others as you have done here. At times, the personal attacks may get too much, nevertheless, in my opinion, it is a worthwhile effort.

I would like to leave you with this thought: Iran has had a great past, and presently, for reasons that are perhaps too many to enumerate, we are not where we should be. However, within the hearts and minds of all Iranians, the greatness that we have inherited through our rich history and culture, is still there. What we need to do as a people is to re-ignite that greatness within us again.

Many thanks for your contribution. Looking forward to your next article,






LOOOOOOLLLL!! Kheili khandidam

by Mirdamad (not verified) on

I never got passed the first sentence.

"There is election fever in the air, not in Iran but on"?!?!?!?!? Whaaa? lol

Here's your election fever, filmed last night in Iran no less!



Laleh and the 1953 coup

by Sassan (not verified) on

Before I get to your 1953 coup reference, I just want to say that it takes a WHOLE LOT of GALL, depravity, deceptive motives and contempt for Iran and its beleagered people to compare the Bush/Gore 2000 election to the predetermined mullah theatrics of Iran's insulting sham "election" of 2009. Do you people have no shame? To compare a fascist dictatorship to a democracy, even if not perfect, is an insult to every one of us Iranians taking oxygen in our brains, which sadly does NOT include the supporters of the IRI and their internet foot soliders.

Laleh, earlier I genuinely praised you for your wonderful article, but with reference to your 1953 coup comment, I just want to say that you should read (if you haven't already) Ervand Abrahimian's masterpiece, "Iran Between Two Revolutions" to see that the real cuplprits in the 1953 coup were not necessarily the foreigners, but rather our homegrown hezbollahis and communists of the Tudeh.

Sure, the CIA and the MI6 orchestrated the coup for their own national interests, but none of their plans would have succeeded without Tudeh antagonism against Mossadegh, whom the left viewed with utmost suspicion, for they considered Mossadegh a landowning aristocrat beholden to the imperialist administration in the US (Truman).

In fact, once the Shah left Iran on August 25, 1953, Mossadegh had three days and massive popular support to abolish the monarchy and create a democratic republic, but he chose not to do so because the Tudeh was making a major stink in Tehran with their mob mentality trying to take control of the country.

Mossadegh kept the monarchy in place from fear of a communist takeover. Mossadegh, who was extremely anti-communist, favored the concept of "constitutional" monarchy over a republican government PRIMARILY because he feared that the Tudeh, which was very strong at that time, would one day take over the country.

Bottom line, in some ways I sympathize with the Shah at this time because he had no real power as he was operating from a position of utter weakness (lest we forget that his much stronger father was deposed a few years earlier by the British). We were such a backward country (thanks to the mullahs and the Qajars) but we were also such a strategic country that we were sure to be molested by greater powers, no matter who was in charge, the Shah or Mossadegh.

In reality, both Mossadegh and the Shah needed each other. As a matter of fact, Mossadegh had some "tyrant" qualities as well, closing down parliment and ruling like a dictator at one point. Don't get me wrong, I want democracy in Iran, but at this point in our history, it's gratuitous to refer to the Shah as a "tyrant" in 1953 when he had absolutely no real power to speak of.

In 1975, however, he did have a lot of power, but then again, he also had a lot of suicidal enemies (the treasonous Tudeh, the cultish Mujaheds, the corrupt mullahs, the fanatic Fedayoun, the British and the Americans after OPEC. The Shah made mistakes to be sure, but frankly, I admire the man because he could EASILY have been like the Qajar kings and rested in his palaces and harams and left Iran backward and in the hands of the mullahs and his son would be king today.

But the Shah, despite some of his excesses, put his crown in grave danger and tried to modernize Iran (he was a patriot no matter what anybody says), and he went against the sleezy, but powerful ulama, and when he had some power, he did try to free Iran from the clutches of England and America, except that the same crowd that brought down Mossadegh (the extreme left, Tudeh, and the extreme right, Islamic fanatics) brought down the Shah for the benefit of England, and ultimately, Russia, as the Americans were easily conned out of the Iran pie by the British.

Anyway, my point is: the real enemies of Iran are our "homegrown" Islamic terrorists and the leftists, who have sided with foreign powers in their destruction of Iran every time we've had a modernizing leader in our country. And the extreme right and the extreme left are at it again, joining forces to keep this morally bankrupt mullah dictatorhip in power!

Masoud Kazemzadeh


by Masoud Kazemzadeh on

Sassan jaan,

Please continue writing your great analysis. Also thank you for your kind words.





Dear Masoud az America,

Thank you for your contributions.



P.S. You have a great name.   :-)




Parham jaan,

After the JM bb I concentrated mostly on my academic writings and a few articles for I did not participate in any bb. Were you only an observer of JM bb or did you participate?

Your observation that the main line of confrontation (in other venues as well) is not among the four candidates of the nezam but rather the main line of confrontation is between those who oppose the system and those who support one of the nezam’s candidates is highly significant. It shows the depth of opposition to the whole nezam. In 2001 for presidency and in 2000 for Majles, the democratic opposition strongly asked the public to participate and vote for Khatami and the reformists. In 2004 Majles and 2005 Presidential election, we asked the public to boycott the pseudo-election. According to the regime’s own data in 2005, about 30% of eligible voters did not vote and in Tehran about 45% of eligible voters did not vote. In the previous elections, boycotters were one voice among many others. The observation that boycotting is one of the two primary voices indicates the huge increase in the opposition. It shows the confrontation is not between this fundamentalist vs, that fundamentalist. Rather it shows that it is between the opposition vs. the nezam. Although the fascist regime fakes the numbers, this whole debate in significant. Especially in the absence of true and honest vote counting, as well as the lack of freedom of expression inside Iran, this line of confrontation is much better reflection of reality.




Armeen jaan,






a friend jaan,

Thank you for your participation and your kind words.




Fair jaan,

Az mohebat shoma sepaas gozaram. I always enjoy and learn from reading your posts.




Masoud Kazemzadeh

Moussavi's Supporters on Video

by Masoud Kazemzadeh on

Dear Laleh,

I agree with hamsadeh ghadimi on his observations on Moussavi’s hezbollahi thugs in this site attacking you and others.

Moussavi’s thugs inside Iran even disrupted the talk by their fellow fundamentalist Karrubi!!!! Here is the video:






In another event, apparently security and/or supporters of Moussavi reportedly beat up others in Tabriz:


this is a report in Amir Kabir Univ’s student site. They support Karoobi.


There is apparently some disagreement who was being beaten up by Moussavi’s thugs and what sort of violence was used, but it is clear that Moussavi’s thugs were using some sort of violence against others.

I am so proud of you for standing up to these Moussavi hezbollahis.

Best regards,





The Iranian Neo-Con called Gillani!!

by Kurush (not verified) on

It goes without saying that the author of this article has proven right-wing bent yet uses nice-sounding words such as 'reform' to soften an agenda which comprises the neo-cons' bitter pill for Iran, one that will dwarf the calamities we have come to witness in Iraq & Afghanistan, two new colonies of the Western thugs right on the doorsteps of our dear homeland. Consider the following facts:

If the present theocratic regime, certainly not perfect but good enough for governance, was to disappear tomorrow, you can rest assured that, in the ensuing power vacuum & the inevitable power struggle, no one group, nor any faction, will have the aptitude to govern Iran even for a single day. Ratiocinations and argumentations do not for a single day a country govern! The big-mouths, such as the author of this article, do not have the wisdom nor the vision to rule a country as complex as Iran, their ostentations to such wisdoms notwithstanding. But that is not all folks. One thing you should know, if it has already not occurred to you, that Iran's Western foes know that and crave precisely this outcome, namely, an Iran without any center of gravity, paralyzed, balkanized, by bitter rivalries & internecine civil war. The propaganda mill of the Western foes would have you think that the removal of the mullahs would bring the halcyon days of amity, democracy & joy-to-the world, and yes of course, the capable reformists ready to govern Iran with delicacy and finesse. It aint gonna happen folks! Be grateful of what you have: harsh authoritarian theocrats, who nonetheless have shown uncanny aptitude for governing Iran, theirs & our dear homeland. They, the theocrats, are doing something unexpected: strengthening the institutions of democracy, more invisible than you think, less concrete, insubstantial almost, a state of mind, the orderly going to the polls & ballot boxes, and respecting the results, something that even the neo-cons could not stomach in the USA 2000 election in which the man with more votes was cheated by hook & crook. I respect the theocrats and wish them well. They have been good to Iran given the vicissitudes & vagaries of fortune.

hamsade ghadimi


by hamsade ghadimi on

i admire your collective calmness in face of these chomaghdarane majhool (literally, i'm merely referring to all those anonymous bullies). I may not agree with all that you say (and have not read every single comment on this blog), but you don't resort to the name-calling and bullying tactics of some of the commentators.  mousavi has been in bed with khamenei for 30 years.  he is much closer to khamenei than ahmadinejad.  these are some facts and quotations of mousavi for those who can't read the writing on the wall:

- mousavi who is from khameneh and is a relative of khamenei (the iri regime tries to downplay this fact) has been khamenei's prime minister for 8 years

- mousavi: "...the pirmary responsibility of the president to be united with rahbar khamenei" (may 2009)

- when asked of his role in the mass executions of the 1980s (both early and late) when he was a prime minister (in kerman, may 2009). he said that: " must notice that the separation of powers existed since the beginning of the revolution.... ask a question that concerns me and i will certainly answer it."

- ayatollah montazeri, in his memoires, describes the many ways of torture and unjust execution of teenagers and others during khamenei's presidency (and mousavi's terms as prime minister). mousavi and others in power were at many regular meetings with montazeri when khomeini was alive and montazeri was acting as ghaem magham (iri's verion of vali-ahd) and therefore knew his regime's misdeeds.

- mousavi had a role in putting montazeri under house arrest following khomeini's death enabling his boss khamenei to become supreme leader.

the list can go on and on.  ahmadinejad is the new kid on the block.  if these are the choices, who would want to vote?  those who want to vote for legitimacy of the regime should vote.  i tell all those to go and vote.  no matter who you vote for, you vote for khamenei and the continuation of the regime.

to iran parast

you're correct in your assessment.  this is the regime's version of shol kon seft kon.

keep up the good work sister. 



by Reza12345 (not verified) on

You're just attacking me because you can't respond to my arguments about the veto process of the Guardian Council. You just don't have any answers. That's why you call me a thug who storms YOUR universities and try to make it a feminist issue. You Massoud Rajavi lovers are all like that. You're filled with hatred to the point that you take every legitimate and valid criticism as a crime.

For your information, I'm not a thug. I'm a lawyer who's thesis was precisely about "judicial review procedure in Iran". I specialize in Comparative Constitutional law. So I know quite a bit about the Guardian Council way beyond your comprehension.

But again, I don't expect anything more than that you displayed here from an MKO member.


A Mutually Symbiotic Relationship

by LalehGillani on

Reza12345 wrote: “The fact that there is vetting process doesn't mean that only those aligned with the hardliners get to be president.”

The vetting process ensures that candidates who are faithful to the regime are selected. The political and financial interests of hardliners and the leaders of the reform movement are intertwined.

The squabbling aside, the hardliners and the reformists have a mutually symbiotic relationship. One can’t exist without the other.


Shaban Jafari & Rashidian Brothers

by LalehGillani on

Anonymous8 wrote: “You should read about the 1953, it may explain the exact circumstances that Dr. Mossadegh "missed" this opportunity. Study a little harder.”

In my comment, I attempted to show the role of thugs in overthrowing Dr. Mossadegh’s government. I wasn’t trying to present a through analysis of what happened during those days.

On August 19, 1953, characters such as Shaban Jafari and Rashidian brothers led demonstrations to weaken Dr. Mossadegh’s government and lay the groundwork for the coup.

The coup d'état was planned and paid for by foreign governments.



Nina1 (not verified)

بدین وسیله اینجانبان: امت حزب الله، پاسداران، گروه ثارالله، بسیجی ها، بازاریان، آقازاده ها، مداحان و روزه خوانها ازبانو گیلانی وآقایان کاظم زاده، کدیور، فرد(fred) ودیگر دانشمندان و استادان دانشگاه به جهت پشتیبانی بی دریغ از آقای احمدی نژاد و انتخاب مجدد شان به سمت ریاست جمهوری تشکر و سپاسگزاری کرده، بقا و دوام جمهوری اسلامی را خواهانیم.


The Measure of a Man…

by LalehGillani on

Reza12345 wrote: “Please stop reducing everything to the most superficial level. And stop disseminating these nonsense just because you HATE the IR. You analysis if wrong, simplistic, reductionist and populist. It has nothing to do with the reality. Why does someone like you, who probably can't name three political parties in Iran, insists so much on wiring political articles?!”

Have my political articles annoyed you? Your comment and approach is like a thug who has intimidated others all his life. Does it bother you that a woman is capable of political analysis beyond your comprehension?

You might be able to silence everyone in Iran, storm our universities with clubs and switchblades, cut people’s throat, and drag women on the asphalt to prove your manhood. Here, on, we practice something foreign to you: It is called freedom of speech.

مسعود از امریکا

لاله جان

مسعود از امریکا

یاد دکتر مصدق عزیز، همیشه در دل و جان همه هم وطنان ایران دوست خواهد بود، و خواهد ماند - مرسی عزیزم!




TO "Mir Hossaing supporter"

by curly on

You agha zadeh keep laughing . laugh just like " joker "I hope you will be laughing when your akhonds are being tried for crimes against humanity.when they ask them why they filled khavaran with our youth and why they bulldozed it to get rid of the evidence. keep laughing because their time is ending soon and they will be extinct just like prehistoric animals, keep laughing ......


the sad clowns and extremist left?

by Anonym7 (not verified) on

The author to a large extent reminds me of Ashrafies some 30 years ago. Soon after the revolution they saw the condition ready for their armed struggle ... it has been said that history repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce .... in this particular case we have marriage of the sad ultra right wing clowns with ultra left lunatics..........


Dear Laleh

by Abarmard on

Good to hear that. 


The Republic of Islam gives

by Meehan (not verified) on

The Republic of Islam gives you the choice to elect your president in Iran. The problem is that you need to choose between crap, crap and crap. Sometimes some craps are better than the others but all craps are terrorists and obey the supreme Islamic leaderand even when they are elected they are irrelevant. i,e they all say and do what the supreme leader of this theocracy approves of.


Laleh, have you heard of the 1953 coup?

by Anonymous8 (not verified) on

You say this:

"A true patriot missed an opportunity to give his beloved land freedom and democracy… This missed opportunity has tormented his followers for decades… "

You should read about the 1953, it may explain the exact circumstances that Dr. Mossadegh "missed" this opportunity. Study a little harder.


من و انتخابات: فاطمه حقیقت جو

yekiyenafar (not verified)

با شرکت در انتخابات باید سرنوشت سیاسی کشور خود را که بر زندگی تک تک شهروندان ایرانی تاثیری تعیین کننده دارد رقم زنیم و خواهان مطالبات خود از روسای جمهور و دیگر مسئولان کشور باشیم و آنها را نسبت به عملکردشان پاسخگو نماییم.



Lessons to Learn

by LalehGillani on

I admire and respect Dr. Mossadegh in so many ways that it will take another article to cover all the points. However, after studying his political life in great detail, I must share with you the following:

If Dr. Mossadegh had been more decisive and had confronted the thugs and the tyrant he was facing, our history would have been written differently today. The same breed of thugs that attack our universities today, in league with foreign governments, brought down Mossadegh’s government.

A true patriot missed an opportunity to give his beloved land freedom and democracy… This missed opportunity has tormented his followers for decades…


Why Mousavi made it through the Guardian Council

by Reza12345 (not verified) on

Laleh Gillani, you said: "If you disagree, then we are left with the following hypothesis:

The hardliners have a death wish and are giving the reform movement a chance to overthrow them. Do you honestly believe that the hardliners don’t know what they are doing? Mullahs are shrewd politicians with survival instincts that surpass anyone’s imagination…"

This only shows how superficial your understanding is. The fact that there is vetting process doesn't mean that only those aligned with the hardliners get to be president.

The fact is that the Guardian Council hardliners try their best to approve only those in line with their views but they don't succeed all the time. You fail to understand that the hardliners don't have absolute power in the system. They too have to endure political costs associated with violating the constitution. They too have to interact with other (rival) forces within the political spectrum. They too have to balance their positions and negotiate some issues. They too have to make concessions. They too can't get what they want all the time. There is a cost to disqualifying a reputable politician. That's why they can't disqualify pioneers like Karoubi, or respected figures like Mousavi, or Khatami. If they disqualify these people, they would have to pay a heavy social and political price for it and sometimes they are not prepared to take the risk.

If they disqualify someone like Mouasvi, who has ran the country during 8 years of war with a very good economic record, and whom has earned the respect of many war veterans and martyr families, it would be the end of the Guardian Council. That's why Mousavi made it through the filtering process. It's not because "he is one of them".

Please stop reducing everything to the most superficial level. And stop disseminating these nonsense just because you HATE the IR.

You analysis if wrong, simplistic, reductionist and populist. It has nothing to do with the reality. Why does someone like you, who probably can't name three political parties in Iran, insists so much on wiring political articles?!

There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.


I actually found the

by Bavafa on

I actually found the exchange between the two sides in the comment section much more interesting then the article itself. And in regard to the exchanges, it seems "Q" uses facts and logic much more then the opposition which relies much more on name calling and propaganda type statements.