Sadegh Ziba Kalam

"Revolution was for freedom, not Islam"


Recently by Ghormeh SabziCommentsDate
Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day
Dec 02, 2012
Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day
Dec 01, 2012
Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day
Nov 30, 2012
more from Ghormeh Sabzi
Farah Rusta

naa-Saadegh Zesht-kalaam

by Farah Rusta on

This man who is better known as "naa saadegh zesht-kalaam" cannot even see that he is contradicting himself. Islam has never claimed to support political freedom. Even Mossadegh understood this, thanks to his ill-fated alliance with Ayatollah Kashani - Khomeini's Godfather in Islamic terrorism.

Naa Sadegh Zesht-kalaam is a mini charlatan who cannot even make the beginning of his argument match the ending of it (watch how he drops the title of Shah when he mentions that last shah while keeps it for all the rest). The true product and champion of the constitutional revolution of 1906 was Reza Shah who realized two out of three of the demands of the movement (i.e. a central government and safety and security within the borders - M. Ajoudani- Mashrute Irani) . The third demand which was political freedom remained ellusive until Reza Shah's abdication in 1941 when it was reinstated and it prevailed until a Grand Charlatan, i.e. Mossadegh, through his self-serving ambitions and abuse of power,  made it impossible to be continued.


hamsade ghadimi


by hamsade ghadimi on


hamsade ghadimi

mr. kazemzadeh

by hamsade ghadimi on

thanks for your analysis.  i was wondering how ziba kalam can get away with what he said on tv.

Darius Kadivar

mehdi2009 Jaan Thank you for your feedbacks

by Darius Kadivar on

I tend to confuse Denmark and Netherlands and I actually meant the Netherlands where Queen Juliana went into exile in London and organized the Resistance with a provisionary government in exile just like De Gaulle.

As for Belgium the monarchy was considerably discredited during Leopold who indeed chose to remain in the country and he became unpopular for all the wrong reasons amongst the Belgians partly because he remarried amidst the German Occupation. His first wife and Queen was highly popular and had been killed in a car accident prior to the War. So seeing their king remarry when his country was occupied by German Troops was seen as a selfish act. He was judged in a negative light very much ( although less dramatically) as France's Pétain. And that reinforced the Republican sentiments in Belgium which is still very strong today despite the fact that the country is a Monarchy.

When Crown Prince Bedouin was to take his Oath as New King upon his father's abdication, there were cries of VIVE LA REPUBLIQUE and a Shy and low profile Bedouin took his Oath nevertheless.

RESTORATION: Belgium King Baudouin takes Oath Amidst Republican Animosity (31st July ,1950)

My Point is not to draw any Exact parrallel between what happened in these different countries at a given time in history with what could happen in Iran but simply to try and explain that Democracy has not always been achieved through Revolution or the establishment of a Republic even if it were through a bloodless Velvet Revolution.

Restoration have happened throughout history. They have not been as numerous as lets say such events like Revolutions or Coups but when they did occur they did because the nations concerned were at crossroads between a bitter dissapointment with what they had been through ( be it a civil war, revolution or War between nations) which made the people question their own past and try and understand what went so wrong or why their ancestors or previous generation took for granted.

A Restoration does not always lead to a Monarchy by the Way even if personally that is my wish for Iran.

For instance in Bulgaria :

RESTORATION: King Simeon II of Bulgaria, The Republican Prince 

History is Not an Exact Science and you cannot claim this is exactly what will happen to Iran in the future. You can simply try and look for examples offered in World History and attempt to understand and predict the possibilities.

Ultimately it is the people or individuals with a political vision and program that shape the future.

What that Future may be no one knows at this juncture of our history ...

We can only hope for the best based on our own individual experiences and hopes. But I don't think people vote only with their brains but also with their Hearts particularly when it comes to such determinant elections known as Referendums. For it transcends our own petty choices or interests and concerns the nation in it's entirety and how we see ourselves COLLECTIVELY and Not Merely INDIVIDUALLY.

That is all I am implying.

Thank you for your insights and interesting explanations,






by Princess on

Mr Kazemzadeh, Thank you for explaining the expression, Behesht mishe, Kuwait mishe.



ابراهیم نبوی

Kaveh Parsa


 و  کالبد
شکافی دو انقلاب


اول: در انقلاب 57 روشنفکران معتقد بودند که مردم شعورشان نمی رسد و به
همین دلیل هیچ کاری نمی شود کرد، بعدا که مردم با حکومت مخالفت کردند،
روشنفکران کشور گفتند مردم ایران باشعور ترین مردم دنیا هستند و ما شعورمان
نمی رسد. در جنبش سبز تعداد زیادی روشنفکر وجود دارند که کارهای مردم عادی
را می کنند، و تعداد زیادی مردم عادی وجود دارند که دقیقا کار روشنفکرانه
می کنند.

دوم: در انقلاب 57 سن متوسط رهبران سیاسی کشور بیست سال بود، آنها
حکومتی را که سن متوسط کارگزارانش پنجاه سال بود، نابود کردند و به مدت سی
سال مردم را بیچاره کردند. در جنبش سبز، سن متوسط رهبران کشور پنجاه سال
است، آنها می خواهند حکومتی که سن متوسط رهبرانش 70 سال است، ولی مثل بچه
های پانزده ساله فکر می کنند تغییر بدهند.

سوم: در انقلاب 57 چهل ساله ها هم مثل بیست ساله ها فکر می کردند، اما
در جنبش سبز بچه های بیست ساله هم مثل چهل ساله ها فکر می کنند.

چهارم: در انقلاب 57 یک نفر حرف مردم را می زد، هزاران نفر هم آن حرف را
برای صدها هزار نفر تبدیل به شعار می کردند تا مردم شعار بدهند. در جنبش
سبز تا یک نفر حرف می زند، ده هزار نفر حرف هایش را نقد می کنند، و بعد
مردم شعاری را که فکر می کنند درست است می دهند، تا همان شعار بعدا تبدیل
به نظر جنبش بشود.

پنجم: در انقلاب 57 بزرگترین افتخار یک روشنفکر این بود که دقیقا مثل
مردم بی سواد فکر کند، سی سال طول کشید تا مردم به این نتیجه برسند که
پیروی از مردم بی سواد و بی شعور چه فاجعه ای است و جنبش سبز اتفاق افتاد

Masoud Kazemzadeh

Real Division: Pro-Democracy vs. Pro-Dictatorship

by Masoud Kazemzadeh on


A regime could be secular and dictatorial. Examples include the Shah’s dictatorship, Stalin’s dictatorship, Hitler’s dictatorship. Non-theocratic regimes that are dictatorships abound in the Middle East.

It was assumed in 1979 that Islam would bring freedom, democracy, and other good things. The experience in Iran since Khomeini’s rise to power proves that that perception was fatally and devastating wrong.

In 1978, many knew Muslims such as Grand Ayatollah Kazem Shariatmadari, Ayatollah Taleghani, and Mehdi Bazargan who were democrats and against dictatorship.

In 1978, many also knew secular individuals such as Mohammad Reza Shah and Kianouri (leader of Tudeh Party) who were for dictatorship.

The division is between pro-democracy and pro-dictatorship. In Iran what is the most conducive form of democracy? It is a secular democratic republic. Other forms have much lower likelihood of giving us democracy and freedom.  In the final analysis, what people's metaphysical views are, are secondary.  What is significant is whether they are for or against democracy in actual practice.


Masoud Kazemzadeh

translating Ziba Kalam

by Masoud Kazemzadeh on

This is what the poor soul is attempting to convey without getting himself sent to Evin.

1. In 1978-79, the people made a revolution because they primarily wanted FREEDOM. The people opposed Shah’s dictatorship, his power to appoint this or that official (from President of a university to others), his subservience to the U.S. Khomeini repeatedly said that he would bring freedom. The PERCEPTION of all was that Khomeini’s Islam would bring FREEDOM and democracy, freedom of thought including for Marxists, equality for women, non-oppression of minorities, etc.

2. Ziba Kalam is IMPLYING that the people did NOT make a revolution for the sort of Islam that was in actually imposed after Khomeini came to power. He could not explicitly say, there is no freedom in Iran, there is oppression of women, oppression of minorities, dictatorship of Khomeini and Khamenei.

3. Ziba Kalam was a fundamentalist student in 1979. I think he served as deputy to Soroush during the Islamic Cultural Revolution in 1980.

4. Ziba Kalam has been closely associated with Rafsanjani. Thus he has more immunity from repression than most people in Iran. So, he could say things that could easily land others in Evin. On this program, Motahhari is also providing him some space to express his views. Motahhari is a powerful hard-liner, but a so-called "moderate" hard-liner. This means that he is promoting the notion that Khamenei accept Mousavi’s communique 17 and begin a reconciliation with the reformist members of the oligarchy in the Green Movement.

Mousavi, Karrubi, and Khatami have been distancing themselves from the democratic elements of the Green Movement and their opposition to the slogan of "IRANIAN Republic" as in "esteghlal, azadi, Jumhuri Irani," and "naa sharqi, naa gharbi, Jumhuri Irani." This and other IRIB tv programs are allowing some space for reformists to express their opinions on tv.

The hard-liners want to divide the Green Movement constituent parts of the bar-andaz groups (democrats and other opposition groups) and the reformist members of the oligarchy.

The reformist fundamentalists in the Green Movement want to divide the hard-liners into "miane-roo" (Motahhari, Mohsen Rezaii) and the extremist groups (Jennati, Mesbah, IRGC, Basij).

Ziba Kalam is helping the reformist fundamentalists in this interview.

Ziba Kalam is not saying that the Shah was not a dictator, or that he supports the Shah’s dictatorship. He is saying that the people joined the revolution because they wanted FREEDOM in 1979. So, the current struggle is a continuation of the struggle for FREEDOM that began with the Constitutional Revolution and in the 1979 Revolution. Had the Constitutional Revolution succeeded, there would be no revolution in 1979, because the people would already have FREEDOM. And the implication is that the 1979 did not give the people what they wanted (FREEDOM) and that is why they are continuing their struggle. And a further implication is if Khamenei does not accept FREEDOM, what happened to Mohammad Reza Shah in 1979 will happen to him soon.

5. "Kuwait misheh" is an old slang term (used in the early 1970s) which means it becomes wonderful. In the early 1970s, a lot of high quality goods were available in Kuwait at low prices. It could be used in several ways. If someone was doing well, it was said "vazesh Kuwait shod."


What does it take to say I made a mistake?

by benross on

He keeps calling it -rightly- Islamic revolution. Yet he attributes some demands to this revolution which where inherently opposite to its nature. What people wanted, notably freedom, could only be asked from a secular entity, therefore no revolution at all. Certainly no Islamic revolution at all.

He is far from admitting his guilt in my book... but what's new there?!

What does it take to say I made a mistake? Ordinary people said it years ago. Pseudo intellectuals are far behind.. as usual.

Farah Rusta

Apologist in Angony

by Farah Rusta on

We have a saying for it "ozr-e bad tar az gonaah"

To suggest that in 1979, the so called intellectuals like Ziba Kalam did not know that Islam would abolish their freedom instead of enhancing it, is worse than admitting that they got it wholly wrong. His agony in coming up with an excuse is too obvious. 




Darius-e Aziz Agree with most of the basis of your Essay, but...

by mehdi2009 on

Dear Darius,

ZibaKalam is more likely saying: "Che Ghalati Kardeem in Hayoola ro bar pa kardeem".

I agree with the crux of your Essay, however the 2 countries of  Denmark and Belgium were Monarchies both during World War I and II. The following were extracted from Wikipedia Encyclopedia to further demonstrate these:

In Case of Denmark

During the German occupation, King Christian X became a powerful symbol of national sovereignty.

The Nazi occupation of Denmark unfolded in a unique manner. The conditions of occupation started off very leniently (although the authorities banned Danmarks Kommunistiske Parti (the Communist party) when the Wehrmacht invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941), and Denmark retained its own government. The new coalition government tried to protect the population from Nazi rule through compromise. The Germans allowed the Folketing to remain in session, the police remained under Danish control, and the German authorities stayed one step removed from the population. However, the Nazi demands eventually became intolerable for the Danish government, so in 1943 it resigned and Germany assumed full control of Denmark. After that point, an armed resistance movement grew against the occupying forces. Toward the end of the war, Denmark grew increasingly difficult for Germany to control, but the country remained under occupation until the end of the war in May 1945.

Denmark succeeded in smuggling most of its Jewish population to Sweden in 1943 when the Nazis threatened deportation; see Rescue of the Danish Jews.

In case of Belgium:

Invasion of Belgium by Nazi Germany (see Battle of Belgium) started on May 10, 1940 under the operational plan Fall Gelb and formed part of the greater Battle of France together with invasions of the Netherlands and Luxembourg. The Belgians put up a short lived resistance and it took three weeks of fighting before the country was subdued. The Belgian king surrendered on May 28. The King remained in Belgium during the war. 

A dispute over King Léopold III's conduct during World War II caused civil uprisings, and eventually led to his abdication in 1951 following a statewide referendum. In Flanders they voted in favor of his return (Yes), in Wallonia against (No) (especially the provinces of Liège, Hainaut and the present-day Walloon Brabant; Namur and Luxembourg being split about 60 (Yes)/40 (No)), 58% of No in Wallonia, 70% of Yes in Flanders, 51% of No in Brussels. Although he narrowly won the referendum, the militant socialist movement in Liège, Hainaut and other urban centres incited major protests and strikes. Because of the probability of the escalation of the conflict, Léopold III abdicated on July 16, 1951 in favour of his 20-year-old son Baudouin.

During Leopold's exile in Switzerland (1945–1950), Prince Charles of Belgium acted as the regent.

Now with regard to Spain I am completely in agreement with you, as Dictator Franco was the defacto Regent until his death in 1975, and wisdom of King Juan Carlos along with his fabulous wife Queen Sofia saved Spain both from Fascism, anarchy and more importantly return to either communism or Right Wing Dictatorship.

All I am saying is that people in Iran have a desire for a Free and Fair Referendum like they did in Belgium (Free and Fair: these words that are foreign to the Mullah's Murderous Regime), and if they chose Constitutional Monarchy as their choice, then so be it.

Salutations to All the TRUE Sons and Daughters of Iran. 



Dear D.K.

by ghalam-doon on

I have no problem with monarchy in Iran as long as the monarch is simply "his majesty" or "her majesty." As long as he is the "Shah" pure and simple. As long as he is not "Khodaayegaan, alaahazrat homaayoon shahanshah aryaamehr." We cannot just ignore our  history and hope for the best. We love to idolize our leaders, whether it is the Shah or "Rahare aalighadre enghelaabe eslami." And you know where all this idolization will lead. It will lead to dictatorship. Under a republican system, there's a better chance that we wont go back to our old habits. There is a better chance that the president will remain in their office and look after their ceremonial role and when their term is over, They'll be replaced in a democratic election.

Darius Kadivar

ghalam-doon Jaan I will tell you why since You ask ;0)

by Darius Kadivar on

To begin with when you are refering to the European countries which are Republics today France Set aside all including the Republics went through a Restoration.

Restoration is about Mending what can be mended in societies which already had a Framework that existed prior to a cataclysm. If those Countries had been Monarchies they would have restored them as Constitutional Monarchies for that matter ...

For instance Germany was already a Republic prior to the advent of the Nazis who by the way won the elections democratically. What was restored after the fall of the Nazis was precisely that Secular Republic which they had prior to the War but it was only truly applied to Western Germany and Not to the Other Half which called itself a Democratic Republic by the way and was anything but Democratic and under the Soviet Dictate. And it had to wait until the Reunification to achieve a Federal Republic on it's entire Territory with the fall of the Berlin Wall.

If you look at other European Republics other than France situated in Eastern Europe for instance again most of these countries were Republics before the advent of communism. Poland for instance ( which even today had a Royal Flag with the Eagly and the Crown while being a Republic) was a republic prior to WW2 and if I am not mistaken prior or after WWI the entire Austro Hungarian Empire fell into parts and led to the Balkanization of Europe ( something that proved disastrous consenquences because it led to WW2 and continued to create all types of sessessionist demands in subsequent years which gave an argument to Hitler to annexe Austria and the Sudets ).

All the "Artificially" created Balkan States after the Treaty of Versailles were fragile entities with no identity and we saw how even Tito's Yougoslavia fell apart in the mid 1990 with that terrible War that led even to an ethnic cleaning on behalf of the serbes against the Croats.

Other than France and Germany The Most stable democracies to this day in Europe are Constitutional Monarchies. They also happen to be the most progressive and the Swedish Social democracy is something that has been copied and refered to as a model which is even inspiring Obama's Social Security Policy today despite the fact that America is a federal Republic.

All East European Countries which have all declared a Republic after the Fall of the Communist Regimes today are struggling with their own identities and earnestly trying to achieve a stable democracy in order to join the European Market. Yet they are faced with a rise in nationalist and Neo Nazi Racist groups because beyond their economic troubles of reconstructing their nation from the rubble left by Communist mismanagement they are first and foremost faced with dissillusement and frustrations that they have been humiliated by 70 years of communism that took away their identity and self dignity as a nation. In the abscence of a King their Presidential Republics appear as artificial and at odds with their own often glorious past. I would argue that Many of these nationalistic movements would be marginalized in their demands were thse countries run under a Constitutional Monarchy because the institution and the King or Queen that embodies is often respected as a symbol of national Unity.

A monarchy is NOT an Ideology ! It never seeks to export itself as the islamic Republic has. The Shah in the entire reign never engaged in any war other than the three Strategic islands of the Persian Gulf. The Empire did not seek to extend as it had under prevous dynasties but maintained Iran's territorial integrity.

For instance it is not because I am a monarchist that for that I believe that France should abolish the Republic and bring back the heir to the last beheaded King of France ! No more than I would advocate a Republic for Great Britain.

Both have lasted the Test of Time and are Perfectly Democratic based on their own historical evolution. One should respect them on those grounds and respect the will of the people who have decided to maintain it that way.

Of course You will always find exceptions to the rule but that does not mean that one form of a Democratic system is better than the other and vice versa.

For instance In drafting his document on the Constitution of a Secular Republic David ET Argues that No European Monarchy was restored in the 20th Century. What about Spain, Belgium, or Denmark ? All were restored during the last 20th century and Spain as late as 1976.

In the case of Spain it is all the more Remarkeable that this was done after more than half a century (so what is 30 years of an Islamic Republic in a country with 25 centuries of a monarchical system that has shaped it's identity albeit under differnet dynasties). It went through a Civil War and a Fascist Dictatorship before being Restored with Juan Carlos on whom no one bid on his success.

Iran with 25 centuries of an Institution Stands Higher in comparison to the 30 years of this religious Republic that only reminds them of how better off they were before.

Even the argument that the Pahlavis were a young dynasty falls short for the Swedish and Belgian Dynasties are quite young and in the case of Sweden it chose a French General Bernadot from Napoleon's Army to do the job and become their King.

Our Crown Prince Reza is at least Iranian !

You cannot build a Nation on AMNESIA !

Other than that well go ahead who is stopping you to look for a President in who ever you want ? 

I prefer to look for a future Prime Minister.




hamsade ghadimi

surreal tv

by hamsade ghadimi on

is this guy indirectly making the case for the current uprising in iran?  it's surreal what he describes as the underlying factors of 1979 revolution (not islamic) to what is going on now.

Darius Kadivar

FYI/shahbanou farah pahlavi mosahebe ba voa jan 15 2010

by Darius Kadivar on

shahbanou farah pahlavi mosahebe ba voa jan 15 2010:


I love this place!

by ghalam-doon on

Whenever someone tries to start a meaningful dialogue, some people come along and say something totally unrelated and then the original discussion and the point that the person in this program was trying to convey are forgotten.

Ziba Kalam is basically saying the same thing that Mousavi said in his last interview. I partially agree with D.K. People are beginning to realize that perhaps Bakhtiar's vision for future form of government was a better one. But that was more than 30 years ago. Things have changed. Whether we like it or not, most Iranians have a distant memory of monarchy or no memory at all. There are still people over 50 who think of the glory of the past. I don't see the point of recreating a system of government that its time has passed even in Europe. The question is why not a republic like many European Republics where the head of state has only a ceremonial role.

Darius Kadivar

SAVAK_1 Since your Such a Smart Ass ...

by Darius Kadivar on

How are you going to maintain the country together once the regime is toppled ? With more Bloodshed and a tight Grip on Power through a Republican SAVAK issuing Guillotines to behead anyone who opposes your views ?

That pattern has been tested time and again in the entire Middle East and Third World countries where the Republic has installed Power Hungry Generals or Wannabe demagogues in Power in the form of Republican Dynasties.

You are Mistaken to dismiss the Monarchy as an Institution in Iran. 

I can guarantee You that a Republic may indeed trigger hope for a democratic Iran on the short term but it will not keep IRan United for long and most probably lead to a disintegrated Iran with Kurds and Balouthces demanding independance. How are you going to stop them ? In the eyes of these populations the Monarchy has been less hostile to them than the Islamic Republic in the past 30 years.

They will welcome a Republic only to demand Autonomy in return. You may explain it to them in coherent terms but their hostility to central government is well know and they will consider the new wave of Freedom as a promise to set their own demands.

They will be less hostile with a Restoration given their own historical ties with IRan despite periods of misunderstanding with even the Imperial Era.

But Kurds like Baloutch are Proud People, the same for Azeris. If you end a Status Quo you will have to appear VERY CONVINCING as a Leader of a Nation to keep them Loyal to the government.

I can guarantee you that the minute Iranians will declare a Secular Republic even democratic, the Kurds and Balouch will demand autonomy if not separaticism maybe even encourage in that by neighbouring countries and particularly left wing groups.

The IRI has been killing off Kurds more than ever before in the last months on various pretexes by carrying various executions.

Only the Prestige of the Royal Institution can maintain the country together and give back to the country it's self identity and dignity.

DIPLOMATIC HISTORY: Shah of Iran Grants Assylum to Kurdish Prince Dawood Beg Jaff (1958)

The Restoration of the Monarchy but in a Parlimentary form and therefore Democratic like in Great Britain, or Spain is an opportunity that can guarantee a national reconciliation particularly after 30 years of this corrupt regime.

It may not be the most perfect system but it is one that Iranians Still respect and probably will even more if implanted correctly and given it's chance.  It is the Framework that will guarantee Iranians with the best chance to achieve their goals of Freedom and individual rights while keeping in mind the importance of Unity over disintegration and Anarchy.

To dismiss it on grounds of prejudice and misunderstanding of the concept of the Constitutional Movement is not only wrong but Foolish.

For there Can be No Nation building by Denying it's past and it's historical identity.

Shapour Bakhtiar Said it Best below and I fully share his assessment as well as those of the man I consider as the Legitimate Crown Prince of a Dynasty and Institution I want to see Restored in my country.

You are free to think otherwise and I won't try and Hang You for that matter. 

My Humble BUT FIRM Opinion,







Calling for reality

by SAVAK_1 on

Not calling for Death calls....just noting reality of their demise.

Savak was a security organization; no diifferent than MI-5, CIA, and KGB.  They had their place and uses; and no different than abu graib, northern island and putins torture today.

We hung the Nazi's at Nuremburg; nobody called those 'death calls'. 

Happy to have UN observe at the gallows, if that makes you feel better.

Savak strikes fear in the heart of Mullahs and for that has credit, forever. 

The monarchy has no credit or dignity left; 32 years of cowardice are apparent for all to see.  The people dying each day must be given credit, and they will succeed not deluded theoretical armchair apologists.


Darius Kadivar

SAVAK_1 Please Refrain From Death Calls ...

by Darius Kadivar on

There is nothing to be proud about the SAVAK and I don't think you will do Credit to the Monarchy by claiming pride in that institution however it may have had it's necessity with some of the thugs who are ruling Iran today.

A Restoration if the people chose it as an option and which I believe they will do ultimately will require a national Reconciliation from all sides and from all walks of society.

Revenge does Not rhyme with Restoration Nor can it pave the way for our country towards Democracy and Human Rights for which Iranian constitutionalists have been calling for more than a 100 years.

Human Rights has been one of the Foundations on which the Persian Empire was build Upon and I am confident that it is on that Basis that the Monarchy will be Restored in Our Country in a Truly Constitutional Form sooner or later, but not through more bloodshed but a national reconciliation.

Googoosh & Mehrdad Shenasname Man:




Mullahs will hang

by SAVAK_1 on

Saddam hung.....with his Republican Guard and Baath Party

The Mullahs know they will hang, and very soon.

They Castrated Hoveydda and put his body parts in his mouth.....same is coming for them.



little by little they are apologizing for the revolution

by mahmoudg on

they are admitting the mistakes for this revolution, soon we will see that they will apologize for the revolution and admit that what was replaced was not bad after all.


I don`t know what to make of this!

by Benyamin on

As far as I know the only reason people revolted against the Shah was "Freedom" and Khomeini in fact betrayed them all.

Do you remember the famous saying Khomeini said? I believe it was about the kind of governing after the revolution and he said "if the entire country say right I say left" meaning it has to be what I say!!!

And that is how Grinch stole the revolution.

The clergy may have been the big part of the 1979 revolution but they were not nearly all of it and yet they managed to steal the freedom and ration it amongst their own kids and close family members. 

Darius Kadivar

Ziba Kallam is Too intelligent for these fellows to admit it

by Darius Kadivar on

and say openly:

"Azizam Ma Dar Enghlelabeh '79 Gomrah Shodeem" 

So He is trying hard to put the revolution in a coherent historical context in order to explain why it went wrong or rather why it went in the wrong direction that what it aimed at first. Where he gets it wrong is that the Revolution got it Wrong from the Very Start and particularly starting with the leaders of this revolution. Obviously he cannot say it directly so he goes at length to try and explain that Khomeiy's ideas were a prolongation of those of the 1906 Revolution. A simple lecture of the Tozihol Moaref :

Farokhzad explaining excerpts of Khomeiny's Green Book tozyhol Massael:

Or Even Ali Shariati as explained in The Trap BBC:

This Proves that the Revolution of 1979 in it's demands was at odds with the 1906 Secularist and progressive ideas. It merely Interrupted that process by demanding the end to the monarchy.  

As such he is Entirely Wrong in his reading of the roots of the Islamic Revolution and the parrallels he draws with the Constitutional Revolution of 1906. I don't think it is because he does not know it but because he cannot admit it so openly on an IRI TV but because he is more or less accepted as an Islamic Intellectual who is trying his best to put some coherence in the Islamic Republic's soul searching quest.

If what Ziba Kallam says were true then Iranians should not have demanded a Revolution and overthrow of the Shah but demand Reform as Shapour Bakhtiar was suggesting it from the very beginning but fell on deaf ears in Iranian society at large:

Actually I like Ziba Kallam's Analysis in that it precisely comforts my theories of a need for us to actually Restore the Monarchy but this time as a Truly Constitutional Monarchy and it would allow us to link back to the aspiration of the Constitutional Revolution of 1906. I think contrary to Ziba Kallam's claims that the Revolution of 1979 was actually the Unnecessary event that interrupted the Revolutionary ideas of 1906 to finally bare fruit and help domisticate the Monarchy into a truly Constitutional Monarchy it ultimately could have become and should have become like in Great Britain or European Monarchies with the death of the Shah and his succession by a young an inexperienced Crown Prince Reza as King. That would have led to a more open society where the political parties could then thrive because of the vaccum left by the Shah's death from cancer and Iranian politicians and reformists like Bakhtiar would have been able to push for change from within the establishment very much like Khatami. In addition it would have had more chances to succeed because the Monarchy unlike the Islamic Republic is not founded on an ideology but a Dynasty. Unlike the curent Turbaned Dynasty the Pahlavis as much as the Qajars or other Iranian Dynasties did not wish to interfere in one's private lives or create a society based on dogmatic superstitions. That explains why the Constitutional Revolution actually was a victory in disguise for it imposed on the Qajar King to ultimately accept to have A Parliment and constitution ( even at the risk of ignoring it) but at least it was put on paper and put an end to a great degree that the King was above the law or that the King was entirely a Divine Ruler. Obviously this concept of a Constitutional Monarchy was new in a nation that for 25 centuries had been ruled by Absolute Kings whether they were benevolent or Tyrants. So the concept naturally needed time to mature and evolve in the right direction if our intelligenstia had understood how to use it as a legal and legitimate argument to limit the power of the King rather than demand irresponsibly the abolishment of the Monarchy and therefore jeapordize all the social liberties ( particularly for our women and their rights) that we had earned under the Pahlavi Kings. Had we been a little more pragmatic in our demands for Freedom than down right NAMAK NASHNAS as was the case of the Revolutionaries of 1979 ( many including the educated elite that had benefited from the Pahlavi's educational system and got to go abroad to study came back to become revolutionaries instead of being thankful for the opportunities they had aquired).

Obviously if Ziba Kallam had to say what I am saying here he would be immediately arrested.

CHAPOUR BAKHTIAR ON 'REGIME CHANGE' (14 khordad 1368 (5 august 1989)

But he is doing his best to give some coherence to his commendable efforts to justify the need to democratize the IRI into a Secular Republic but that means Reform of the Islamic Republc and we know today that it is impossible given the Illigitimacy that this regime has put itself into after the bloody clampdown and the fact that we are faced with dogmatic leaders and a clerical hierarchy which is hostile to change.

One of the reasons Khomeiy's early speaches are being censored by Press TV and other IRI medias today is that what he said in Paris and what he said after coming to Iran by saying to Bakhtiar's government "Man to Dahaneh Eeen Dolat Meezanam" proves how Wrong Ziba Kallam's claims that this Revolution was about Democracy and Freedom. That May have been the case for the Silent Majority that supported Bakhtiar But Certainly Not the case for Khomeiny and the majority of his supporters at the time.

LESSONS IN DEMOCRACY: Shapour Bakhtiar Interview with LA TV (1987)

They merely wanted the downfall of the Monarchy by Oghdeh, Frustration but essentially collective ignorance.

What IRan needed Was a Reforming the Monarchy into a purely Constitutional Monarchy ( and that is what Ziba Kallam admits to paradoxically and therefore contradicts his entire argumentation) and NOT a Revolution.

Sooner or later even Ziba Kallam who is an intelligent guy trying to put some coherence in the minds of these Thick Heads and Islamic Thugs and lost and clueless Islamic Intelligenstia because he cannot openly call for a Secular Republic or a Restoration ( given the Islamic Republic's disastrous record and inner contradictions that make the Revolution of 1979 anything to be proud of unlike the French Revolution or our own Constitutional Revolution of 1906 which had a legitimate demand and coherent progressive path):

Shapour Bakhtiar on the Annivesary of the 1906 Constitutional Revolution :

Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi has taken the Mantle where Bakhtiar Left it:

REZA's CALL: An Iranian Solidarnosc... By Darius KADIVAR

Reza Pahlavi's message on the Anniversary of the 1906 Constitutional Revolution in Iran:

I am confident We Shall Overcome. And People will understand why the Only path towards a National Reconciliaiton is the Restore the Constitution of 1906 and update it to our modern times and reinforce the separation of Religion and State but also clearly define the Constitutional Rights of the Iranian citizens that need to abide to the same Western models which have proved to have lasted the test of time and which guarantee both Human Rights and individual freedoms that are the minimum requirement to any democratic state.

A Restoration will reconcile our scars as a nation and help mend both the Errors of the past and help us regain our National Dignity and Identity as Iranians rather than prolong this hypocritical Schizophrenia that has been inflicting us as a nation under this unIranian Flag with an Arab Sickle.


Googoosh & Mehrdad Shenasname Man :

And I welcome Ziba Kallam to Join Us Constitutionalists in this common Battle Against the Iranian Inquisitional Republic and it's baseless Revolution which will certainly be refered to in Iranian History as a dark transitional bloody Interruption of a Secularist and constitutional process that began in 1906.


à bon entendeur, salut, ;0)



Behesht mishe, Kuwait mishe?

by Princess on

Really? Have I missed something??