Hypocrisy: Good in 1979, Bad in 2009


Anonymous Observer
by Anonymous Observer

Whenever there is news about the uprising in Iran, we have a flood of critics who pop up on this and other sites, on our TV screens and even in our emails and tell us how the movement in being infiltrated by this and that and how they are doing this and that wrong, etc.  To them, every nuance takes away from the purity of the movement and makes it a tool of western and other varieties of “evil-doers”. 

But let us compare this revolution with the 1979 revolution, and as you will see, the hypocrisy and the hidden agendas will become abundantly clear.

1979: Khomeini is living in Iraq, and is supported by the Ba’athist regime in Iraq as a tool against its archrival Iran. He has been out of Iran in exile for almost thirty years. Iraq has already been at war with Iran and has made no secret of its claims to Iranian territory.  Khomeini takes over the “leadership” of the revolution with the active participation and approval of leftist groups in Iran (who are now the dinosaur left )  No questions are raised about his long absence from Iran or that he may be “out of touch” with realities of Iran.  Also, no questions are ever (to this day) raised about his connection to the Iraqi regime.  Khomeini then decimates the Iranian military, giving Iraq the green light to attack Iran.

2009: The dinosaur left and their cohorts attack anyone and any support that comes out of exiled groups, calling them foreign agents (simply because they live outside of Iran in exile) and out of touch with the reality in Iran because, just like Khomeini, they have been living outside of Iran for the past thirty years in exile.  This is notwithstanding the fact that unlike Khomeini’s era, the information age has made being in touch with Iran and obtaining news out of Iran, much easier.  Reza Pahlavi (who I do not support) and others are accused of being AIPAC agents (with absolutely no evidence) and are accused (again with no evidence) of being Israeli agents who want to create chaos so that Israel could attack Iran.  The claim is there cannot possibly be a suitable leader for Iran coming out of the exile community.

1979: Khomeini and his agents appear more than 400 times on foreign media, using it as a platform to gather support and get his message out.  Those appearances are encouraged and applauded by the usual suspects as an effective tool to topple Shah’s regime.  There is no mention of “Zionist” controlled western media.  The same Zionist controlled western media is also encouraged to report from Iran by the same people so that “people’s voice” can be heard.  The BBC is haled as the most unbiased news outlet because it (through its former socialist “news anchors” such as Khonji) gives the most lip service to Khomeini.

2009: Opposition leaders who appear on foreign media are accused—by the usual suspects--of being agents of the “west” who are being used by Zionist controlled foreign media to foment unrest and chaos in Iran so that…what else…Israel could attack Iran and prevent it from achieving greatness in its nuclear program.  BBC becomes the number one enemy for its coverage of the uprising in Iran, and is called the biggest imperialist tool.

1979:  Use of violence against the Shah is universally encouraged by all groups involved in the revolution.  People are encouraged to fight the army street to street, storm government buildings, radio and television stations and army bases.   

2009:  When people respond to oppression, beatings, killings, rapes, torture and to their organs being harvested in IRI’s prisons, they are admonished and are told not to use violence and to simply “peacefully” demonstrate (even though the brutal IRI shows equal brutality against peaceful demonstrators) until somehow this military dictatorship succumbs to a Gandhi like figure!

Last, but not the least:

1979: Every single death in any demonstration is blamed on the Shah and his army, the dead are called martyrs, with endless “hafeth” and “chelleh”, and no one ever thinks about conducting an “investigation” of how someone was shot to death at the demonstrations, even though there were many armed demonstrators from various groups with axes to grind against each other in those demonstrations.

2009: Neda Agha Soltan is shot and murdered in cold blood as she is at a demonstration.  A Basij agent is captured by the people as the shooter, and is heard saying “I didn’t mean to kill her”.  But the usual suspects call the death “suspicious” and ask for an “investigation”.  The death is even blamed on the BBC and Dr. Arash Hejazi, who attempted to save the young woman’s life in her dying moments.

See the hypocrisy and the double standard folks?  Now you know!


Recently by Anonymous ObserverCommentsDate
The 1979 Devolution Was The Perfect Fit For Iranians
Nov 24, 2012
Bring Dr. Mohandes & Vildemose Back!!!
Nov 08, 2012
Iranian.com, David Duke or "Storm Front?"
Oct 12, 2012
more from Anonymous Observer

Good job Jamshid, fair, and

by vildemose on

Good job Jamshid, fair, and ao. Thanks.


Fair and Anonymous Observer

by jamshid on

Khomeini was indeed corrupt and a charlatan. I think a prostitute who robs her customers has more honor than this atrocity of a man called khomeini.

By the way, notice how Q cowardly vanished when challenged with his idols' lies. As always he refuses to answer my questions. At least he knows when it's time to grab his tail and walk away.

Anonymous Observer

Thanks Jamshid

by Anonymous Observer on

for the Khomeini quotes.  What a charlatan!  Perhaps the only good thing that may come out of the 1979 devolution is that people now know (or at least should know) what mullahs are all about.  They bamboozeled the people for centuries to ascend to power.  But they quickly showed their evil nature, ensuring that when they're gone, they will never be taken seriously again (at least we hope).   


Thank you Jamshid

by Fair on

for reminding readers of this Iranian Rasputin's corruption on earth and lying in the name of religion. The fact that this man has any support among Iranians is ridiculous. He has done absolutely nothing for Iran but damage, both domestically and internationally. The majority of Iranians today are too young to be fully aware of this charlatan's lies, and we must be wary of any similar lies being waged today. Lies such as those from the "reformist" camp that aim to disconnect this person from the excesses of today. He is THE reason for these excesses- he architected such a system, a system which cannot be reformed. 

This is precisely the reason a democratic republic in which religion is separate from politics is necessary. A person who gains the trust of the people at any point in history cannot be entitled to hold power indefinitely, in any name. When religion enters the game, things become much more corruptible as we see today, in one of the world's most backward social and political systems, which continues to hold an entire nation of bright, enlightened people hostage.




Cy Arya


by Cy Arya on

Well said, and 100% agreed. Isn't this Q character the same one who once sent pornography (picture of a "big dick") to a female blogger, who has a husband and a newborn? If so, I suggest not waiting for his unworthy response, which doesn't seem to be forthcoming anyway.


Q, more from your idol Khomeini...

by jamshid on

To make things worst, the Shah's regime had banned Khomeini's books in Iran. This lack of access, plus khomeini's clever lies set the stage for my father's and my own generation to be so easily decieved by khomeini, the embodiment of regression and evil.

A few examples from Khomeini's own book: 

Khomeini: "A man can have sex with animals such as sheeps, cows, camels and so on. However, he should kill the animal after he has his orgasm. He should not sell the meat to the people in his own village; however, selling the meat to the next door village should be fine." Tozih ol masael

Khomeini: "If one commits the act of sodomy with a cow, an ewe, or a camel, their urine and their excrements become impure, and even their milk may no longer be consumed. The animal must then be killed and as quickly as possible and burned." Tozih ol Masael

Q, by supporting Khomeini, you have disgraced yourself to the level of his mentality, a mentality that is shown in the above quotes from his book. There are many more, some worst than what you just read. Since there may be non-Iranians who may be reading this post, I feel ashamed to include anymore.

Khomeini represents the sweage dumpster of man's mind and intellect on earth. And you support and defend him. Not that I mind, but where does that take you?


Now Q...

by jamshid on

Now Q, after reading my previous two posts, do you see why Khomeini became popular? Do you now see the means of his popularity which you brag about? Was it not his intentional lies and his treacherous deceptions that paved the way for his popularity?

Do you think if Khomeini had told the truth about his real views, those views that he so cowardly and brutaly implemented after grabing the power, he would have still been as "popular" in 1979 as you claim he was?

And so here was the other "half" of the truth, the half you cleverly ignore. It does make a big difference when the whole truth is spoken instead of only half of it, does it not, Q? Do you now see why half truths, your favorite argument tool, can be the most clever lies in disguise?

I also want to ask you, what is your personal opinion about these sample of khomeini's lies that he made to the Iranian public?

And don't disgrace yourself dodging these questions by saying things like, "you are not worth an answer", or by your other similar failed methods of saving face. Be a man for once and answer the questions, not to me, but facing the mirror and answering them to yourself.



by jamshid on

Here are some more of khomeni's lies that made him popular: <i 

در ایران اسلامی علما خودشان حکومت نخواهند کرد و فقط ناظر و هادی امور خواهند بود. خود من نیز هیچ مقام رهبری نخواهم داشت و از همان ابتدا به حجره تدریس خود در قم برخواهم گشت.
مصاحبه با خبرگزاری رویتر، نوفل لوشاتو، 5 آبان 1357

در جمهوری اسلامی کمونیستها هم در بیان عقید خود آزاد خواهند بود.
مصاحبه با سازمان عفو بین الملل، نوفل لوشاتو، 10 نوامبر 1978

در جمهوری اسلامی زنان در همه چیز حقوقی کاملاً مساوی با مردان خواهند داشت.
مصاحبه با روزنامه گاردین، نوفل لوشاتو، 1 آبان 1357

در حکومت اسلامی رادیو، تلوزیون، و مطبوعات مطلقاً آزاد خواهند بود و دولت حق نظارت بر آنها را نخواهد داشت.
مصاحبه با روزنامه پیزا سره، نوفل لوشاتو، 2 نوامبر 1978

در منطق اینها آزادی یعنی به زندان کشیدن مخالفان، سانسور مطبوعات و اداره دستگاههی تبلیغاتی. در این منطق تمدن و ترقی یعنی تبعیت تمام شریان های مملکت از فر هنگ و اقتصاد و ارتش و دستگاه های قانونگذاری و قضایی و اجرایی از یک مرکز واحد. ما همه اینها را از بین خواهیم برد.
سخنرانی برای گروهی از دانشجویان یرانی در اروپا، نوفل لوشاتو، 8 آبان 1357

ما همه مظاهر تمدن را با آغوش باز قبول داریم.
سخنرانی برای گروهی از ایرانیان، نوفل لوشاتو، 19 مهر 1357

برای همه اقلیت های مذهبی آزادی بطور کامل خواهد بود و هر کس خواهد توانست اظهار عقیده خودش را بکند.
کنفرانس مطبوعاتی، نوفل لوشاتو، 9 نوامبر 1978

نه رغبت شخصی من و نه وضع مزاجی من اجازه نمی دهند که بعد از سقوط رژیم فعلی شخصاً نقشی در اداره امور مملکت داشته باشم.
مصاحبه با خبرگزاری اسوشیتد پرس، نوفل لوشاتو، 17 نوامبر 1978

دولت اسلامی ما یک دولت دموکراتیک به معنی واقعی خواهد بود. من در داخل ین حکومت هیچ فعالیتی برای خودم نخواهم داشت.
مصاحبه با تلوزیون NBC ، نوفل لوشاتو، 11 نوامبر 1978

من نمی خواهم رهبر جمهوری اسلامی آینده باشم. نمی خواهم حکومت یا قدرت را بدست بگیرم.
مصاحبه با تلوزیون اتریش، نوفل لوشاتو، 16 نوامبر 1978

پس از رفتن شاه من نه رییس جمهور خواهم شد، نه هیچ مقام رهبری دیگری را به عهده خواهم گرفت.
مصاحبه با روزنامه لموند، نوفل لوشاتو، 9 ژانویه 1979



by jamshid on

You are a clever arguer who talently twists the truth to his advantage. You do this by using targeted "half" truths to prove your arguments. In many corners, speaking half truths are considered to be the same than "clever" lying. <i

As an example of the above, you are basing many of your arguments and comparisons in this blog on the fact that "Khomeini was popular among the people in 1979." <i

This is a lie that is cleverly cloaked with a half truth. You don't seem to care about the other half, do you? <i

Let's talk a bit about the other half of the truth. It has to do with WHY khomeini became so popular. He became popular because he lied through his teeths and he was a master of deception. Here are a few examples of his lies that made him popular in the first place: <i

بشر در اظهار نظر خودش ازاد است (1)

مطبوعات در نشر همه حقایق و واقعیات ازادند.(2)

شکل حکومت ما جمهوری است، جمهوری به معنای این که متکی به ارای اکثریت است.(3)

اختیارات شاه را نخواهم داشت(4)

من هیچ سمت دولتی را نخوهم پذیرفت.(5)

من چنین چیزی نگفته ام که که روحانیون متکفل حکومت خواهند شد،روحانیون شغلشان چیز دیگری است.(6)

حکومت اسلامی ما اساس کار خود را بر بحث و مبارزه با هر نوع سانسور خواهد گذاشت.(7)

قانون این است،عقل این است.حقوق بشر این است که سرنوشت هر ادمی باید به دست خودش باشد.(8)

در حکومت ما اگر کسی از شخص اول مملکت شکایتی داشته باشد،پیش قاضی می رود و قاضی او را احضار می کند و او هم حاظر می شود.(9)

ما حکومتی را می خواهیم که برای این که یکدسته می گویند مرگ بر فلان کس،انها را نکشند.(10)

اقلیت های مذهبی به بهترین و جه از تمام حقوق خود برخوردار خواهند بود.(11)

زن ها در حکومت اسلامی ازادند و حقوق ان ها مثل حقوق مردها است.(12)

از یهودیانی که به اسراییل رفته اند دعوت می کنیم به وطن خود بازگردند،با ان ها کمال خوشرفتاری خواهد شد.(13)

اولین چیزی که برای انسان هست ازادی بیان است.(14)



گفتگو با خبرنگاران در پاریس،11 ابان 1357 -1

2-گفتگو با خبرنگاران در پاریس،11 ابان 1357،صحیفه نور،جلد 4،ص 266

3-صحیفه نور،جلد2،صفحه 517

4-گفتگو با خبرنگاران در پاریس،24 دی 1357

5-گفتگو با خبرنگاران،12 آبان1357

6-صحیفه نور،جلد 3،صفحه 140-26 دی 1357 در پاریس

7-در مصاحبه با خبرگزاری رویترز،4 آبان 1357

8-مصاحبه با خبرگزاری ها،1/11/1357

9-مصاحبه با خبرگزاریها 17 آبان 1357 در پاریس

10-مصاحبه با خبرنگاران،12 آبان 1357 در پاریس

11-مصاحبه با روزنامه اشپیگل،16 آبان 1357 در پاریس

12-صحیفه نور،جلد 5،صفحه 70

13-سخنرانی اختصاصی ،1 دی ماه 1357 در پاریس

14-سخنرانی 5 آبان 1357 در پاریس


You can't be dictator and

by benross on

You can't be dictator and allow debate and exchange of ideas.

Exactly my point! Their power base is looking for justification, not emotionally and hatefully, but rationally -for themselves. Not all of them, but a good part of them. This weakens the authority of the regime over its power base. There is nothing left of that 'ideological' cause. Onlyiran had a good blog on that.

You don't debate with IRI, it's base does.


AO, I agree with you. I was referring to a deeper rift specific

by oktaby on

to Iran and will blog about it one of these days and we can discuss. Religion and freedom do not mix but to the extent that large number of people do believe various religions, any democracy must keep it within tight wraps. That does not mean dictating but keeping religion out of public arena by law and mandate.


Anonymous Observer

Fair & VPK

by Anonymous Observer on


Great points.  as to your question:

 "Just out of curiousity, I was wondering, what is the "left"'s stance on China and Russia today, given their staunch support for murder and rape committing government of Iran? If the US gives diplomatic cover for Israel in the UN, we will never hear the end of it. What about when China or Russia use their veto power to protect Iran, and their silence on human rights abuses in Iran?"

The answer is simple.  They rejoice every time they see Russia attack someone.  I don't have the time to research it now, but I clearly recall how they were jumping with joy on this site when Russia attacked Georgia a couple of years ago, and how it put an end to "west"'s ambitions in the region.  Also, while we have a million articles about Israel / Palestine on this site, have you ever seen one about Chechnya and Russia's massacres there?  Aren't they Muslims?!!!


I am a liberal myself, and voted for Obama.  But the left that I'm talking about are the antique former socialists in Iran who are still living in their 1960's and 1970's bubble, and who are still trying to salvage their revolution at all costs.     

Anonymous Observer


by Anonymous Observer on

I hope that you're right.  But I don't think that the IRI is interested in debate.  Debate will cause their demise.  In my opinion, a dictatorship is a zero sum game.  You can't be dictator and allow debate and exchange of ideas.   If you want to govern as a one person (or one party) ruler, you have to go all the way.  Kind of like Mubarak in Egypt, or Saudi Arabia.  If you don't, you will have a problem.  The best example of this is IRI's allowance of debates and street protests before the June elections.  That was the single biggest miscalculation by the IRI (which had been pretty shrewed until then). 

Anonymous Observer


by Anonymous Observer on

I agree with you on the cultural conflict in Iran.  But I think that conflict, in and of itself, is a product of politicization of religion from the Safavids forward.  Whenever you have a religious based governance, you will see the excesses and the inevitable backlash, which manifests itself in various forms, such as nationalism, socialism, etc.  While everyone on this site know about the problems that I have with Islam (and religions in general), I believe that if we have a secular, popularly elected government in Iran which concentrates its efforts not on propaganda (one form or the other) but rather on bettering the lives and welfare of its citizens, all of these inner conflicts will subside.    

Anonymous Observer

Hovakh and Maziar

by Anonymous Observer on

Hovakh: you bring up some excellent points.  And I agree with you about the loss of two generations.  And that's not even considering the brain drain of the past 30 years through executions, exiles and people simply leaving the country for want of freedom and opportunity.  

Anonymous Observer


by Anonymous Observer on

great point about France.  isn't it strange that when things got a little hot for Iraq to handle, and in the middle of what seemed the inevitable ascend of Khomeini as the leader of Iran's revolution, France decided to give him a "tourist visa" and allow him refuge there?  Did it offer the same for Shah, the great "ally" of the "west" when he needed a place to go?  

Anonymous Observer

Shazdeh and AI

by Anonymous Observer on


Great and concise analysis.  Like you said, the problem with the Shah was that he forgot that most Iranians were uneducated, religious people.  To avoid insulting anyone, I wouldn't call them riffraffs. There were partially the victim of Shah's ignorance themselves, and I will get to that in a moment.  See, you are very correct in saying that Shah wanted to advance Iran, but "Iran" in his image was the big cities.  He entirely ignored the majority of the population which lived in rural areas.  He could have invested in a few roads in a few villages, a health clinic, a high school, plumbing, electricity, etc...trust me, my family comes from a village.  I know how it was back then.  Education would have been his best savior.  While I understand that he hated intellectuals and he saw them as a threat against his rule, we're talking about basic education, elementary, high school, etc.  But he didn't invest in any such thing, thereby giving mullahs and socialists the perfect talking points to rile up the populace.  In that regard, he was extremely ignorant of the "on the ground" situation as you call it.  The reverse of the same thing is happening to the IRI.  Khamenei and his mafia are ignorant of how educated and politically liberated today's Iranians are.  In a sense, they are pushing 1970's propaganda in 2009, and that simply does not fit.  And hopefully they will become victims of their own ignorance as well.


You are absolutely correct about the votes in 1979.  They are totally irrelevant.  First and foremost, they were taken at the height of revolutionary fever.  Second, no one really bothered to research what "velayat-e-faghih" really meant.  Ask around and see how many people who voted for the Islamic Republic's constitution actually read it before casting their votes.  Third, do you remember the ballots?  There weren't really that many options.  The ballot read: Islamic Republic, Yes or No.:-)) what a way to select a governing system!  Plus, if you recall, the "Yes" was in huge green colored lettering and the red was in huge red color lettering.  So, when one tore up the piece to cast the vote, everyone could see what he / she was voting for, and therein lies the element of fear.  

Lastly, lets assume that everyone voted for the IRI knowing and intelligently 30 years ago.  First, that population is almost entirely gone today.  The Iranian population is 70% under the age of 30 and many of the ones over 30 were children at the time.  So, almost none of Iran's population of today actually voted for this system.  But lets assume that they did.  That was before they knew about  executions, war, looting of the country, corruption, etc.  But now that they know, they should be allowed to change the system if they wish.  Lets have a referendum and see what happens.  


Anonymous Observer

Thanks everyone

by Anonymous Observer on

for the many great comments.  Unfortunately, I have been traveling and have not been able to respond to comments.  I may get a chance to do so later on tonight or tomorrow.  Thanks for your participation.


Imagine a Free and Prosperous Iran

by ptehrani on

Iran and Iranians deserve it!

Read my article at:






Ditto maziar 58. The bottomline is we lost 2 generations

by Hovakhshatare on

worth of progress, advancement and lost on just about every measureable front; while most of our 'competition' gained. Iran would be exporting to S.Korea not the other way around. The good news is we have the talent and capability to build Iran rather quickly, something others in our part of the world can't boast. Only if we can avoid the pitfalls that got us in this hellhole last time around.

maziar 58


by maziar 58 on

reguardless of who was right;''''''''

2 generations  got screwd up.

thanks reguardless.             Maziar


Dear benross: Khoda koneh. I

by vildemose on

Dear benross: Khoda koneh. I really truly hope so.


always the extremes

by Anonymoses on

either the west is evil, or islam is evil, your either a taghooti or a hizbollahi and so on and so forth...

the comments below exemplify what is wrong with iran-- embodied and even more intensified in its ex-patriates.


Iranians = Fools (in the past)

by AlexInFlorida on

Lets see if we are any wiser moving forward.

IRI may be Hypocrits, but they are good liars too.. That is their greatest strength.

Consider these... Shah is a Dictator, a Despot, A Crook, A Murderer...

Sounds like a Description of Mullahs to Me... and not even close to True Regarding the Shah.


The ignorance and

by benross on

The ignorance and stupidity are much higher among our people.

I tend to disagree.

I was watching a 'your turn' program on BBC Persian in which callers were debating about Ashura protests on both sides of the issue. You have to note two things: first, the pro IRI side was actually debating, second, he was bringing forward some 'reasoning', trying to make a rational point, and not ranting and slandering as we are more familiar with, here in IC debates!

Those ranting and slandering is just for the show out in the street. A power struggle, as a side show, for something else happening in the society underneath.


5. Number 4 has its roots

by vildemose on

5. Number 4 has its roots in the fact that over the last 500 years of Iranian history, along the same time as the flourishing of Western civilization, there has been none but a couple of brief and aborted periods of freedom of 'intellectual growth' in Iran.

6. Personally, I believe that the source of Shah's demise was not in his belief that 90% of Iran's populations at the time were ignorant riffraff - but in forgetting that fact!

7. Shah made the fatal mistake of believing his own lies; i.e. that Iran was at the "gates of a grand civilization" and that the general populace could and should be assumed and treated like that of a Western-minded country, specifically with respect to religious sensitivities and beliefs.

Precisely. Everyone should copy and save these comments. Thank you shazdeh jan.

I think as a society we have even regressed further than the Shah's era. There are more religiously brainwashed, detached from global progress people in Iran than it ever was during the Shah's time. The ignorance and stupidity are much higher among our people.

Artificial Intelligence

I like what you say Shazdeh and who cares about 90%

by Artificial Intelligence on

It make a lot of sense. Especially the Shah and Iran as his train set:))) Great way to describe it.

I also see no value in debating the fact that 90% voted for the Islamic Republic 30 years ago. That vote, like all other votes in the IRI were invalid simply because of the manner they were conducted and during the time which was conducted. 

Even my father, a Jew, voted Yes for the Islamic Republic; Something that was clearly against his interest. Why did he do it? Like many others, he was afraid. Also, many others did not understand what they were doing. The majority were simply fooled because of the propaganda that made an Imam out of a hateful disgusting person named Khomeini. I hope his moselume will soon be destroyed by the Iranian people. 

The ANtellectuals, who understood what was happening in 1979, betrayed Iran and the Iranian people. The Antellectuals, hated (rightfully)  the Shah for his absolute power. However, by voting yes and by supporting the concept of Velayat, they essentially created another Shah (an Islamic Shah) with a Turban. You see Khamenei's absolute power now. The brutality is 1000 degree worse because its justified with the use of Islam as a tool.The Antellectuals are silent about this brutality or disgustingly bring up the 90% vote to justify what is happening.

What is funny here is that the same people who supported the IRI back then, are to this day defending this 90% vote and using it as an argument to defend their actions back then and at the same time try to save the IRI as an entity today.

At the end I think Iran will have a brighter future. We got rid of the Monarchy and soon we will get rid of the Turban as a ruling entity in our society forever.  



Shazde Asdola Mirza

U R way too fast for an old fart like me - U don't sleep either!

by Shazde Asdola Mirza on


Well, being a slow writer and a reluctant debater; I go back to Q's comment of 01:07 AM PST, which merits a partial reply.

Quote from Q: ... exactly the same attitude that the Shah had, which was his undoing. It was this elitist language of "rifraf" versus "intellecturals".

1. People who knew the late Shah of Iran, can easily recall his utter disdain towards the intellectuals - or as he famously loved to call them: An (as in shit) Telek Choals.

2. Just like Khomeini, Shah attributed his absolute rein to the support of the Iranian masses, not to any political party or intellectual movement.

3. It has always been the Iranian intellectuals who have made up the core of the political dissent, during both the Shah and Khomeini. Our bunch can be loosely categorized as "anti-regime" - more or less no matter whatsoever form that regime has had; be it Qajar, Reza Pahlavi, the Shah or this IRI.

4. The reason why the Iranian elite and intellectuals have been mostly kept out of almost all the Iranian regimes, and hate all those regimes with a vengeance, is our elite's fundamental and continuing inability to form a coherent 'world-view' and political agenda.

5. Number 4 has its roots in the fact that over the last 500 years of Iranian history, along the same time as the flourishing of Western civilization, there has been none but a couple of brief and aborted periods of freedom of 'intellectual growth' in Iran.

6. Personally, I believe that the source of Shah's demise was not in his belief that 90% of Iran's populations at the time were ignorant riffraff - but in forgetting that fact!

7. Shah made the fatal mistake of believing his own lies; i.e. that Iran was at the "gates of a grand civilization" and that the general populace could and should be assumed and treated like that of a Western-minded country, specifically with respect to religious sensitivities and beliefs.

8. The root of 7 lied in Shah's unrelenting appetite for progress and advancement of Iran - mostly as HIS country. He was a very old-school monarch who saw Iran as his own - like a kid sees a model train toy-set as "his own". He wanted to plant trees here, build buildings there, erect universities everywhere, mass a huge modern army, navy and air force - with almost no regards to the real 'on the ground' situation in Iran.

9. The problem with 7/8 was the fact that Shah lost all the common touch with the Iranian masses (riffraff and AnTelekChoal alike). He went through some amazing stupid tangents (say Rastakhiz, 2500 year celebrations, Imperial Calendar) which were grand mistakes and more importantly, completely unnecessary for his regime.

10. Every country, from the IRI to the Imperial Shah, from the USA to the Soviet Union, from Nigeria to Switzerland, is ruled by the elite of that country. Only anarchy is ruled by the masses, which is a most unstable situation. The difference between a successful and a failed state, is whether: A- the elite can or cannot understand and manage the riffraff, B- the elite can or cannot understand the ‘real world’ outside their control, C- the elite in power can be altered/changed by the general will of the people.


Can islam & islamism coexist with Iran?

by oktaby on

Dear AO, thank you for starting an insightful blog that opens the door for other timely discussions. When belief and religion (or ideology) drive interpretion of the world little can be discussed or agreed on in any meaningful way. 'For those who believe there are no questions, and for those who don't there are no answers'. Specific to Iran, Khomeini/islamism followers will be disoriented if they acccept flaws and failures because by extention the whole belief system becomes questionable. That is why all religions have mastered the art explaining and justifying. They call it theology. Original islamism/khomeini voters will always be followers; if not of IRR then some form of islamism. The majority of Iranians who thought they voted for replacement of shah with democracy of some form, have long since understood what happened.

That deposing of Shah was a well planned global/West objective, as was bringing islamism to Iran. However, no islamist will ever accept that based on evidence or analytics as demonstrated here in your thread.

Those who believe islam, and islamism is some form, need to decide whether they are Iranian first or Moslem first. Iran & islam have very different objectives and priorities in life. While Iran can live with islam, the reverse is not true. Indeed, islam finds Iran and what makes Iran a great historic culture offensive and unacceptable. That is a historical dichotomy Iran has had to contend with since take over by islam and source of great many pains for the Iranian nation.




by Fair on

Vildemose, we don't.

The Iranian people were misled in 1979, and put their faith in the wrong person. This person knew very well how to maximally exploit the religious beliefs of Iranians to further his ideology, and did so without any shame at the expense of Iran and at least one generation of Iranians.

The Iranian people, like many other people in history who legitimately demanded change, made mistakes in our revolution and the strategy of how to bring about that change. Votes held 30 years ago cannot be used indefinitely as a license to continue a form of government without consulting the people AS THE FINAL DECIDER, and to continue oppressing the children and grandchildren of those who voted back then.

It was Khomeini's direct order to put "yes" or "no" as the choices in the IRI referendum. Such a poll is ludicrous to begin with before even defining what an Islamic Republic is. Today, Afghanistan and Pakistan are also Islamic Republics. So did the people vote for that?

Then comes the constitution. I cannot argue with that- the people who voted for this clearly made a mistake, as they had no concern at all about not separating mosque and state.

Today the people of Iran have learned the lesson that a nation can learn in no classroom, only by experience, and have said clearly, NO- this form of government is a mistake and we demand our universal human rights.

So it is safe to say that the referenda and votes of 30 years ago have expired and are null and void, no matter how legitimate or flawed they may have been back then. A new referendum with international observers is long overdue. And for reformers in Iran to continue to claim they are following Khomeini is to waste the sacrifice that is being made.

The people of Iran has spoken our will. Loud and clear. Everybody else can say whatever they want. It is just a matter of time.