1. Can’t even control rigged elections.
Prior to 1975, the Shah allowed two political parties—Mardom and Iran-e Novin—to compete in elections. Iranians called them the “yes” and “yes, sir” parties and elections were tightly choreographed. But then the Mardom Party won a few local elections they weren’t supposed to. The Shah worried it would become a focal point for real opposition, so he panicked and forced a one-party system on the nation, despite having previously written, “If I were a dictator rather than a constitutional monarch then I might be tempted to sponsor a single dominant party such as Hitler organized...” The result was an unmitigated disaster that further undermined his legitimacy.
Fast forward to Khamenei. One would think having the power to disqualify any political candidate at will would guarantee presidential election results that met with his satisfaction. Not so. In 1997, Khatami was an unwelcome surprise. In 2005, Ahmadinejad did well the first round only because of last-minute ballot stuffing designed to block a reform-oriented Karroubi presidency. And in 2009 Khamenei thought he was safe because he got Khatami not to run—the reformists would never rally around an old has-been like Mousavi…But of course, they did, so the regime panicked and cheated.
Why allow yourself to get saddled with Khatami and repeatedly resort to last-minute cheating when you can stack the deck before the game starts? To be sure there are complicated, behind-the-scenes power struggles going on, but Iran scholar Ervand Abrahamian also reminds us that, “One should never underestimate the role of stupidity in history.”
2. False confessions.
In the early 1970s, the Shah launched a crackdown on leftist opposition groups. Captured dissidents were usually tortured until they died or “confessed”. The “confessions” were typically videotaped stage-managed affairs in which the prisoner would admit to great wrongdoing, condemn their previous actions, and profess undying admiration for the Shah. The lucky ones got off with just being forced to write what at the time were called “shit-eating-letters”. Ayatollah Khomeini condemned the practice, and when he took power, allowed a prohibition against forced confessions to be written into the new constitution—and then promptly started torturing people and extracting forced confessions.
Khamenei is currently continuing this wretched practice, the latest example of which being the patently false confessions offered by haggard-looking reformists at their show trials.
3. Evin Prison.
The Shah ordered Evin Prison built in 1971. It was surrounded by high walls, modeled after US maximum security prisons, and situated in what were then the lightly-populated foothills of the Alborz Mountains overlooking northern Tehran (the city has since expanded so that it meets the prison). Originally designed for 320 inmates, by 1977 it had been expanded to hold 1500. Political prisoners were common, as was torture at the hands of SAVAK, the Shah’s domestic intelligence organization.
The 1979 revolution did nothing to check the growth of Evin—only the politics of the prisoners inside changed—and by 1983 the prison held 15,000 inmates. For political prisoners, Khamenei has continued the tradition of using Evin as a destination of first resort. The torture methods used in the time of the Shah are still in use today, but SAVAK is now called VEVAK.
4. Legitimacy questioned from the start.
After Britain and the Soviet Union invaded and occupied Iran in 1941, the Allies forced the Shah’s father to abdicate. This paved the way for the weaker and more malleable son to claim the crown, but in a way that clearly undermined his legitimacy.
As for Khamenei, he was a mere hojjatoleslam when appointed Supreme Leader, two notches below the rank of a Grand Ayatollah—which is what the constitution said you had to be to qualify for the position. The problem was none of the real Grand Ayatollahs wanted the job as offered, so the constitution was quickly changed to allow for someone with Khamenei’s questionable religious credentials to serve. From the start, many, including in the clergy, viewed this move and Khamenei with considerable suspicion.
This list was by no means meant to be exhaustive. I welcome more comparisons in the comments.
Recently by DM | Comments | Date |
---|---|---|
Wicked Wisdom | 113 | Jan 28, 2010 |
This Revolution Might Take a While | 15 | Jan 13, 2010 |
Jumping the Shark | 3 | Dec 03, 2009 |
Person | About | Day |
---|---|---|
نسرین ستوده: زندانی روز | Dec 04 | |
Saeed Malekpour: Prisoner of the day | Lawyer says death sentence suspended | Dec 03 |
Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day | Iterview with mother | Dec 02 |
احسان نراقی: جامعه شناس و نویسنده ۱۳۰۵-۱۳۹۱ | Dec 02 | |
Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day | 46 days on hunger strike | Dec 01 |
Nasrin Sotoudeh: Graffiti | In Barcelona | Nov 30 |
گوهر عشقی: مادر ستار بهشتی | Nov 30 | |
Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day | Activist denied leave and family visits for 1.5 years | Nov 30 |
محمد کلالی: یکی از حمله کنندگان به سفارت ایران در برلین | Nov 29 | |
Habibollah Golparipour: Prisoner of the day | Kurdish Activist on Death Row | Nov 28 |
Dear Mr DM
by Farah Rusta on Fri Aug 28, 2009 12:42 PM PDTThank you for your most civilized discourse. I feel I need to apologize for my dismissive tone. Not often do I get such cordial feedbacks as you extended to me and as a matter of habit I tend to be a little curt or derisive. In your case I must say you won me in being a gentleman and a scholar.
Best wishes,
FR
PS-On Monarchists I
by DM on Fri Aug 28, 2009 09:38 AM PDTPS-On Monarchists
I wouldn’t say I have an “issue” with Monarchists, and I don’t have one with you, Farah. I like Monarchists! I just don’t agree with most when it comes to the Shah. But when we’re talking about the IRI…that’s usually another story.
Be well,
DM
Dear Farah,Thank you for
by DM on Fri Aug 28, 2009 10:28 AM PDTDear Farah,
Thank you for expanding on your previous comment. I won’t address the specifics because I think I already have enough for readers to make up their own minds on where they stand between us.
The one general point I will address is your contention that I am addressing only symptoms instead of sources. You have a point—that’s what I did in my original blog post. But I did it because I believe that what we saw at the end of the Shah’s reign and what we see today both stem from exactly the same source: a desire to maintain power.
Maintenance of power is often the cause autocracies rally around in the end, whether they start out as a benevolent monarchy, a communist state, Islamic republic, or whatever. Despite good intentions (and I know the Shah had, and acted on, many) after a period of time, after they’ve hung around long enough for people to turn on them, autocracies often lose sight of their original purpose and resort to tried-and-true methods of repression just to hold onto power a little longer.
Or if they’re really willing to dive down a rabbit hole of craziness (see North Korea), a lot longer.
The Shah, to his credit, was a complicated man who did love his country and had his limits when it came to political repression. But in my view (yes, I know you strongly disagree), he tested those limits in order to hang onto power in a way that does him no credit. Now we will see just how far Khamenei is willing to go to hang onto power. From abysmal his track record to date, the outlook is not promising.
Yours,
DM
And as for Oosta!
by Farah Rusta on Fri Aug 28, 2009 07:23 AM PDTDid you say:
"... your response to her is like whispering soureh yaasin in you-know-who's ears ,,,"
Looking at your avatar one should know who you are talking about (ROTFL)
FR
Fundemental dissimalrities vs. superficial similarities
by Farah Rusta on Fri Aug 28, 2009 07:16 AM PDTMr DM,
No offence intneded but I am only responding to your comments to satisfy my good friend "Captain" as I value his remarks, otherwise, your response to my comment, as well as your original piece, is a mix of carefully selected but fundamentally incompatible facts and falsities presented in the guise of a civil discourse. I believe engaging in one's false arguments will inevitably result in false conclusions no matter which side wins the debate. Why I call your original and the follow up comments falsities is because you only compare the symptoms and not the sources. If two patients who both suffer from head ache, have tempertures, and feel conculsive are compared you cannot suggest that they must the have same illness. One may suffer from a nomal flu while the other may have diarreha! Your approach is inherently incorrect as you do not compare like with the like. This is clearly demonstrated in your repsonse to me when you state " if these methods were used during two ideologically-opposed regimes, ..." Did I hear idealogy? Since when monarchy is an idealogy on par with communism or fascism? You seem to use the words very liberally and without giving any weight to their meanings. Incidentally didn't you state further up " The comparison in the original post was between Khamenei and the Shah,
not the IRI—and by extension Khomeini—and the Shah, as some of the
comments seem to assume." If you are comparing the two leaders only why then you compare the two idealogically [sic] opposed regimes?
Your comparisons of elections is equally flawed as the prime minister in the Shah's era was not elected whereas the President under the IRI, IS elected, whatever election may mean. So there is nothing comparable here. The only elections that used to take place in the previous era were the parliamentary elections. According to Mohsen Sazegara, himself one time presidential as well as a parliamentary candidate in the Islamic regime, not to mention a founder member of the IRGC, all of the candidates for the Parliament (some 3000 of them) are vetted by the Supreme Leader and only a selected few are allowed to go forth. The Shah may have had a say in the Senate appointments or a few key parliamentary candidates but there is no evidence that he vetted every single candidate. That was the job of the ruling prime minister. Therefore unless you want to compare the two systems from a very philosophical point of view there is no one to one comparison. By the way Hitler was not the only leader who imposed a one-party system on his country but so were Lenin, Stalin and the entire Communist and Sovietic regimes including the Chinese an others but you seem to comfortably ignore them. I wonder Why?!!
The Shah did not have a tenth (and indeed much smaller fraction) of the Supreme Leader's authorities. According to the definition of the vali-e faghih which is written into the Constitution of the IRI, the Supreme Leader can have a say in the most personal details of his subjects lives down to the intimate details of their sexual relationships. By the way, the present incumbent, was actively involved in formative years of the Islamic regime and setting it up institutionally and was no only a yes-man as you insist. If you are not coversant with the axiomatic principles of velayate faghih then that is not an excuse to make baseless comparisons between this regime and its leader and any other regimes and their leaders.
The question of legitemacy seems to still pose a problem to you. Let me ask you this: The Allied forces that defated and conquered Japan in 1945 allowed Emperor Hirohito to remain in power. Does this make him any less legitimate. May be your definition of legitimacy is based on the way a leader is viewed by the foreign powers and not by his people. Reza Shah was the constitutionally elected king after the Qajars were contitutionally deposed. Mohammad Reza Shah was his legitimate heir to the thrown who succeeded him upon the former's abdication. Whether his accession was hailed or hated by the foreign powers made him no less or no more legitimate.
All in all, it is clear that you either ignore or hugley simplyfy some of the most basic concepts or stretching your definitions beyond the common norm. It also did not escape me that you have an issue with the monrchists and therefore your views are far from that of an objective analyst. As I stated before your arguments entirely fail at the outset when you compare two inherently different systems and their leaders with each other. Only symptoms and not their sources.
Happy my dear Captain?
FR
Mr. DM, Ms. Rusta
by capt_ayhab on Thu Aug 27, 2009 11:31 AM PDTGreat dialgue and debate between you two, enjoyed it a lot. Rather not to take sides and just monitor the progression of the debate between you guys.
Regards
-YT
DM, your response to Rusta...
by Ostaad on Thu Aug 27, 2009 09:43 AM PDTis spot on.
Since she has addressed your comments, I have held my tongue responding to her araajeef specially her brainfart, "Blogs like this offer nothing of value" that proves an acute case of ignorance by putting down a well-read and well-commented on blog, and for trying to portray it as a mere "hit counter"!
That said, your response to her is like whispering soureh yaasin in you-know-who's ears, my friend.
Responding to Farah—thank
by DM on Thu Aug 27, 2009 08:53 AM PDTResponding to Farah—thank you for taking the time to offer a comment with analysis. I’ll address your objections specifically below, but first, given that my Khamenei-Shah comparison clearly touched a nerve with a few pro-Shah readers, a few general observations:
The comparison in the original post was between Khamenei and the Shah, not the IRI—and by extension Khomeini—and the Shah, as some of the comments seem to assume. The distinction is important because even considering the recent crackdown, the IRI’s worst abuses occurred during the first ten years of the IRI’s existence, when Khomeini was in power. Yes, I know, Khamenei was president then and has blood on his hands from that era by association, but he was a yes-man and wasn’t running the show.
Of course, since 1989 Khamenei has governed in a way that anyone who cares a whit about human rights and democracy finds appalling—we could all cite examples until we’re blue of torture, murder, and political repression meted out under his rule. And as I’ve said in previous comments, I think a fair case can be made that Khamenei’s transgressions are worse, on balance, than the Shah’s. (And likely to get worse yet before his rule is over.) But the Shah, particularly in the 1970s, was no walk in the park either. There’s a reason millions of people, from all different political backgrounds, took to the streets to throw him out.
But shouldn’t one take into account the whole reign of the Shah, from 1941 on, when judging the man? Sure, and I think when one does, he comes out looking better than when the focus is just on the tumultuous end. But that doesn’t negate the fact that there is an undeniable and depressing continuity between the Shah’s reign and what we see today when it comes to rigged elections, false confessions, torture methods, political repression, etc. You can argue that Khamenei is worse, but not that the similarities don’t exist.
Why point this out? Aside from the obvious, that you study history so you don’t repeat it (if these methods were used during two ideologically-opposed regimes, what’s to say they won’t survive the IRI when it eventually falls?), the comparison is relevant because it’s as much a timely critique of Khamenei as it dredging up old history about the Shah, a point some Shah supporters perhaps don’t appreciate.
And now, Farah, to address your specific comments: For instance there was not two but three main parties in Iran of 1960's until the emergence of Rastakhiz.
Yes, you are correct in pointing out that there was (and is) a nationalistic Pan-Iranist party, but it played an incidental role in Iranian politics and, as you note, was outlawed in 1975. The point, however, wasn’t how many parties the Shah allowed before he shut them all down—the point was that he did shut them all down, because he couldn’t tolerate even a modicum of dissent within his rigged elections.
The political prisoners from the leftist groups were not one-time parts and parcels of the Shah's government whereas majority of the people on trial these days were indeed one time allies of the same system that is now putting them on trial.
Well, sure, but I wasn’t making a point about the origin of groups that were tortured and forced to make public confessions. My point was that people were tortured and forced to make public confessions in both regimes.
DM has already back-tracked after our good friend Ali P pointed out his erroenous analogy in the case of panjaaho seh nafar.
I appreciate when readers make good points, as Ali P did. I’d note, however, that he was commenting on one of my comments, not the original blog entry, and that the 53 example I gave was only one of several.
Lastly compariing legitimacy as suggested by DM is laughable. The Shah was the constitutionally appointed heir to his father's thrown. You can't find anything more legitimate than this unless you question the legitimacy of the constitution!
I find little merit in this argument. Given the subjective nature of what constitutes “legitimacy” in an autocratic system we could argue all day about it, but it is a statement of fact to say that Britain and the Soviets controlled Iran after invading in 1941 and, along with the US, controlled the Shah’s succession. Constitution or not, if the Allies hadn’t wanted Mohammad Reza Shah to take the throne, he wouldn’t have. They made a calculated decision that the son would represent their interests better than the father, and they turned out to be right. Maybe you don’t think that matters in terms of the Shah’s legitimacy. I, and many others, do.
All best,
DM
Blogs like this offer nothing of value
by Farah Rusta on Wed Aug 26, 2009 12:48 PM PDTOn returning to this blog today I found some people have been insinuating to suggest that I only make negative comments and no analysis. Well, I'd like to see evidence of this claim but as far as blogs like this by our reincarnated friend DM is concerned I can't findany thing of value his piece to join the mutual appreciation club.
To start with ALL his four premises are historically inaccurate or turned and twisted. For instance there was not two but three main parties in Iran of 1960's until the emergence of Rastakhiz. DM obviously has never heard of Pan-Iranist party (not to mention the shortly lived "Azad Mardan and Zanan" created by Hassan Ali Mansour).
Another error: The political prisoners from the leftist groups were not one-time parts and parcels of the Shah's government whereas majority of the people on trial these days were indeed one time allies of the same system that is now putting them on trial. In Shah's time, the politcal prisoners such as Golsorkhi or Daneshian indeed condemned the Shah's regime and lost their lives as a result.
DM has already back-tracked after our good friend Ali P pointed out his erroenous analogy in the case of panjaaho seh nafar.
While torture and brutality must be condemned in any time and under any regime to suggest that the Islamic regime's practice of this barbarity is comaprable to that of the previous regime (both in quality of the act and quantity of inmates) smacks of a poor research orpointed agenda.
Lastly compariing legitimacy as suggested by DM is laughable. The Shah was the constitutionally appointed heir to his father's thrown. You can't find anything more legitimate than this unless you question the legitimacy of the constitution!
This is why I only view such blogs as good as hit-counters or trying to push an agenda under the guise of a silly question or comaprisons.
Sorry DM but you asked for it sweeti!!
FR
FYI/Chapour Bakhtiar Compares Shah's Regime and Khomeiny's
by Darius Kadivar on Wed Aug 26, 2009 09:32 AM PDTInterview of Chapour Bakhtiar in Paris on the 10th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution: Program IRTV august 9th 2009
And One Reason why
by Ahmed from Bahrain on Wed Aug 26, 2009 02:29 AM PDTKhamenie is more dangerous than the Shah:
He believes that he is appointed by God. The Shah did not profess to be representing God or some absent immam.
In my book such a person is very dangerous. He needs to seek mental treatment.
Ahmed from Bahrain
Thanks for making a good
by DM on Tue Aug 25, 2009 08:10 PM PDTThanks for making a good point, Ali P. I agree that there is no real comparison between the round up of the 53 in Iran and what happened in the Soviet Union at that time.
Best,
DM
Replying to DM
by Ali P. on Tue Aug 25, 2009 07:57 PM PDTDear Friend:
You state:
"Mass political roundups and trials occured in 1939 (53 were rounded up then so, taking a page out of the Soviet Union's book where political trials were known by the number of people being prosecuted, the Iranian prisoners became known as the "Fifty-three")."
Just a caveat:
No. of executions after the mass political round ups in 1939
in Soviet Union: 681,692
No. of executions after the round up of the 53
in Iran: 0
(One man, Dr. Arani, died in prison under suspicious circumstances)
The rest were eventually released.
Respectfully,
Ali P.
I seriously doubt the
by DM on Tue Aug 25, 2009 07:53 PM PDTI seriously doubt the akhoonds would be comparing Khamenei to the Shah, shushtari, so you can rest easy on that front.
And I'll grant you that the Shah did spend money on Iran--more on buying up fancy American military hardware than I think was prudent, but hey, he spent money on some more worthy things too. Enacted literacy programs and health programs. I also give him credit for giving women the right to vote. He wasn't all bad--people rarely are--and probably thought he was acting in his country's best interest. Most dictators do.
I'd steer clear of defending SAVAK, however. It was a nasty oranization that killed and tortured a lot of people (see comment below). And I disagree that if it wasn't for SAVAK the akhoonds would have taken over Iran in '63. Khomeini wasn't that powerful or organized then (although the conflict in '63 had the affect of making him a lot more so) and he hadn't even cooked up his theory of velayat-e faqih yet.
A final point--SAVAK was much more able and inclined to go after the leftist/Marxist opposition groups than they were the akhoonds. Which is one of the reasons the akhoonds wound up on top.
read this" ROOHE SHAH SHAAAAAAAAAAAD!"
by shushtari on Tue Aug 25, 2009 06:33 PM PDTit seems you're still regurgitating the same bs that the akhoonds have been trying to rub on the iranian people!
the kind of nonsense ain't gonna fly buddy.....
I'm no monarchist by any stretch, BUT, I pray for the shah every day....he was a THOUSAND TIMES more decent that the filthy akhoonds...
he spent money on iran, not on goddamn palestinian murderers who come to iran to kill our people!
now, torture, other unethical practices are of course wrong, but without savak, the akhoonds would have taken over iran in 63!!!
at least we have some decent memories of iran before these vultures raided our homeland!
This how Khamenei was
by vildemose on Tue Aug 25, 2009 04:45 PM PDTThis is how Khamenei was Elected as Supreme leader of IRAN
//www.videonewslive.com/view/355977/this_how_khamenei_was_elected_as_supreme_leader_of_iran
A bunch of humming, oohing and aaahing, followed by fake protestations and false humility and what they call "an election". I've seen more earnest debate when schoolgirls choose a head cheerleader.
Assembly of experts my ass, but the other side of the coin is that, if Khamenei screws the pooch too much, the same barenaked amount of deliberation will lead to his dismissal, and in the same or less number of seconds.
Dear DM, whatever you ate last night, please eat more of it
by Anahid Hojjati on Tue Aug 25, 2009 04:19 PM PDTDear DM, enjoyed your post. You brought up some good points such as Khamenei being just a Hojjatoleslam before becoming rahbar. Please continue to eat whatever you ate last night since I like to read more of your writings. Don't let some of negative comments discourage you. There are some people on this site that are very quick to criticize every original blog but these people never come up with an original thought themselves. Every great blog I see, sure enough I also see a negative comment from these people but I never see any worthy analysis from them. DM, Thanks for your blog.
Replying to Mr. Fozolie's
by DM on Wed Aug 26, 2009 03:46 AM PDTReplying to Mr. Fozolie's last post--I do appreciate your thoughtful criticism even though it appears we are unlikely to come to complete agreement.
I did want to comment on your last point, though, when you wrote...the show trials are more akin to what happened in Soviet Union and China.
I certainly won't argue with the idea that what we see in Iran today, in terms of show trials, is akin to what we've seen before in the Soviet Union and China. But we most certainly saw similar things going on in pre-1979 Iran as well.
Mass political roundups and trials occured in 1939 (53 were rounded up then so, taking a page out of the Soviet Union's book where political trials were known by the number of people being prosecuted, the Iranian prisoners became known as the "Fifty-three"), 1949, and then periodically from 1953 on, culminating in the 1970's when SAVAK tried to wipe out leftist geurrillas and their supporters.
According to Ervand Abrahamian in his book Tortured Confessions, these are some of the methods SAVAK used to extract "confessions" in the 1970s: ...the bastinado; sleep deprivation; extensive solitary confinement; glaring searchlights; standing in one place for hours on end; nail extractions; snakes (favored for use with women); electrical shocks with cattle prods, often into the rectum; cigarette burns; sitting on hot grills; acid dripped into nostrils; near-drownings; mock executions; and an electric chair with a large metal mask to muffle screams whil amplifying them for the victim. This latter contraption was dubbed the Apollo--an allusion to the American space capsules. Prisoners were also humiliated by being raped, urinated on, and forced to stand naked.
I would guess the above is somewhat akin to what happened when the Soviets and Chinese prepared their prisoners for show trials.
On a broader note, I think it's important to realize that some of what we see going on today in Iran didn't just start in 1979--important because when the mullahs finally are overthrown (sooner rather than later I hope), the new government will have to be careful not to fall into the same trap. And it's an easy trap to fall into (as evidenced by the current torture debate in the US, but that another conversation entirely...)
Anyway, thanks again for commenting.
Be well,
DM
To be called 'shoot Ali' by
by vildemose on Tue Aug 25, 2009 01:38 PM PDTTo be called 'shoot Ali' by our resident Khomeinist, (read "xerexes, daruish, mossadegh avatr, etc)
is a joyous occasion to be celebrated.
I need to reward myself with a big cup of cafe latte. I'll be back soon, beloved xerexes.
Mr or Ms DM
by fozolie on Tue Aug 25, 2009 01:29 PM PDTIf you examined what he said at the time
dispassionately and noted the small qualifications he started making very early on it was obvious what he had in mind. In regards to the
rest of your argument, you forget that IRI is not a unitary government
and we are probably seeing the final showdown with those in charge on
the brink of realizing their long held dream.
I am not
convinced by your response, if you want to highlight what is going on
now you are detracting from your message. If you want to make comparisons to support what you said then you should compare
it to other revolutionary regimes and tell us something interesting
about the future shape of the steps they may take if they keep
following the models they seem to be replicating. As an example the
show trials are more akin to what happened in Soviet Union and China.
Mr. Fozolie
DM
by XerXes on Tue Aug 25, 2009 01:24 PM PDTThanks. Now I wonder why uneducated bunch are hanging out in your blog?
Seems to me the shoot ali vildemose and Rusti the clown are making appearance here. You got brains. Like your blog. Love it when the shoot ali and clowns are speechless and have to act mature.
It's one of the tombs at
by DM on Tue Aug 25, 2009 01:19 PM PDTIt's one of the tombs at Naqsh-i Rustam (thought maybe to be Xerxes but no one knows for sure). I took the picture on a trip in March of this year.
Best,
DM
Unrelated
by Little Tweet on Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:59 PM PDTDM, is that a picture of Ganj Nameh on your profile? Just curious.
oostad: That is not just a
by vildemose on Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:09 PM PDToostad: That is not just a hunch but an objective/educated conclusion juxtaposing all the historical facts together.
I have a hunch, that Khomeini deceived...
by Ostaad on Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:51 AM PDTthe West too. I'm sure there exist in the bowls of the US, UK and French government archives documents to prove that Khomeini had assured those powers that his only aim was to go back to Iran, stay in Ghom just to make sure that "Eslam" and its laws were "observed" and, yes, FIGHT THE COMMUNISTS.
I think, but I can't provide any solid proof, the West wanted Khomeini to "drain the swamp" for them from communists and even nationalists, then THEY move in and get rid of him and finish the job by putting in their own puppet government.
Khomeini outsmarted all of them, no only the Iranian people who had a suspicion what he was up to.
Why do I make that
by vildemose on Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:24 AM PDTWhy do I make that assumption? Because that's the assumption Khomeini himself made. By that I mean, if Khomeini hadn't assumed the lies were necessary, I can't see why he would have offered them.
Brilliant. That is what I was trying to get. However, this significant point is always omitted by all political analystists when describing the Islamic Revolution of 1979.
Responding to
by DM on Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:18 AM PDTResponding to vildemose--thank you for your kind words. As for your questions:
What would have happened if Khomeini had not lied about his true intention before he consolidated his power? and What would have happened if Khomeini had told the truth in that in a
future Iran, only **Religious** rights are considered as valid and
trump **human rights** in an Islamic government?
I think that if he'd been honest, if in 1978 he hadn't said things like 'In the Islamic government all people have complete freedom to have any kind of opinion' and 'Women are free in the Islamic Republic in the selection of their activities and their future and their clothing', that he wouldn't have been able to seize absolute power the way he did. Why do I make that assumption? Because that's the assumption Khomeini himself made. By that I mean, if Khomeini hadn't assumed the lies were necessary, I can't see why he would have offered them.
Above all else, behind the wall of religion, Khomeini was a cutthroat politician who was masterful at manipulating people around him to accrue power. So if he thought he had to lie to seize power, I tend to trust his judgemnt.
Why did Khomeini have to add the "republic" when in reality he had no intention of establishing a real republic?? It was a compromise with the progressives during the Bazargan government, before he'd consolidated power. One thing Khomeini insisted, however, was that it not be called the Islamic Democratic Republic, which some were pushing for. This is pure speculation, but perhaps he felt more comfortable with the word 'Republic' because communist states had already made a mockery of the word--People's Republic of China, Soviet Socialist Republics, etc.
All best,
DM
Khomeini did not lie
by Farah Rusta on Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:08 AM PDTDear vildemose
please respect Ostaad and don't call Khomeini a lier He (or should I say, it) may find it disrespectful to see his Imam called a lier. In fact Khomeini stated the truth: The leftist did have a right to express their opinion or opposition. They didn't have the right to live afterwards.
Ostaad joon
don't get so excited! you are not supposed to blow your cover over this! we still need you as an IRI critic (lol)
FR
Just wanted to mention...
by Ostaad on Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:38 AM PDTa crucial fact that Khamenie is not just "like" the Shah, he IS the Shah for all practical purposes that you've mentioned. Let's remember the "Shah" is a title not a proper name, therefore it fits Khamenie too.
The main difference is Khamenie is much less cowardly than Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, and he is bit more competent as far as repression and despotism are concerned.
The rest is history, my friend.
I'm not saying I think the
by vildemose on Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:13 AM PDTI'm not saying I think the mullahs ever were truly prepared to give people real freedom--they weren't then and they're not now--but they most certainly have tried to hide that fact. Why else hold sham elections? Why go through the ruse if they aren't trying to hide something.
Also, the point wasn't to draw an absolute moral equivalency between the Islamists and the Shah. One could draw up a long, long list highlighting all the differences between the regimes. The point, howeve, is that both the Shah and Khamenei are dictators and dictators are apt to act in similar ways (false confessions, torture, rigged elections, etc.) regardless of the ideology that brought them to power.
Dear DM: Excellent comparison. Here I have a few questions that have baffled me for a long time.
What would have happened if Khomeini had not lied about his true intention before he consolidated his power?
What would have happened if Khomeini had told the truth in that in a future Iran, only **Religious** rights are considered as valid and trump **human rights** in an Islamic government?
Why did Khomeini have to add the "republic" when in reality he had no intention of establishing a real republic??