2. Where is Iran going?

BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents

 

2. Where is Iran going?

The winds of change which are blowing over Iran for a few months have raised a few questions:

• When and how will these happenings end?
• Are Iran’s events internal or is there something in the sleeve?
• Will the international accord be affected by these events?

To answer these questions, it is necessary for us to identify the opposition facing the Shah.

 

The Opposition:

The opposition to the Shah in Iran is diverse. There are parties that are not mentioned in the media, like the Kurds, the Ahwazi Arabs, and the Baluchis.

In this report, we will single out the movements and parties that played an effective role in confronting the Shah’s regime. Among the most outstanding are:

 

1. The Tudeh Party

A communist party linked to the Soviet Union. Two types of people talk about it and its impact:

• Supporters of the Shah inside and outside Iran—especially in the Arab context—claim that the Tudeh Party is the strongest opposition to the Shah and thus the only alternative when the Shah falls. The region then will be threatened by a communist invasion that brings back memories of the Tatar invasion.^[1]
• The Shia who say the complete opposite; namely, that the Tudeh party is worthless. If they establish their government, the party will practice its activity and its members will have political freedom under the regime of the Shia of Khomeini.

What we see is that the Tudeh Party originated in Iran in 1942 and many labour movements joined its ranks. It led the opposition after the return of the Shah in 1953. The party has a military wing that carries out acts of violence in Iran and owns a broadcast station from East Germany. We do not have accurate figures on the number of members of the party and the extent of its strength because its activities are kept secret. However, the Shah of Iran and his intelligence, SAVAK, have exhausted the party during a quarter of a century. They carried out the most brutal forms of persecution, abuse, and murder against its members, but the party does not have a wide popular base that will enable it to rule Iran after the departure of the Shah.

Discussing the Tudeh Party leads us to discuss the Soviet Union, which finances the party and moves it according to its whims. The Soviet Union borders Iran to the north and aspires to reach the warm shores of tis south since the times of the Tsars. It had previously shared Iran with Britain in 1907. In the era of Reza Pahlavi, under the contract with the Soviets, Treaty 1921, he gave them privileges in his country. In 1940, Stalin offered Hitler—the German leader—to share Iran between them but the latter refused and he offered the same to Britain and she refused. This Western refusal angered Stalin who resorted to forming a republic in Persian Azerbaijan and making Tabriz its capital. In 1946, the Soviet Communists were forced to leave occupied Iran under threat from the United States.

The need for the Soviet Union today to occupy Iran is more than their need in the past. Economic studies confirm that the Soviet Union will be among the oil-importing countries starting from 1985. Further, they are afraid of the American weapons that are accumulating in Iran and know that these weapons will be used by the Americans against it if necessary. The Soviets feel that the Shah of Iran has done them a great deal of harm, harming the communists inside Iran and in his elimination of the communist revolution in Dhofar, and in his war against the communists, the rulers of Aden.

The Soviets follow the news of Iran with concern, following it through the international game with the Americans. The two countries exchanged warnings, and Carter recently stated that he had no evidence that the Soviet were interfering in Iran’s internal conflicts. The Soviets follow the news of Iran through its agent, the Tudeh Party.

 

Summary

The communists will not gain control over Iran when the Shah leaves. It is not in their interest for the dictatorial military rule, which is against them, to continue. The best climate suitable for the communists in Iran is for the government to be democratic where they can participate. This will allow them to exploit the leftist parties, such as the Fada’iyan-e Khalq (the Iranian People’s Fedai Guerillas), a Marxist organisation that uses urban guerrilla warfare as a means to achieve its goals. As well as The Communist Party of Iran, which is another Marxist organisation. The Tudeh Party will also use the National Front as a ladder to achieve its ambitions. However, if Iran is divided into sectarian states, the Soviets will return to establishing their old republic of Azerbaijan.

The methodology of the communists is well-known. They hide behind democracy until they are in power, then they subject the citizens to the most severe forms of abuse and persecution.

 

2. The National Front

An extension of the movement of former Prime Minister Dr. Mosaddegh. It includes several organisations: A political organisation led by Dr. Karim Sanjabi, another under the name Lajnat Harkat Da’m al Yasar fi Iran (Committee for the Movement to Support the Left in Iran), and a third under the name Mujahid-e al Shu’ab aw al Islam al Thawri (commonly referred to as the Mujahedin-e Khalq or MEK).

The National Front is a movement devoid of any vision and is very similar to the national parties in the Arab countries, such as the Wafd Party in Egypt, the Ummah Party in Sudan, and the National Party or People’s Party in Syria. The glories of the leaders of these parties were created by colonialism to hide behind them.

Dr. Karim Sanjabi paid a visit to Khomeini in France and agreed with him on everything, as stated in the communiqués they issued. We do not know how the Shah allowed him to leave the country under a military party branded as “terrorists”. He was then arrested and released a few days later. It turned out that he held several meetings with the Shah and with senior American officials^[2], during which names were proposed for forming a government. Among them was the “Ali Amini” cabinet, Ali Amini being the former Prime Minister in 1961. His cabinet came in after the amendment of the constitution, and during his tenure his ministry signed the SEATO Treaty. Later he was accused of embezzling funds after his dismissal, and it was America that had brought him in.^[3]

Likewise, Ghulam Hussein Sadeqi, Dr. Bakhtiar, and Mr. Entezam. Recently, Dr. Bakhtiar was appointed, and all of them were agents of the United States, to the extent that Abbas Hoveyda was wanted by America to be portrayed as a hero. The Shah’s regime, however, arrested him and placed him in one of the Iranian prisons. Reza Mohammed, the son of the Shah, pretended to be a reformist and invited Iranian students to meet with him and to study the current condition in Iran.

 

3. Shia leadership

The Shia scholars had their first say in Iranian politics in the eras that preceded the Pahlavi dynasty. Then a violent dispute broke out between them and Reza Pahlavi, and their opposition continued after the death of Reza. Ruhollah Khomeini led the religious opposition against Mohammed Reza, and this opposition ended when he was expelled from Iran.

Today, Khomeini demands the expulsion of the Pahlavi family, the end of the monarchy, and the establishment of a democratic republic, that governs according to Shia Islamic law. At the same time, Ayatollah Shariatmadari demands a return to the 1906 constitution, the application of Islamic law, and the achieving democratic rule, without any hindrance to the Pahlavi family remaining in power.

It seems that what the Shia say is what Khomeini says. They called him their supreme leader and began to act according to the orders issued by him. Since Khomeini’s opposition was the strongest opposition facing the Shah, we wonder whether it is an independent opposition or does it have foreign roots.

 

The American Role

The US administration claims that the CIA has failed in its mission and that some of its officials are being questioned by the White House and investigators at Congress.^[4]

This narrative is rejected in its entirety because there are more than 40 000 American soldiers in Iran, under the authority of the French Le Monde and others, who work as experts in the ministries of interior and foreign affairs, in the security departments, SAVAK, and oil companies. They possess the latest espionage equipment and have absolute freedom inside and outside Iran, on Iran’s borders with the Soviets, and in the Gulf region. Their percentage in the Iranian army is equal to 1/7 and each of the F 16 planes have 15 trained American personell.^[5] After all of this, how can we believe that the uprising in Iran came as a surprise to the American intelligence, and that they are now being held accountable for their negligence?

As for the second story, it says that the CIA wanted to discipline the Shah, reduce his powers, and limit his weight in the region, so that is why chaos erupted and the unrest exceeded its limits. This story is credible for many reasons, the most important of which are:

1. The Shah began to have aspirations of establishing a major Persian empire that would be the sixth dominant power in the world. In order to achieve his ambitions, he began to acquire the most modern military equipment in the world and spent more than twenty billion dollars on the military. Furthermore, he resorted to luxury and extravagance on occasions so that his vacations would be suit the status he was aspiring for.
2. He visited the Soviet Union and received Soviet officials. America viewed these communications with suspicion.
3. The patience of the Americans ran out when the Shah began to treat them as equals. On 15.03.1976, the news agency quoted him as follows, “Iran can harm the United States of America as much as the Americans can harm his country, if not more. Any Iranian retaliation will not be based on the principle of Iran as a major oil exporter, but rather it will be able to create troubles for the United States in the Gulf region.” He said this in an interview with an American magazine.^[6]
4. In 1977, he adopted a 15% increase in oil prices without increasing oil production.

So, how did the American intelligence services remain silent about the rebellion of one of their agents that they had been protecting for a quarter of a century? It had cost them a fortune, and the American presence in his country had become a matter of life and death?

The Shah was aware of the role of American intelligence services and their involvement in the events of his country. He said in private to some visiting Americans that he had received reports that perhaps the Americans, in conjunction with the oil companies, had been involved in fomenting some of the recent unrest.^[7]

In an interview with the American weekly Time magazine, the Shah criticised the CIA, which he said began to establish contacts with his dissidents 15 years ago, to maintain influence with anyone who might be able to overthrow him. The Shah added that if he left the throne, thousands of people would die in the fighting that would follow, and if that happened, he felt that the communist power would eventually impose its control over what would be a bankrupt and divided country.^[8]

The Shah talks about the American intelligence services, as an informant acquainted with its method would. It does not adhere to any principle in its dealings and does not adhere to any ethics. Its doctrine is interest; its nature is to conspire against its best friends; and one of the broad lines of its policy is to deal in every country with several parties so that its interests remain guaranteed, regardless of the changes and coups that occur.

The Shah has reached the age of sixty, he does not have a strong clan or party he can rely on in his downfall, and the people are tired of his rule, and they are trying to get rid of him and searching for an alternative to him. The strongest and reasonable alternative to the Shah is Khomeini’s Shia, especially since the people have begun to demand Islamic rule. And so this Islam will be an American Shi’ism. My apologies, we talked about the results before listing the evidence and reasons. We previously mentioned a statement by the Shah in which he accused the CIA of being behind the plan to overthrow him, and that it had strong ties with the opposition; and Khomeini stands at the head of the opposition.

Is what the Shah claims actually true? How do we combine this statement with the ascetic and pious halo that surrounds Khomeini?

We wish to first reproduce the verdict issued by Khomeini in his discussion on Taqiyyah (subterfuge):

 

وإذا كانت ظروف التقية تلزم أحدا منا بالدخول في ركب السلاطين فهنا يجب الامتناع عن ذلك حتى لو أدى الامتناع إلى قتله إلا أن يكون في دخوله الشكلي نصر حقيقي للإسلام والمسلمين مثل دخول علي بن يقطين ونصير الدين الطوسي رحمهما الله

When the circumstances of Taqiyyah compel someone to enter the ministry of the rulers, it is obligatory to refuse even if this refusal leads to his killing, except if his outward entry contains actual assistance for Islam and the Muslim, like the entry of ‘Ali ibn Yaqtin^[9] and Nasir al Din al Tusi—may Allah have mercy on them.^[10]

 

Khomeini has thus taken al Tusi as his role model, whereas al Tusi was the minister of the criminal Halaku Khan. He facilitated for him the genocide in Baghdad. This makes it evident that actual assistance for Islam—in the sight of Khomeini—is slaughtering the Muslims of the Ahlus Sunnah. Khomeini adds:

 

وطبيعي أن يسمح الإسلام بالدخول في أجهزة الجائرين إذا كان الهدف الحقيقي من وراء ذلك هو الحد من المظالم أو إحداث انقلاب على القائمين بالأمر بل إن ذلك الدخول قد يكون واجبا وليس عندنا في ذلك خلاف

It is natural for Islam to allow entry into the apparatus of oppressors if the real goal behind that is to reduce injustices or cause a coup against those in charge of the matter. Indeed, such entry may be obligatory and we have no disagreement about that.^[11]

 

Thus, Khomeini deems cooperating and mutually assisting the enemies of Islam obligatory, if there is expediency for his school. Therefore, he condones the service of al Tusi for the Tartar leadership.

Based upon this, Khomeini’s cooperation with American intelligence is deemed beneficial according to him and his school which he boasts about, because the weapons of his country are all from them, the economy of his land is dependent upon them, and they are desirous of Shia Islam which Khomeini boasts of. His way of dealing with them is very relaxed. It allows him to attack it and issue the harshest statements against it, just as the Nusayri leader Hafez al Assad does. All of it a spectacle that the American regime presents to those countries whose people profess Islam, these upcoming leaders always given the role of the hero.

After Khomeini’s verdict, we review some news that reveals the dimensions of this Khomeini.

1. Wakalat al Anba’ reported on 06/12/1978 that the United States of America is seeking to establish contacts with the opposition religious leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, but it is not known whether such contacts actually took place with Imam Khomeini. The sources said that the American government began these contact attempts following investigations conducted by its experts. They came to the conclusion that the Iranian monarch was facing serious problems.

2. Some newspapers reported that King Hussein met with Khomeini to mediate between him and the Shah. Then Khomeini denied this news, and what was expected of him was to deny it. Then Wakalat al Anba’ reported a month ago that the Sudanese leader Sadiq al Mahdi met with Khomeini, sent by the White House, and Khomeini did not deny or affirm this news.

3. The Shah sent a letter six months prior to the Iraqi government in which he writes: Baghdad’s turn will come after Tehran, as the United States is trying to replace regimes in the region by inciting sectarian and religious conflicts. The Shah asked in his letter to monitor the activity of Ayatollah Khomeini because he has connections with American intelligence.

Iranian court circles say that Darius Homon, the former Iranian Minister of Information, who published an article attacking Khomeini, is connected to American intelligence, and his attack was at its urging.^[12]

The stirring of sectarian and religious conflicts, which was mentioned in the letter that the Shah sent to the Iraqi government, was reported by many Western newspapers. Therefore, America is working to contain Islamic action, sometimes through the mosques of al Dirar (harm) and sometimes through military regimes. It serves her interest to keep the political situation in the Islamic world tense and to embrace the Shia.

4. How did the French government agree to let its lands be a field for conspiring against its close friend, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, despite there being many treaties and agreements between them? As for allowing Khomeini to reside on its lands, this may be natural and there is no objection to it. However, the question arises: How did you allow Khomeini to stir up Iran’s unrest from France despite the protests of Iranian embassies in various European countries? Do you think France would agree to a Sunni scholar leading the opposition against the state to which he belongs from within France? We do not believe that. Two days ago, a delegation from the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs visited Khomeini and offered him continued residency in France. What generosity!

We return to the policies between America and the Soviet Union. We do not think that the incidents in Iran will disrupt their policies of reconciliation, as the two countries are not prepared to expose each other to danger for the sake of their own interests in Iran. The globe is vast, and what one of them loses here, he gains elsewhere.

The two countries agreed not to interfere in Iran’s internal affairs, then they reassured each other. The Soviets are controlling the Horn of Africa and the Tudeh Party inside Iran, and they can mobilise the revolutionaries of Dhofar and South Yemen and spark new incidents in North Yemen.

America owns Romania, a danger that may spread to the rest of the eastern European countries. They will be able to mobilise the Sunni Muslims inside the Soviet Union through their supporters in Iran. And they may be forced to support Siad Barre and mobilise him again through some of the regimes loyal to them in the region.

It is noted that the two opponents are equally matched, so it is necessary to exchange a deal for a deal, and the last solution is for the Americans to act to end the unrest in Iran in a way that does not anger the Soviets. The Americans have already begun to act, and the White House has formed a committee for this purpose, headed by Brzezinski, National Security Advisor to US President Carter, and with the membership of George Ball, the former Undersecretary of State for Middle Eastern Affairs, and Richard Helms, former head of the US Intelligence Service and US Ambassador to Iran; and the committee began its mission.

The expectations that will result from the events do not deviate from the following two frameworks:

• The continuation of the Shah, either personally by splitting the opposition, or as happened during the days of Mossadegh, or through his son, in which case he abdicates the throne and a guardianship council is established in the country.
• The strongest possibility is that chaos will continue in the country until the government that Khomeini wants comes and implements what he promised, i.e. the Shia regime. The Sunnis will not accept this situation, and this means sectarian conflict will erupt, and America will adopt the position of the Shia and support them.

What is important is not whether the Shah stays or leaves, but rather the important thing is that the region has moved towards a new plan that will be implemented by the Shia, and their presence in the region will be more dangerous than the presence of Israel. If the Shah remains, his rule will be for a short while to please the minds of his friends among the rulers of the region. As for his rule in practice, it has ended and the rule of Khomeini’s Shia has begun.

This is the new situation that Muslims must pay attention to and act on, based on the fact that there is a new danger threatening the Islamic world.

O Allah, I have conveyed; bear witness.

 

NEXT⇒  3. The United States of America and the Iranian Revolution

---

^[1]  He wrote this report on 02/02/1399 AH. Khomeini was still in Neauphle-le-Château in France and the Shah was in power in Tehran. Specifically, this report came in the phase shortly before the formation of the government of Shapour Bakhtiar, and we reproduce it without deleting or adding anything to it.

^[2]  Target, 14/12/1978.

^[3]  Iran fi Rub’ Qarn, pg. 48, 62.

^[4]  From the Washington Post in mid-December, 1978.

^[5]  Aviation Week magazine.

^[6]  US News Underworld Report.

^[7]  Christian Sanis Monitor newspaper, translation of Arabic newspapers, 20/12/78.

^[8]  Translation of Arabic newspapers, 21/11/78.

^[9]  The reader will soon realise the criminal role played by ‘Ali ibn Yaqtin which is not much different to the one played by al Nasir al Tusi. This will be discussed shortly.

^[10]  Al Hukumah al Islamiyyah, pg. 128.

^[11]  Wilayat al Faqih, pg. 142-143.

^[12]  Al Hawadith, issue 1156, 29/12/1978.