3. The United States of America and the Iranian Revolution

BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents

 

3. The United States of America and the Iranian Revolution

 

Khomeini and his supporters filled the world with slogans against the United States of America. This was what they said:

• America is the one that trains the SAVAK and supplies them with torture devices and spy apparatus.
• America exploits Iran’s oil and other economic resources to tear apart the opposition and support the Shah’s regime.
• America is behind the oppression of most of the peoples of the Eastern or Western world.

Khomeini promised to clip the wings of the United States, and people thought that there was serious intention behind this fanfare. But after his republic was established, people were shocked by the positions that were taken, far different from what the revolutionaries had been talking about.

The United States of America was at the forefront of countries that were quick to recognise the new regime in Tehran. The Revolution did not resort to closing the American embassy in Tehran, while it closed the Israeli embassy, whereas the United States is more dangerous than Israel. Had it not been for the former, Israel and other than Israel would have collapsed.

Iranian oil has returned to its storage depots in the United States, and the United States has no objection to providing it to Israel. The American generals have also returned to their workplaces. Some newspapers have estimated the number of experts who have not left Iran at more than seven-thousand.

The course of events leads us to place many question marks about this Revolution and its leader. Some of these signals were mentioned in our previous report: Where is Iran going? However, it is difficult for most Islamic preachers to imagine the connection of Khomeini and his Revolution with the United States of America, and they may wonder with astonishment.

Khomeini has a white beard and shook the world with his courage and bravery … Khomeini put up Islamic logos with all force and rejection… How could he be submissive in front of Carter, receiving orders and instructions from him?

From another angle, how can he be an agent of the USA whereas he is the one to threaten her and makes accusations against her while the newspapers and media of the US attack him and his Revolution, and his supporters, and label them with the most vile of epithets.

Some Islamists continue to denounce our accusation of Khomeini, saying: Isn’t it common practice to accuse the Islamic group of being an agent of England or the United States of America?

We would first like to draw the attention of these preachers and others to a few brief issues, then proceed to put the dots on the letters and expand the evidences we have. Allah forbid we say what we do not know.

As for Khomeini’s boldness, Gamal Abdel Nasser was bolder than him against the United States of America. From the time Abdel Nasser came to power until his death, his media outlets attacked the United States, and the United States media outlets and newspapers attacked him. Then it turned out that he was an actor and that Miles Copeland, a senior CIA officer, was the one who contributed to writing his speech in which he attacked the United States and announced an arms deal with Czechoslovakia. Hence, we learn that it is possible for a third world leader to pretend to be hostile to the United States and simultaneously be attacked by US newspapers and media outlets, while in reality he is one of their agents.

Collaboration with the United States has various forms, including: personal connection, indirect connection, or the United States’ containment of the revolution through a number of the men of this revolution, even if others are not aware of this. The image that some Islamists have of collaboration is a naïve primitive image; and this is not the place for that criticism.

Lastly, why do some of them dress Khomeini with an aura of asceticism and piety? In the second chapter, Khomeini between extremism and moderation, we listed sufficient evidence that proves the corruption of his faith and that he is an enemy of Islam and the Muslims. Then, in our previous sub-section, we reproduced his verdict permitting collaboration with the colonizers and his blessing of the efforts of Nasir al Tusi with the infidel Tatars invaders. We wondered about the secret that made France accept hosting him and allowed him to launch a revolution against one of its best friends, from the heart of France, and we were left with one question: Why did Khomeini stay in Iraq for thirteen years, and while he was on the sidelines of the events occurring he was given this image of heroism and bravado, after the deterioration of the Shah’s relations with the United States, and after it began searching for an alternative to him?

Before we leave these brief references to the core of the topic, we would like to assure our brothers that there were many contacts that took place between Khomeini in particular and the American administration. Hereunder is the evidence of this.

• On 12/02/1979, the Associated Press quoted a statement by Carter in Washington, wherein he said that he had made several contacts with the most prominent leaders of the Iranian Revolution. Is he truthful in what he claimed, and was Khomeini one of those he had contact with?
• On 21/01/1979, former US Attorney General, Ramsey Clark, arrived in Paris from Tehran and held talks with the leader of the Iranian opposition, Khomeini, and conveyed to him US President Carter’s view of the events, as reported by Wakalat al Anba’. He said this when bidding Khomeini farewell, “It is my great hope that this uprising will bring social justice to the Iranian people.”
• In an interview with the Sudanese leader, Sadiq al Mahdi, with al Mustaqbal magazine, issue 151, on 12/01/1980, he admitted that the American administration mediated with him in the hostage issue and that he visited Khomeini for this purpose. He added, “This is not the first time I mediated between the American administration and Khomeini.” We previously referred to a mediation he carried out when Khomeini was in France.^[1]
• Iranian Foreign Minister, Dr. Ebrahim Yazdi, said in an interview with the Iranian newspaper Ayandegan, which was reported by Reuters, that Carter had warned Khomeini to support Bakhtiar. This warning came in a message conveyed by two French presidential envoys to Khomeini in his exile in Neauphle-le-Château, France. What is important to us is not the content of the message, but rather proving that there was a message from Carter to Khomeini that was conveyed by two French envoys, and we do not expect Yazdi to reveal everything that was included in the message.
• NBC News reported that Iranian religious figure, Radhi Shirazi, was secretly treated in the United States for four months. The station said that Shirazi was injured in an attack on his life last July, and was transferred to the United States for treatment and treated in a hospital in the state of Minnesota. The TV station did not mention whether Shirazi had left the United States or not.^[2]

How could America be trusted with the treatment of Khomeini’s friend at the time of the hostage taking? And how did America know that he was not a member of the Revolutionary Council, knowing that the names of the members of this council are secret?

 

Bruce Laingen’s meetings with Khomeini

Bruce Laingen, the American chargé d’affaires, held three secret meetings with Khomeini in Qom. A fourth meeting was also held in Tehran during Khomeini’s brief visit to his country’s capital. The Qom meetings were in mid-August 1979. These meetings resulted in the following outcomes:

• The unrest in Ahvaz resulted in disruptions in Iranian oil production, which led to a crisis in the supply of kerosene fuel. The United States rushed to meet the needs of the Iranian government, and Congress came to expose this secret deal.
• The Kurdish revolution pushed the Tehran government to import spare parts and maintenance equipment from the United States in order to operate its fighter jets and troop transport helicopters.
• The newspaper al Watan al ‘Arabi, which was published in Paris, said that the first meeting between Bruce and Khomeini in Qom was attended by members of the Revolutionary Guard. Bruce Laingen carried a file on the Kurdish independence movement and the Soviet funding for it. In the second meeting, Bruce carried a message from Carter to Khomeini, in which he spoke a great deal about spiritual matters, in addition to defending the principles of human rights. The Al Watan newspaper added that the Iranian planes used Madrid Airport as a transit station rest stop on their way back from the United States, loaded with the necessary spare parts, after an interruption that lasted for eight months.^[3]

The last piece of news may be open to acceptance or rejection, because the newspaper that reported it did so exclusively. As for the results, however, it was in accordance with the wording of the article that was published. Iran was in dire need of spare parts and maintenance equipment to operate its fighter jets and troop transport helicopters. Ebrahim Yazdi admitted in an interview with the Associated Press that talks were held with the American government about preserving and maintaining some of the equipment—to the extent he says—that Iran had already had, and that these parts had already arrived in Tehran.^[4] But Yazdi did not reveal the secrecy of these discussions, nor did he touch on the truth of the meetings that took place between Khomeini and the American Chargé d’Affaires, Bruce!

And while there is room to reject or accept the last piece of news, there is no room to deny the mediation that took place between the American administration and Khomeini through Sadegh Mehdi or Clerk or through envoys from the French Republic Presidency. It is clear, these were new relations and not a mediation. In this news, there is clear evidence that there were communications between the President Carter and the ascetic and hero Khomeini—as some of the Islamists portray him.

Now we move on to the presentation of three documents:

• The first is confessions by the deposed Shah.
• The second is issued by Khomeini’s partners who disagreed with him after the success of the Revolution.
• The third is issued by the Kuwaiti newspaper al Watan.

 

The First Document: The Shah’s Confessions

The Shah said in his memoirs, that he learned of the presence of General Huyser a few days after his arrival in Tehran. Huyser was the Vice President of the American Joint Chiefs of Staff in Europe. Thus, it is imperative to explain the nature of our relationship with the United States. Iran was a member of CENTO (Central Treaty Organization), and Huyser’s movements were always prepared and agreed upon in advance. This time, however, nothing of that sort happened, and his arrival in Iran was kept completely secret.

The Shah says that his generals knew nothing about Huyser’s visit. When the news of his visit spread, the Soviet media outlets said that General Huyser had arrived in Tehran to carry out a military coup. From Paris, the New York Herald Tribune attempted to correct the news, saying that all we had to do was replace the word “carry out” with the word “prevent”, so that Huyser’s mission would now read, “to prevent a military coup”.

The Shah added, “Was there a danger of a military coup? I do not think so. My generals are committed to the oath they took to protect the throne and the constitution, but NATO intelligence and the CIA have sufficient reason to believe that the constitution would be violated. Therefore, it was necessary to neutralise the Iranian army. This is the reason that prompted General Huyser to come to Tehran. I know that General Huyser had long been in contact with Mehdi Bazargan, the successful engineer who led the Iran Liberation Movement, which was originally part of the National Front until it found itself at odds with the Front due to the Front’s support for socialism.”

The Shah then said, “General Huyser made a strange offer to my Chief of Staff, General Gharabaghi. This offer was to meet with Mehdi Bazargan, whom Khomeini had appointed Prime Minister after my overthrow. General Gharabaghi told me the story of this offer. No one knows what happened after that. Mehdi Bazargan and General Huyser are the only two who know if a deal was made behind everyone’s back. All I know in this regard is that General Gharabaghi used his influence to persuade the officers under his command not to participate in the events that took place after that. I saw Huyser once during his strange visit to Tehran. He came to visit me with the American Ambassador Sullivan during my last meeting with him. The only thing that was on the minds of the two men was to know what day and what time I would leave Tehran.

General Huyser remained in Tehran for a few days after my departure on January 19. Since he had succeeded in persuading the Iranian army generals to abandon Dr. Shapour Bakhtiar, the head of the coalition government formed to save the country at the height of its distress, all that remained for him was to carry out his mission was to behead the Iranian army. And he got what he wanted; senior generals were killed one after the other, with the exception of General Gharabaghi, whom Mehdi Bazargan was able to save. During the trial that preceded the execution of General Rabiei, the Chief of Staff of the Iranian Air Force, the investigators asked him about the role that General Huyser played in Tehran. He replied, ‘General Huyser threw the emperor out of this country just as one throws out a dead rat.’”

Under the title, “Look for the Americans and the British,” the Shah said that he had discovered two years prior that the behaviour of the Americans was a worry to him. Some of them were advising him to treat the people in a democratic manner, and some were demanding that he be firm and tough. He focused on the role of the ambassadors of the United States and Britain.

Then the Shah narrated the following story, “This conflict of opinions was not the only surprise to me from the allies, whom I had stood by for a long time. When the demonstrators burned the British embassy, ​​I sent one of my generals to meet the military attaché at the embassy. The military attaché received him and yelled in his face that you have not yet understood that the issue can only be resolved politically. This meant, frankly, that the British expected me to bow to the pressures of the opposition. Senator Mohammad Ali Massoudi told me at the end of December that George Lambrakis, the First Secretary at the American Embassy in Tehran, had told him that a new regime would soon be established in Tehran. The Secretary was right. On January 11, after General Huyser’s mysterious visit to Iran, it was announced in Washington, not in Iran, that I was about to leave Tehran. Only five days later, I flew with the Empress into exile.”^[5]

 

The Second Document: Testimony of Khomeini’s Partners

Among the political movements that played a major role in overthrowing the Shah were the National Front, the Fedayeen-e-Khalq, and the Mojahedin-e-Khalq. Then they disagreed with Khomeini and his supporters. Journalist Huda al Husseini conducted interviews with them and they gave important testimonies. We quote below some paragraphs from this report.

Huda al Husseini said:

 

These new revolutionaries reject Khomeini’s Revolution, claiming that it was an American-inspired revolution. They believe that America was behind the overthrow of the Shah and the arrival of Khomeini. They provide evidence for this and begin by saying: Jimmy Carter’s America has been against the Shah since the beginning for the following reasons:

The Shah was at odds with the Democratic Party and the majority of Congress members were against him, considering him one of the ‘hawks’ of OPEC, which was leading a campaign to raise oil prices. It is true that America’s need for Iranian oil did not exceed 5%. However, Western European countries were the ones accusing America; because raising oil prices could potentially enable the communists to achieve victories at home similar to the victories of the Italian Communist Party.

Khomeini’s partners add that after the coup in Ethiopia, America began to think about Iran and how to take the initiative to protect its interests after losing its largest base, which was Asmara. Since the Shah had become old and the Crown Prince was still young, a constitutional amendment was made to make the wife his guardian. During the Revolution, many Iranians believed that Empress Farah Diba would stage a coup to oust the Shah with the help of Ardeshir Zahedi and former Prime Minister Amir Abbas Hoveyda. However, the Argentine experience proved that a woman could not confront a government in a country with many difficulties. Thus, the Americans had to think of a way to protect themselves, whether through the Pahlavi family or without them. What was most important was America’s interests.

The Americans then noticed the communist activity that began to establish its existence through organised and complex terrorist acts. They found that the Soviet Union was the only beneficiary of the situation, as it would then obtain everything it wanted from Iran, especially gas. When the situation in Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa, and South Yemen tightened around Iran and left it at the mercy of the leftist tide, it was necessary to save the situation.

The new revolutionaries against the Shah, Khomeini and America say that the United States had several solutions:

A military coup was not desired by the Iranian people, so the change had to take place at a popular level in the form of a revolution that relied on the dominant current, which is the religious current. Therefore, it was necessary to search for a person who was suitable to carry out this role and Khomeini was present. Then France did not accept Khomeini’s residence in its territory on its own, but rather it was with the Shah’s knowledge on the basis that they would constantly keep him in the picture regarding Khomeini’s movements. However, the Americans and the French also did not provide the Shah with anything but one piece of news that harmed him. They provided him with the result of the communications between Khomeini and Karim Sanjabi, and instructed him to arrest Sanjabi.

The commander of the NATO forces in Europe came to Iran and stayed for the entire month of January, after the formation of the interim government of Shapour Bakhtiar, to convince the Shah to travel and to convince the army not to stage a coup but to support Bakhtiar; and Bakhtiar was used to remove the Shah.

After the Americans had announced their support for the Shah until the last moment, they refused to receive him and Carter did not contact him after he left Iran for the Bahamas.

In 1953, the Americans foiled the Mossadegh revolution because they needed the Shah. Today, they could have foiled this revolution if it had been against their interests.

The Americans’ refusal to monitor Ebrahim Yazdi means that they did not need to monitor him and that they knew the influential figures.

As soon as the Revolution succeeded, the army commander announced that the American experts must return and that oil will be pumped back to Western countries, including America. When the attack on the American embassy took place, Ebrahim Yazdi himself acted to end the crisis. (The army commander referred to was Mohammad Vali Qarni.)

The American experts paid three months’ rent in advance for their houses before leaving Iran.

There was a failed attempt to crush the Khomeini movement on the night of February 11, but things happened that are still incomprehensible, which foiled the attempt. This was followed by the Iranian army declaring its neutrality. This declaration changed the course of events, and then orders were issued to the army to lay down their weapons, and these orders also included instructions for the personnel in charge of protecting the embassies.

Carter did not focus on human rights issues except in Iran, and the Shah had once stated that two countries were working against him: America and Libya.

 

End of the confessions of Khomeini’s partners in the Revolution.^[6]

 

The Third Document: Article in the Kuwaiti newspaper al Watan

The Kuwaiti newspaper al Watan revealed secrets about why attempts by the Iranian army to crush the Khomeini movement failed, which was scheduled for the night of February 11.

The newspaper Al Watan in a secret report, quoted a diplomat from a Western European country in Beirut as saying: The United States, specifically, asked senior army commanders and their generals to make this decision at the last minute. And the US State Department informed its ambassador in Tehran, Sullivan, to quickly convince the senior generals not to take any escalatory step and to declare neutrality in political disputes.

Indeed, after the revolt of the Air Force, General Gharabaghi ordered his commanders to return to their barracks and avoid further violence and bloodshed. On the same day—February 14—the senior generals and army leaders met and issued a statement that read: To prevent the spread of chaos and bloodshed, the Supreme Council of the Army decided to maintain its neutrality from current political rivalries, and for this reason it orders all soldiers to return to their barracks and units.

The ambassador said that the reason for this measure was the fear that the conflict would continue between the army and the people, and the fear of extreme leftists infiltrating and their exploitation of the ongoing conflict between the army and the supporters of Khomeini. Also so that the strength of the army would be preserved, in order to play a future role similar to the role played by Suharto in Indonesia and the generals in Chile, after they overthrew the late Chilean President Salvador Allende. The Western ambassador added that a military coup will be resorted to by the United States [only] if the revolution gets out of hand and it is unable to contain it.

 

Considerations regarding these documents

When we quote paragraphs from the Shah’s published memoirs, this does not mean that we believe everything he said. The Shah claimed that his rule was democratic and denied the crimes committed by the SAVAK. He was lying about all of this. As for what he said about the United States and its role in the Revolution that overthrew him, it is a lesson for every traitorous ruler who links his destiny to the destiny of parties in the United States, leaving the masters of the White House roam freely in his country, while he does not disobey their orders and does not refuse their requests.

The Carter administration was determined to oust the Shah and expel him from Iran; because he began to try to deviate from the role assigned to him and challenged them on the issue of raising oil prices, and because he was at odds with the Democratic Party, Carter’s party, and a close friend of the Republican Party leaders.^[7]

The issue of ousting the Shah was a point of contention between the two parties. Carter and his aides expressed their views frankly and supported the Khomeini regime without reservation. Here are some of their positions.

• On 05/03/1979, Time Magazine published a statement by President Carter in which he responded to his opponents. Among the things he said were, “Those who ask the United States to intervene directly to stop the events are wrong and do not know the facts on the ground in Iran.”
• When American embassy was attacked in the days of the Revolution, Carter said, “The government of Dr. Bazargan was very cooperative in ensuring the safety of American citizens, which encourages the continuation of smooth and effective cooperation with the new Iranian leadership.” He added, “We will try to work closely with the current government in Iran and we have already had contacts with its most prominent leaders for some time.”
• In an interview with CBS, US Defense Secretary Brown described the Bazargan government as very cooperative and that the Americans can establish friendly relations with it. (Date of the interview: 25/02/1979.)
• US Assistant Secretary of State, Harold Saunders, presented his report before the Middle East Affairs Committee in which he said, “American interests in Iran have not changed, and we have a strong interest in Iran remaining a free, stable, and independent country.”

Truly, American interests have not changed in Iran. America knows best its interest. It worships its interests and itself. Even if its interests face danger, it would keep silent and its leader would not have stated, “Those who ask the United States to intervene directly to stop the events are mistaken and do not know the facts on the ground in Iran.”

As for the leaders of the Republican Party, they launched a vicious campaign against Carter, accusing him of betrayal and treachery against the Shah. George Bush described Carter as a hypocrite and read passages from the speech Carter gave when he received the Shah during his first visit to America after Carter’s victory, “I am proud of your friendship because you have turned Iran into an island of security and because you have protected the democracy.” Bush commented on these words by saying that Carter had at that time given the signal to the Central Intelligence Agency to begin destroying the Shah’s authority. It is worth mentioning that George Bush served in the CIA and knows their secrets very well.^[8]

A fierce argument broke out between former US Secretary of State, Kissinger, and Brzezinski, Carter’s National Security Advisor. The former accused the latter of conspiring against the Shah of Iran and denounced Carter and his aides’ position on the Shah, who served US policy for more than thirty years.

We return to the Shah’s confessions to extract the following conclusions:

1. The visit of General Huyser, deputy chief of the American forces in Europe, to Tehran shortly before the Shah’s departure actually took place. The Shah spoke about it in his memoirs and Khomeini’s partners spoke about it in the second document and said that he stayed throughout the month of January. Newspapers and news agencies spoke about his presence in Iran during that period.
2. Indeed, as the Shah said, Washington announced on January 11 that the Shah was about to leave Iran, and news agencies reported this news at the time. So how did the announcement come from the US administration and not from the Shah’s palace and his media apparatus?
3. The decisive factor in the Shah’s defeat was the neutralisation of the army. The Iranian army was one of the strongest armies in the Middle East, and its obedience to the Shah was absolute, rivaled only by the American military.

The army command decided to crush the Khomeini movement and set a date for this operation: February 11. This determination was made by the Western ambassador in an interview with al Watan on March 18, 1979. This was also indicated by Khomeini’s associates in their interview with al Hawadith on April 13, 1979. It was also mentioned in the Shah’s statements.

The army was capable of resolving the situation; indeed, any pilot officer could have shot down Khomeini’s plane on the day he arrived in Tehran. This was the least that was expected at that time.

The three documents unanimously agreed that General Huyser was behind the neutralisation of the army, although these documents were issued by political parties that differed in their orientation and were issued at different times. So, the owners of Al Watan and Khomeini’s associates were among the Shah’s most bitter enemies.

It is no coincidence that divergent political parties with varying opinions and ideals agreed in accusing the American administration, and that this accusation is a reasonable and acceptable accusation to anyone who followed the events of the Revolution.

The Shah said that there had been contacts between Huyser and Dr. Bazargan, and that these contacts had taken place behind the Shah’s back, through General Gharabaghi. The Shah added, “I know that General Huyser had been in contact with Mehdi Bazargan for a long time.” Then he said, “No one knows what happened next, and Mehdi Bazargan and General Huyser are the only ones who know what was being concocted behind everyone’s backs.”

He also said that Senator Mohammad Ali Masoudi told him that George Lambrakis, the First Secretary at the US Embassy in Tehran, had told him, “A new regime would soon be established in Tehran.”

A new regime was indeed established in Tehran, and Dr. Mehdi Bazargan was Prime Minister of the first government. He remains a senior member of the Revolutionary Council. Bazargan played an important role in restoring Iran’s relations with the United States. During his tenure, diplomatic representation between the two countries continued, and oil exports to the United States resumed.

We quote hereunder a statement by Bazargan in which he discussed his country’s position on the United States, an interview with Tehran Radio about his opinion of the West, and a document issued by the students who seized the hostages and found dozens of documents in the US embassy, ​​including a document that implicated Bazargan and revealed his collaboration with the United States. However, Khomeini intervened on behalf of his partner, Bazargan, and the students remained silent.

 

Bazargan’s position on the United States

In an interview with the New York Times, the Iranian Prime Minister Bazargan expressed his government’s determination to maintain good relations with the United States and once again expressed his regret for the attack on the American embassy in Tehran on Wednesday. Regarding Iranian oil exports, Bazargan said that his country would soon resume exports to all parts of the world, including the United States.^[9]

 

The West made Iran

Dr. Mehdi Bazargan, the Iranian Prime Minister, made a statement in a conversation that was broadcasted on state radio, “The essence of Iran’s existence as a state was born from our contact with the West, and it is contrary to the principles of Islamic law to destroy everything foreign.” He added, “Our Prophet Muhammad never opposed the West or anything non-Arab. The Prophet and Islam are free from personal whims.”

He also said, “With the exception of the ancient Persian poems of Ferdowsi, there is no idea of nationalism. The concept of a nation and a single people only appeared after the emergence of the West.”

He said that it is necessary to develop a new Islamic vision in a Western guise. He continued by saying that we cannot close our doors to every foreign idea. Bazargan recalled his student days when sitting in a chair was considered imitating the West and against Islam. He added that studying abroad was also considered against tradition and Islam.

Bazargan’s statement contrasts sharply with the categorical rulings issued by Imam Khomeini against the West and its evils. Khomeini had stated three days earlier in Qom that ties with the West must be severed.^[10]

 

The Freedom Movement is an Agent of the United States

Two students appeared on Iranian television on Safar 7, 1400 AH, stating that documents had been found at the embassy linking an organisation called the Freedom Movement, of which Dr. Bazargan was a founder, to the United States.Dr. Bazargan and two other leaders of the movement sent a letter to the Public Prosecutor of the Islamic Revolution, describing the allegations as baseless and demanding an investigation be opened and the students tried.

The students later issued a statement retracting their colleague’s claim, knowing that the two students had evidence linking the Freedom Movement to the United States. It is believed that Khomeini had intervened on behalf of Bazargan.

It is worth noting that the leaders of this movement are:

1. Dr. Mehdi Bazargan, former Prime Minister.
2. Hassan Nazih, former President of the Iranian Bar Association and Director General of the National Iranian Oil Company.
3. Engineer Ezzatollah Sahabi, member of the Council of Experts.

It is worth noting that Bazargan completed his engineering studies in France at Shah Reza Pahlavi’s own expense.^[11]

 

In summary:

The Soviet media outlets reported that General Huyser arrived in Tehran to carry out a military coup. From Paris, the New York Herald Tribune corrected the story, stating that all they had to do was replace the word “carry out” with “prevent,” so that Huyser’s mission would become “to prevent a military coup” [thus, glorifying the army].

The Shah said that Huyser had been in contact with Bazargan for a long time and had contacted him during his visit to Tehran, that is shortly before the Shah’s departure.

The students who seized the hostages publicly stated confirmed on Safar 7, 1400 AH, that Bazargan and his Freedom Movement had connections with the United States, based upon documents they found at the embassy. The students remained silent after Khomeini’s intervention, which does not change the truth that was previously aired on Iranian television.

The evidence we have presented proves that conversations had taken place between Khomeini and the American administration, whether directly or indirectly.

We heard some Islamists say, “Yes, there was American intervention, but in favour of Bakhtiar.” The evidence in our hands proves that it was in favour of Khomeini and his revolution; whoever has evidence to the contrary, let him present it.

 

 

NEXT⇒ 4. From their own mouths will they be condemned

---

^[1]  Where is Iran going?

^[2]  Washington, al Wakalat, 19/01/1980.

^[3]  Al Watan al ‘Arabi, issue 139, 17/10/1979.

^[4]  Tehran, al Wakalat, 05.07.1979.

^[5]  From the Journal Now Britain, translation of Arabic newspapers, 09/12/1979.

^[6]  Al Hawadith, issue 1171, 13/04/1979.

^[7]  See the second document and our previous report, Where is Iran going?

^[8]  Al Hawadith, issue 1163, 16/02/1979.

^[9]  Translation of Arabic Newspapers, 19/02/1979.

^[10]  Paris, Agence France-Presse; Reuters, 12/09/1979.

^[11]  Newsweek, 17/02/1979.