4. From their own mouths will they be condemned

BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents

 

4. From their own mouths will they be condemned

If we concede, for argument’s sake, that Khomeini is innocent of any foreign links, is this sufficient to say that the entire revolution had no connection to the United States?

 

The answer

We must understand the conditions of the pillars of government in Iran, such as the prime minister, the ministers, the army commanders and senior officers, the ayatollahs and religious authorities, and the members of the Revolutionary Council and the Consultative Assembly. If the majority of them were tainted, this means that the revolution was tainted.

In this research, we will investigate the conditions of some of the pillars of government, and we will not judge them through the testimony of the Shah’s supporters or some anti-Khomeini groups. Rather, we will judge them through the testimonies of the officials in power, and what has been officially broadcasted about them in Tehran’s media. If what has been said about them is true, then this is a judgment on the entire revolution. If what has been said about them is false, then this means that their media outlets are based on lies, the statements of their ayatollahs and senior officials are false, and the entire revolution is based on wicked, lying hands; Allah forbid. These are two bitter things.

As for Khomeini, he has advanced in age and his illnesses have increased, most notably a heart condition, with a foot in the grave, as they say. He exercises his power through the Council of Ministers and the Revolutionary Council, in other words through the figures we will discuss below.

 

Three Ministers are SAVAK Agents

Three ministers were indirectly accused yesterday of being agents of the former secret police, SAVAK, despite Iranian Prime Minister Mehdi Bazargan’s defence of them.

Agence France-Presse cited unconfirmed reports that the three ministers are:

1. Reza Sadr, Minister of Commerce.
2. Mohammad Izadi, Minister of Agriculture.
3. Kazem Sami, Minister of Health.

It hinted at the possibility of their resignation via a comprehensive cabinet reshuffle. Tehran newspapers described the reactions to it as a scandal.^[1] The three ministers were indeed removed.

 

SAVAK in Khomeini’s office

Three people were arrested on charges of espionage within Khomeini’s Revolutionary committees. An official source in the Revolutionary Guards’ circles stated that one of the detainees worked in the telex department at Khomeini’s headquarters, and the other two were SAVAK agents.^[2]

The question is whether their arrests was due to a dispute between them and their opponents who knew their affairs, or whether they were actually unknown to the committees.

 

The Islamic Republic Party is an agent of the United States

Hujjatul Islam Ali Tehrani, an influential religious scholar in Mashhad, sent a letter to Imam Khomeini in which he accused three senior Iranian religious leaders, including Ayatollah Mohammad Beheshti, Secretary of the Revolutionary Council, of having ties to the United States and of seeking to seize power.

In this letter, published in the Islamic Republic newspaper on January 19, 1980, Hujjatul Islam accused Ayatollah Beheshti, as well as Ayatollah Hashem Rasfanjani, Minister of the Interior, and Ali Khamenei, Imam of the Grand Mosque in Tehran, of attempting to seize power. Alaeddin Fares has been nominated to represent the Islamic Republican Party in the presidential elections.

The religious scholar said that the Islamic students must reveal the documents they found in the American embassy, ​​which will prove the close ties between the three religious leaders and Abbas Amir Entezam, the former government spokesman, currently imprisoned on charges of spying for the United States.^[3]

It is worth noting that the Islamic Republican Party is the largest party in Iran and unofficially Khomeini’s party. Its leaders dominate the cabinet and the Revolutionary Council and are expected to win the most votes in the next Consultative Council. This accusation against them comes from a senior religious authority in Mashhad, who speaks with knowledge when he demands the disclosure of the documents found by the students.

 

Abbas Amir Entezam

Mohammad Montazeri was asked about Abbas Amir Entezam, and he replied that he was a Zionist. When asked why he left this man and others in the ranks of the revolution, he said, “I have uncovered many secrets, but the revolution cannot uncover everything overnight.”^[4]

Agence France-Presse quoted Entezam as saying, “Iran, which possesses military equipment worth more than $40 billion and whose maintenance requires the assistance of foreign technicians, is considering recalling these experts in the future, provided that this does not constitute a pretext for Washington or any other country to interfere in the nation’s internal affairs.”^[5]

 

Arrest of Abbas Amir Entezam

Iranian television announced yesterday that Abbas Amir Entezam, the former spokesman for Mehdi Bazargan’s government and Iran’s ambassador to Sweden, had been arrested on the orders of the Islamic Public Prosecutor. The television indicated that Abbas Entezam was arrested because the Muslim students who occupied the American embassy in Tehran had presented documents proving his ties to the CIA.^[6]

 

Rouhani is an agent of the Shah

Ayatollah Rouhani is the one who called for the annexation of Bahrain to Iran, and the Shia of the Gulf responded to him, convinced that there is no dispute between him and Khomeini, especially since he once declared that Bahrain was part of Iran in a mosque where Khomeini was present. He appears to be the leader of the Shia in Europe. Let us read here the testimony of some of his people about him.

 

Iran’s Ambassador to Paris

Chamseddine Amiralai, Iran’s ambassador to Paris, issued a statement today fiercely attacking Rouhani, saying, “Rouhani is not a person entrusted with any important matter, and he does not have any official or religious representative capacity. All that he claims in this regard are baseless. Furthermore, the file that strongly incriminates him, which is present in the Iranian embassy in Paris, provides evidence that he cooperated closely for several years with the former Shah and his agencies.”^[7]

While Iran’s leaders insist that Rouhani has no official representative capacity, we find him issuing an order to dismiss Ambassador Amiralai. By what right did he issue such an order?

 

Testimony of Mohammad Montazeri

Sheikh Mohammad Montazeri acknowledged the existence of religious figures who hide behind the guise of religion with the aim of infiltrating the revolution, to weaken it and disrupt it. He gave examples of this. He said that Rouhani and his brothers were CIA agents, as was Abbas Amir Entezam.

This testimony came during a press conference held by Montazeri at the Hilton Kuwait on July 19, 1979.

 

Ardakani’s Testimony

Ali Shams Ardakani, Iran’s ambassador to Kuwait, visited the United Arab Emirates. In a statement to the Abu Dhabi-based al Fajr newspaper, he spoke about Ayatollah Rouhani, saying, “Rouhani is an ordinary person with no influence in Iran, and from a religious standpoint, he does not hold any scholarly title.” He added, “The Americans and the Zionist Mossad were looking for someone to harm relations between Iran and the Arabs.”

The ambassador also said that he was certain that Rouhani’s brother, Sayyed Rouhani, was an agent of the SAVAK and the Shah’s religious representative in Europe.^[8]

 

Rouhani: America gave us the green light

In an interview with Paris Match magazine, Ayatollah Rouhani said, “The army was in the hands of 40 000 American advisors, and from the moment America gave the green light for the Revolution—I am convinced that America gave us the green light—it was not in the army’s power to do what it is doing now, which is to fire a bullet of false loyalty to the Shah. When this army realises that it is facing a Revolution and not just a riotous mob, it will fall into the arms of the people.”^[9]

Ayatollah Rouhani was Khomeini’s representative in Washington when the latter was in France.

 

Lieutenant General Tavakoli

Nasrollah Tavakoli, Khomeini’s military advisor, was accused by the Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MEK) of having ties to SAVAK. Ralph Schoenman, a member of the US Commission on personal and artistic freedoms in Iran, submitted a report accusing him of being an agent for America. Iranian newspapers paid great attention to the Freedoms Commission’s statements, causing an uproar. Tavakoli accused Schoenman of working for the CIA. This uproar led to Tavakoli’s resignation from his position.^[10]

The Fadaiyan-e-Khalq participated in creating the uproar against Tavakoli, accusing him of working for SAVAK and the CIA, and expressed surprise at his presence in power.^[11]

 

General Mohammad-Vali Gharani

After General Mohammad-Vali Gharani was appointed Chief of Staff, he demanded the return of American military experts and reinstated many of the Shah’s agents in the army. General Gharani had orchestrated a military coup against the Shah twenty years prior and was released under pressure from the United States.

The Fadaiyan-e-Khalq claimed that his opposition to the Shah was part of a role distribution framework and that he was loyal to the Americans.

Mohammad-Vali Gharani was a powerful figure who was considered for the highest positions, had he not been assassinated. The Forqan group was suspected of killing him.

 

Hassan Habibi

Hassan Habibi was accused by more than one political party in Iran. His name was subsequently mentioned in the third issue of Counterspy magazine, published in the United States, in December 1978, by John Kelly. The following information was provided about Habibi, “Dr. Hassan Habibi was summoned to the United States and officially joined the CIA on 15/05/1963. It is worth noting that Dr. Hassan Habibi was the official spokesman for the Iranian Revolutionary Council and a presidential candidate.”

 

Ebrahim Yazdi

Ebrahim Yazdi studied in the United States for sixteen years and holds American citizenship in addition to his Iranian citizenship. His wife is also American.

Ebrahim Yazdi was responsible for anti-Shah activities and demonstrations during his stay there. Yazdi led the famous demonstration during the Shah’s visit to the White House. The demonstrators nearly climbed the White House wall. Newspapers at the time were astonished by Carter’s inaction, including al Nahar al ‘Arabi wa al Dawli in its 20/05/1978 issue. They wondered why the Carter administration took this stance and did not suppress the demonstrators.

Why did the CIA let him do what he wanted? Was it unable to orchestrate an assassination of him, or hand him over to the Shah of Iran, or enable the SAVAK to torture him? I am not the only one who was surprised by the CIA’s stance on Yazdi; rather the Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MEK) were also astonished.^[12]

The answer to this question came when Ebrahim Yazdi led the Revolutionary Guards to end the occupation of the American embassy and save the ambassador’s life. His stance had the greatest impact on the American administration.

US Senator James Abourezk revealed the political and no-political assistance he had provided to Khomeini’s representatives, Ebrahim Yazdi, in Washington. He also helped secure the release of Iranian students arrested after their demonstrations against the Shah on February 2, 1978.^[13]

Ebrahim Yazdi then became president of the Association of Iranian Professors and Students Abroad, then Deputy Prime Minister for Revolutionary Affairs, and Foreign Minister, and well as one of the founders of the Revolutionary Guard.

During Yazdi’s tenure, he consistently called for not severing his country’s relations with the West.^[14] He conducted negotiations with American officials that led to the import of large quantities of spare parts.^[15]

He met with Vance at the United Nations, just as he met with Leonid Brezhnev and Alexei Kosygin in Algeria on November 1, 1979.

 

Sadegh Ghotbzadeh

Sadegh Ghotbzadeh was one of Khomeini’s most zealous and reckless supporters. He played, and continues to play, a key role in Khomeini’s Iranian politics. He was accused by students of being an agent of America, as well as by extremist Shia organisations that split with Khomeini.

The German magazine Der Spiegel wrote about him in this excerpt, “With his usual tall stature and elegant appearance, he applied for the position of foreign correspondent for Der Spiegel three years ago. He explained at the time how the Iranian secret police, SAVAK, had pursued him during the Shah’s reign.”

It added, “In 1959, Ghotbzadeh, the son of a lumber merchant, enrolled at Georgetown University in Washington to study diplomacy. He became known among his colleagues for his great love of large American cars. In 1967, he was expelled from the United States and became hostile to it, beginning to connect with Arab revolutionaries in Libya, Syria, and Iraq.”^[16]

 

Ghotbzadeh and Syria

Through the mediation of Imam Musa al Sadr, the Syrian government agreed to appoint Sadegh Ghotbzadeh as the second director of the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) in Paris in the early seventies. Thus, began the close relationship between him and Syrian Minister Abdul Halim Khaddam.^[17]

Ghotbzadeh had strong ties with Hafez al Assad and his brother Rifaat, and Khaddam was their servant.

 

Ghotbzadeh was an agent for more than one side

Newsweek magazine reported in its 11/12/1978 issue that a Syrian personality stands behind Khomeini… and that this mysterious figure—according to French intelligence—had strong ties to the French and Italian Communist parties, and was also working for Libyan intelligence.

We would like to note the following observations regarding this story:

1. Sadegh Ghotbzadeh is Iranian but holds Syrian citizenship due to the close ties between the Nusayris and the Shia. This is where the magazine referred to him as a Syrian personality.

2. Sadegh Ghotbzadeh had strong ties with Musa al Sadr, who introduced him to Hafez al Assad, who granted him citizenship and appointed him director of SANA in Paris. Also, he had strong ties with Khomeini since his early days in Iraq. Some Western journalists who visited Baghdad contacted Khomeini, and this contact raised problems. Their contact was based on a recommendation from Ghotbzadeh.

3. Ghotbzadeh was indeed a link between Gaddafi and the Shia, led by Khomeini. Gaddafi made this statement to news agencies on 05/04/1980. These are Gaddafi’s words, “I have known Iranian Foreign Minister Mr. Ghotbzadeh well since he was the link between me and Imam Khomeini during his stay in Paris, when Libya was providing material and moral assistance to the Islamic Revolution before the fall of the Shah.”

Ali Hojjati Kermani, the husband of Reza al Sadr’s daughter, Musa al Sadr’s brother, said in an interview with al Hawadith that Khomeini sent Ghotbzadeh to Gaddafi to discuss the issue of al Sadr’s disappearance.^[18] Al Watan al ‘Arabi, issue 110, also reported on Ghotbzadeh’s connections with Gaddafi.

4. Some people are surprised by Newsweek’s statement that Ghotbzadeh works for more than one side, and that most likely each party is unaware of his connections with the other. In some cases, they may even be aware that they are the ones who task him with establishing relations with the enemy.

On 17/04/1400 AH, some newspapers reported that a secret meeting took place between Ghotbzadeh, Rifaat al Assad, and Vance in France.

 

Was Taleghani Poisoned?

A rift occurred between Ayatollah Mahmoud Taleghani and Ayatollah Khomeini early in the beginning of the Revolution. Khomeini was fearful of Taleghani’s popularity and his good relations with the National Front on the one hand and leftist factions on the other.

When Taleghani left Tehran in anger, the city closed its gates, and his supporters that numbered more than 50 000 staged a demonstration. Khomeini found nothing to say except the words he usually issued against his opponents, “The CIA and SAVAK agents infiltrated the demonstration supporting Taleghani.”

Taleghani’s sudden death astonished everyone, both inside and outside of Iran. Mohammad Montazeri, a member of the Consultative Committee of the Islamic Party leadership, said, “I believe that Ayatollah Mahmoud Taleghani was poisoned by Zionist agents.” He added that an assassination attempt on Taleghani was foiled last June. He also said, “With his death, we have lost one of the greatest revolutionary leaders who fought for fifty years against Zionism, imperialism, tyranny, and the Pahlavi monarchy.”^[19]

 

Khomeini’s conflict with Shariatmadari

Khomeini’s conflict with Shariatmadari is no secret. Since the day the former arrived in Tehran, everyone has been talking about the poor relationship between them. Shariatmadari, in his press interviews, did not hesitate to point out the differences in viewpoints between him and Khomeini. However, he tried to downplay the extent of the disagreement, describing it as a matter of principle and methodology, not of objectives and fundamentals.

Shariatmadari disagreed with Khomeini over Wilayat al Faqih (Guardianship of the Jurist) in the constitution, which granted Khomeini authority no less than that of the Shah. He also criticised the regime’s and the Revolutionary Guard’s position toward the people of Azerbaijan, and the occupation of the American embassy in Tehran.

The dispute between them reached Qom, where several battles broke out between their supporters, resulting in a number of deaths and injuries. Many clashes also took place in the city of Tabriz. The two leaders held several meetings, but none yielded any positive results.

Khomeini or one of his aides would declare after each clash that the SAVAK and the CIA were behind the support for Shariatmadari, although they sometimes resorted to insinuations without explicitly stating the facts.

Shariatmadari tried to leave Qom for the Azerbaijan region or Mashhad, but he was prevented from fulfilling this wish. His supporters stated that the authorities had placed their Imam under house arrest.

The following are some of the accusations levelled against Shariatmadari by Khomeini’s supporters, the Revolutionary Guards, and the newspapers:

1. Ayatollah Hossein Montazeri was asked why he asked Shariatmadari to dissolve his party. He replied, “Because this party includes a group of opportunists and SAVAK members who have infiltrated it.” Montazeri was then asked about Shariatmadari’s disagreement with Khomeini over the issue of Guardianship of the Jurist. He replied, “If it weren’t for Guardianship of the Jurist, how would Shariatmadari have achieved this status?”^[20]

Ayatollah Hossein Montazeri, a member of the Revolutionary Command Council and Friday prayer leader in Tehran, and one of Khomeini’s closest confidantes, did not say in his answers here, as others have, that Shariatmadari has no connection to this party. Rather, he proved that it is his party and that the request was indeed directed to Shariatmadari. In his second answer, he attempted to belittle Shariatmadari and argued that the Revolution was the one that created this position for him.

The truth be said: Shariatmadari held a prominent position in Iran. He was persecuted by the Shah, and his house was raided more than once. SAVAK even opened fire on his home. Montazeri is not correct in his assertion. Rather, it was the Revolution that created Khomeini. Shariatmadari was older and more senior than him, but the demands Shariatmadari advocated did not prevent the Shah from remaining in power.

2. Tehran, Agence France-Presse: The Iranian newspaper al ‘Amal reported that Ayatollah Shariatmadari had contacted SAVAK officials. Some documents published by al ‘Amal, dating back to 23/09/1978, indicate that Shariatmadari urged the Shah to be patient and tolerant in resolving difficulties through peaceful means during his discussions with a SAVAK official. Ayatollah Shariatmadari also presented to the Shah his proposals for a moderate path to save the crown, the throne, and the regime, according to the newspaper.

The newspaper published other documents revealing Ayatollah Shariatmadari’s financial investments in various businesses. The newspaper also reported that the religious leader had invested 90 million rials in the La Siyac fire extinguisher company.

Observers noted that the newspaper did not clarify the source of these documents, the authenticity of which is difficult to verify. Ayatollah Shariatmadari’s secretariat did not respond to these publications.^[21]

It appears that such contacts took place between Shariatmadari and the Shah. The former was demanding a return to the 1906 Constitution, which granted broad powers to Shia religious authorities. He also called for the establishment of democratic rule, and was not a proponent of Guardianship of the Jurist or Guardianship of the ayatollahs.

The Shah noted in his memoirs that General Nasser Moghaddam had conveyed to him an important proposal from a prominent religious figure. This is how the Shah described this figure, without mentioning his name. Based on this figure’s proposal, he changed the government of Jamshid Amouzegar and attempted to implement some reforms, particularly those that would satisfy the clergy, such as adopting the Hijri calendar and the closure of casinos and gambling clubs.

 

Who was the Englishman accompanying Shariatmadari?

Under this very headline, the newspaper al Mustaqbal published the following report in France, “Following the recent events in Tabriz, the capital of Iran’s Azerbaijan Province, which witnessed violent clashes between supporters of Ayatollah Khomeini and Ayatollah Shariatmadari, the spotlight has focused on the blond British man, John Cooper, who works as an interpreter for Ayatollah Shariatmadari. Some observers are wondering about his true role in the political line advocated by Shariatmadari. John Cooper had converted to Islam and attended Islamic religious studies at Iranian universities and religious seminaries in Qom.”^[22]

 

Shariatmadari under house arrest

Agence France-Presse reported: Ayatollah Shariatmadari would not be able to receive his supporters on Wednesday, as he does every year on the occasion of the fortieth day of mourning for the martyrdom of Imam Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu, and an Iranian news agency provided a statement which said that Shariatmadari asked his supporters not to attempt to meet with him, without explaining the reason for that.

This statement comes at a time when rumours have circulated in Iran about the possibility of restricting the freedom of movement of the revolutionary religious leader in Iran. But nothing has happened yet to deny these rumours.^[23]

Radio Baghdad broadcasted a statement by Shariatmadari on 25/12/1979 in which he said that he was no different from any other prisoner in Iran, that he was under house arrest, and that the Revolutionary Guards were guarding his home.

 

Conclusion

This is Khomeini, the leader of the Iranian Revolution. These are the pillars and leaders of the Iranian Revolution. These are the secrets of the Iranian Revolution, the role the American administration played with Khomeini, and the role General Huyser played with Bazargan and the army leadership.

How do the leaders of the Islamic groups continue to support Khomeini and his Revolution?

How did they perform the funeral prayer in absentia for their dead?

How do these groups perpetuate Sunni discord among themselves, agreeing on Khomeini but disagreeing with each other?

They might say, “Yes, there are tainted figures in the Revolution, and Khomeini knows nothing about them, or that he knows and will clip their wings.” Previously, the Nasserites said that the betrayal came from Abdel Hakim Amer and Salah Nasr. We told them, as we tell the leaders of the Shia Islamist groups: Khomeini is a strong, highly intelligent person with a wealth of experience that cannot be underestimated. He has the final say. How could he be ignorant of the conditions of those with whom he has dealt for many years? How can we believe he was ignorant of Bazargan’s connections with Huyser and his advisors’ connections with the CIA?

 

فَإِنَّهَا لَا تَعۡمَى ٱلۡأَبۡصَٰرُ وَلَٰكِن تَعۡمَى ٱلۡقُلُوبُ ٱلَّتِي فِي ٱلصُّدُورِ

For indeed, it is not eyes that are blinded, but blinded are the hearts which are within the breasts.^[24]

 

The Iran Hostage Crisis

A group of Iranian students occupied the American embassy, ​​holding its staff hostage. Khomeini declared his support for the students’ actions. Negotiations took place between the Iranian and American governments, with the former insisting that the hostages would not be handed over unless the United States surrendered the Shah back to the Iranians. This crisis sparked a global uproar, and Islamist groups, as usual, rushed to support Khomeini, viewing his actions as heroic and a “clipping of the wings” of the United States in the region.

After demonstrating with evidence and proof the connection between Khomeini’s Revolution and the United States, we do not wish to give this process too much importance. Rather, we would like to note the following observations:

1. The hostage-crisis occurred under unenviable circumstances for the Iranian Revolution as internal revolts erupted on all sides and disputes soon arose among its members.

There was a huge dispute between Shariatmadari and Khomeini, then another between Bazargan and his group with the Islamic Republican Party and their supporters. There was also a dispute between the Revolutionary Guards and Shariatmadari’s supporters, then also between the Revolutionary Guards and most leftist factions.

Added to this was the contentious issue of the constitution and the divisive referendum surrounding it. Against this backdrop, Khomeini and his supporters orchestrated a strategic maneuver that shifted public attention toward the external American threat looming over Iran. In doing so, Khomeini succeeded in securing the passage of the constitution, revitalizing the Revolution, ousting Bazargan’s government, and deflecting popular focus away from the depth of domestic discord.

2. The operation was nothing more than a staged charade. If the Iranian government had been honest, it would have closed the US embassy from the beginning of its rule. If the US administration had been convinced that the operation was hostile, it would have treated Iran in kind. However, the United States did not take any effective action against the Iranian embassy in the States, and there are more than 100 000 Iranians in the United States, 50 000 of whom are students.. It could have arrested many times the number of hostages held at the American Embassy in Tehran, based on the principle of reciprocity.

3. The crisis gave the United States an opportunity to deploy a massive military force and advanced equipment to the Gulf region. American forces took up positions in the Arabian Sea and the Gulf waters, and it soon became clear that bases would be established in Oman, Somalia, and Kenya. Under the pretext of besieging Iran, these bases ultimately facilitated the continuation of the hostage-crisis.

4. We said it was quite natural for Khomeini’s revolutionaries to close the American Embassy upon their rise to power. However, for them to accept diplomatic representation with it, provide it with credentials, and then betray—this is not the conduct of sincere Muslims. How then was this act turned into a form of heroism?

5. There were secret negotiations between Khomeini and his government on the one hand, and Carter and his administration on the other. Some newspapers reported on these negotiations, including the following:

Heikal said that secret contacts took place between Carter, Khomeini, and al Sadr, and that they agreed to release the hostages. He said this in an article published in the Sunday Times, which was translated in Arabic newspapers on 04/02/1980.

The San Francisco Examiner reported that Carter sent at least three letters to Khomeini via an American diplomat on 16/02/1980.

Newspapers also reported a secret meeting between Ghotbzadeh and Vance in France, and meetings he held at the behest of the American embassy and while taking refuge in the Iranian Foreign Ministry with several officials in Tehran.

An intriguing secret will be revealed regarding the Shah, namely that the Shah fled from Panama to Egypt after realising that Carter was plotting with Khomeini to kill him, either through surgical operation or by handing him over to Tehran. And Allah knows best.

 

The Communists and Khomeini’s Revolution

During his stay in France, Khomeini declared that the Soviets did not and would not support his movement because they were among the countries benefiting from the Shah’s regime.^[25]

Before the Shah’s departure, Leonid Brezhnev issued a statement that was published on the front-page of Pravda, which attacked Khomeini, saying that he was working for his own benefit and should not expect any Soviet support.^[26]

Radio Moscow attacked Khomeini, accusing him of being a maniac. When Khomeini said that the Soviet Union was one of the countries benefiting from the Shah, he was right. The Soviets’ relationship with the Shah was very strong. They had 5 000 Soviet experts in Iran supervising natural gas projects, the construction of dams and power plants, and advanced agricultural projects. Figures distributed by Moscow Narodny Bank in 1986 indicate that Russian exports to Iran reached $218 million, while imports reached $227 million.^[27]

It is not in the Soviets’ interest to establish an Islamic republic in a country bordering Islamic regions of the Soviet Union. Added to this is the deep-rooted hostility between secular atheistic communism and Islam.

For all the above reasons, it is not surprising that the Soviets attacked Khomeini’s Revolution and attacked Khomeini’s communist supporters. One of their ayatollahs even said, “If a communist shook my hand, I would wash my hand to purify it from impurity.” Bazargan, head of the interim government, denounced the Tudeh Party, accusing it of betraying Mosaddegh and working for the Soviet Union.^[28]

The position of the Soviet Union changed after the Shah left Iran, and in the same Pravda that previously insulted Khomeini, on 21/01/1979, it wrote saying “Iranian leaders have a good historical reputation for opposing tyranny and have always expressed the people’s protest against the Shah’s despotic regime, which was backed by American dominance.”^[29]

Tudeh Party leader Noureddin Kianouri, aged 63, said that the Shia have long democratic roots in their history, and therefore there is no contradiction between scientific socialism and the social content of Islam… Rather, there is a common language.^[30]

The Soviet Union and the Tudeh Party disavowed the Fadaiyan-e-Khalq attack on the US embassy. TASS news agency reported that the CIA cooperated with some leftist factions and remnants of the SAVAK to carry out the operation.

The Soviets distributed books on Muslims in which they discussed the similarities between communism and Islam. The Fadaiyan-e-Khalq declared in a book titled al ‘Adl Tariq al Hukm (Justice is the Path of Government) that Marxism and Islam both call for social justice, and Islam and Marxism are one creed, as they see it.^[31]

 

How the position of the Soviet Union and the Tudeh Party changed

We are not the only ones who are surprised by this change in the Soviet position. Before us, the Fadaiyan-e-Khalq were surprised by the Tudeh Party’s position, saying that what concerns us most is that the communist Tudeh Party is more enthusiastic about the Islamic Republic than the religiously devout and even more so than the Ayatollahs. Is this not surprising? They raise several questions.^[32]

In one day, Khomeini apologised for not receiving the Pakistani ambassador in Tehran and referred him to the Foreign Ministry due to his many preoccupations. However, he did receive the Soviet ambassador, Vino Gradov, and held a lengthy meeting with him.^[33]

The Soviets were not harmed by Khomeini’s Revolution. Soviet experts returned to Iran, natural gas exports to Iran resumed, and the Gulf communists supported the Revolution. The revolutionaries of Oman and Yemen supported it, as did the communists of Kuwait and Bahrain.

The questions that arise are:

• How did the communists support a revolutionary scholar who was attacked by their radio station and accused of fanaticism?
• How did Khomeini establish good relations with an atheist party that adopted the slogan of “War against God, religions, prophets, and the Last Day”?
• How did Khomeini cooperate with a party and a regime that exterminated millions of Muslims in its bloody revolution and deprived the rest of them of freedom of worship, prayer, fasting, and Hajj?
• How does this position make sense from a person who claims to be a preacher of Islam and a leader of the Islamic Republic?

There is no need to be surprised or for many questions. The leader of the Tudeh Party revealed a dangerous secret in his aforementioned statement.

As for the communists’ plan, continuing their support is appropriate for them. For them, it is a temporary tactic. There are several reasons for this, the most important of which is that Khomeini’s revolutionaries are eliminating groups hostile to the communists. This elimination exhausts Khomeini’s supporters on one hand and eliminates another enemy that the communists have a vested interest in eliminating. This truce helps them regroup, exploit favourable conditions, and enable them to seek out supporters who can form a national front with them to overthrow the extremist supporters of Khomeini.

There are several cards the communists are exploiting, including the Kurdish Democratic Leftist Party, which cooperates with them.

The National Front includes Karim Sanjabi, who resigned from the provisional government in protest against Khomeini’s dictatorship and his committees. The National Front includes Ayatollah Taleghani, who flirts with the leftists and has called on more than one occasion for freedom for the leftists and the Tudeh Party.^[34]

The communists are active in sensitive areas of Iran, including Azerbaijan neighbouring the Soviet Union, among the Kurds, among the oil workers in southern Iran, and among university students.

It is true that the communists cannot monopolise power, but they can do so within a national democratic front they dominate. This was expressed by the leader of the Tudeh Party, who said, “The party sees no need for bloodshed. We can achieve our goals through peaceful means, and Kianouri has raised the slogan of the ‘Democratic National Front’.”^[35]

 

Kianouri: Khomeini Supports Communists

Noureddin Kianouri, the first secretary of the Tudeh Party, the Iranian Communist Party, expressed his full support for Ayatollah Khomeini’s policies in an interview published by the Hungarian daily newspaper Nebeza Padsaj on 18/01/1980.

Kianouri stated that the most important factor in Iran today is the fight against imperialism. He added that the economic changes currently taking place in Iran, in particular, are for the benefit of the people, and that his party is fighting to consolidate this process.

In response to a question about the ban on the party’s newspaper, Kianouri said, “Khomeini has recognised our influence on the masses and now supports our activities just as the Revolutionary Council does.”

The Tudeh Party secretary went on to say that his party has never enjoyed such freedom as it does now. He added that Khomeini is fighting against imperialism and the remnants of the monarchy and wants to establish a democratic government.^[36]

 

The Iranian Revolution and the PLO

The Shia Revolution brought to mind Abdel Nasser’s propaganda and media style.

• It is a revolution, and the youth are fascinated by revolutions and revolutionaries.
• It is a progressive republic that overthrew the rotten imperial monarchy and took upon itself to fight reactionary and imperialist regimes.
• It is an Islamic one, and our nation is thirsty and has long awaited an Islamic awakening and an Islamic revolution that would restore the Caliphate.
• The revolution is against Zionist colonialism and American imperialism.
• The revolution calls for the liberation of all of Palestine and denounces the Geneva Conference, Camp David, and Jerusalem.

It seems that this is the day that the Palestinians are eagerly awaiting. Khomeini will liberate Jerusalem, Haifa, and Hebron for them. Yasser Arafat was the first to visit Tehran to congratulate him. He distributed his famous kisses to the faces of the Revolution’s leaders and addressed Khomeini, saying, “The Iranian Revolution does not belong to the Iranian people alone; it is our revolution as well. We consider Imam Khomeini our revolutionary and our first guide.” Arafat said similar words to Castro, whose shadow falls not only on Iran but also on the holy places and al Aqsa Masjid in Jerusalem.^[37]

On 11/02/1979, the skies over the Palestinian camps in Beirut and the surrounding suburbs turned into a mass of fire. Palestinians and Lebanese citizens alike began firing various weapons at an unusually high intensity in celebration of the success of Khomeini’s Revolution.

Have the leaders of this organisation forgotten the role of the esoteric Shia Hafez al Assad and how he aligned himself with the Maronites against the Palestinians and Lebanese Muslims? Or have they forgotten al Sadr’s betrayal of them when he joined the Nusayri army upon entering Lebanon and ordered the Amal Organization and its soldiers operating in the West Lebanon Army to join the Syrian army?

How long will the Palestinians remain a pawn in the hands of the tyrants of the Arab and Islamic world?

The PLO chose the well-known clown Hani al Hassan to be its representative in Tehran, a curious spokesman for the Khomeini movement. He was not ashamed to stand as a preacher at a demonstration and say, “Tomorrow, Turkey, and the day after tomorrow, Palestine.”^[38]

Sunni Turkey is a traditional enemy of Shia Iran, and this is the mission the Khomeini movement wants from the PLO. It wants to ridicule the Palestinians, just as Abdel Nasser had ridiculed them before, instructing them to chant, “Liberate Riyadh, Amman, Damascus, and Baghdad before liberating Palestine.”

The question is: Is it true that Iran will carry out or contribute to the liberation of Palestine?

The answer to this question came without explicit mention from the leader of the Revolution, Khomeini, and Shariatmadari. Khomeini said in his first meeting with Arafat after the success of the Revolution, “Iran will play its role in the Palestinian cause when it is rid of the Shah’s legacy.”^[39] Ayatollah Shariatmadari apologised for not providing aid to the Palestinian revolution, given that Iran is currently experiencing critical circumstances, and that Iran may need assistance.^[40]

It may take a long time, and years may pass, before Iran is liberated from the Shah’s legacy, as Khomeini promised Arafat, especially when Khomeini became angry with Shariatmadari, he said that most of his supporters were from SAVAK, and when he became angry with Taleghani, he said that most of those who demonstrated on his behalf were agents of the CIA.

Khomeini’s promise to Arafat is not defined and its term is unknown. Rejoice in long life, O Israel, when your enemy is Khomeini and his people.

Then Amir Entezam, the official government spokesman, came and accused the Palestinians of searching Iranian homes and hotels, and denied that Iran was willing to provide them with financial assistance. He then said in a press conference, “The conspiracy against Khuzestan is being carried out by a group of separatists who have agreed with a landless people to incite the masses.”

When Hani al Hassan was asked about the position of Amir Entezam, Yazdi, and Ghotbzadeh, he did not deny their hostility toward the Revolution, but said, “Iran is better than some Arab regimes and was a sword hanging over us, so it is now with us.” When asked about the Revolution’s position on the Arab islands and the Gulf, he claimed that the situation would change after the elections and that the statements of the new leaders—which are no different from those of the Shah—are tactical.

Hani al Hassan, Arafat, and the rest of the PLO leaders will continue their policy of misleading, deception, and brainwashing. Whoever loses their faith and belief has lost everything, Allah forbid.

 

The Vatican and the Revolution

Khomeini addressed a letter to Christians throughout the world, which read:

 

Peace be upon the clergy, priests, and monks who uphold the teachings of ‘Isa, son of Maryam, and bring peace to the souls of the disobedient and the obstinate… and greetings to the freedom-loving Christians who draw their lessons from the teachings of Christ.

 

Khomeini, thus, believes that priests and monks uphold the teachings of ‘Isa ibn Maryam, and we Muslims believe that ‘Isa ibn Maryam is innocent of priests and monks because they are polytheists and infidels.

The Christians’ belief in ‘Isa ibn Maryam is no different from the Shia belief in Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.

He then added in his letter:

 

I appeal to you, sons of Christian nations, in the name of the oppressed people of Iran, to pray on your holy holidays for our nation, which is groaning under the yoke of tyranny, and to ask God Almighty to grant it salvation from it.

 

Khomeini enjoins the prayers of those who pray to the Father and the Holy Spirit, awaiting deliverance from the prayers of idol worship… This is not surprising, as the idols of Christians are like the idols of the Shia, and Almighty Allah has spoken the truth.

ﯶ ﯷ ﯹ ﯺ ﯻ ﯼ ﯽ

Their hearts resemble each other. We have shown clearly the signs to a people who are certain [in faith].^[41]

 

Did we not tell you that the Shia are drawn to every nation for a reason that suits them? (Western press published the letter on 22 Muharram 1399 AH, corresponding to 23/12/1978). Khomeini had strong relations with the Pope and his aides. When his Revolution succeeded, Pope John Paul II quickly endorsed it in a letter carried by the papal ambassador in Tehran to Khomeini.^[42]

Archbishop Hilarion Capucci visited Iran and stated that he spoke and worked as a man of the church, not as a politician, and that he wanted to participate in the rapprochement between Christianity and Islam. He praised Khomeini, who was pleased to unite Christians under the banner of the Islamic Republic, and considered the Jews in Iran brothers to their Muslim citizens.^[43] It is worth noting that Capucci is a candidate for a role in the region, just as Khomeini played a role, and his call for Islamic-Christian rapprochement was a slogan raised by America from the days of Eisenhower and his Secretary Dulles in the 1950s.

Before Capucci’s visit to Iran, he visited Lebanon and met with Edmond Rizk, the Phalangist leader, to reconcile them with Damascus. He also held several meetings with Nusayri President Hafez al Assad. After these visits, he returned to the Vatican. Briefly, this is Capucci’s itinerary: The Vatican, Hafez al Assad, the Phalangists, Khomeini. What comes next?

The question is: How did Communists, Christians, Western Europeans, and Islamic groups come together to support the Iranian Revolution? The day will come when people will learn that the Jews were behind this Revolution, just as Ibn Saba’ was behind the creation of their entity in the first place.

 

 

NEXT⇒ 

---

^[1]  Al Wakalat, 28/10/1979.

^[2]  Kuna, 16/04/1979.

^[3]  Agence France-Presse, 20/01/1980.

^[4]  Press conference at the Kuwait Hilton on the 18.07.1979.

^[5]  Tehran, al Wakalat, 23.06.1979.

^[6]  Kuwaiti Politics, 01/02/1400, broadcast on television on Wednesday, 30/01/1400 AH.

^[7]  Paris, AFP, 04/10/1979.

^[8]  Kuwaiti Politics, 26/12/1979 (from Abu Dhabi).

^[9]  Al Watan, Kuwait, 11/02/1979, from Paris Match.

^[10]  The Iraqi Revolution, 25/02/1979.

^[11]  Al Watan al ‘Arabi, issue 109, 22/03/1979

^[12]  Al Hawadith, 13/04/1979.

^[13]  In an interview with United States News Agency, 01/03/1979.

^[14]  Al Wakalat, 23/06/1979.

^[15]  Al Wakalat, 05/07/1979.

^[16]  Der Spiegel, 15/01/1980, translation.

^[17]  Al Hawadith, issue 1207, 21/12/1979.

^[18]  Al Hawadith, issue 1165.

^[19]  Paris, Agence France-Presse; Reuters, 12/09/1979.

^[20]  Al Nahar al ‘Arabi wa al Dawli, 24, 30/12/1979.

^[21]  Al Siyasah, 14/01?1980, via Agence France-Presse.

^[22]  Al Mustaqbal, issue 148, 22/12/1979.

^[23]  Tehran, KUNA, 07/01/1980.

^[24]  Surah al Hajj: 46.

^[25]  Al Watan, Kuwait, 08.12.1978.

^[26]  Al Hawadith, issue 1171, 13/04/1979.

^[27]  Al Hawadith, issue 1160, 26/01/1979.

^[28]  Le Monde, 28/02/1979.

^[29]  Al Watan al ‘Arabi, Paris, issue 108.

^[30]  Ibid.

^[31]  October Magazine, issue 123, 04/03/1979.

^[32]  Al Hawadith, issue 1171, 13/04/1979, in a meeting between a Fadaiyan-e-Khalq leader and Hoda al Husseini.

^[33] Al Hadaf al Kuwaytiyyah, 01/05/1979.

^[34]  Wakalat al Anba’, 20/04/1979.

^[35]  Al Watan al ‘Arabi, issue 108. This report was written before Taleghani’s death.

^[36]  Agence France-Presse, 19/01/1980.

^[37]  The Guardian, from the Arab press, 21/02/1979.

^[38]  Wakalat al Anba’, 14/03/1979.

^[39]  Wakalat al Anba’, 20/02/1979.

^[40]  Al Watan al ‘Arabi, issue 108, 9-15/03/1979; Wakalat al Anba’.

^[41]  Surah al Baqarah: 118.

^[42]  Tehran, Kuna, 18/02/1979.

^[43]  Arab newspapers, 29/03/1979.