Camp Ashraf

In a letter to a British parliamentarian last month, a senior State Department official insisted that the United States was “doing its utmost” to ensure that Iraq’s government would treat 3,400 Iranian exiles living at Camp Ashraf in eastern Iraq “humanely.” Two weeks later, a clash between the exiles and Iraqi police left 11 Iranians dead, and 36 were taken into custody by Iraqi forces.

Americans troops had guarded the camp since 2003, but recently handed over responsibility to Iraqi forces. Baghdad promised that the exiles would be protected.

There is no authoritative version of events, but it does not look as if that promise is being kept...

The exiles have video showing ( Part I - Part II) Iraqi forces beating people with clubs and charging them with vehicles. The administration’s response has been weak. Officials say they will press Iraq to fulfill its promises but can only do so much now that Iraq is in charge.

The camp’s residents are members of the People’s Mujahedeen of Iran (MEK), which is committed to overthrowing Tehran’s government. Saddam Hussein welcomed them to Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war and they have lived at the camp ever since.

Iraq’s Shiite-dominated government now has good relations with Iran and little enthusiasm for the MEK. The Americans are at best ambivalent. The group, which some consider a cult, is on the American terrorism list for attacks against the United States (in the distant past) and more recently against Iran. In 2004, the United States — seeking to stabilize Iraq — recognized the camp’s residents as “protected persons” under the Fourth Geneva Convention, after they signed statements renouncing terrorism and gave up their weapons.

Residents say that Washington has now betrayed that commitment. They have a legitimate complaint.

The MEK is EVIL.

No one is more for Freedom for Iran than me, but the MEK will hardly bring freedom to anyone. Iranians hate the MEK, who sided with bloody, friggin Saddam Hussein. Sensible Americans and Iranians should refrain from shedding tears for the MEK, due to it's long and bloody history of terror against Americans and Imperial Iran.

The MEK (Mojahedeen Khalq - trained by Arafat’s PLO) trail of blood against Americans and it's allies:

In the 1970’s they launched a terror campaign against the Shah’s forces and Americans.

In 1970 they tried to kidnap US Ambassador McArthur.

In 1972 they almost succeeded in assassinating US Air Force General Price.

In 1973 they killed US Army Colonel Hawkins (shooting him at gun point) and in 1975 murdered US Air Force Colonel Turner.

1976 they murdered three American civilians from Rockwell Int.

They also killed an Imperial Iranian Gendarmerie colonel in 1975.

Their ideology is: Ali, Hossein (the Shia Imams), Marx and Engels and now has become Rajavi, Rajavi, Rajavi and Rajavi.

The MEK also supported the hostage taking of the US embassy in Tehran.

The MEK is among the major culprits of deposing the Shah and dragging Iran down the abyss of misery and gloom.

The MEK/MKO Rajavi cultists are the scum of the earth, and being (wannabe) rivals of the mullahs doesn’t redeem any of their crimes and evil goals.

Siding with the MEK only gives legitimacy to the mullahs and makes their case.

Freedom for Iran can come only from inside Iran, but would probably need stauch Western support, which under Obama won't happen. Neither Iran nor the US needs the MEK scum to achieve this goal.

Screw the Islamo-Marxist MEK cult.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" doesn't apply everytime. In this case it clearly doesn't.

Do you suggest we let those savages kill unarmed, defenseless refugees?

The Iraqi Army isn't any more savage than the MEK terrorists.

I have a hard time calling these goons "defenseless refugees", when a few years ago they were marching around armed to the teeth busy killing enemies of Saddam Hussein inside Iraq. These "poor, defenseless refugees" also were the ones toppling the Shah and killing Americans three decades ago. No tears from this corner.

They are Iranians.

They have stopped being Iranians the moment they sold themselves to Saddam Hussein. Also "being Iranian" is hardly an excuse. The mullah thugs also claim to be "Iranian"... they hardly have the best interest of Iran at heart either.

Reza Pahlavi, late Shah’s son, also condemned this attack sent his sympathy for the families which I believe was a very good move trying to heal the Iranian people’s suffering and division at a time when we all need unity.

I am a supporter of Reza Pahlavi, and understand that he is pursuing a policy of bridging divisions among Iranians and trying to achieve ultimately regime change through preferably peaceful means.

However I disagree with him on this point. He should have made no comment whatsoever on this incident.

Reza Pahlavi is a fine man, but his problem is that he isn't the caliber of his father, much less of his grandfather.

He should try less to be a Ghandi or Mandela and start being a Pahlavi. He lacks the certain dose of moxy and ruthlessness that his predecessors had, that would be beneficent for his cause.

Regarding the MEK and it's utility for the cause of destabilizing the Mullah regime, I firmly maintain that ignoring them would do good to our standing with the Iranian people. Any sensible Iranian has no love lost for the traitors who fought alongside Saddam Hussein, while even anti-Khomeini Iranian patriots in the military and even Reza Pahlavi himself were ready to fight Saddam Hussein when he invaded Iran.

Some of todays reformers will certainly be part of a future political landscape. Some will not. Folks like Khatami certainly will, but someone like Rafsanjani... hardly.

But I seriously doubt the MEK will. Iranians will hardly allow them to gain a foothold inside Iran. They might change their structure and become a political group under a different name (as they have tried repeatedly in exile)... but I have little doubt that they will be marginalized soon enough by Iranian mainstream society.

The only way ex-MEKs can be part of the future is dissociatng themselves from the Rajavi clan and the pro-Saddam past. Unless they do this they are dead on arrival...

On another note we need to consider why the MEK once thrived for a short time 1979-1981. They were the only armed resistance (short of monarchist Army officers) in opposition of the mullahs. Many who otherwise would have had nothing to do with the MEK, sided with them in order to fight Khomeini. But this fundamentally changed once they wh%red themselves to Saddam Hussein.

They have too much baggage to have a stake in Iran’s future... and considering that once they’d abandon their Rajavi-cultism they’d be just another leftist group, as there are countless among Iranians from Tudeh communists to Social-democrats, who haven’t the same baggage as the MEK.

If Western groups (as some American policymakers or Israel do) want to use the MEK (temporarily) as a source for espionage (although I have doubts to their reliability):

Use them for what they might be worth (we also allied with Stalin vs. Hitler)... but please don’t try to dishonestly rebrand them as freedom-loving, heroic democrats, which they clearly are not.

I’m pressed for time right now, so, maybe, we’ll talk later!

No problem... whenever you like. Pardon me if I delve into a lengthy essay... but I think it's not uninteresting to mention.

One of the late Shah’s mistakes was to try to combine modernity with Islam.

I don't think that this is an accurate characterization of what he attempted.

He didn't try to combine modernity with Islam, but tried to render Shiism powerless and make it subservient of his western-modernist regime (as the left back then called it: "Ultramodern militarist-imperialist state", I think a humorous, yet not entirely inaccurate name).

What he tried to change Shiism into was hardly recognizable as Islamic anymore. His type of religion was sort of a positive Deism trapped with Iranian folklore and personal mysticism.

He clearly tried a different, more comprehensive approach on secularizing Iran, than his father Reza Shah, who instead of creating a far-reaching new ideology, was relying on intense Nationalism and violently surpressing islamists alone. Not forgotten were his massacring of uppity islamists 1935 in Mashad who protested against secularization, westernization and the forcible de-veiling of women.

The Iranian epos Shahname, with it's strong emphasis on Kingship, pre-islamic Iran with a slight blend of islamic influence was more recognizable as the basis of the Crown-sponsored "official" religion (with quotation marks, because there was otherwise religious freedom and it was not much of a hassle then to convert to another religion) than the Quran, and even more so than the Mullah-sponsored Shiism, which the Shah branded accurately as "black medieval reaction of primitive darklings". At the same time he was quite slick at using i.e. quotes from the Shiite saints to justify his modernization program. It must have had the mullahs blood-pressure running up... LOL.

This is well illustrated by the actions taken by the Pahlavi regime which were direct assaults on Islam and the mullah's power. The effect these actions had on the fundies was hardly lost on him:

- Emancipating women legally and socially (right to vote and to hold office... Tehran had a female police superintendant, the first women was made minister, women were judges, more women in public service than West Germany, crowned his wife to be able to be head of state).

- Abolishing the islamic calendar and replacing it with the Imperial calendar, making the coronation of Cyrus the Great the start of time, instead of Mohamad's hijra.

- The Shah-loyal Rastakhiz-Youth preventing veiled women from entering Universities and public buildings, and agitiating publicly against Mullahs.

- The cultural "lewdness" "propagated" by Iranian and Western movies of that time (sexual content was usual at the B-Movies produced at that time. But they were at least entertaining. LOL)

- The Imperial Family showing itself publicly with pet dogs and (for islamist eyes) "lewdly" (swimsuits etc.)

(This must have had the mullahs foaming at their mouth.)

- The Shah celebrating Christmas with Americans

- The Shah having Bahais (his physician Ayadi) and Freemasons (Primeminister Hoveyda) in his closest circle.

- The less than secret ties with Israel.

I think all in all his attempt to remake Iran in the model of a western, secular, albeit authoritarian state was a noble undertaking. There were blunders along the way, but his vision of a Iran was IMO the best thing in Iran's long history since ancient times and it is a terrible shame that it ended so badly, although his (and his father's) legacy hasn't died. The fact that Iranians more than any other ME nation other than Turkey are Westernized and educated and that there are strong secular movements at all are to his credit.

I don't think that this is an accurate characterization of what he attempted.

Let me give you specific examples. I think it would be equally interesting & important to highlight the following.

What he tried to change Shiism into was hardly recognizable as Islamic anymore. His type of religion was sort of a positive Deism trapped with Iranian folklore and personal mysticism.

As far as I recall: During the late Shah's reign & during the Arabic month of Ramazan (Ramadan) when muslims fast, every night at sunset before breaking their fast, the TV showed a very brief clip, which apparently was an attempt to draw upon Ahuraic words of Zoroaster (not of deism or mysticism). This was immediately followed by full muslim prayers, echoed loudly from mosques at least in Tehran.

In early to late 1970's the Iranian State TV & radio, throughout the year, had countless Islamic religious programs and films including about prophet Mohammad, and Shia Imams, their ordeals and their death. Of course, their faces were not shown on TV, only a few white pigeons flying off to illustrate their "martyrdom". Yes, other times the TV also showed: Little House on the Prairie, The Waltons, Mission Impossible and Variety Shows, singing & dancing often hosted by Fereydoon Farrokhzad.

He didn't try to combine modernity with Islam, but tried to render Shiism powerless and make it subservient of his western-modernist regime (as the left back then called it: "Ultramodern militarist-imperialist state", I think a humorous, yet not entirely inaccurate name).

Most of what you outline such as: women's emancipation, pet dogs, western type movies, celebrating Christmas with Americans, people being allowed to convert out of Islam if they wished without persecution, and ties with Israel are correct. I do not see these actions as trying to "change Shiism" or "render Shiism powerless" in Iran. But as trying to modernize aspects of Iran & in parts shift the emphasis on to Iran's long history of Monarchs & Monarchy. The references to ShahNameh, Persepolis Celebrations of 2500 years of Iranian monarchy & the changing of Calendar to date from Cyrus the Great are good examples of the latter. As for Israel ties, it was not until much later & since late 1970's that the Islamists & Khomeinist began to oppose ties with Israel, because they saw it as politically expedient.

Equally, consider these points during the Pahlavis (the late Shah especially) before 1979 Khomeinist Revolution:

- All children at secondary school had to take religious education and study classical Arabic in order to read the Koran (was the case right up to mid 1970's). Remember I went to school in Iran during the Shah.

- There were more than 80 high-level theological seminaries, plus full faculties of divinity offering courses up to and including Ph.D. level.

- Iran also ranked high in the number of books published on Islam and produced some of the most "beautiful" Korans.

- Every year, Iran sent the single biggest contingent of pilgrims to Mecca, and more than 10 million pilgrims went to the "holy" city of Mash'had.

- The Calendar may have changed to date from Cyrus the Great, but the "martyrdom" of ALL 12 shia Imams, plus Mohammad were publicly noted & mourned, to a point that on these days the Iranian TV or radio was not to broadcast any songs or other even minor festivities.

- Ashura & Tasua mournings and self-beatings in public took place.

- Iranian Constitution (immediately prior to IRI one) stipulated that no legislation that contravened Islamic principles (shia Jaffary in particular) could be enacted. Non-Muslims could not attain high positions in the civil or armed services. In fact, the Shah drew a large part of his legitimacy to reign from the Shia Muslim Clerics.

- Hoveyda's father was born a Baha'i but Hoveyda actually converted to Shia Islam, and later during his ministry as the Prime Minister of Iran (1965-77) did nothing directly to protect the Baha’is per se… I have talked to quite a few Baha'is friends who say that their persecution during the late Shah's reign continued, of course not as strongly as it has been under IRI.

- In 1972, the government of PM Amir Abbas Hoveyda financed the building of a road to make Jamkaran accessible from Qom. At that time, Iraq's Shi'ite shrines were closed to Iranians because of poor relations between Baghdad and Tehran, and Hoveyda intended for Jamkaran to become an alternative to Iraqi shrines. (This is the same Jamkaran that Ahmadinejad's "Ministry of Waiting" is further developing on behalf of the Hidden Imam).

- During preparations and after Persepolis celebrations funds were allocated to building more mosques in Iran.

- The Shah's government, obviously with the late Shah's knowledge, continued to fund and support the hojjatieh society (right- wing Shia Islamists, of course at the time they weren't called "Islamists", simply devout Muslims & Shia Muslim clergy). This same society was responsible for persecuting the Baha'is during the late Shah's reign. Today's hojjatieh is more a radical version of its predecessor. This is a society of which both Ahmadinejad and his "spiritual mentor" Mesbah-Yazdi are members (right-wing Shia Islamists). This is also the same society whose beliefs were even too radical for Khomeini's liking! And, since Khomeini has mostly gone underground.

- While SAVAK was given a primary mandate to & actively monitored, arrested and often imprisoned the leftists, the muslim clerics, largely, were left alone to spread their anti-Shah/monarchy/modernization propaganda to their followers in towns, cities, villages, and in mosques.

- The Shah's government did nothing about Khomeini himself except to briefly arrest him and then send him to exile. Head of SAVAK General Hassan Pakravan, and "trusted" Ayatollahs Shariatmadari and Qomi saved Khomeini's life in 1963 by interceding with the Shah on his behalf. Shariatmadari had gone even further & issued a fatwa (religious edict) promoting Khomeini from Hojat-al-Islam to Ayatollah !!

- It is well noted that the Shah himself was quite religious, though not outwardly. He was a pilgrim himself to Mecca, there is even a photo of that, which I will need to look for when I have more time. What the Shah particularly despised were a) Communists e.g. Tudeh party, and b) Islamic left e.g. marxists & its variations. Hence the alliance of reds & blacks as he once said.

It is also said that the Shah's support for selected clergy and the hojjatieh society was partly a strategy to counter the influence of communists, who were then backed by USSR and its proxies in Iran. This stance was in turn favored by the US.

(I recommend two books to read: Farah Pahlavi's memoires "An Enduring Love" & Amir Taheri's "The Persian Night" regarding the above & other details).

The combination of the above and the points you outlined in your comment, to me at least, suggest that the Shah and his government were trying to combine Islam with modernity in Iran. That's not to say that the Shah did not have a secular outlook and ambitions for Iran. Nor to take away credit for those areas which he did modernize.

Of course, since Khomeinist revolution (1979), everything, including the Constitution has became much more Islamic, while monarchy and Iran's pre-Islamic history are portrayed in a negative light.

BTW, I am all for what Reza Shah (the last Shah's father) did and his efforts no matter how forceful some see them to be were absolutely necessary. One has to see Reza Shah's approach in the context of where Iran was when he took over: politically, socially, economically, militarily and more. IMO, had Reza Shah not taken the authoritarian approach he took, Iran would have stayed in the dark ages of the Qajar Dynasty & Iran very possibly would have disintegrated. The foundation of modern Iran was very much set during Reza Shah, not his son the late Shah (Mohamad Reza Shah). In fact Reza Shah is known as the "father of modern Iran". I would even suggest that Reza Shah, unlike Ata Turk in Turkey, was not sufficiently heavy handed with the Clerics and their domination. Reza Shah wanted a Republic for Iran, not monarchy. I also acknowledge that Reza Shah did not have sufficient time to do continue what he set out to do because of WWII, Russian and British occupation of then officially neutral Iran, and then his forced exile to South Africa.

Ahuraic words of Zoroaster (not of deism or mysticism)

Yes, I included the references to Zoroaster as Iranian "deism/mysticism" because it wasn't formally made into state religion but rather used as a legitimation of monarchy and "Iranian identity".

Regarding the TV program... that's as I suggested the keeping of Shiism in name only. It wasn't erased, but it was mad into an alibi. After showing a TV program about Shia saints... as you said, you'd have "degenerate" TV shows and American serials propagating an entirely different worldview. And it was clear to everyone which worldview was the one deemed as "right for a modern future".

As for Israel ties, it was not until much later & since late 1970's that the Islamists & Khomeinist began to oppose ties with Israel, because they saw it as politically expedient.

Not quite... Khomeini attacked the Shah's ties with Israel ("Oh Shah, why do you help the Jews... are you a Jew!?") as early as 1962, when Khomeini screeched against the US status of forces agreement and shortly after staged the first violent protests against the law granting women suffrage. I don't think it was just political expediency. Khomeini was a flaming antisemite and opposing Israel was always one of his goals.

Before Khomeini was a big name, it was in the 1950's the Communists (then the big opposition short of the Jebhe Melli) and the islamists around Navab Safavi (Fedayeen Islam terrorists) who agitated against ties with Israel.

Regarding point 1-4, they are evidence to the fact that Shiism wasn't denied. As you mentioned it was the Western strategy during the Cold War not to eradicate religion, in order to oppose the Communists.

So religion was allowed, but tried to be state controlled. The seminaries you mentioned were state-controlled, it intensified after the founding of the Rastakhiz party in 1975, when a state-sanctioned "counter-religion" was propagated as "the real and pure faith" as opposed to the "corrupted superstition with beliefs added throughout time" i.e. Mullah Shiism.

Regarding point 5: the fact that the Shiite holidays were kept doesn't change the fact that the introduction of the Imperial calendar was a highly intrusive and for islamists offensive move. The suggestion that the "heathen" Cyrus would be the start of time, instead of the prophet Mohamed by all measures was an act of "heresy".

Regarding Ashura... Reza Shah forbad the public display, later it was permitted, but restricted to Mosque courts and specific areas.

Regarding Hoveyda, I didn't knew that his father was a Bahai... I referenced to his Freemasonry. It was Dr. Ayadi who was Bahai to my knowledge (among others).

Regarding the other points of the regime allowing or building mosques etc. they don't contradict with my points. Yes, Shiism was kept as a hull, it was not eradicated itself, but what I talk about is the content of the official ideology. The old hull was filled with things that were undeniably unislamic and offensive to Islam. It was indeed the attempt to change, transform or in the eyes of it's opponents "pervert" Shiism, when the Shah was using Shiite quotes or references to promote women equality and secular education, in other words the very opposite of the religion itself.

Regarding the last points: Trying to balance Communism by supporting religious groups was indeed a mistake of the US, Britain and the imperial regime... this whole issue of balancing Communism with islam was a huge mistake of the entire West throughout the Cold War, and was not a particular issue of Iran. As early as 1942 Britain started supporting islamic clergy in order to counter Communism, and the US (like later in Afghanistan) and the imperial regime indeed went along. One shouldn't overlook however that at that time Communism was the largest threat to all systems in the region. Even Israel's adversaries were secular Socialist regimes which were tried to counter with also by supporting religious opposition.

But let's also not overlook that the SAVAK was indeed persecuting islamists. Most prominently the busting and execution of the Fedayeen Islam movement in the 1950's and the killing of Ayatollah Saidi in the 1970's. The emphasis on leftist/communist opposition was not unwarranted. Politics in the 1940's and 50's were dominated by Communist subversion and opposition. Islamism wasn't the problem of the day yet. And in the late 1960's and increasingly in the 70's leftist terrorists (all major Middle Eastern terrorists back then were leftist groups) like the MEK and FEK were waging guerilla warfare against US and Iranian targets. In the light of this and the fact that indeed up until 1980/81 the opposition and revolutionaries were an alliance of Communists, Islamo-Marxists and Islamists, validate the Shah's view that the enemy was an alliance of "Red and Black, Mullahs and Communists".

The crystallization of Khomeinist islamism as the dominating force in post-Revolution Iran didn't happen until shortly before the Shah's death. During the time he witnessed events and commented on them, the leftist forces still were powerful and not few observers assumed that the Soviets would use them to control Iran.

Regarding the Shah's religiosity, I know the photos of him on pilgrimage. As I noted however his religion (like of many Iranians) was notedly different from traditional Shiism not to mention the mullah interpretation. It was as mentioned a blend of personal mysticism (he thought he had a direct link to God, and was on a mission), some Iranian folk-beliefs (Saints, Angels and miracles) and secularized Deism.

His private and public lifestyle and attitude regarding women, culture, alcohol, dogs etc. were in obvious contradiction to islam... and the mullahs didn't fail to mention it. So while one might pay lipservice to a particular religion, but doesn't live it... what weighs heavier? I think the latter.

Regarding the Constitution it should be mentioned that it was from 1908, long before the Pahlavis, where it stipulated that laws must not contradict Shiism. However as noted, almost every law and order the Shah enacted, most prominently women rights, was indeed contrary to islam. For formalities sake he had to justify them to be in conformity with the Constitution.

Finally regarding your comments on Reza Shah the Great, I absolutely agree 100% (if not more... LOL). It would have been indeed the best thing for Iran to have become a secular Republic in 1924, as Reza Khan planned. Unfortunately it was prevented by the reactonaries and clergy, who wanted to keep the cursed Qajar dynasty... leading to the compromise that the dynasties change, not the system. What irony that decades later Mossadegh (Qajar who wanted to keep the Qajar dynasty) and the mullahs would demand a Republic.

As a noteworthy trivia, some of Reza Shah's advisers argued for making Zoroastrianism the state religion in Iran. It was however a minority view and regarded as unrealistic, so a general secularization was preferred. However Reza Shah did invite the Zoroastrians in India to return to Iran.

I agree that his forcefully crushing of islamist opposition was a very good thing (1935 in Mashad and earlier his beating-up of a mullah who insulted his wife and daughters)... but I have my doubts as to whether this kind of regime could have been maintained for the time after WW2. Reza Shah's regime was internally entirely reliant on the military keeping a forcible lid on opposition (communist, feudal, foreign-sponsored and islamic). Not surprisingly he was widely unpopular in Iran during the latter years of his rule... although once he abdicated, remorse set in and Iranians bemoaned his departure and nostalgia for the good ol' times immediately set in. Externally his rule was only maintained as long as Russia and Britain were contrahents (1920's-1941). The cause for Iran's stability under Reza Shah was the slick playing-off of Russians, Brits and later Germans against each other. However once the pre-1941 setting was altered, events came down on Iran.

Considering the external and internal developments in Iran after WW2, I don't think that a simple military dictatorship, which was appropiate for Reza Shah's time, could have been maintained without causing violent revolution much earlier than happened in 1979. It didn't happen under Reza Shah, because Iran's society was internally easier controllable (both in size and structure) and the military had absolute supremacy of force. It is therefore not surprising that his son tried not to rely exclusively on force to maintain his rule, but attempted to create a genuine popular power base (through the White Revolution) and to create a formulated new ideology.

Retrospectively we can see where he blundered, failed or wasn't forceful enough... but during his time, few doubted that he would succeed. I (in my 20's then) certainly didn't.

With due respects, I disagree with you on some, and also agree with you on a number of points.

I missed your point about references to Zoroaster as per “deism/mysticism”. Since IRI in particular, most Islamists like to promote Zoroastrianism as a Pagan religion, which believes/believed in deities, multiple gods and demons. Naturally, any informed person would recognize this ignorance or propaganda of Islamists. Personally, I am very much for a clear Separation of Religion & State. Any religion in Iran.

I think you do not acknowledge quite a few points in my previous comment regarding the Shah’s modernity vs Islam in Iran.

A summary of my points: Iran today is a continuation of where it was prior to and since the Pahlavis; be it secularism, modernity or today’s official extreme political Shi’ism. But, in today’s Iran there is obviously much more Political emphasis on Shia Islam mixed with Khomeini’s doctrine.

(whether Shi’ism “wasn’t denied”, was promoted or was left to be dormant... we aren’t playing with semantics). All indications are: Iran during the Shah was much more, Islamic (religious) & was “kindly” encouraged to be so. And, all indications since 1979 are that Iran is much more geared towards Secularism than it Ever was during the Shah. I think we have the Khomeinists & Mullahs’ regime to thank for the latter.

You Say: “Not quite... Khomeini attacked the Shah’s ties with Israel (”Oh Shah, why do you help the Jews... are you a Jew!?”) as early as 1962, when Khomeini screeched against the US status of forces agreement and shortly after staged the first violent protests against the law granting women suffrage. I don’t think it was just political expediency. Khomeini was a flaming antisemite and opposing Israel was always one of his goals.”

What has Israel got to do with protests against laws granting women suffrage?

On Khomeini’s stance on Israel (and Jews) as you outline, I venture to say you need to expand. Please provide full context & reference - I’m truly interested.

I agree and already noted my view of the Shah’s grant of women’s suffrage in Iran, and Khomeini’s view of this in previous comment. In fact I think you’ve already read this post about: Reza Shah, his son Mohammad Reza Shah and the status of women in Iran:

http://plateauofiran.wordpress.com/2008/06/24/status-of-iranian-women-pre-and-post-islam-part-3/

I have provided two of the most perninent sources for my assertions from clear insiders, bona fide Iranians, not dubious links on the net.

No offense to you of course, I also have noted & appreciated, from your previous posts on FR, that you write as an American, from an American perspective who spent a few years in Iran, and is married to an Iranian who converted to Christianity.

I write from an Iranian perspective, who has more of an intimate, personal knowledge & understanding of Iran, its culture & history, hence a different perspective, in many instances.

Again, no offense is intended to you. I think we can both benefit from different perspectives.

What has Israel got to do with protests against laws granting women suffrage?

I didn't say that. I referenced to the US Status of Forces agreement debate 1962-64, which was at the same time as the enactment of women suffrage and the start of the "White Revolution". Khomeini and Co. protested against both the US status of forces agreement and women suffrage, and made numerous attacks on the US, Israel and the Shah during that time.

The point was that your suggestion that Khomeini attacked the Israeli connection late in the 1970's is not correct. It was an issue for him already in the early 1960's and an issue for other leftists and islamists in the 1950's.

On Khomeini’s stance on Israel (and Jews) as you outline, I venture to say you need to expand. Please provide full context & reference - I’m truly interested.

I will look up for you in specifically which of the several Khomeini biographies his views on Israel are elaborated.

I can say you that his antisemitism took poisonous shape under the impression of Bolshevism after WW1 (which Khomeini subscribed to Jews) and his time in Iraq where he supposedly got to know "Mein Kampf". However most of his antisemitism is obviously the antisemitism and antizionism typical of all islamists.

You mean 1906 Constitution? I do not know of a 1908 Iranian constitution. There were bills passed following the 1906 Iranian contitution.

Typo. I am referring to the 1907 supplementary laws to the 1906 constitution regarding religion.

As you say the stipulation that laws must be in accordance with Shiism was obviously ignored by both Pahlavi monarchs de facto while pro forma they had to justify their secular reforms as constitutional.

Regarding perspective: While I am indeed not myself Iranian, I don't think that it is of particular relevance to this. I interact for my entire adult life with Iranians of all kinds and religions and political persuasions daily and study and take interest in Iranian politics and history since 35 years and just as there are Iranians who would subscribe to my perspective, there are Westerners who would rather agree with you. As I understand you are half-Iranian... for curiosities sake I'd like to ask how old you were then, or more specific during which years you were in Iran.

Regarding sources... I have read about every book on this era (both contemporary and post-1979), so pardon me I if I can't reference each fact to a particular book from my mind... but I recommend Afkhami's "The Life and Times of the Shah" and Alam's Diary "The Shah and I". Most about the activity of the Rastakhiz Party during the late stages of the imperial regime, can be gleaned from contemporary newspapers and reports. I know that they are diffcult to access and no proper scientific work exists yet.

I also recommend reading what Khomeinist/islamist writers had to say about that time, to properly asses the reception and impact of the Pahlavi rule.

Now obviously much about what we talk (and conflict) about stems from our own personal experiences... which naturally are different and lead to different conclusions.

Cheers

You said: “I will look up for you in specifically which of the several Khomeini biographies his views on Israel are elaborated.”

Great. I have heard much about Khomeini being a fan of Hitler, so Mein Kampf doesn’t come as a surprise. But, I also, specifically, wonder, in regards to the Shah’s recognition of the State of Israel, after the USA at the time, when (date) did Khomeini actually oppose the Shah’s recognition of the State of Israel, why and in what context?

You said: “Typo. I am referring to the 1907 supplementary laws to the 1906 constitution regarding religion.”

Which Supplementary religious laws to the 1906 or even 1907(?) Iranian constitution? A link?

You said: “As I understand you are half-Iranian... for curiosities sake I’d like to ask how old you were then, or more specific during which years you were in Iran.”

Correct, I am part Iranian. I was born in Iran and was in secondary school in Iran during the Shah & left in 1976. I still have relatives in Iran and I am very much in touch. I understand you lived in Iran between 1974 and 1978 ? So, we were there, in parts, around the same time.

Unfortunately, I do not see a personal touch or account in your posts about Iran. Nor do I see any links or references to substantiate your views, as much as I appreciate your views. As you say you aren’t Iranian. Therefore, I am curious from where you often obtain many of your historical and political assertions.

You said: “While I am indeed not myself Iranian, I don’t think that it is of particular relevance to this.”

I beg to differ. It is of enormous relevance; more so culturally. Please do not underestimate Culture, its transition and potential Changes to it. Some Facts can be extrapolated from contents of books. But, Culture is not about reading this or that book. It is about living it, intrinsically.

What I found frankly, a bit ridiculous, is to suggest that because the Imperial Family dressed in swimsuits, owned dogs, encouraged the reading of ShahNameh, and changed Iranian Calendar to date from Cyrus the Great is to somehow suggest that these attempts alone were to modernize Iran. When at the same time, the Shah’s government and the Shah himself were reinforcing, if not encouraging, perhaps unknowingly, a kinder (modern) version of Islam in the Iranian society by all the Other actions taken by them specified in comment #13.

What do you think the average Iranian, not necessarily the Nouveau Riche middle class Iranians of the Shah’s era thought of these attempts in Iran at the time? They didn’t read scholarly books and if they did, it was very much secondary. They “lived” the Contradictory Changes. As a westerner it may have sounded all very good. For the average Iranian it would have been, in many instances, at best consfusion, hard to absorb & digest.

The issue is not to make a meal out of this discussion, your points or mine. Because at the end of the day it isn’t up to you or I to see what changes occur in Iran. You provide your view, and I do mine. But, one must see things from the average Iranian perspective at the time, and even now, if we are going to understand the past mistakes and be on the road, hopefully, to a better, more positive times.

when (date) did Khomeini actually oppose the Shah’s recognition of the State of Israel, why and in what context?

Khomeini wasn't a big or widely known figure at that time (late 1940's early 50's) except for publishing an anti-secular commentary in 1944. So to my knowledge the first time he publicly agitated against Israel and the Shah's connection to Israel, was 1962-64 in context of the status of forces agreement.

Which Supplementary religious laws to the 1906 or even 1907(?) Iranian constitution? A link?

The Contstitution was from 1906 with supplements added 1907 stipulating the role of religion and that no law should contradict it. I think every book on the the Mashrutiat/Constitutional era should have something on this... see the Wikipedia entry on the Constitution (and sources given): The supplementary fundamental laws of October 7, 1907

This is interesting... since you then missed the years of the Rastakhiz's activity. However the more relevant question would be when you were born (if you want to give the year), because IMO the age at which we witnessed events plays a role. I was in my 20's then and lived in Tehran... as such I may have lived in a different setting and had different interests/activities than you might have had.

My father was a contractor, and I interacted as you call it, primarily with the "Noveau rich" largely Shah-loyal strata of society.

Unfortunately, I do not see a personal touch or account in your posts about Iran.

I try to keep private details out of political debates (and of the internet) where possible. And since we debate on merits of history, I don't think that it should be more obfuscated with personal subjectivity than it already is.

Nor do I see any links or references to substantiate your views, as much as I appreciate your views.

I gave two books by Iranian authors, just as you did.

Therefore, I am curious from where you often obtain many of your historical and political assertions.

As I said. Living among Iranians both in Iran and Exile for 35 years and concerning myself for years with Iranian history and politics.

If this lacks merit to you, I can't help it.

But, Culture is not about reading this or that book. It is about living it, intrinsically.

Don't want to sound brash (I know we are both debating friendly... :o)), but assuming that your current surrounding in Australia is not Iranian, why does the experience of a half-Iranian who went to school in Iran then exactly weigh more than of someone who lived and lives still among Iranians both in Iran and in exile? And regarding culture... apparently both of us have nothing to do (ourselves) with Islam, although several Iranians I know are (albeit secular) Muslims.

That's not what I suggested. These examples I have given illustrate how both in public display, politics and personal lifestyle the Pahlavis did not conform, and even offended islam (as the Mullahs saw it). I think anyone can readily subscribe to the notion that these examples I gave are hardly in conformity with islam. Now you may call it "modernizing religion", while I call it "making religion subservient to modernity". As you said it's semantics... the fact is that the whole Pahlavi reform 1921-1979 was at odds with islam, lipservice to religion or pragmatic alliances with clerics vs. Communism nonwithstanding.

Isn't this exactly my point? That religious Muslims thought these actions, policies and ideology to be offensive towards Islam and inappropiate for their understanding of culture and society? That was my whole point all along, wasn't it?

Amen to that.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.