
I'm not sure where exactly this originated from but a famous French proverb says 'a revolution eats its children'. This has certainly been the case with the Iranian revolution, and more. The process started almost immediately after Shah's statues were taken off the major squares in cities across the country, Ayatollah Khomeini returned home after close to a quarter of a century and still felt "nothing" (a famous moment in the history Iranian revolution was a single question asked of him on the plane heading to Tehran, where the interviewer asked what does he feel about returning to his homeland after the long exile and he replied "nothing, I feel nothing"!) and the stamp ink had not dried on the referendum ballots marked with a big YES to establish the form of government as an unknown entity called "Islamic Republic".
The first group of 'children' to be had were the original radicals. Primarily the Marxist and Maoist groups who paid the price despite being very active during the anti-Shah movement. With an all out war breaking out in Kurdistan, Baluchestan and Turkmen Sahara areas of Iran shortly after the revolution, many of them volunteered to join the opposition forces such as PDKI and Komala to fight regime's military or what had remained of it. While these guys were being slaughtered, most other left and left-leaning organizations in Iran were either silent or occasionally even cheered their demise. In fact, this became the normal routine of every wave of tyranny that followed from here on, with the future victims not supporting the current ones, time after time after time after time.
Next group was what may have been seen as some of the seemingly random (and mostly unknown) authorities of the new regime who were assassinated by a mysterious religious entity called Forghan (they are apparently back and even have a blog now). The list of victims included Col. Gharanei, head of the new armed forces and two prominent Ayatollahs; Mohammad Mofatteh and Morteza Mottaheri, the latter being the man Khomeini had called "fruit of his life endeavors" and a likely successor of his. Ayatollah Rafsanjani however survived the attempt on his life by Forghan inexplicably, and there are some unanswered questions still lingering about that incident. As Forghan was primarily an anti-clergy movement and religious figures remained their main targets, most of the leftist groups again chose to not speak against or condemn the assassinations.
It was only a matter of months after that when a bunch of hooligans climbed the walls of U.S. embassy in Tehran, kept 52 of the diplomats as hostages (women and African-Americans were released almost immediately) and derailed the course of the revolution forever. The only organized group to stand against the move was the original cabinet of the revolution who were immediately pushed aside (the government resigned in unison) and were jeered on by all the others whose turns were about to come. None of their members of that original cabinet was ever allowed near a position of power or influence again and some were/are jailed (example: Amir-Entezam was that cabinet's spokesperson) or even murdered (example: Darioush Forouhar was Minister of Labor).
Banisadr came next. The first president of the new Islamic Republic was fired from his elected seat and then came the big crackdown on yet another set of revolution's children; People's Mojahedin. This was perhaps the deadliest phase of them all with thousands killed after brief trials and immediate executions with thousands more suffering in harsh prisons and torture chambers. The onslaught quickly extended to many other leftist groups, people such as Fadaeian Marxist group, yet another active and vital part of the anti-Shah movement. Meanwhile, others who actively participated in this round of slaughter included the current "reformists" around President Khatami (including Behzad Nabavi and Armin's imitation "Mojahedin" group) as well as Iran's Communist Party, Tudeh. Just read this quote about MKO and other leftists from Kar (No. 132, Pg. 5, 1981), the newspaper of Tudeh's sister organization, Aksariyat: "the relentless onslaught of the political organizations who have set out to defeat the blood-spattered revolution of Iranian people is a fundamental pillar of defending this revolution. "
Needless to say, Tudeh, Aksariyat and their partners became the victims a short few years later. This time. many of the intellectuals, writers and others who always detested Tudeh Party going back to Mossadegh era and beyond, remained silent while these "children" were eaten by the rolling "revolution". The same writers, poets and journalists themselves filled the same prisons, were tied to the same torture beds and filled the same cemeteries next, while not many of today's supposed opposition was heard from.
During the same phase, Khomeini's appointed successor, Montazeri and others around him faced political eradication. Others including Khomeini's own son Ahmad, were not as lucky and died under mysterious circumstances later on and after dad has passed on. Of course the players suspected of managing the attack on intellectuals and extermination of Ahmad and others also found themselves committed to the same fate after they were thrown out of regime's intelligence apparatus, ending with yet another mysterious death, this time of their leader Saeed Emami.
This process has continued repeatedly and now another set of "revolution's children", this time the embassy wall climbers and those who were actively pursuing the demise of other activists are now being chased out of the parliament and are on the verge of political isolation.
Makes you wonder what may have happened had this progression been stopped at its infancy. What if we all had risen to condemn the Kurdish intrusion, then Forghan actions, Banisadr's replacement, etc. Would there even be a "Guardian Council" so powerful, it can write off an election with a single stroke? Wasn't it Martin Niemoeller who said about the Nazis:
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out-- because I was not a communist; Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out-- because I was not a socialist; Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out-- because I was not a trade unionist; Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- because I was not a Jew; Then they came for me-- and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Isn't that exactly what the children of Iranian revolution did one group after another?
Posted by Pedram at February 4, 2004 09:37 PMIn politics it is called "Salami Tactics." The term is invented in post-war Hungry:
"... Half a century ago, in order to assume and consolidate power, the Communist Party in Hungary, led by the ultra-Stalinist Matyas Rakosi, adopted a strategy known as "salami tactics". This entailed a gradual process of threats and alliances as a means of overcoming opposition. Consequently, the communists were able to exert their influence and eventually dominate the political landscape -- slice by slice."
--From http://www.heise.de/tp/english/inhalt/co/8660/1.html
For more on the history of "Salami Tactics" in post-war Europe go to: http://www.johndclare.net/cold_war_Salami.htm
Posted by: The Other at February 4, 2004 10:17 PMWhat a bunch of back stabbing losers. Well deserved.
Full credit to the Shah who achieved so much with such idiots in the country.
I'm not a monarchist, but I give the guy credit.
The credit Shah gets is for trying really hard to kill all of them, but he wasn't even able to get that straight.
Posted by: Nasser at February 5, 2004 12:06 PMHearing from people like "Mast" and "Nasser" explains why Iran never gets rid of dictatorships... why should you be so happy about other people being killed for their believes? When can we put an end to this stupid cycle?
Posted by: The Other at February 5, 2004 02:55 PM"The Other", reading Nasser's comment, I believe he was being sarcastic.
Posted by: NoBody at February 5, 2004 03:31 PMHow about now? However, we need to fight the correct source. In all these cycles, one person and one institution was unharmed: The grandmaster Rafsanjani and his "Bonyade Mostazafin". They have enough money to bribe the entire world, and then some... However, there comes a time when principles should replace short-term self-interest. The Iranians need to ask themselves: Do they want their children to live like this or are they going to do something about it? We are the makers of our own destiny.
Posted by: Activist at February 5, 2004 03:33 PMI am amazed to see how the Shah still manages to get up peoples' noses! If you guys havent come to terms with your Shahphobia then you really have problems. He is dead. Monarchy will not return to Iran, but please don't get upset if I decide to give the man some credit.
Posted by: Mast at February 5, 2004 04:41 PMAnother historic example, another warning not learned insuring its repetition. I'm reading Dostoyevsky's "The Devils (sometimes translated in english as "The Possessed")" at the moment, and it seams to be unfortunately, a decent reflection upon the character of revolutionaries: they wanna save/reform the world, their culture, but have absolutely no love for the things that they are seeking to reform(love humanity, hate people). At his most cynical, Dostoyevsky observes that reformers are only concerned with reforms purely because they see what they will gain out of the social changes they are agitating for. I think it was Frank Herbert who said in the "Dune" series: "Today's revolutionary is tomorrows aristocrat," or words to that effect. One thing that Dostoyevsky could not see in his devotion to Russian Christianity, which he viewed as a teleological force that would deliver and "rapturise" Russian culture delivering more "reforms" felt from the heart/ishq beyond even the need for a state, indeed, beyond need for social reforms. In this, Dostoyevsky sounds remarkably like Ali Shari'ati, who also banked on social reformers informed in the light of their religion to best properly guide the needed reforms in Iran. Dostoyevsky and Shari'ati could not see that such reformers might be a dramatic new "predator" on the social reformer scene, equally loveless, and with a remarkable ammount of "religiously justified" self-righteousness to justify their decadance and oppresiveness in rule. Another rule of thumb would be the more badly needed the reformers,the more oppressive the ruling power is, the more aggressively supercharged and shrill the would-be reformers are. If Whoman's most recent posts are to be believed, I think the modern Iranian deserves a lot of credit for recoginizing that real reform starts with yourself, and that the "great leaders" for the next revolution will hopefully not be forthcoming, or if they are, taken with a kilo of salt. For my last point, I can't resist an americanism. Once again, see how revolutionaries betrayed principles of a revolution for personal gain. I'm referring to the so called "Whiskey Rebellion," or "Shay's Revolution" of 1796, which was started by settlers who basically served as grunt soldiers in the war the Declaration of Independence signers started, and then were taxed mercilessly to pay for it afterwards on their whiskey, which served as a barter commodity in colonial America. These grunts were mercilessly put down. But this is just a more blatant historic example of American domestic oppressiveness-especially today, even under Bush, domestic American governmental oppression is fairly-well, bland when compared to other countries. Hence our would-be reformers/revolutionaries have never been as shrill or violent as in other nations.
Posted by: taqdeermachen at February 5, 2004 05:00 PMFor clues about Iranian Revolution we can look at the French Revolution and see pretty much the same progression of things... now the French Revolution took 100 years to bear fruit... We are only in our 3rd decade...
Posted by: Nima at February 5, 2004 09:06 PMwww.memri.org has a current interview with montazeri (khomeni's appointed sucessor who has been under house arrest)in which he states the theoretical structure was supposed to be a full democracy with the guardian council in an advisory role only, and the ability to choose candidates was to be left fully in the hands of the people. He also condemns press restrictions, suprresion of the students ect.
Posted by: Jane at February 6, 2004 05:35 AMMontazeri says all these now when he himself is removed from the power. In the early 1980s when hundreds of people were executed every day, and Khomeini's dictatorship was at its hight he was silent about all these... Maybe I can't say he was silent. He wrote a few letters to Khomeini criticizing him for some of his actions, but he didn't do it in public. He never condemned the press restrictions back in 80s, neither condemned the suppression of the students in the disastrous "Cultural Revolution" of Khomeini in those years.
Montazeri was one of the inventors of "Velaayat Faghih" (the Supreme leader in Iranian power structure) and is partly responsible for the mess we are in.
Posted by: The Other at February 6, 2004 09:17 AMLive by the sword, die by the sword. This is why the means can't justify the end, you just have to follow the eightfold path, and even if you fail, you fail as a righteous man.
Posted by: winterwife at February 7, 2004 01:02 PM