Iran's future in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist
attacks on the United State, and the subsequent invasion and
occupation of Iraq by the US, have been subjects of intense debates
among Iranians, both within and without Iran. The debates have taken
on new urgency in the light of the bitter confrontation between
Iran's reformist movement and the radical right over the elections
for the seventh session of the Majles, and the subsequent
elimination of the vast majority of the reformists from the Majles.
Taking advantage of these developments, the Iranian die-hard
royalists - that faction of the monarchists whose only goal is
restoration to power of the Pahlavi dynasty - have been promoting a
"national coalition" or a "united front" of
supposedly all the forces that are opposed to the present situation
in Iran.
Are the die-hard royalists sincere in advocating their
"national coalition?" Their deed speaks much louder than
their words: These are the same people who advocated (and still
continue advocating), explicitly or implicitly, US military attacks
on Iran following the September 11 terrorist attacks and President
Bush's famous "Axis of Evil" speech.
At the same time, Dr. Shirin Ebadi, the 2003 Nobel Laureate for
Peace and an internationally-recognized and admired champion of
human rights, visited southern California from May 14-17. The
die-hard royalists - these "champions" of democracy -
called on people, using their radio and satellite TV stations in Los
Angeles, to demonstrate against her! Many of these short-sighted
political dwarfs who are hungry for power, had never ever heard of
Nobel Peace Prize before Shirin Ebadi received this Prize!
These developments have only reinforced what this author
expressed in an article a year ago. On May 6, 2003, this author
posted a piece on Payvand.com in which he argued that the real Axis
(as opposed to the imaginary Axis that President Bush discovered two
years ago) - evil or otherwise - is the one that effectively exists
between Iranian die-hard royalists, the Israeli lobby in the US, and
the radical reactionary right in Iran. It was also pointed out that,
whereas the alliance between the die-hard royalists and the Israeli
lobby in the US and its supporters is organic, the one between the
die-hard royalists and Tehran's radical right is due to their
similar positions regarding democratic values and ideals: These two
groups may have different reasons for being for or against
something, but the net effect of their positions is the same.
Evidence, which is now well-known, was also presented in the May
2003 piece that pointed to an - until then - not much noticed
alliance between Iran's die-hard royalists and another group,
namely, the neoconservatives in and out of the Bush Administration
who were the driving force behind invasion of Iraq. This connection
is further discussed in Part II of this article. The connection
between the neoconservatives and Israel's Likud Party led by Ariel
Sharon is now widely known (see, for example, the article posted on
Payvand by Dr. Ismael Hossein-Zadeh; see also Michael Lind's review
of the book, An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror, by two
neoconservatives, David Frum and Richard Perle, in The Nation
magazine, February 23, 2004, page 23).
The present article is Part I of a two-part series on Iran's
antidemocratic forces, and in particular the radical right and the
die-hard royalists. It is a follow-up to the May 2003 piece, and is
motivated in part by the very large number of supporting e-mails
that this author received for the views described in that article.
Although it is likely that, similar to May 2003, this author will
again receive a few hate mails, the issues discussed in the present
piece are, in this author's opinion, too important to be ignored out
of the "fear" that a few people may send hate e-mails to
this author.
It should be pointed out that a few days after the May 2003 piece
was posted, an article was published in the Financial Times of
London whose author, Mr. Guy Dinmore, kindly wrote to this author
and pointed out the many similarities between his article and last
year's piece. Whether Mr. Dinmore also received hate e-mails of the
type that this author received is unknown!
In this author's opinion, the events of the past year have given
further credence to the existence of the proposed Axis. Among them,
however, three sets of events particularly stand out: One is
awarding the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize to Dr. Shirin Ebadi. She has
taken strong, principled positions regarding many important national
and international issues, which have angered both the die-hard
royalists and Tehran's radical right.
The second set of events consists of the confrontation between
Iran's reformists and the radical right over the elections for the
seventh session of the Majles. The invasion of Iraq and its
aftermath over the past year, and their possible implications for
Iran's future, constitute the third set. This author believes that
these events and the reaction of the die-hard royalists and Tehran's
radical right to them clearly illustrate the fact that these two
seemingly different groups envision the same thing for Iran, namely,
an undemocratic, authoritarian political system in which the role of
people is minimized, if not annihilated altogether.
Before the similarities between the reactions of the radical
right and the die-hard royalists to the various principled positions
that Shirin Ebadi has taken are described, I would like to point out
that I fully recognize people's right to agree or disagree with
Shirin Ebadi, as well as criticizing her if they do not agree with
her and her positions. Moreover, I believe that we must, in fact,
analyze and critique, if necessary, Shirin Ebadi's positions
regarding various issue. In addition, the mere disagreement of a
person or a political group with Shirin Ebadi does not necessarily
imply in any way that that person or group is antidemocratic.
However, a person's or a political group's disagreement with Shirin
Ebadi does not give that person or group the right to viciously
attack her, as happened here in Los Angeles, on May 14, after Shirin
Ebadi finished her speech at the University of California in Los
Angeles. It is this aspect that this author, as well as many other
people, are opposed to.
Let us now begin with the reaction of Tehran's radical right and
the die-hard royalists to awarding the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize to
Shirin Ebadi. After over seven months, the radical right still
continues to condemn this award most vehemently, declaring it a
conspiracy against Iran (read against the radical right!). It has
labelled Shirin Ebadi an agent of the US; a spy; a blasphemer. It
has attacked her in the most vicious way for reasons as simple as,
(1) she not wearing the hejaab while outside Iran, and (2) shaking
hands with a man!
How about the die-hard royalists' reaction to Shirin Ebadi
winning the Nobel Prize? A short time after the initial euphoria
over the award, after it became clear that she would not use her
international stature to recklessly attack Iran's radical right
while still living in Iran, the die-hard royalists, using their
satellite TV channels, began viciously attacking her, and still
continue to do so, calling her names (some of which cannot even be
translated into English!). They asked people to demonstrate against
her in Los Angeles, because they despise her principled positions
regarding many important issues. But, the most glaring aspect of
their behavior is the commonality of their positions with those of
the radical right in Tehran.
(a) Shirin Ebadi has stated many times that Islam and democracy
are not in a fundamental conflict, for which she has been treated
with contempt by both the die-hard royalists and the radical right,
as both groups despise a progressive interpretation of Islam, and
any talk of a link between Islam and democracy.
As a practicing muslim, this author believes in progressive
interpretations of Islamic teachings offered by such Islamic
thinkers as Mahdi Baazargaan, and Drs. Ali Shariati, Haashem
Aghaajari, and Mohsen Kadivar. Their views are not necessarily
identical (and in fact their views clash sometimes), but they all
espouse progressive Islam. It is within progressive interpretation
of the Islamic teachings that Shirin Ebadi (herself a practicing
muslim) does not find a conflict between Islam and democracy. She
sees no reason to choose one over the other, believing that one can
be a good muslim and a democrat at the same time. However, AT THE
VERY LEAST, she, as a practicing muslim AND champion of human
rights, is entitled to her opinion. While we are all free to
disagree with her regarding this issue, and are also entitled to the
right for criticizing her, our disagreement or criticism does not
give us the right to viciously attack her.
Shirin Ebadi has forcefully argued that what has been done by
Osama bin Laden and his criminal terror group and allies has no
relation with true teachings of Islam. She has asked the following
critical question that her critics have not been able to respond to:
Why is it that when the Serbs murdered hundreds of thousands of
muslims in Bosnia, nobody attributed those crimes to ALL christians;
why is it that when Israel denies the Palestinians their
internationally-recognized rights - the rights that are based on the
legal and binding authority of the United Nations Security Council
resolutions 242 and 338 - and confiscates their lands and resources,
nobody attributes these to ALL the jewish people? It is this type of
double standards that Shirin Ebadi is against. Whether or not one
agrees with Shirin Ebadi's position regarding this issue, it is
clear that such double standards do exist.
At the same time, Shirin Ebadi has declared time and again that
we should try to de-emphasize the differences between different
religions, but emphasize the similarities between them, in order to
contribute to a dialogue between various religions which will
ultimately contribute to world's peace.
(b) Several months before the Majles elections, Shirin Ebadi said
that people should not boycott these elections. She was then
attacked viciously by the die-hard royalists, as they had called for
a boycott of the elections. Tehran's radical right had also hoped
for the boycott except, of course, by its own supporters!
Shirin Ebadi told this author that what she meant was that the
elections should not be boycotted if they are competitive and fair.
In fact, she supported the sit-in of the present Majles deputies,
and did not vote in the Majles elections, after it became clear to
her that they do not meet her standards.
(c) In a visit with the Majles deputies during their sit-in four
months ago, Shirin Ebadi declared that the sixth session of Majles
has been one of the best parliaments that Iran has ever had since
the Constitutional Revolution of 1906, for which she was attacked by
both the die-hard royalists and the radical right: The latter
considers many of the deputies as spies, agents of foreign
governments, and counter-revolutionaries, while the former view them
as agents of the radical right!
(d) Shirin Ebadi declared that although she fully supports a
peaceful resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and condemns
terrorism (as do all reasonable people), she views that conflict as
a war between rock and weapon. She was then harshly attacked by the
die-hard royalists who do not want to hear any criticism of Israel,
and by many of Tehran's radical right who thought that she did not
go far enough in her criticism of Israel!
Who, in his/her right mind, can dispute what Shirin Ebadi has
said about the war between Israel and Palestinians? While it is true
that radical Palestinians have carried out many terrorist attacks
and have murdered hundreds of innocent jews who were going about
their daily lives (attacks that must be, and have been, condemned by
all reasonable people), those attacks do not change the fundamental
balance of forces on both sides, namely, the powerful Israeli armed
forces against the essentially (comparatively speaking) unarmed
Palestinians. In the blurred vision that the die-hard royalists have
of our world we must constantly speak of violations of human rights
in Iran (which we must), but not about violation of the
Palestinians' rights by Israel!
(e) The die-hard royalists harshly attacked Shirin Ebadi's speech
in Oslo, Norway, when she accepted the Nobel Prize. Why was she
criticised? Because, according to her critics, Shirin Ebadi spent
too much time talking about major international human rights issues,
but not enough on Iran! These critics expected her to transform her
Oslo speech to an indictment of Tehran's radical right, and then go
back to Iran to be thrown in jail! Shirin Ebadi was also attacked by
the radical right for not criticising the US strongly enough!
Shirin Ebadi has told this author many times that she will never
go into exile. She is a product of the Iranian culture and society.
She was educated in Iran, formed a family in Iran, and has achieved
what she has by actively participating in the social and political
processes going on in Iran. She knows that the easy way for her
would be leading a safe and comfortable life in exile, issuing, like
her die-hard royalist critics, SECULAR FATWAAs from the comfort of
her home in Los Angeles, or Maryland, or Paris, or London. But, as
she has said herself, she could never have been so proud of her
achievements, had they come to her easily. Moreover, the Oslo speech
of Shirin Ebadi, as a Nobel Laureate (and not merely as an Iranian
human rights advocate), could not have been narrow and focused just
on Iran. Rather, she viewed that speech one for ages - one that
would be recorded in the annals of Nobel Peace Prize speeches - read
by the future generations.
The lies that the die-hard royalists and the radical right have
been spreading about Shirin Ebadi only reinforce the view that they
are, as it is said in Persian, the two sides of the same coin.
In addition to the above, some well-respected Iranian
journalists, analysts, and others have criticized Shirin Ebadi for
focusing her criticism only on the US. This author believes that
such critcisms are unwarranted, for the following reasons:
(i) Shirin Ebadi has only criticized the US FOREIGN POLICY, not
the US.
(ii) One of the most important issues, if not the most important
one, facing the world today is what to do with the situation in
Iraq. Ever since it became clear that the original reasons that we
were presented with for invading Iraq, namely, Iraq's alleged
weapons of mass destruction and its links with Osama bin Laden, are
bogus, the Bush Administration has been justifying the invasion of
Iraq by claiming that the goal of the invasion is establishing a
democratic political system in Iraq. Once such a claim is made, its
link with universal values of human rights cannot be avoided. It is
from this angle that this author believes Shirin Ebadi has been
criticizing the US invasion of Iraq.
(iii) Shirin Ebadi has, in fact, criticized other countries
(including France and England) for what she believes to be their
violation of human rights in those countries.
Some well-respected Iranian journalists and others have
criticized Shirin The disgusting treatment of Shirin Ebadi by the
die-hard royalists and Tehran's radical right is not, of course, the
first time that a group, or a state, has willingly attacked and
dismissed the Nobel Prize of its OWN compatriot or citizen. Other
examples are provided by Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi (1991) versus Burma's
military junta; Messrs Neslon Mandela (1993) and Archbishop Desmond
M. Tutu (1984) versus the apartheid regime in South Africa, and Dr.
Andrei D. Sakharov (1975) versus the communist regime in the old
Soviet Union. They were all awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, yet were
vilified by their own regimes and their supporters. In addition, one
should remember Mr. Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, who was awarded (in
1970) the Nobel Prize in Literature and described vividly the
Russian gulags (forced labor camps), for which he was the target of
the anger of the Soviet Union; Dr. Lev D. Landau, the great Russian
physicist who was so terrified by Joseph Stalin that thought that
receiving the Nobel Prize in Physics, which he was eventually
awarded in 1962 after Stalin's death, would be his only defence
against getting murdered by Stalin, and Mr. Wole Soyinka of Nigeria
who was awarded (in 1986) the Nobel Prize in Literature, but had to
flee his country after General Sani Abacha took power in Nigeria
through a military coup, and convicted Mr. Soyinka (in absentia) of
treason!
Where are these noble human beings now in the conscience of
humanity? The world pays tribute to Mandela, Tutu, Sakharov,
Solzhenitsyn, Landau, Aung San Suu Kyi, and Soyinka, but has nothing
but despise for the apartheid, communist, and military regimes of
their countries (all of which are now only an ugly part of the
history), and refuses to deal with the military junta of Burma.
Likewise, Shirin Ebadi, who has done nothing but bringing pride,
joy, and honour to Iran, is respected by humanity.
In Part II of this article entitled, "Iran's Antidemocratic
Forces. Part II: Know-nothing-ism, the 'Matrix', and Regime Change
in Iran," other aspects of their similarities will be
discussed.
About the author:
Mohammad Sahimi is Professor and Chairman of Chemical Engineering at
the University of Southern California in Los Angeles.
