Ebrahim Noroozi, Sputnik News, February 14 2019:… Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif has responded to US President Donald Trump’s comments about the 1979 Iran Revolution by urging Trump “to rethink failed US policy after 40 years of wrong choices”. “40 Years of Failure to accept that Iranians will never return to submission. 40 Years of Failure to adjust US policy to reality. 40 Years of Failure to destabilize Iran through blood & treasure,” FM Zarif wrote in a tweet on Tuesday.
Iranian FM Strikes Back at Trump, Bolton Over “40 Years of Failure” Remarks
On Monday, Iran celebrated the 40th anniversary of the country’s Islamic Revolution, during which US-backed ruler Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi was ousted and revolutionaries led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini took power in Tehran.
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif has responded to US President Donald Trump’s comments about the 1979 Iran Revolution by urging Trump “to rethink failed US policy after 40 years of wrong choices”.
“40 Years of Failure to accept that Iranians will never return to submission. 40 Years of Failure to adjust US policy to reality. 40 Years of Failure to destabilize Iran through blood & treasure,” FM Zarif wrote in a tweet on Tuesday.
The remarks came a day after Trump tweeted about 40 years of “corruption, repression and terror”, reacting to the 40th anniversary of Iran’s Islamic Revolution, which he claimed was followed by “the regime in Iran producing only 40 years of failure”.
40 years of corruption. 40 years of repression. 40 years of terror. The regime in Iran has produced only #40YearsofFailure. The long-suffering Iranian people deserve a much brighter future. pic.twitter.com/bA8YGsw9LA
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 11, 2019
Trump was echoed by National Security Adviser John Bolton, who published a spate of tweets, in which he argued in particular that “the 40th anniversary of the Iranian regime only serves to highlight four decades of failure and broken promises”.
In one tweet, Bolton pledged the US’ support to the Iranian people, who he claimed should “determine the direction of their country” after “40 years of failure”.
Journalist Mikey Kay recalled in this vein that Bolton has spoken at least eight times at rallies organised by MEK (Mojahedin-e Khalq), an Iranian dissident group which calls for regime change in Iran and is known to pay up to $50,000 per speech.
In July 2017, Bolton told an MEK gathering convention that “the outcome of the president’s policy review should be to determine that the Ayatollah Khomeini’s 1979 revolution will not last until its 40th birthday”.
“The behaviour and the objectives of the regime are not going to change and, therefore, the only solution is to change the regime itself. And that’s why, before 2019, we here will celebrate in Tehran!” he claimed.
On the 40th anniversary of the #IslamicRevolution, I can't help but recall @AmbJohnBolton's promise to MEK terrorists: "before 2019 we here will celebrate in Tehran,” and "Ayatollah Khomeini’s 1979 revolution will not last until its 40th birthday.” Quit your job, Bolton.
— Sharmine Narwani (@snarwani) February 11, 2019
The US officially removed MEK, which describes itself as the biggest rival to the ruling Islamic Republic authorities, from its terrorism blacklist in 2012.
The Islamic Revolution Succeeded, Iran Not So Much
Zvi Bar’el, Haaretz, February 09 2019:… The outcome of the president’s policy review should be to determine that the Ayatollah Khomeini’s 1979 revolution will not last until its 40th birthday,” said John Bolton, Donald Trump’s national security adviser, at a 2017 conference with members of Mojahedin-e Khalq “And that’s why, before 2019, we here will celebrate in Tehran! The storm of applause came as no surprise. Mojahedin-e Khalq, that was on Washington’s terror-group list until 2012, has become America’s chief ally in its war against the Iranian regime.
The Islamic Revolution Succeeded, Iran Not So Much
Visitors walking near the Massoumeh shrine in the holy city of Qom, Iran, January 15, 2019. Atta Kenare / AFP
The revolution’s success still nourishes the dreams of Sunni movements as well, but ‘Shi’ite flexibility’ went by the wayside, and many Iranians feel their country is imprisoned in an Arab and Muslim circle of hostility
“The outcome of the president’s policy review should be to determine that the Ayatollah Khomeini’s 1979 revolution will not last until its 40th birthday,” said John Bolton, Donald Trump’s national security adviser, at a 2017 conference with members of Mojahedin-e Khalq that took place before Bolton’s appointment. “And that’s why, before 2019, we here will celebrate in Tehran!”
The storm of applause came as no surprise. Mojahedin-e Khalq, a large and militant Iranian opposition organization that was on Washington’s terror-group list until 2012, has become America’s chief ally in its war against the Iranian regime. Unlike Trump and Bolton, who have, at least officially, abandoned their desire for regime change in Iran, MEK still seeks it.
The same is true of leaders of the large community of Iranian exiles in Los Angeles, many of whom would like Iran to revert to being a monarchy with the former shah’s flaccid son, Reza Mohammad Pahlavi, on top.
But for now, Bolton and those who share his dream will have to postpone it. On Sunday, Iran will celebrate the 40th anniversary of the day the Islamic Revolution led by Khomeini declared victory. And despite the economic and political crises the country faces, its unique system of government shows no signs of disappearing.
And this isn’t a system frozen in time; it’s capable of seeing and responding to both social changes and the diplomatic environment. The flexibility that has helped the separatist Shi’ite branch of Islamsurvive since the seventh century also characterizes Iran’s political and diplomatic behavior.
From its inception, the Islamic Revolution rested on a variety of groups, including the national movement, the Communist Party and the bazaar merchants who financed the revolt. It was backed by both women and men, by religious people and secular ones.
Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini arriving in Tehran, February 1, 1979. AP
What they all had in common was their loathing of the shah, their fear of his reign of terror, the economic distress that afflicted most Iranians, and their hatred of the country’s dictatorship, which trampled freedom of expression, didn’t allow the establishment of political parties, nurtured a cult of personality around the shah and his family, and turned Iran, in the eyes of its people, into a satellite of the West in a way that reminded many of the colonialist era.
The strategic challenge for Khomeini, who was in exile first in Iraq and then near Paris, was to keep any alternative leadership from arising out of the protest movements that had roiled Iran for two years before the revolution. Any such leadership might prevent him from taking over and deny him the opportunity to implement his own political doctrines.
In the transition period between the shah’s departure from Iran on January 16 and Khomeini’s arrival in the country on February 1, he also had to ensure that the army would back him, and that the West, especially the United States, wouldn’t foil his plans.
He had no social media, faxes, smartphones or internet, but he made massive and effective use of tens of thousands of audio recordings. He also built a political opposition near Paris, which hosted intellectuals and activists from all the opposition movements. All this enabled him to build himself up as the only leader capable of realizing the dream of toppling the shah’s regime.
“Shi’ite flexibility” goes the narrative he nurtured in exile. According to this explanation, Khomeini sought to establish a democratic state that rested on Islamic jurisprudence but would grant human rights to everyone; women could even choose whether to wear a headscarf. In his recorded sermons, every political movement could find an expression of its own desires.
Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and Empress Farah at Tehran’s Mehrabad Airport to board a plane to leave the country, January 16, 1979. AP
But to Khomeini’s religious disciples and Islamic clerics, his message was unequivocal: Iran would be a state governed by Islamic law. Government officials would have to know the foundations of this law and obey it, and the country’s leader would combine superior religious knowledge with outstanding political abilities.
Khomeini built a system of government that sought to combine certain democratic fundamentals – like a parliament, local councils and a president that are elected by the people – with the supremacy of Islamic law, and especially of the supreme leader. And upon victory, his flexibility evaporated.
With ruthless brutality, he instigated a “cultural revolution” aimed at eradicating any vestige of the shah’s reign, replacing the entire bureaucracy, writing new textbooks that would supplant the old curricula, and creating loyal forces to enforce the new regime. The shah’s terror was swiftly replaced by Khomeini’s terror, and the leadership of the revolution began plotting the next stage – exporting the revolution to all Islamic countries.
This was the turning point in relations between Sunni and Shi’ite Islam in the modern era. Arab regimes that had clashed with radical Islamist movements saw the success of the Iranian revolution as a call to arms meant to instigate religious revolutions, or at least threaten the fragile balance between governments and religion.
The Arab states rejected Iran’s proposal to build an “Islamic nuclear bomb,” out of fear that such a bomb would actually threaten them. And when the Iran-Iraq War broke out in August 1980, most Arab states sided with Iraq.
Khomeini’s successor, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, sobered up from the dream of exporting the revolution to other Islamic countries. But the revolution’s success has continued to nourish the dreams of both radical Iranian leaders and Sunni Islamist movements to this day.
The Islamic threat – and not necessarily the Shi’ite one – made revolutionary Iran a hostile and even threatening political entity from the standpoint of the Arab states. Meanwhile, Iranians increasingly felt that their country was imprisoned in an Arab and Muslim circle of hostility.
To its west were Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Turkey, which in the ‘80s defined Iran as a threat. To its east were Pakistan and India, which had nuclear weapons. And off its coasts were American warships and submarines, which carried nuclear missiles.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei praying at the mausoleum of his predecessor Ruhollah Khomeini in southern Tehran, January 30, 2019. HO / Iranian Supreme Leader’s website AFP
The Iranian regime needed to defend the state’s borders against this plethora of threats while preserving the foundations of the revolution and strengthening its religious principles, and all without causing a rift between the people and the leaders. Thus once again, the leadership of the revolution was forced to consider the limits of its flexibility.
Confusion and hesitation over how to achieve these fundamental goals created what the West describes as a battle between conservatives and reformists. But this is a misleading concept that doesn’t explain the state’s conduct.
The assumption is that this dichotomous division puts the reformists on the side of the West in general and the United States in particular, while the conservatives are anti-Western, reject democracy and oppose human rights.
But how does one define a leadership that executes drug dealers and gay men, imprisons human rights activists without trial and persecutes women whose headscarves aren’t put on “appropriately,” yet has developed a widely praised film industry, lets Western music be played and maintains an excellent education system?
How can a radical Islamic state celebrate the New Year holiday, Nowruz, which has pagan origins, or portray the 1953 ouster of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh by American and British intelligence as a national event that proves the West’s vileness, even though Mossadegh wasn’t religious and the very idea of nationalism is controversial in radical Islamic discourse?
The West, especially the United States, which shapes the discussion of Iran and defines its regime, isn’t exempt from doing some diplomatic and moral soul-searching. During the shah’s reign, Washington treated Iran as it did other countries ruled by dictators. Mohammad Reza Pahlavi received a free hand to do as he pleased to his own people as long as oil, construction, infrastructure and trade companies and cultural agencies from America, France, Israel and Germany were all making profits.
Under President Richard Nixon, Iran and the shah were seen as a bulwark against the spread of communism, and therefore as deserving of all support and assistance despite the country’s thuggish regime. And though President Jimmy Carter suddenly began talking about human rights violations and demanded that the shah change the way the regime treated its citizens, Carter called the shah a reformer who was advancing democracy.
Would tough American pressure that leveraged Iran’s dependence on the United States have changed history by diluting the anger and hatred for the shah and preventing the Islamic Revolution? This is neither an unanswerable hypothetical question nor one that’s already moot. Washington’s partnership with Saudi Arabia is reminiscent in many ways of its partnership with Iran under the shah.
Saudi Arabia seems tranquil. There are no stormy demonstrations in its streets, its economy is solid and its borders are well defended. It survived the Arab Spring revolutions and didn’t become another Syria, Yemen or Libya.
Nevertheless, the potential for a Saudi revolt periodically raises its head. There’s no guarantee that the Saudi government, which is nothing but a pro-Western dictatorship, carries an insurance card guaranteeing its continued existence.
But should Washington apply the lessons of the Iranian Revolution by putting pressure on Saudi Arabia? The question poses a dangerous dilemma.
President Barack Obama tried this tactic in his relations with Egypt. He supported the Arab Spring demonstrators, didn’t lift a finger to help Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and also didn’t rush to support President Abdel-Fattah al-Sissi when the field marshal seized power in July 2013. As a result, Washington and Cairo had a severe falling out that healed only after Trump became president.
Is this dilemma valid regarding Iran? The threats and the talk of regime change certainly don’t help.
Withdrawing from the nuclear agreement or imposing ruinous sanctions may achieve specific goals like freezing Iran’s ballistic missile program. Yet forging a balanced relationship between Iran and the West that could reduce not just Tehran’s military capabilities, but also its motivation to use them, would require an intellectual and ideological revolution of the kind that made it possible to sign the nuclear deal.
Iran and terrorism (West and the Mojahedin Khalq Terror Organisation
Press TV, Interface, January 28 2019:… Terror and instability caused in the region by Israel and supporters of Daesh. Is Iran a victim of terrorism as it claims or are the US ruling party and Israel right to say Iran uses terror to achieve its goals? The guests in this episode of Interface are Mr. Massoud khodabandeh a former Peoples Mojahedin Organization or MEK member from Leeds and Mr. Charles Shoebridge former anti-terror specialist in the British Army, from London; and in the Tehran studio Mr. Abolfazl Sajedi, an Islamic Studies researcher from Qom.
Over the past few years most every time a US authority mentioned Iran, they used the word terrorism. They call Iran the cause for regional instability and they have recently been trying to round up a regional front against Iran, with regional states that are at odds with Iran.
They say that will put a stop to what causes a lack of security. Iran denies these accusations and says it is itself a victim of terror. Terror and instability caused in the region by Israel and supporters of Daesh. Is Iran a victim of terrorism as it claims or are the US ruling party and Israel right to say Iran uses terror to achieve its goals? The guests in this episode of Interface are Mr. Massoud khodabandeh a former Peoples Mojahedin Organization or MEK member from Leeds and Mr. Charles Shoebridge former anti-terror specialist in the British Army, from London; and in the Tehran studio Mr. Abolfazl Sajedi, an Islamic Studies researcher from Qom. Watch the video and give us your comments.
#freemarziehhashemi suffocated MEK (Rajavi cult) propaganda
Ebrahim Khodabandeh, Januray 26 2019:… The MEK which has a track record, from triggering the manufactured nuclear crises against Iran to advocating for severe sanctions against the Iranian people and advertising regime change, which are all dictated from the White House, entered the political game of Marzieh Hashemi by advertising in its propaganda outlets the hidden wishes of the Trump administration. The…
John Bolton (MEK paid lobby) is not mad, Rather a…
Press TV, January 09 2019:… The Leader was referring to comments by US National Security Adviser John Bolton. “Before 2019, we here will celebrate in Tehran,” Bolton told an MKO meeting in July 2017. Ayatollah Khamenei said, “Christmas was a few days ago. This is how US calculations work.” “Some US officials pretend that they are mad. Of course I don’t agree with that. Rather, they…
Khashoggi killed for disclosing Saudi funding of anti-Iran TV channel:…
Press TV, November 09 2018:… Earlier this summer, the Iran International came under fire for praising a terrorist attack in Iran’s Ahvaz and broadcasting live coverage of a rally by the anti-Iran terrorist group Mujahedin Khalq Organization (MKO). At the time, the Guardian took note of Press TV’s complaint that the Western and Saudi media were refraining from terming the deadly attack as a terrorist act despite the…
Iran: U.S. Backed Mojahedin Khalq (MKO, MEK, Rajavi cult) terrorists…
Press TV and Fars News, Tehran, October 10 2018:… Washington has also in the past 40 years been after defeating the country by resorting to different methods, including separatism, assassinations and sanctions, but has failed time and again. The US has in recent years attempted to use the terrorist groups, specially the Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO, also known as the MEK,…
MKO (MEK, NCRI Rajavi cult …) is destructive mind control…
Press TV, September 28 2018:… Ebrahim Khodabandeh: They think by making the people of Iran suffer they (can) reach their goal. This inhumane policy cannot be expressed officially, of course. This must be asked by a so-called Iranian group first. The MEK are always ready to betray their country if they think this would reach them to their goal and to…
Traitors to the homeland (Mojahedin Khalq, MEK, MKO, NCRI, Rajavi…
Hossein Jelveh, Press TV, September 25 2018:… In 2016 and 2017, Saudi Arabia’s former spy chief, Prince Turki bin Faisal Al Saud, attended MKO meetings in Paris. “Advance with God’s blessings,” bin Faisal said in a speech in the 2016 meeting, wishing the terrorists success in attempting “regime change” in Iran. In 2018, another meeting in Paris attracted Rudy Giuliani, personal…
Mossad admits cooperating with MKO over anti-Iran plot
Press TV, July 21 2018:… The Mossad claim puts Israel next to Saudi Arabia, which Tehran says has been colluding with the MKO and providing it with financial support since the Iraqi imposed war on Iran in the 1980s. Mossad’s alleged operation to protect the MKO occurred days ahead of a visit to Europe by Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani for meetings with his…
US-led coalition did not treat Mojahedin Khalq (MKO, MEK, Rajavi…
Press TV, July 13 2018:… An American nonprofit global policy think tank says the US-led coalition has been offering protection to the anti-Iran terrorist group Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO) since the occupation of Iraq in 2003. In a report, the RAND Corporation said US forces not only did nothing to punish the MKO for its crimes, but also offered it protected status and allowed it…
Iran Foreign Ministry dismisses US implicating of Iranian embassies in…
Press TV, Tehran, July 11 2018:… This came after Belgian authorities claimed earlier this month that an Iranian diplomat had been arrested along with a 38-year-old man and a 33-year-old woman, suspected of plotting a bomb attack on a meeting of the notorious anti-Iran terrorist group the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO) in the French capital Paris. The meeting was attended by US…
Trump administration plotting to use MKO (MEK, NCRI …) terrorists…
Ebrahim Khodabandeh, Press TV, July 11 2018:… The Trump administration pretends that Iranian dissidents want regime-change in Iran which is not true, Khodabandeh said. The Trump administration’s show of support for the MKO terrorist organization, which has as well Iranian and Iraqi blood American blood on their hands, is based on the terrorist outfit’s anti-Iran stance, Khodabandeh told Press TV in an exclusive interview … NBC News: Was…
Iran: Asma Jahangir report is a rehash of Mojahedin Khalq…
Merh News and Press TV, October 30 2017:… the report contained rehashed claims and allegations against the Islamic establishment and simply quoted anti-Islamic Republic sources and the anti-Iran terrorist Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO). He added that the report supported those individuals who had been tried and convicted of espionage and also the MKO elements who had carried out various acts of terror…
Iranian FM decries France green light to MKO activities (aka…
Press tv, July 01 2017:… On Saturday, the MKO terror group held a meeting in Paris, which was attended by some of the former US, European and Saudi officials, including former Saudi spy chief, Prince Turki al-Faisal, who also delivered a speech. On July 9, 2016, Paris hosted another annual meeting organized by the MKO terrorist group, which was also…