Pictory

1979

This interview by Bazargan was actually made in 1979 right around the time of the hostage crisis and his own resignaton, November 1979.

There in the Simorgh's radiant face they saw

Themselves, the Simorgh of the world-with awe

They gazed, and dared at last to comprehend

They were the Simorgh and the  journey's end.

The Story of the Good Old Doctor

Dear Yaar,

I like your story of the patient and doctor. The patient had the option of several doctors.

There was an evil Doctor. This doctor stole the patient’s money and beat him up.

The Good Old Doctor

The patient went to the next doctor, an Old Good Doctor.  The Good Doctor told the patient that you are smoking too many cigarets. To be healthy and happy you need to stop smoking, begin eating healthy food, and exercise.

In the middle of the recovery, the evil Doc and his buddies came in and imprisoned the good doctor, executed his assistant, and dragged the patient, beat him up again, gave his money to the thugs.

One day the sick and confused patient saw the evil doc was feeling sick. He overpowered him, and kicked him out of the office. Outside there were a few doctors. One used to be a traditional herbal dude, with no education. When the tooth ached, he would get a plier and take the tooth out. When someone complained about headache, he would give him golgavzaban. Many many patients had died in the past. But he gave good stories and many believed him. He was even more evil than the first evil doctors. 

There were a few students of the Good Old Doctor. One told the patient that the herbal guy is a fake and dangerous. Another said, we should do what the Good Old Doctor said, we need democracy, freedom and human rights.

The patient did not listen to the students of the Good Doctor and make the mistake and went to the herbal guy. The herbal guy, took his money, beat him up. When his son went to take his father out, the herbal dude raped the son, then raped the daughter. This went on for more than three decades.

Then on September 26, 2010, a Fried came along and said all this is the fault of the Good Doctor, who did not train his students well.

The patient died. The son and daughter cried. But they and their children (the patient’s grand children) were determined to continue the struggle. The put up the photo of the Good Old Doctor, and did what he prescribed. They now knew that the first evil doc was evil and they also knew that the other evil herbal dude was even worse. So they stopped believing in his lies. They stopped smoking, they began eating health food, and began exercising.

In other cities nearby, while all the other children were still going to other herbal medicine quacks, the new generation in our city finally got to live freely and healthy in not long after they freed themselves from the evils in the year 2011 or was it in 2012, ....

People realized that had they listened to the Good Old Doctor 56 years ago, or his good students 30 year ago, they could have avoided all the sickness, death and pain. However, they remembered his prescriptions. No matter how much the two evil doctors tried to spread lies about the Good Old Doctor, the people remembered the truth and thanked him for the light he provided to them in their long journey to freedom.

Masoud

Dear Mr. Kazemzadeh,

Hafez

Hafez,

1. The only groups before Feb 11, 1979, considered Khomeini to be reactionary were Dr. Bakhtiar and Dr. Sedighi (from JM), Forqan (students and supporter of Dr. Shariati), and Ashraf Dehghani (from the Fadaian).

Dr. Bakhtiar did criticize Dr. Sanjabi and Frouhar for agreeing to work with Khomeini in a broad coalition against the Shah. Dr. Sanjabi signed a 3 point agreement in Paris with Khomeini which said that they both oppose the Shah and demand the next system be based on elections.

2. After the revolution, Dr. Bakhtiar did criticize other JM members who disagreed with his analysis and policies.

3. Actually, BEFORE coming to power, Khomeini did not criticize Mossadegh, JM, melli-garaee. Khomeini did those AFTER coming to power. Khomeini was dishonest, liar, and a charlatan.

4. Khomeini said the "hitchi" on the plane between Paris and Tehran.

5. Bazargan and Sanjabi did not understand the utter reactionary and dictatorial nature of Khomeini. They realized this AFTER Khomeini arrived in Iran in 1979.

Masoud

Dear Yaar

Dear Yaar,

You ask an excellent question.

The difference was not between clerics and non-clerics. There were good clerics (e.g., Grand Ayatollah Abolfazl Zanjani, Grand Ayatollah Kazem Shariatmadari, Ayatollah Mahmoud Taleghani). And there were bad reactionary tyrannical clerics (Grand Ayatollah Khomeini, Ayatollah Khalkhali, Ayatollah Khamenei).

Initially Ayatollah Kashani was on the side of democratic forces, but he switched and became part of the monarchist coup.

Bazargan split from JM in 1961 and created Nehzat Azadi Iran (NAI). Dr. Mossadegh was alive until 1967 and remained our leader until his last breath. So, from 1961 NAI was not directly following Dr. Mossadegh. Bazargan remained an admirer of Dr. Mossadegh, but NAI was not part of the JM any longer.

In 1963, JM’s reaction to the reforms was: "eslahat aree, dictatori naa" [reforms yes, dictatorship no].

In June 1963, Khomeini opposed the land reform and female franchise. Bazargan and NAI supported Khomeini’s reactionary position. So did Dr. Shariati. This is bizarre. Even the Tudeh Party supported Khomeini in 1963.

The Shah successfully crushed the reactionary rebellion by Khomeini in June 1963. Khomeini learned a lesson and from then on hid his reactionary views and instead used deception and successfully fooled a lot of people. In October 1964, Khomeini used the occasion of the Shah’s agreement with the U.S. on status of forces agreement and called it the return of capitulations.

From 1964, there was intense hatred of the Shah by all the main forces in Iranian society. There was this notion that the Shah was bad, nokar of foreign colonial forces, and terribly reactionary. In 1977-1979 period, for the sake of getting rid of the Shah, there were tremendous pressure to downplay differences and not criticize other forces who were struggling against the Shah, in order to succeed in overthrowing the hated Shah. When someone would try to say that Khomeini might be worse than the Shah, the response was "az siahi balatar rangi nist." The Shah was regarded to be absolute evil, that nothing could conceivably be worse.

It is easy today to look back and see how naive that view was. The people soon found out that in fact Khomeini was a zillion times more tyrannical than the Shah. That Khomeini was a zillion times more reactionary than the Shah.

In addition, there was a reaction to modernity. Shah’s superficial forms of modernity made large sectors to take a position against modernity. Of course modernity includes freedom of the press, freedom of political parties, constitutionalism, free elections, but due to the sort of modernity that the Shah brought, the anti-modernity reaction helped the most backward and reactionary forces.

This anti-modernity appeal included not only Khomeini, but also the likes of Dr. Seyyed Hussein Nasr in the Shah’s intellectual propaganda machine.

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hossein_Nasr

It also included the garbage by Jalal Ale Ahmad. Even Dr. Shariati wrote some stuff on the return to self.

It is easy to see today how wrong, naive, and garbage these people thought and wrote. It is because we have seen the hellish nightmare of traditional reactionary anti-modernity. Today, we understand the necessity and wonderful nature of modernity (with all its flaws). This awareness and consciousness was not there for many people.

Bazargan saw how reactionary some clerics were. He also saw how reactionary (in terms of religious superstition) the Shah was. Please see my post on the Shah claiming that the 12th Imam communicated with him and saved his life.

//iranian.com/main/blog/masoud-kazemzadeh...

//iranian.com/main/news/2010/07/29-10

Bazargan also saw that some clerics played positive roles. Bazargan himself was a very religious man. He is one of the top Islamist thinkers in Iran. Islamist means someone who transforms Islam into political ideology. Bazargan was trying to make a liberal interpretation of Islam.

In conclusion, they thought that Khomeini would go to Qom as he publically promised in Paris. They thought that in order to defeat the Shah, all forces have to cooperate with each other. They assumed that Khomeini’s popularity is momentary and would soon dissipate.

Today, we can look back and be puzzled how wrong they were. We are puzzled how the hell they forgot the reactionary nature of Khomeini between 1951-1963.

Our intellectuals failed to tell the people about the reactionary nature of Khomeini and his followers. Our politicians failed to tell the people about the reactionary nature of Khomeini and his uprising in June 1963. Our scholars failed to tell the people about the actual history of Khomeini and June 1963.

Part of this, large part, is the fault of Shah’s dictatorship. But large part is the fault of our intellectuals, scholars many of whom lived outside Iran and could have and should have known.

What is amazing is that even AFTER the nightmare of the fascistic bloody rule of Khomeini and Islamic fundamentalists in Iran since 1979, there are still such extremist fascistic movements such as Hamas, Lebanese Hezbollah, al Qaeda, and Taliban can gather supporters.

What is amazing is that in 2010, there are people on this very site that openly and covertly support the nightmarish fascistic regime. What is amazing is that in 2010 there are so-called sandis khor who collaborate with the most fascistic gang in the fundamentalist regime.

In conclusion, people made mistakes. The point is to learn from those mistakes. If in 1978, the people of Iran knew what they found out in 1979, or we know now in 2010, what would they have done? Of course the decent pro-democracy Iranians would not have worked with a fascist like Khomeini. The question is what could have the decent Iranian have done to get rid of the Shah and avoid the worse tyranny of Khomeini? Were we doomed to be under one form of brutal dictatorship or another even worse form of tyranny? Was democracy an option in 1978-79? What would have happened if all of JM would have agreed with Dr. Bakhtiar in November 1978, the situation would have been calmed. Then the Shah would have returned from his vacation, dismissed the JM prime minister, and restored his absolutist tyranny. And in the process killed tens of thousands or hundred of thousands of Iranians. Would you, I, and millions of other Iranians condemn JM for their historical mistake in 1978 for going to bed with the Shah?

I hope this is helpful.

Masoud

On cooperation of Bazargan with the clerics

First, it is exteremley hyporictical of Saltanat-Talabs, or anyone who convicts Bazargan for cooperating with Mollas, when in reality the cooperation of Kashani and Behbahani and Broujerdi with Shah and the coup is on record, and a historical fact.   Oh?   The first was ok, but the second was not?

Sorry folks you can not eat both from Tubreh and Aukhor at the same time.

Chronologically, the dark cooperation of black and white happened in 53.   Preciesly because Mossadegh would not give ANY role to clerics including Kashani, who wanted to influence the government and appoint his cronies but Mossadegh would not let him, Kashani turned his back on nationalists, and turned to Shah.  

The unfortunate lesson that Bazargan and Sanjabi took, was to cooperate with this very same clerics who ultimately were one of the root causes for 53 coup success and national governments down fall.   What they miscalculated, was that they thought Khomanee, as promised would go to Qhom and what they did not also figure was for Khomanee to die so late.  In some way, everything that could go wrong did go wrong in 79 revolution.

Of course the worst lesson anyone can learn, is to question the concept of revolt!   Revolt against what is bad and allows no reform, is the most human reaction.   How long did it take for French revolution to ultimately succeed?   Did they cry and say we want the Loui's back?

Look forward.  The biggest remaining hurdle since constitutional revolution is behind Iran.   Clerical rule has close to zero support.   That is why they are affraid of their shadow.   Rather than dueling on the past, we need to focus on future.   The type of government that can best fulfill the longing of Iranian people for an accountable, representative, modern government based on full adherence to human rights charters and more.

Bashing Bazargan who was the prime minister for 9 months, and did not have enough power to release the hostages, or free Amir Entezam , will not solve a single problem.   If it did, I would be the first to do so. 

When Mossadegh resigned in 30 Tir, the whole nation came to his support.   Our hot headed revolutionaries, not only did not object to Bazargans resignation, most were happy he was gone.   Granted, Bazargan was no Mossadegh, but Bazrgan resigned exactly because of his objection to interference of Khomanee and Mollas in government.   For that, the blame goes to?????????

Mr. Kazemzadeh,  I

Let's Focus on Facts

Mr. Kazemzadeh, please refer to the interviews and speeches made by Mr. Bakhtiar in France after the revolution.  Indeed he had foreseen the ramifications of the pact Mr. Bazargan and Mr. Sanjabi had made with the devil.   Ayatollah Khomeini has made it clear on many occasions that nationalism was not part of his agenda.  He was more interested in expanding his Islamist ideas.  Are you telling me Mr. Bazargan was not aware of this?  Who can forget the Ayatollah's famous answer to a reporter who asked him how he felt coming home after 15 years?  Are you telling me Mr. Bazargan and Sanjabi had no idea whom they are politically getting in bed with?

I agree with aynak.

I agree with aynak.  Bazargan wanted to serve the country and people.  I think one of them (Bazargan and Khomeini) didn't stick to his promises made prior to the revolution and he was Khomeini.  After the revolution as times went by and Iran faced difficult times and issues, Khomeini and many others changed course and the revolution took a different path. 

I personally think the ideological differences between liberals and clerics and others then and now should not be settled on the streets by people.  A mistake Bazargan made just as others have.  

To be fair yet unbiased towards Mr. bazargan....

Lets ask oursellves what would Mr Mossadegh or Mr Bakhtiar had done if they were in his shoes? After all, they belonged to the same liberal_democratic, nationalistic political spectra called "Jebhe Melli".

JM against Khomeini and his reactionary laws and policies

Hafez,

What you wrote is utter nonsense.

JM is a secular democratic organization. It is NOT an Islamist entity. Islamist means transforming Islam into one’s political ideology. JM has been against transforming Islam into political ideology. Many JM members have been practicing Muslims (e.g., Dr. Mossadegh, Dr. Sanjabi), many are agnostic, and many are atheist (e.g., Khalil Maleki). For JM, religion is a PRIVATE matter. JM advocates separation of religion and state.

In fact due to our public advocacy of this and our condemnation of Qanon Qesas and the fundamentalist constitution, and the dismissal of female judges by Khomeini, we were called mortad by the fascist Khomeini. On 25 Khordad 1360, JM called upon the people to protest the reactionary anti-humane Qanon Qesas. The reactionary fascist Khomeini called us apostates. But about 150,000 people in Tehran answered our call and came to the streets and protested the reactionary qesas. Here is a video of the event:

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkEcUjqUTlo

Masoud

No Comparision between Bazargan and Bakhtiar

How could anyone compare Mr. Bazargan to Mr. Bakhtiar?   Mr. Bakhtiar had immense love for his country.   Mr. Bazargan, Mr. Sanjabi and the rest of National front camp on the other hand were Islamists first, Iranians second.   They sold out Iran to their religion. 

on Bazargan

I oppose mixing religion and politics, and have many criticisms of Bazargan.  Nevertheless, I agree with Aynak's analysis here. 

Bazargan supported a constitution that was quite democratic.  It had no vf, no shoray negahban, no khobregan. 

The lesson of 1979 is that we should not have a system called Islamic Republic.  Period.  Once one calls the system by a religious term, one opens the possibility of the hellish nightmare we have been suffering in Iran since 1979.

Btw, Pakistan is officially, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.  Afghanistan is the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.   And the new constitution of Iraq, explicitly states that it is Islamic.  However, none of them is a theocracy.

BOTH Bazargan and Bakhtiar were decent democratic individuals.  The situation in 1978-1979, provided a series of dilemmas and bad options.

The solution is that we should make the pro-democracy forces so strong, so that we are not at the mercy of one dictatorial group or another. 

my 2 cents,

Masoud

His ideals were more radical and greener than ...

... today’s Green movement.

It is unkind and hypocritical of the Green supporters in this forum to be critical of Bazargan.  I think he was a decent man, even though in my youth,  I disliked him for being  a reactionary religious zealot.

One thing is for sure

He is gone down as a dumbest politician in Iran's history.

It was too little too late 30 years ago an still is!

Dariush said it well:" he should have listened to Bakhtiar", instead of Khomeini

Bazaragan was the inside link of Khomeini during revolution (from Masjed Ghobad) .

Islamic Republic of ALL kinds belong to the trash bin of history.

Bazargan clearly states, what kind of government he is seeking

Those who are trying to discredit Bazargan, fall into 3 categories:

1-A group who was fundametnally against any type of change.  (Shah-O-LLah)

2-Monday morning Quarter backs.  (He should have known Khomanee for the true double faced lier he was).

3-Those who disliked Bazrgan, for not being revolutionary enough.  (Khomanee supporters, and a specterum of left).

For the first group, obviously they can not see the similiarity between VF and the absolute monarchy that prevailed in Iran.   In their view, even though Bazargan gave a historic speech in the 1960's when he specificially stated to Shah that you would have to deal with people who understand no reasoning, if you do not want to deal with us in a rational way, no blame falls on SHAH, the head of an absolute system that had zero tolerance for political dissent.  In their little dictatorial excuse for brain, no one had the right to stand up to Shah, and all who did are suffering now!!    To them in reality, no CITIZEN rights has meaning.   Shah is god.

For the second group,you have to realize Bazargan was principled enough not to fall for power.   He has on number of time emphasised (as in the second video) on separation of state and mosque.   Alas, the level of education combined with revolutionary ferver did not allow a rational government to stay in power.  *You* should try herding the cats that are Iranian politics, and see how tough it is to reason in this enviornment.

Third group, which was the majority at the time, made fun of him as "American Liberal", not revolutionary enough .....They still dont understand the Liberalism is a great tradition that stands for much of what third world envies and likes about the first world.

Now the news for all 3 groups:

The like of Bazargan, is exactly the type that we need for the future of Iran.    People who believe in governing and not ruling.  People who believe in consenus not force, people who are tolernat of others and do not want to eliminate all the oppostion.  That is why his government was so short lived and why he resigned.  That is why the draft made by Amir Entezam demanding a separtaion of state and clerics power, was signed by him, but Amir Entezam was sent to prison and ultimately Bazargan left the government.

Bazargan, much like Mossadegh was not a coup minded individual.  He believed in rule of law.   That is why 30 years ago they made fun of him for his "step by step" politics, and now some are critical of him for what?   Not standing up to Khomanee?   Something the Shah could not do? 

Well He should have listened to Bakhtiar before crying for help

Due to his own Poor Choice ...

pictory: Bakhtiar Denounces Bazargan's Provisionary Government in exile (1979)

Related Bazargan Blogs:

Mehdi Bazargan and the controversial legacy of Iran's Islamic intellectual movement

HISTORY FORUM: Mashallah Ajoudani on Intellectuals and the Revolution 

Wow, he foresaw the whole thing 30 years ago

in the second video, when he talks about the country turning into various "poles" with competing interests causing confusion, and that is exactly what has happened.  The paralyzing clusterfuck that is the IRI, with the mullahs having the ultimate say (just as he predicted).

that much proof

that Mehdi Bazargan was also a traitor, who brought this regime onto us, knowingly, and then complains only in its begining days about the rule of the clerics!!!  If you were that stupid not see it, when millions others saw it, then Mr. Bazargan, rest in peace, but you were as guilty and as muderous as the regime you brought about.

Ke Chi?????

Another fossilized clip from 30 years ago!

Now what?

دوستی خاله خرسه

بعد از عمری سنگ اسلامیستها را به سینه زدن و تلاش برای به کرسی نشاندن رویه حکومتداری آن وحوش دیگر برای ایندست حرفها دیر شده بود. حیف که ابلهانه تیغ بدست زتگی مست داد.  خدابیامرزدش که با ایران و ایرانی دوستی خاله خرسه را کرد.