Show trials and apologetics


by yasmine

The Stalinist show trial of Saturday August 1 – when a number of prominent ‘reformists’ appeared on Iranian state TV to ‘thank their interrogators’ before repenting – was not the first such event in the Islamic republic’s history. Leaders of the ‘official communist’ Tudeh Party were similarly paraded on Iranian TV to denounce their own actions in the 1980s, while in the 1990s we had the trials of ‘rogue’ elements of the ministry of intelligence.

However, this time the Islamic leaders forgot that a precondition for the success of such show trials in terms of imposing fear and submission on the masses is total control of the press and media. What made this particular effort ineffective – indeed a mockery – was that it came at a time when the supporters of supreme leader Ali Khamenei have not yet succeeded in silencing the other factions of the regime, never mind stopping the street protests. So, instead of marking the end of the current crisis, the show trials have given the protestors fresh ammunition.

The paper of the Participation Front (the largest alliance of ‘reformist’ MPs) stated: “The case of the prosecution is such a joke that it is enough to make cooked chicken laugh.” The Participation Front was one of nine major Islamic organisations which ridiculed the prosecution claim that the ‘regime knew of the plot for a velvet revolution’ weeks before the election. Some Tehran reformist papers are asking: in that case why did the Guardian Council allow the ‘reformist’ candidates to stand in the presidential elections? Perhaps the Guardian Council itself should be put on trial!

Former president Mohammad Khatami, candidates Mir-Hossein Moussavi and Mehdi Karroubi and other ‘reformist’ politicians have denounced the trial as “illegal”, yet they do not seem to realise the irony in this criticism. First of all, no-one but the ‘reformists’ within the regime has any illusions about Iran’s legal system (both civil and sharia law). Second, the time to oppose show trials was two decades ago, not when you yourself are a victim of the system and there is no-one left to defend you. It was not just in the 1980s that messrs Khatami, Moussavi, Karroubi, etc kept quiet about similar trials. As late as the 1990s, during Khatami’s own presidency, they did not exactly rebel against the show trials of the intelligence agents who ‘confessed’ to having acted alone in murdering opponents of the regime. Some of the most senior figures implicated in that scandal, a scandal that was hushed up by the Khatami government (‘for the sake of the survival of the Islamic order’) – not least current prosecutor general Saeed Mortazavi – are now in charge of the ‘velvet revolution’ dossier.

For the Iranian left the trial and ‘confessions’ have also been a reminder of the plight of thousands of comrades who probably faced similar physical and psychological torture in the regime’s dungeons in the 1980s, although only a handful of them ever made it onto TV screens – many died anonymously in the regime’s torture chambers. Of course, we do not know if the Iranian government has improved its torture techniques since those times, but some senior ‘reformist’ politicians appear to have broken down much more easily than those thousands of young leftwing prisoners.

Those ‘reformist’ leaders who are still at liberty are not doing any better. Despite facing the threat of arrest and trial themselves, they maintain their allegiance to ‘Iran’s Islamic order’, reaffirming their “commitment to the Islamic regime” (Khatami) and denouncing the slogan promoted by demonstrators, “Freedom, independence, Iranian republic”, as Moussavi did on August 2.

A couple of weeks ago there were signs that negotiations between Khamenei and another former president, Ali Akbar Rafsanjani, had made some progress and once more there was the possibility that, as the two factions of the regime buried some of their differences, the mass movement could become a victim of reconciliation amongst senior clerics.

The show trials not only put an end to such illusions, but promised an unprecedented intensification of the internal conflict. But this came too late for the authors of the statement, ‘Truth and reconciliation for Iran’, signed by a number of academics and activists who are notorious apologists of the Iranian regime and published on a number of websites, including that of Monthly Review.1 The statement has one aim: to save the Islamic regime by advocating peaceful coexistence between the two warring factions or, in the words of the statement, “the vital unity of our people against foreign pressures”.

In explaining the background of the conflict with imperialism, the authors state: “… despite Iran’s cooperation in the overthrow of the Taliban in neighbouring Afghanistan, the administration of George W Bush labelled the Islamic Republic a member of the ‘axis of evil’.”2 I am not quite sure why Iran’s support for US imperialism in the terrible Afghanistan war should be put forward as an example of the regime’s reasonable and moderate behaviour by anyone who claims to be anti-war.

The statement goes on to praise the wonderful election process, failing to mention that only four candidates loyal to the regime’s factions were allowed to stand or that voting for a president of a regime headed by an unelected ‘supreme religious leader’ is a bit of a joke … But this marvellous ‘democratic election’ is used to legitimise Iran’s nuclear programme.

The statement contains some seriously false claims: “… we have advocated the human rights of individuals and democratic rights for various groups and constituencies in Iran.” I am not sure which universe they think the rest of us reside in, but until the escalation of the conflict between the two factions of the regime many of the authors of the statement were insisting that everything in Iran’s Islamic Republic was great.

According to the defenders of ‘Islamic feminism’ amongst them, Iranian women enjoy complete political and social freedom – which no doubt would have come as a shock to tens of thousands of young women who joined the protests precisely because of their opposition to draconian misogynist regulations imposed by the religious state.

Many of the signatories are associated with Campaign Iran and the Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran, which have made a virtue of not advocating “democratic rights” for Iranians, since that would confuse those simple-minded ‘ordinary people’ at a time when Iran is under threat. They insisted that the existence of a women-only fire brigade was proof of gender equality in Iran and the fact that the ‘crime’ of homosexuality is punishable by death is no reason to declare the regime homophobic – after all, liberal Iran has a very high rate of sex-change operations.3 The signatories are mistaken if they think they can rewrite history and portray themselves as defenders of “human rights” in Iran – we will neither forgive nor forget their disgraceful pro-regime apologetics.

Our ex-leftists clearly fail to understand the significance of the street protests: “The votes of a great portion of the Iranian society for both Ahmadinejad and Moussavi show that the best solution is negotiations for reconciliation and creation of a government of national unity from the ranks of principlists and the green movement and reformists.” While even bourgeois liberals and Moussavi supporters admit that the protests have now reached the stage where the green movement has no alternative but to tail the masses and their anti-regime slogans, the signatories’ advice to the ‘reformists’ is to ‘negotiate’ with those who have killed dozens of demonstrators, tortured hundreds and imprisoned thousands, including some of Moussavi’s allies.

When the ‘Truth and reconciliation’ statement tries to look at the causes of the current unrest, it gets things wrong: “However, in the view of a considerable number of Iranians who are discontented and frustrated with the restrictions on civil and political freedoms, there were various irregularities in the elections, including the suspension of reformist newspapers and mobile telephone SMS service on election day. This caused mass public demonstrations in support of nullifying the election.”

In fact both wings of the Islamic republic have made a lot of people “discontented and frustrated” and restricted “civil and political freedoms” since the day the regime came to power. There have been disputed results in at least three previous presidential elections, but what differentiates the current crisis from previous ones is ‘the economy, stupid’. Not only is the global economic crisis being felt far worse in the countries of the periphery, but the effects in Iran are compounded by a government that based its 2008-09 budget on selling oil at $140 a barrel; a government that aimed to privatise 80% of Iran’s industries by 2010, thus creating mass unemployment, a government that printed money while pursuing neoliberal economic policies; a government whose policies resulted in a 25% inflation rate, while the growing gap between rich and poor made a mockery of its populist claims to be helping the common people.

Last week I wrote about the political stance of Stalinists who, by supporting Moussavi, are advocating, as they have done throughout the last decades, a stageist approach to revolution.4 The signatories of the ‘Truth and reconciliation’ statement have taken things a step further: they do not aim for the next ‘stage’ any more, advocating instead the continuation of the religious state with peace and harmony amongst its many factions. The protests might have pushed Khatami, Moussavi and Karroubi to adopt slightly more radical positions, but they certainly have failed to influence our conciliators.

The demonstrators in Tehran shout “Death to the dictator”, but the Casmii and Campaign Iran educators condemn “extremist elements who used the opportunity to create chaos and engaged in the destruction of public property”. Anyone who knows anything about events since the election is aware that it is the state and its oppressive forces that have used violence against ordinary people. How dare these renegades condemn the victims of that violence for resisting this brutal regime?

What is truly disgusting about the statement are the pleas addressed not only to leaders of the Islamic reformist movement in Iran (to make peace with the conservatives), but also their requests to Barack Obama and other western leaders to be more accommodating to the Iranian regime. As if imperialist threats and sanctions have anything to do with the good will, or lack of it, of this or that administration. The language and tactics might change, but just as a bankrupt, corrupt and undemocratic Islamic Republic needs external threats and political crisis to survive, so US and western imperialism needs not only to offload the worst effects of the economic crisis onto the countries of the periphery, but also to threaten and occasionally instigate war. Our movement must aim to stop this lunacy, but in order to do so we need to address the democratic forces in Iran and the west rather than pleading with imperialism and Iran’s reactionary rulers.

The open support of the supreme religious leader for the conservatives has radicalised the Iranian masses. Separation of state and religion has now become a nationwide demand and we must support the demonstrators’ calls for the dismantling of the offices and expropriation of funds associated with the supreme leader and of all other religious foundations. The abolition of sharia law, of the religious police and of Islamic courts is part and parcel of such a call. Even as the show trials were being broadcast, Iranian workers were continuing their struggles against privatisation (Ahmadinejad’s first economic priority in his second term is the privatisation of oil refineries) and the non-payment of wages.

These days capitalists who say they are unable to pay their workers blame not only the world economic situation but also current events in Iran itself. Yet many of them do make profits and quickly channel them abroad. Iranian workers have been demanding representation at factory level to monitor production and sales, and calling for the total transparency of company accounts. We must support these immediate demands as part of our own anti-imperialist strategy.

At a time of crisis it is inevitable that the bourgeoisie, both in the developed world and in the countries of the periphery, will act irrationally. However, it is sad to see sections of the ‘left’ adopting a different form of irrationality. If we are to expose the warmongering endemic to contemporary capitalism, we must base our approach on the independent politics of the international working class.

That is why the idiotic, class-collaborationist ‘theories’ of Casmii, Campaign Iran and the current dominant line in Monthly Review are such a disaster for the anti-war movement.


1. Over the last few weeks Monthly Review has published a number of statements defending Ahmadinejad, which has led to resignations by some members of the board and has been condemned by socialists in the US and elsewhere.
2. ‘Truth and reconciliation’,
3. See ‘Lies cannot stop imperialists’,
4. ‘Out of step with the masses’, July 30.


Recently by yasmineCommentsDate
the Iran Tribunal
Nov 08, 2012
Iran: Sanctions mean war on the people
Oct 18, 2012
Hopi weekend conference: April 21-22, central London
Mar 28, 2012
more from yasmine

Just a note

by benross on

The referendum is the key in my view. I fully support it. This gives us the possibility of a peaceful democratic process that the only 'toppling' option can less likely provide. It doesn't dismiss the 'toppling' option. It just gives it a leeway.

But let's be clear, the options in the referendum is Islamic regime or constitutional monarchy. Nothing else. A referendum can not provide 100 options.

Darius Kadivar

benross jaan you did not hurt me ;0)

by Darius Kadivar on

No worries.

I fully understand your point of view. That said I believe that the issue of a referendum was brought about by RP himself ( which some and me included were not particularly glad about this proposition in the first place) and therefore its too late to retract now.

But I fully agree with you that talking is not enough. Action and Symbolic actions need to be taken in due course.

My point was that if a coalition has to be set up even with people who do not necessarily share our views it is important to take steps one way or another to reach it through mutual respect if not understanding.

The point of the matter today is not much wanting to have a democratic System of government but of finding enough unity amongst the large majority of people in order to topple the regime.

That is easier said than done. But well when I see the level of maturity of the Iranian youth like her:


It makes me optimistic. She proves that what some in the Green Movement are wrong when they try and suggest that for example the Sun and Lion  Flag is a problem.

We have to move over such semantics and get to the core of the problem. What do we Want !

All the other problems will be solved in due time.

Got to go but I am interested in anyone who has an opinion even if they are different than mine.

Warm Regards,





Dear Darius

by benross on

I believe I hurt you badly. I usually unintentionally do that.

I think you misread my critic. I'm not a republican. Nor particularly a harsh monarchist for that matter. And I, like yourself, think this is not the real issue and will be resolved in a democratic process. I appreciate that you, as a true monarchist are presenting the constitutional monarchy. But you are presenting it here to those who are not monarchists and I simply commented on your approach for those who are not emotionally attached to the monarchy. This was purely a political critic. Otherwise for me, the debate between monarchy and republic -granted in a very selfish intellectual way- is completely ridiculous. By the same token and same intellectual way, I'm more adamant in defending the monarchic constitution because it's the only constitution I recognize.

I respect your Solidarmosc parallel but I don't think it'd work. I respect your attachment to the constitutional monarchy but you are wrong that I am a republican and am completely dismissing the constitution. Au contraire, I'm asking Reza Pahlavi to claim his kingdom based on that constitution. Ask for a referandum to restor that constitution and then, and only then, set-up an election for constituent assembly for the future of the system. The first referandum is only a choice between the current Islamic regime and current Monarchic constitution. That's it.

I think we have less differences than you might think. All I'm asking is to stop talking about it. Go for it.

Darius Kadivar


by Darius Kadivar on


Your question was adressed to me after all and I gave it. And Of course that my proposition here is an attempt to save the Monarchical Institution in its Constitutional form in Iran. Because I believe in its usefulness and symbolism in defining our identity as a nation.  If I am indeed a Monarchist, I have never hid that fact nor see why me or anyone else who may be one should be asked to make excuses. Why not asking you to make excuses for being a Republican ? That leads us No Where !

You Sipmly happen to be a Republican who believes that Reza Pahlavi can be an asset to Iran, and I happen to be a Constitutional Monarchist who believes the same.

We Only seem to differ on how we want the future Democratic System of Government in Iran to be. What do you plan to do with those who are not Republican and believe in the Monarchy for their own reasons ? Kill em Off ? What is Democratic about that ?

You will find fanatics in both camps be them Republican or Monarchists. STUPIDITY like you say is Not the Monopoly of Any group. You Guys can and I should say have been quite Stubborn for many years now without making the slightest constructive suggestion. Now that you see RP has been gaining in credibility you want to join him. I applaud your change of habit and welcome it but don't ask us to change simply to satisfy your desires. Respect us and we will respect you. Insult us and we will insult you.

I am open minded enough to offer my arguments and say what are the points upon which I can find common ground with someone who is a Republican. It just happens that from My Point of view I consider a Restoration an Opportunity that should not be disregarded as you seem to do simply based on your preference.

But you seem to behave Like David ET by  Preaching one thing and doing exactly the Opposite. Basically what you are Saying is I want Reza Pahlavi as future President if he Rejects the Monarchy and Only Stands for a Republic.

Well Sorry Guys, he has a Constituency that has been supporting him from the Very Start and they are Monarchists. You Better Get Used to it. He won't Betray us simply to satisfy you.

I thought Unity can only be obtained with people with whom you do not share the point of view but are ready to Tolerate if they in turn Tolerate Your Point of View.

That is the entire Purpose of a Referandum.

Leave it to People to choose. We Will respect the Outcome and So should YOU !

If they end Up choosing a Republic ! Fine We will at worst create a Constitutionalist or Royalist Party and try to win on the long term through a democratic process.

This is the case in France which is a Republic for more than 300 years and they still have a marginal Royal Party who has one or two deputies in Parliament and hardly present a Threat to the Republic.

So why are You guys so afraid of the out come of the Referandum if you are so sure that the People will choose a Republic ?

What will you do if they end up choosing a Constitutional Monarchy ? Commit Terrorist Acts against the Elected Monarchy and the People in order to impose your Ideals like the MKO or the Fedayeen Khalgh did in the 1950's-1970's ?

A Referandum will put an end to the Debate on the Democratic System to be installed. People won't have to fight physically to change the system anymore it will be a political struggle at the Polls or in Parliament and Not in the Streets as it has been the case for the past 100 years.

That has been the goal of the Constitutional Revolution from the start and I would recommend you to at least Study your country's history to understand where we stand today.

That is the purpose of all this debate in order to achieve some kind of consensus amongst Iranians regardless of the future outcome of the Free and Supervised Referandum.

In the meantime we should Cooperate like Solidarnosc during the Jaruzelski dictatorship in Poland.

It is not because the Pope supported the movement and echoed the demands of the Polish People that he became President.

Lech Walesa became President of Poland and Poland became a Republic but they still have a Royal Flag with the Eagle and a Crown Believe it or not.

Which proves that a nation can have its contradictions and yet be True to its democratic values which it wishes to implement in the country.

The rest is divisive talk, I think.

I don't claim to be right but I do claim that I have a Right and No one has the Right to take it away from me, no more than I have the right to take it away from you !

My Humble BUT Firm Opinion, ;0)







by benross on

I actually wrote my comment addressing Yasmine then at last second I changed it to you. I thought I might be too direct for her and make her defensive. With addressing it to you, there is no harm done. So if you are wondering why I am jumping at you, that's why!

But I'm glad I did because now I see we have a bigger problem.

Your explanation is not good enough. Not good enough at all. You are sending mixed messages and anybody, I mean anybody from any background, reading your comment about Reza Pahlavi's role will say 'hummm, soooooooo...?'

This might be a good picture to hang on the wall. But it's not nearly enough for liberating a country. If I didn't know Reza Pahlavi, I would have assumed that this is a recipe for saving monarchy not Iran.

If we have to read a book to know what Reza Pahlavi stands for, the game is over. Reza Pahlavi is an instant recognition. He also is a person with many qualities. But what matters really is that he is Reza Pahlavi. He has to show what he stands for by his action, as a leader not in a book.

Taking charge in fight for a democratic Iran may create some belligerents. Will create some belligerents. And this may affect the outcome of democratic process for choosing the future system of Iran. It might result in selecting a republic system. So what? Is this what Reza Pahlavi is afraid of? If I didn't know him better, I would have said yes.

I don't know about Yasmine, but I, as a communist that I used to be  (or any anti-monarchic militant for that matter), deeply willing to fight for freedom in a more efficient way, need a clear signal from Reza Pahlavi. That he is taking charge. That he is willing to create a single organization to fight for secular democracy that he will negotiate with those who work within the theocratic regime to acheive this as peacefully as possible. But that he is in charge, he will fight until he reaches our goal and if as a result of this fight, people decide to choose a republican system over a constitutional monarchic system, so be it.

People like Yasamine don't need to be shown the example of constitutional monarchic system in which the left is governing. She knows it. She needs to be shown that Reza Pahlavi can be an efficient tool to reach freedom... and she doesn't see it.

Darius Kadivar

Dear benross

by Darius Kadivar on

I actually agree with what you just wrote here but I fail to see what is our point of disagreement ?

As for The Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi or his would be role, I would say that the issue is less about him leading such a coalition than simply trying to be one of the many Public figures who can voice the demands of all Iranian democrats to the World Leaders or decision makers.

However what will always distinguish him from other public figures ( Ganji, Sazegara, Ebadi, Moussavi, Karoubi or anyone else who would want to join) in this struggle is that his involvement in any capacity will nonwithstandingly be symbolic.

In otherwords in the public mind and eye his is the former Crown Prince and son of the Late Ruler of Iran.  This is something he cannot escape being typecasted with no matter how one looks at it.

This is why personally I have always found absurd the suggestion made by some that Reza Pahlavi should give up his Royal Credentials in order to have the right to express his opinion or even lead such a coalition.

On the otherhand that does not mean that because Reza Pahlavi is seen by his main constituency that is the Monarchists be them Constitutional Monarchists ( Like I am ) or die hard monarchists ( not necessarily the most democrat or openminded) that Reza Pahlavi is a prisoner of a given mindset, ideology or political constituency.

One has to simply read his two books Winds of Change or a Time to Choose to realize that he is not advocating any particular Regime for Iran but simply trying to explicitly express his commitment to the democratic ideals and values that are necessary to build a democratic State and society.

By clearly stating this is a book he is actually giving us and the World Public opinion a pledge that he will Never Try and stand against the will of the Iranian People.

A Metaphore for Reza Pahlavi's blueprint for Unity in the form of an Iranian Solidarnoc would be King Arthur's Round Table.

That is why to answer your concerns I would like to paraphrase John F. Kennedy by saying:

"Do Not Ask What The Crown Can Do for You But What You Can Do for The Crown"

The Crown or Throne so to speak are not a property of the King or Queen that has the honor of bearing it on his or her head. It is first and foremost a Symbol of National Unity.

What I am trying to say is that some of the fears that secular democrats ( particularly Republican aka Jomhurykhah) may have in regard to monarchists and particularly Constitutional Monarchists may dissappear if they realize that the Medieval interpretation of the "Crown" Or "Throne" that prevailed in Europe during the Middle Ages or in Iran/Persia (during the Pahlavi Kings) as some kind of "divine Right" is something that is obsolete today.

The significance or symbolic meaning of the "Crown" or "Throne" is what the people want to see in it. It is not an Ideology nor particular person but a political framework or institution if you will that aims to represent national continuity and traditions ( as long as they do not cripple the possibility for social, economic, cultural change)

Take a look at her for instance :

HAIL BARONESS AFSHAR!: First Iranian Woman In the House of Lords By Darius KADIVAR

Why is it acceptable for her to become a British Lord in British Parliament ( while being a Left Wing) and therefore a Subject of Her Majesty the Queen of England ( just like All British Citizens ) But that would be considered a contradiction and insult if this was done in Iran under a Democratically Restored Pahlavi Dynasty which would have a purely Ceremonial and  Constitutional Form.

I say this all the more that I think that Mrs. Afshar was a Staunch Anti Pahlavist and like the majority of Iranians back in 1979 was supportive of the Islamic Revolution ...

I find for instance the following Propaganda Clip :


not only hypocritical and unjust but particularly unconstructive when I see such slogans or recuperation of the Green Movement by Reformist minded Iranians ( be them supporters of the Green Movement or so called Secular Republicans who to date have no real political program).

When I see such people (I am not targeting anyone in particular) try and reduce Iran's history to a bunch of clichés by rendering a simplistic and narrowminded vision to younger Iranians is disheartening. Its as if sorry the expression they see the world through some kind of "Sourakeh Koon" Logic.

Nation Building cannot be concieved without healing the scars of the people belonging to all circles and political ideologies or preferences. Reconciliation of Iranians is only possible if we come to terms with our history and past. To try and give lessons to one another won't heal those deep scars it will only deepen them. That is why I am critical of many "Jomhurykhah's " or people often disguised as die hard Mossadeghis who often appear much more radical in their views than die hard monarchists. To see some so called "Green Movement' or rather those like NIAC/AIC/CAMII who claim the ownership of the Green Movement by trying to provoke animosity towards monarchists or discredit the Iranian Opposition abroad or

Like NIAC's Co Founder Babak Talebi try and discourage Carrying the Sun and Lion Flag/ 


just to create further divisions as HYPOCRITICAL not to Say Treacherous ( to Paraphrase his own Boss Trita Parsi's Book Title) in itself. I find these NIAC/AIC/CAMII guys More harmful to the future of the Green Movement than the communists, anarchists, monarchists, nationalists or any other group to date.

The point I am trying to Make is that we need to be open minded but also coherent in what we demand or expect from someone like Reza Pahlavi ( who I like to call the Legitimate Crown Prince and You or others would prefer to call President or simply Reza Pahlavi).

He is neither a Superman or Super Hero but simply a Patriot who wants and I believe can play a major role in creating a consesus amongst Iranians and help them reach a common ground despite their diversity and diverse views. But he is not alone in this struggle.

Everyone can play a similar role in their own capacity. Its just that in the views of the Mullah's he is what they resent most and that is a reminder of their own failure ...

That in itself can be used as an asset to discredit the Islamic Republic in its foundation and hierarchy.

That is where the "Catalyst" metaphore for Reza Pahlavi takes all its significance as a Force for Change and should I add to Regime Change.

What is certain is that whatever the outcome, Reza Pahlavi cannot nor desires to be a dictator nor even a President if the people choose to have a Republic. He simply at this stage of the current struggle wants to contribute to a better understanding of what Iranians want best for their country and Only then ... eventually ... play a Symbolic role if the people choose a Constitutional Monarchy over a Secular Republic.

But the Immediate Struggle which I believe most of us democrats should be concerned by is to try and find common ground ( while keeping our differences) on what we consider as democratic values and ideals upon we can cooperate efficiently in rallying people both inside and outside Iran against the Clerical Regime in Iran. In the second step this coalition can establish a THINK TANK of competent lawyers, jurists and civil rights activists, philosophers, university specialists in social sciences or any other useful field to see how upon Regime Change one can concieve the most DEMOCRATICALLY TRANSPARENT and FUNCTIONAL System of Government ( be it a Republic or Constitutional Monarchy) that would be acceptable to the People but also on the long term sustain the individual rights of the citizen particularly when it comes to Human Rights and  

Only then can the establishment of a democratic system of government appear as plausible and at arms reach.

But without cooperation and mutual respect between all factions it appears to me impossible to become a constructive force for Regime Change in Iran.

I don't know if I sound more clear to you now as where I stand and how I see the future of the current movement and how it should be guided if not in leadership at least in terms of coherence if we wish to make a difference and empower the Iranian People at Large in fullfilling their democratic demands for change.  

I hope so nevertheless ;0)

Got to Go its getting late here in France,

Talk later if you wish,




by benross on

I have no intention to interfere with what Iranian citizens choose to believe. Maybe my comment was misplaced or more accurately, a derivative of another concern I have which was assumed but not explained.

What Reza Pahlavi wants to achieve is no secret. A coalition of all Iranians, from all walks of life, for restoring a secular democracy in Iran. It is also no secret that whatever form that system takes, will be the result of a democratic process.

Now who takes the torch for this fight? this is where the massage is not passing through. Reza Pahlavi can humbly suggest he is the man but this message will only go as far as his monarchist base, even there, he is often criticized for being too humble.

This is not for monarchists, but for everybody else, to rise-up to the situation and if they can't offer a better torch carrier, to clearly support Reza Pahlavi initiative.

Now if there are some issues that need to be clarified in order to express this support, we can discuss it. But please please don't do like those who as Faraj Sarkoohi puts it, are more concern about keeping the key of the house, rather than doing the right thing.


The current fragmented groups of Iranian militants abroad will not do the job. As long as they are keeping the 'house', they can only be the voice of a handful Iranians. But the same talent, the same dedication the same organizational skills in a unified single organization will be the voice of millions and millions of people. This is an unbearable waste of talent and energy that we should have put a stop to it 20 years ago.

It was in that perspective that I made my precipitated comment. Being anti-capitalist doesn't make capitalism suddenly disappear. I did not want to interfere with what Yasmine believes. I'm saying identifying yourself as such, in a distinct group, will deprive you from doing so many good things you have in mind and you are capable to do, just because you can't connect with people at large.

Reza Pahlavi opens his arms for all Iranians. Please please don't be stupid. 


blogs vs articles

by yasmine on

Kill Mouse Traps , I never seem to be able to get any articles published on this site , hence the use of the blog. Will try again

Darius Kadivar

FYI/IMPERIAL JAPAN Becomes Socialist (bbc)

by Darius Kadivar on

Japan a Constitutional Monarchy and which was often looked up as a Role Model by Iran during the Shah's era has just chosen a Left Wing Party to Run the Country after nearly 50 years of Right Wing Rule:


"Japan is suffering record unemployment and its economy is struggling to emerge from a bruising recession.

The DPJ has said it will shift the focus of government from supporting corporations to helping consumers and workers." -BBC 


I agree with DK

by cyclicforward on

We should value our differences and work together to make a new Secular Democratic Iran. All voices shall be heard and the law rules the land and no one is above law. You can have any belief that you like but at the end it is the people that choose their path.

Darius Kadivar

In a Democratic State Left Wing and Right Wing can Coexist

by Darius Kadivar on

One can have different point of views and visions for society in a democratic system of government.

What is important is that the people get to chose as a majority in democratic elections what political program they wish the elected government to put in place.

From that point of view a Secular Democratic Iran will have to accept socialists, communists as much as Right Wing or Centrist political parties who do not preach intolerence or racist views.

The Rest and that is the alternance between various forms of governments will depend on elections and the normal democratic life of a nation.

And I should add that this is equally valid in a Secular Republic or a Constitutional Monarchy.

After All both Great Britain and Spain have had Socialist governments and the North European Constitutional Monarchies have also been run by Socialist governments for decades.

What is important today is to know what are Our Priorities and That in My Opinion is REGIME CHANGE !

That cannot be obtained if we do not conceive a wide coalition of all DEMOCRATIC Forces. 

Something that even IRan's Former Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi has been calling for and for quite some time.

REZA's CALL: An Iranian Solidarnosc... By Darius KADIVAR 

The Ball is in Everyone's Camp to make constructive suggestions to reach such a coalition and find common ground towards that ultimate goal : Regime Change towards a Democratic System of Government.

My humble Opinion,




by benross on

I don't think your anti-capitalism (as if there is any other option) and anti-imperialism (by deduction) rhetoric belongs to this century. But for the rest, it's very good and revealing.


I agree with most points

by cyclicforward on

As JR pointed out, you can silence people for now but be aware that people are getting ready for the next mass protest. The IRI in my mind is a done deal and the intellectuals need to think as how we can bring Iran back together after the fall of IRI. There is much work and planning that needs to be done. We also need new enlightened secular leaders to handle the challenges that we are going to face.

As far as your point about privatization. It seems to me that you have many socialist ideas and agendas. I don't necessarily disagree with some of it but I am all for free market and privatization. I think we should get the government out of business and let people find ways to be more effective.


Jahanshah Rashidian

Kill Mouse Traps

by Jahanshah Rashidian on

Whatever the outcome of the power struggles within the IRI fractions, an increasing majority of Iranians want an end of any form of Islamic regime.  Yasmin or any voice expressing this fact is not preferably welcome to this site’s front page. 

By contrast to articles of IRI supporters and apologists appeared, even fished, on this front page, the status quo should not continue as it has been for the past three decades. If today the IRI achieves to oppress people's protests, people will come back again with more experience and more radical slogans to get rid of the whole IRI, this is in fact what the "reformists" and various IRI supporters and apologists attempt to stonewall.

Kill Mouse Traps

Blog vs. Article

by Kill Mouse Traps on

This “blog” by Yasmine has been published in at least two other websites.  It is a well written piece, but it should have been submitted and considered as an Article, not a Blog.  The author is maneuvering to propagate her political views, and the opportunity is given to her here in the form of posting it in the "Featured Blogs".