...مقالاتی به انگلیسی، فرانسوی و
انتشارات اندیشه و پیکار

The popular movement and various factions of the ruling regime

Alireza Saghafi
July 2009

In contrast to some analysis that one section is representing the workers and lower casts and the other section represents the middle class or neo-liberals, it must be said that none of the above sections have such a followers or representations.
The Iranian People’s social movement which is at one of its critical junctures has faced many ups and downs in the past thirty years. This recent uprising cannot be considered separate from the struggles of the past thirty years, as it follows the same path and makes similar demands. These are the same demands that were never fulfilled, they have been brought up time after time by various sections of the society and they were met with severe repression by the authorities.
In some articles and essays of leftists in the west – people who the Iranian left expected their support – refer to what occurred after the recent election as a “coloured revolution”. Such analysts sometimes even wished for its failure and congratulated the winning side, perhaps because the anti-American rhetoric of the Iranian government were the only thing that got published in Western media. In some media outlets there were much noise made over the coverage of what happened after the election, and people who knew nothing of the demands of our people portrayed themselves as such staunch supporters that one begins to think they were the orchestrators of the movement. In this age of media manipulation, confusion and lack of reporting on events and positions, many opinions are changed and made appear as if the movement was pre-planned. It is interesting to note that there are two different groups that called this movement a velvet revolution. Both groups saw the appearances and both groups, from the left and the right, called this popular movement a velvet revolution, and neither have an understanding of the Iranian society and its recent movements.
There are plenty of reasons and evidence that in the last thirty years, the ruling governments of Iran were supported by the USA, its allies, and generally the western world. There has been no open conflict between them and what we've witnessed in the past (slogans like “Down with the USA”, “Death to Israel” and the like) was all a cat and mouse game to distract the popular views. The only true determinant in policies was the vast economic profits...
There is a lot of evidence to support that argument. There is a saying in Persian; “should we take the fox's word or the chicken feathers sticking out from under him?” In the past thirty years there has been so much evidence that it has become undeniable, except by regimes similar to the Iranian one and their western trading partners. This game has brought in immeasurable profits for the investing companies. Governments of the USA, Russia, and other European countries have been using issues such as Salman Rushdie, human rights, or the nuclear file to apply pressure on Iran and sign contracts, reap astronomical amount of profits, and receive concessions similar to those offered to Russia by the Qajar dynasty at Turkmenchay – and they have done just that in the past years.
In such an environment – especially with the imposition of sanctions – a large number of trade deals were done in black-markets, and continues to be made that way. These profits cannot be compared to that of the official deals. This is very lucrative for both sides of the deal – which happen to be the children of Mullahs and others in power. For example, Iran is the third largest importer of cigarettes from America – although not officially, or, on purchasing of weapons and armaments and many other items.
To shed further light on the subject, we will start with current situation.
From the start, creation of the Islamic Republic was approved by four industrial powers – the USA, the UK, France, and Germany – in the Guadeloupe conference. From then on, the revolution of the people of Iran was directed in a specific way in accordance with the agreement between the fundamentalists and the west. The aim of the letters that went back and forth between the mullahs and the western leaders, the obvious support of the western circles of those religious leaders in Iran was clear for all to see. The policies of that period like the creation of a green belt around the former USSR, formation of religious poles in order to defeat the eastern bloc and ... were openly discussed in the literature of the politicians in those days. That is an undeniable fact, and anyone who can perform basic media research is able to find a vast amount of evidence to that effect.
·       Following the revolution the American hostage crisis occurred. It has been discussed widely, and based on evidence its main goal was to derail the fight for independence from USA and the international capitalist system as a whole. As such, after suppressing internal independent groups, the hostages were returned the conservative government of Ronald Reagan. Reagan announced to the media that he received the best gift during his presidential period from Iranian leadership. As a result of that demeaning accord (the Algiers accord which was signed by Iran, involving the then Prime Minister and his deputy) they agreed to return the hostages, an act that was even denounced by the President of that period – Bani Sadr – as being the Vosough od-Dowleh -type accord”.
After that, the Iran-Contra affair happened along with the travel of the U.S. Vice President McFarlane to Iran, the full report of which is available in Tower Report whose finding was the revelation of the secret deal to sell arms to Iran via non-governmental channels for 5 years. The income from those arms deal was spent on paramilitary forces in Latin America. Gradually it was revealed that at least 2008 TOW rockets and 235 Hawk missiles were sold to Iran. It was also revealed that the majority of the cargo was provided by Israel.
Next came the events of 1988, the massacre of political prisoners while the west and U.S. kept their mum.  At the time no formal complaint was made for this crime genocide while at the same time the Libyan government was taken to court for the bombing of an airplane with 200 passengers on board. Are human lives valued differently from person to another? The only reason can be that those murdered in Iran in 1988 were politically against the west and U.S. and therefore not worthy of the efforts.
After the mass murder of political prisoners in 1988, the regime collected its reward when number of loans flooded Iran. They came in from various western sources. Iran received close to $50 billion in span of 3 years. These loans allowed the Iranian government to assassinate its critics in various places in the world where glimpses of such examples were seen at Mykonos Trials and other examples.  According to some sources there were about 200 assassination cases.
The murders of Dr. Ghassemloo, Bakhtiar, Kazem Rajavi and Fereidoon Farrokhzad abroad and hundreds of other murders inside the country like the Forouhars, Mokhtari, and Pouyandeh, were committed under the sleepy eyes of the west. It is interesting to note that in all of those times at least one of the forces involved in today's events in Iran was in power.
After such incidents were exposed, the west turned to support the political reforms and reformists in Iran and began to deal with the reform government. Large contracts by corporations like Total and Royal Dutch Shell were signed on the oil and gas fields, and large exclusive contracts such as Crescent, Iran Cell and others were given to big International corporations. Corporations like Halliburton (owned by Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice) became active in Iran. In this period of apparent reformism, repressive organs were rebuilt and which can be seen in action today. Silence of the West in the 09 June 1999 student uprising, their silence on the issue of prisoner tortures – at that time the US was busy behaving similarly in Guantanamo and other locations – and the dealings of the reform government with Iraq, Afghanistan, the middle east and even in the Balkans, all point to the compatibility of the methods of government in Iran and the west.
About this cooperation we can point to the following items:
1.    Cooperation between the USA and Iran in the Balkans in dividing the former Yugoslavia is a shining example of the Islamic fundamentalists in Iran and the western expansionist policies working together. In that period, the cooperation between the two sides in breaking up Yugoslavia and signing bilateral contracts coincided with the assassination of Iran's political enemies abroad.
With the start of war in Yugoslavia, Mohammad Reza Naghdi was sent to Bosnia-Herzegovina as the head of a battalion of Revolutionary Guards Corp. and was one of the three Revolutionary Guards commanders until the end of the conflict in that region. At that time, the U.S. and the NATO had created an air cover to neutralize the Yugoslav air force so that the Mujahidin forces and Iran's help would reinforce Bosnian defences.
In the Balkan war, Rasim Delic, a Muslim, also the commanded the volunteer Revolutionary Guards Corp. sent to Bosnia. While the military base was under the command of Revolutionary Guards Corp. officers, the entire volunteer force was operating as part of the Al-Mujahed brigades. That brigade contained over 2000 foreign fighters as of 1993 and according to Ali Ahmad, an Afghan Mujahedin who is currently imprisoned at the Zenitsa Prison, was responsible for the murder of 24 civilians in Delic's village. In 1993, the same brigade murdered tens of Serbian prisoners in Orasac and put the victims’ severed heads on display in the village streets.
Rasim Delic, the 56 year old general of the Bosnia-Herzegovina army is currently accused of war crimes, ethnic cleansing and genocide. He was the commanding officer of this army in the early half of the 1990's – between 1992 and 1995. As part of the charges that General Delic must answer in Hague is the rape of tens of Croat and Serb women and children by the volunteer foreign forces that were operating under his command. In the past few years Rasim Delic was working with a few import and export companies that were founded by Kharis Zilasic, Head of Bosnian Security Forces, and mostly have business ties with the Islamic Republic.
2.    Cooperation between Iran and the USA in bringing the Karzai government to power in Afghanistan.
The German Conference for Afghanistan after Taliban was a start for coordination of efforts between Iran and the west in post-Taliban Afghanistan. That cooperation existed during the time of the USSR occupation of Afghanistan and Iran was in lock-step with the west in providing the Afghan Mujahedeen with the logistical and weapons to help they needed. Iran’s assistance and the training of the Mujahedeen forces during their fight were so extensive that there is no need to be reiterated.
The cooperation between the both sides in Afghanistan continued with Iran’s representative at the Afghanistan Conference in Hague. Reports of the possibility of cooperation between Iran and NATO, or recent published news that the Islamic regime has been negotiating with German corporations about using Iranian soil to send non-military equipment to the German forces stationed in Afghanistan, as well as recent message by Obama, all show signs of a  of the USA's policy in dealing with Iran.
In March there was a rumour circulating that the USA and NATO signed a secret deal according to which all their military cargo was to be shipped to Afghanistan via Iran. That deal was signed without the knowledge of the members of parliament in Iran, and the only person aware of it was the Supreme's Leader's private secretary. From the parliamentarians, the only person aware of that deal with the head of the security and foreign policy committee of the parliament. London’s Sunday Times Newspaper dated 29 March 1999 reported that Iran and the USA had begun their first round of talks regarding the end of war in Afghanistan.
The same paper wrote that Iranian and American diplomats – initiated by the Russians, participated by a British diplomat acting as liaison - met on 27 March. Patrick Moon, the head of the Central and South Asian division of the U.S. State Department and the Iranian deputy Foreign Minister were part of the talks. After objections by some members of parliament in Iran about the lack of information about that important meeting, the committee of foreign relations said that since Pakistan was in unstable political times the U.S. gave given Iran many concessions in order to send its military cargo to Afghanistan through Iran. However, no one mentioned what these concessions were and to whom and in what meeting they were granted.
3.    Cooperation between the USA and Iran in bringing about an Islamic government in Iraq. According to polls after the occupation, the people of Iraq wanted a secular government. Those polls were verified by reputable centres such as Oxford University. However the negotiations and agreements between Iran and the USA resulted in Nouri Al-Malki's rise to power and secular forces were moved to the sidelines. Iran and the USA had three rounds of meetings about Iraq, and at each round, high ranking members of military and security officials participated from both sides. One of those negotiations happened on 29 May 2007 which was reported by Associated Press on 19 May, quoting the Iranian Foreign Minister in Pakistan.
Meanwhile in the media, both sides were accusing each other of not cooperating on the security issues in Iraq. However, the cooperation of both sides resulted in the current Iraqi government's rise to power as well as its stability. Everyone knows that the current Iraqi government is a close friend of the Iranian regime and the majority of its members are people who lived in Iran for many years and no country in the region has as much influence in Iraq as the Iranian government.
4.    In the past three decades Iran and the USA have worked very closely along with the western capitalist world in bringing about religious governments like the aforesaid examples. In all three examples above, if the cooperation between the USA and Iran didn't exist, it would have been impossible for the said religious governments to come to power.  And thus such countries could not have been kept and maintained for the benefit of expansion of international capitals and for the capitalist markets. However, at the same time, Iran itself was not immune in such dealings.
In addition to arms purchased from first and second hand sources, we can point to the examples below regarding the large economic deals in the past few years:
·       Fars News Agency quoting from Magic City: “The American Halliburton Oil Company has sold 40 million dollars worth of refinery equipments to Iran despite the U.S. economic sanctions against Iran. After the economic sanctions were passed against Iran, Halliburton started to create foreign subsidiaries in order to be able to circumvent the embargo rules. This was because the sanction rules only applied to American companies and did not bar foreign companies from dealing with the sanctioned countries. William Thompson, the New York inspector questioned Halliburton on its dealings with Iran. However, the heads of Halliburton believe their activities in Iran did not break any US laws.”
The vice-chair and the CEO of Oriental Kish Corporation and Dick Cheney, the former Vice President of United States were two key players in facilitating the Halliburton-Oriental deal in Iran. Dick Cheney's trip to Iran in 2000, which was made to pave way for the Gas and Petroleum contracts in Iran, was kept secret for many years. But the main story began when Halliburton won the bid to drill for the South Fars Oil Field back in 2002 – a lucrative deal according to which the company was contracted to dig 12 wells in phases 9 and 10 of the South Fars Fields, and it was expected to find Oil by 2007 in two land and sea sections and to extract 50 million cubic meters of natural gas and more than 400 tons of sulphur from those locations.
Of course Halliburton was not alone in this deal. The Halliburton and Oriental consortium was the joint winners of that contract. The story got even more interesting; Halliburton had suggested $23 million for the wells and was asking for $282 million in total, however, the government of Iran at the time – which as the client should have suggested less– gave the consortium $360 million dollars in the final version of the contract.
·       The contract to assemble 55000 Chrysler automobiles while that company was on the verge of bankruptcy. It was reported that a number of high ranking deputies from the Revolutionary Guards Corp. had gone to Dubai to meet with the American company – with the help of a number of International brokers. For this reason, the Dubai Airport and the city were in a security lock-down. According to some report the Iranian military delegation came to a preliminary agreement with Chrysler which was the biggest help possible to Chrysler at the time of its bankruptcy.
In those negotiations the Revolutionary Guards Corp. commanders announced their approval – in the name of the SAIPA Company – for the purchase of 55000 Chrysler automobiles to be assembled in Iran. The foreign middlemen in that deal were a number of Kuwaiti and the U.A.E. citizens. The delegation travelled to Dubai under the guise of accompanying the Iranian National Football team. It was reported that the CEO of SAIPA who was appointed by the president was also accompanying the group to negotiate with Chrysler representatives.
The Iranian minister of industry was previously reported on mentioning the signing a contract about Mercedes-Benz automobiles production in Iran during the Sixth International Auto Industry Expo in Tehran. He said: “Mercedes 240 and 320 models will be available in the market starting next year, however the production will be limited.” Of course as soon as reports started to come out, it was denied!
The talk about such deals were made at a time when on 12 December Mr. Bush accepted a loan in the amount of $13.4 billion to Chrysler and GM from the amount set aside to rescue the banking system. That loan allowed those companies to continue to operate. The negotiations and deals which essentially were a help to Chrysler to get out of the financial crisis, were in complete contrast with the slogans that commanders of the Revolutionary Guards Corp. and the Iranian president were chanting to the people; that the American empire was about to fall, and the joyous behaviour on the news of financial crises in the USA.
·       According to a report by the Wall Street Journal, “since the beginning of June this year, Iran has purchased more than 1 million tons of wheat from the USA which is a large number in its kind. This is equivalent to 3 to 4 percent of USA's yearly wheat exports. In addition, numbers by the US department of Agriculture shows that the last wheat purchased by Iran from the USA goes back to 1981-1982, which was 728 thousand tons.”
·       The sale of electronic filtering and noise generation devices to Iran by countries who seem to talk of democracy and are very vocal about the plights of Iranians these days. The issue of website filtering and the equipment purchased from the UK and the USA with apparent involvement of Israel, was brought up in a media roundtable in Iran. At that roundtable, the CEO of the Data Communications, a branch of Iran’s Telecommunication Company said “in the past years our company has spent over 7 billion tomans (7 million dollars) on filtering.” The head of the union of internet service providers in Iran said “the US made filtering software and hardware, were selected in an internal bidding competition. In this competition, the Asr-e-Danesh Company was announced as the winner, which in turn went on to make its purchase from a UK based company.
·       At the start of June of this year, a Wall Street funding company that worked for a retirement fund in the USA sent a letter to the Ministry of Economy asking the boundaries of private ownership and other foreign investment rules in the Tehran Exchange be declared.
·       Two American banking giants, Citibank and Goldman-Sachs, have also requested to be present in Iran. Citibank is owned by Citigroup, the second largest bank in the USA who's 5 percent stake is owned by a Saudi prince. Apparently the same Saudi prince is also the facilitator in the negotiations between that bank and Iran's Central Bank. Goldman-Sachs is another one of the Wall Street giants whose former head, Robert Zulic, is currently the head of the World Bank.
·       A while ago, Iran made contact with North Atlantic Treaty Organization – NATO – after thirty years and both sides’ representatives met on the subject of Afghan refugees and the illegal drug smuggling issue. In his policy of bringing stability back to Afghanistan, Barak Obama suggested the creation of a regional contact group which would include Iran. According to Sunday Times, Obama's final aim is to use the same talks to convince Iran in having talks to stop its nuclear research program.
During the Iran-Contra affair we pointed to the purchase of arms from Israel. The economic ties between Iran and Israel do not end at such hidden deals. To shed further light on that issue we will have a look at some more examples:
·       The Nestle Company is one that its ties to Zionist groups and the Israeli regime have been revealed by some parts of the ruling regime in Iran. Nestle has over 350 branches in 100 countries across the world, one of which is Iran. Because of the wide ranging economic ties between that company and Israel, it has been boycotted by various groups across the globe. The products of that company in Iran include: Cerelak baby food products, Anahita mineral water under license by the Anahita-Blour company. Other imported Nestle products in Iran include: Nescafe instant coffee, Coffee Mate dried milk product, Maggie meat powder, Naan dried milk, various types of chocolate include Kit Kat and Smartees, Frisky pet food products (imported by Pars-Pooran Company.
·       Coca-Cola company:
·                    That company also has well known ties with the Israeli regime, and its distributor in Iran is Khoshgovar Company of Mashhad and Astan-e Qods-e Razavi Company.
Based on reports from Mehr News Agency (quoting the London Times), “Dana Bolden” - one of Coca-Cola top managers–said the “company has acquired the license to sell concentrated coke syrup to Iran from the US foreign exchanges commission.” Bolden also commented on wide-spread protests in Mashhad regarding the yearly transfer of $150 million through an Irish subsidiary to Coca-Cola in the USA and said “for certain reasons I cannot discuss our business transactions with countries to whom we export and with whom we have financial deals.” Coca-Cola, which left the Iranian market after the revolution in 1979, returned to Iran in 1994 after signing a franchising contract with companies such as Khoshgovar. The Iranian companies were receiving the Coke syrup through an Irish company named Atlantic Coca-Cola and later Drogheda Concentrate Company. The products of the Khoshgovar Company in Iran included: Coca-Cola, Fanta, and Sprite. The products of the Sasan Company licensed from American Pepsi Co include: Pepsi-Cola, Miranda which has gained a massive market in Iran and the region.
Many examples of such deals can be found with other capitalist countries in the west including France, UK and Germany. This is simply because the Iranian regime did not have the same sensitivities against those countries that it has against the USA and Israel. Here are a few examples:
1.    A large portion of gasoline imported by Iran is provided by Reliance, the French company Total, the Swiss companies Vitol, Clangour and the British company British Petroleum. The insurance company Lloyds of London is the insurer of most of the gasoline shipments. It is said in the past years, “the U.S. import and export bank” have provided Reliance with loans of up to $900 million. Similar loans will be given to Reliance for the 2010 fiscal year which will start in October of this. During a visit to India, the U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave assurances to that company that a fuel embargo on Iran was not in the works. (14)
That was perhaps because at the height of protests in Iran, vehicles of the security forces had a constant demand for fuel! Of course, the people who go to those protests on foot did not need it!!
2.    Iran Khodro along with SAIPA, have created a duopoly on the automobile market. SAIPA has 35% of the market share and Iran Khodro has 55% of it. After the import rules in the automotive sector were relaxed, Iran Khodro started to collaborate with foreign companies: 750 thousand cars were sold in 2004, 1.1 million were sold in 2006, and 1.2 million in 2008.
Iran Khodro started that collaboration with the aim of keeping its position in the market, and to achieve new technologies which are essential in improving the quality of its products and preparing it for the international market. The Peugeot-Citroen group which had been working with Iran Khodro since 1992 in producing the Peugeot 405 line (60 percent of which was produced inside the country), took a large step forward by signing a contract in 2001. That was an agreement to assemble Peugeot 206 and 307 with a very small local involvement in their production.
Renault Company has created a large company with the two automotive giants in Iran in order to assemble the Logan (locally named Tondar). 51 percent of the shares of this company – named Renault-Pars – belong to Renault, and Iran Khodro and SAIPA jointly own 49 percent of the shares. It is interesting that the Petroleum, gas, and auto industry – which contain the most amount of American and European investments, and produce large profits – are in short supply of labour and those same western proponents of human rights have not made slightest protest against the repressive and savage work conditions in the said industries, including the fact that any workers associations – even Islamic syndicates – are legally forbidden in these industries. Meanwhile, in other sectors Islamic syndicates are encouraged, but in the aforementioned industries the most pressure is applied to workers and the slightest protest brings the security forces out. In those units, national security forces have vast apparatuses under the guise of company security. We have to consider that the petroleum, gas, and auto industries that are under complete control of western capital makes up over 90 percent of Iran's economy. It is not clear if a pro-western government in Iran could do any more to prove its loyalty to the west. On that subject, both sides of the government have always been in agreement.
3.    In January 2008, a member of Labour Party in the British Parliament during question period proposed that Lloyd's TSP Bank to be heavily fined for allegations of money laundering for the Iranian regime and questioned Gordon Brown on the subject. By announcing their acceptance to launder funds for the Iranian regime, Lloyd's TSP Bank broke the U.S. laws and overlooked international banking embargoes and voluntarily paid $350 million fine to the U.S. government. Based on that, documents and records of the said bank will be opened to inspections and if it was proven that a portion of the laundered funds were used to help terrorist organizations, directors of the bank would be put on trial! That meant to the Member of Parliament that the notion of money laundering for the Iranian government was not a problem and that Iranian politicians were allowed to move those plundered funds to a foreign country; just that they should not spend them on terrorist activities. Of course, that had its own interpretation, and then the murders of opposition members can be ignored. Lloyd TSP Bank which recently received a large financial support from the British government in order to avoid bankruptcy acknowledged its role in transferring $300 million in Iranian funds to the USA. Based on the available information, after conversion to US dollars, those funds were transferred to a front organization in New York and from there; they were sent to other destinations across the world. Reports also show that more than 10 reputable banks in the world were involved in laundering money for Iran and have been able to transfer billions of dollars of Iranian money to the U.S. funds and deposit them in various accounts.
4.    The sale of stocks of Iranian factories and mines to foreign and multi-national companies. The sale of 61 percent of shares of Iran's copper mines to Swedish companies, and Gold mines to British companies....
5.    And the recently cat and mouse game of Iran's nuclear portfolio and the murder of people who demanded their basic rights and social freedoms in peaceful protests. Despite posturing to condemn the actions of Iranian government, no real action has been taken against Iran. For example, only the time to issue visas to Iranian officials has been prolonged. Meanwhile in Honduras – where people were not gunned down – all European countries recalled their ambassadors. In Iran where more than 150 people were killed, not even one western country recalled their ambassador, and did not even make any restrictions on diplomatic trips. Furthermore, the various bank accounts of the heads of Iranian government in those countries were left untouched. Thus, it is obvious that to those countries the actions of the rulers against their people and respect for human rights was not an important issue and other factors  guided their policies on countries like Iran. The main question is how much the Iranian government had cost the western capitalist countries?
Real cooperation with people is to refrain from selling products that are used in repressing and censoring the Iranian people, not products that put the lives of ordinary people under such pressure that along with unhinged inflation their lives are made miserable. As well, cutting off all economic ties with the Iranian government or the visits of the so called diplomatic officials, blocking the rulers million dollar bank accounts, etc. are the things that will actually help the people of Iran.
But will astronomical profits allow capitalist governments to make such actions? In recent years the rulers of Iran – be it reformist or fundamentalist – have always implemented the policies of WTO, World Bank, and the IMF and thousands of Iranian have been hurt because of it. Many production units have been closed down or privatized and then shutdown to turn Iran into a suitable market for products of big capitalist countries. Hundreds of thousands have lost their jobs and millions of people are forced to leave their homes to offer their work at cheaper rates to international capitalists.
All those issues have been made possible in the last three decades with the help of both factions of the Islamic Republic, with the burden on the shoulders of our nation in such a way that is felt by all people.
The opposing actions of both factions in Iran who are fighting to get a bigger share of power are not too different from what had repeatedly happened in the history of our people. The main problem is breaking the apparatus of repression that has been created with the cooperation of western capitalism and regional fundamentalism in the last 30 years. Fundamentalism in the region has turned into a tool to repress popular movements, and could be dealt with easily – an issue that is not well understood by our people.
People best use the opportunity created by the opposing forces within the government because that is the only hope to unhinge and concentrated power of the right wing, which is vast, ruthless and repressive machinery. They are using this crack to voice their demands. Despite some analyse that show one faction as representing workers and lower classes in society and another as the representative of middle classes or neoliberals, it must be said that neither of these factions represent those groups of people. We can only speak of such representations and popular support when an independent organization could freely research that topic or when a minimum of political freedoms existed in that society. People who suggest such analyses must demonstrate how they arrived at such conclusions or where those minimums existed? What is taking place is a fundamentalist current helped by global repression pitched against the people of Iran.
Many who have a hand in the recent events from far are not aware that our people were faced with a strong repression in the past thirty years. A strong and brutal repression came into being by mutual cooperation of the capitalist system and a medieval system. It is a medieval regime because the mass murders and methods of torture in Iran are not comparable with any other country in the world.
And now the people of Iran have found their only ray of hope in the rift created between the factions of the ruling party, and this is an issue which is unfortunately missed by some people. The ruling party in Iran is unique and cannot be compared to Latin American regimes, or those of the eastern bloc countries. A simple May Day rally was dealt with in the most brutal way; peaceful gatherings were met with bullets. At least 2 detainees from July 9th lost their lives due to the severity of their injuries from maltreatment at the hands of security forces. The violence used by the police is not comparable to any action in any country in the past thirty years.
These were all lessons learned by our people in the past thirty years, and they are now wisely using that knowledge to voice their demands through the rift in the power structure. Slogans such as “Hashemi, if you don't speak up you're a traitor” is in fact a way of antagonizing a part of the regime against another part of the regime, and shows that our people know both factions well. That also shows the collective intelligence of our people. Anyone who thinks the people are following one specific faction within the regime in that fight should go to the streets and speak with people. Our people will get their rights using their own power. That is why many members of intelligentsia who have been victims of such mistreatment believe that one must join in these protests and participate. The main demand of the people is to remove the organs of repression. That machinery includes at least 9 different police forces: Basij militia, Revolutionary Guards, NOPO, Special Forces, Regular Police, Security Police, Ministry of Information, Revolutionary Guards Information, Judiciary Police....
The inconsistent way that media in the western world has treated the recent popular movement in our country show that they have no interest in the movement to be radicalized and to expand its list of demands, but instead wish to direct it in predetermined ways. The commonality amongst the reactionary forces, the reformists, and the world capitalist forces is that all three are afraid of the popular movement becoming radicalized. They are doing all within their powers to stop it from happening, through cooperation with each other. This is because all sides know that our people will reject them and none of them can possibly grant people’s wishes. Each of the three aforesaid groups, the capitalist world and the two factions of the Iranian regime, are trying to curb radicalization of the people through different tactics. Since the capitalist forces are not homogeneous themselves, each part of it is trying to do achieve the same goal differently. The fundamentalist regime that mainly uses force and intimidation is getting its rewards from the pale protests of the west, and the secret deals. The reformists consider the free markets, and the loud western media with their promises of capitalist heavens as their support. That faction may in the end consent to the removal of mandatory Hijab rules, and legalizing a few singers and Hollywood actors, but will not do anything to change the nature of the regime. The capitalist world will not loose much if power was transferred from one faction to the other; neither will they be any happier if either case provided them with their needs. The powerful western media is at the service of that system and was there to show the popular movement in different lights and shades, and to confuse the issues and blur the lines between radical and reformist actions. They can paint the movement as a radical one and thus prevent any real damage to the profits of western powers from occurring and keep all the profitable deals previously penned with the Iranian regime.
Today, the true demands of the people are independence and freedom from those unholy alliances – which has turned into a monster that silences any voice of freedom in Iran and the region. The capitalist forces have discovered that their interests lie in forging alliances with fundamentalist regimes which provides them with what they want. The support for regimes such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan, UAE, Pakistan, and even Turkey are keys to the continued existence of international capitalism in the region.

- The Treaty of Turkmenchay was a treaty negotiated in Turkmenchay by which the Persian empire, more commonly known today as Iran, recognized Russian sovereignty over the northern provinces such as Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan establishing the Aras River as the common boundary between both empires, after its defeat in 1828 at the end of the Russo-Persian War, 1826-1828.

- Vosough od-Dowleh was a Prime Minister in Iran during Qajarid era. During his reign, he signed a number of accords with foreign powers jeopardizing Iranian sovereignty.