The Last Great Revolution

The Last Great Revolution
By Robin Wright


This book begins its message with in effect a status report of the Revolution that took place in Iran in 1979. It bases its report in the fundamental phases of a traditional revolution. This book suggests that the Iranian Revolution is now in its fourth and final phase. The author places this revolution is on the same plateau as the French and Russian revolutions as it represents the last major sect of life to reach out for liberty. That’s right; Khomeni was brought in to fill the void left by the deposed shah who was alleged to have violated the liberty of the Iranian man. It was not the intention of the Ayatollah or the revolutionist for the revolution to have the religions overtones that it had. The country has since experienced four political leaders, each who have experienced the forceful hand of the Islamic fundamentalist mullahs and dealt with them in different ways. Twenty years later the author tells of an experience where by when cornered by Iranian activists, they inquired more about whether Pink Floyd had a new album out, as opposed to the American political position. The revolution is in its fourth stage of revolution and it becomes time to evaluate if the whole journey was worthwhile. This book does a fabulous job making sense of what’s in the mind of the Iranian people. It allows you to share in the irony of their quest for liberty. The following is a summary of Iran’s past twenty years and a co-conclusion.

After a brief summary of the biography of a revolution and then a specific foray into this particular revolution, the book moves in to detailed examples of the Cleric imposition. This imposition is found not only in politics but also upon the famous modern philosophers of Persia. Abdul Karim Soroush who had emerged as one such person who was being acclaimed to carry the comparable philosophical weight to Germanys Martin Luther. Soroush promulgated debate within Iran both about its political future and the evolution of the Islam faith. After Iran survived the initial challenges of ten years of war and fundamental Islamic imposition, Soroush attempted to get Iran back to the initial intent of the revolution by addressing the questions that the Clerics could not answer. While the Clerics appointed Soroush to a position to realign all university studies to the Islamic faith, they would not tolerate his call to include the perspective of Western and Jewish ideals. The mullah position was generally stated that inclusion by freedom of speech only empowered the position of the West and Israel and was a slap in the face of Islam.

Aside from the political government body, Iran also has an assembly of 86 Experts (Fiqih) to influence that body. The people are supposedly learned and virtuous. These Clerics actually over-ride via "influence” all political decisions. In the election of 1998, a time when the Revolution was quite a bit tempered since 1979, the Clerics went to extreme measure to ensure that candidates for political office were from a narrow field. This resulted in a low turn out at the polls and a question mark about the concept of the Fiqih. The people embraced the concept of the Fiqih, but did not agree in the roll of the Fiqih or the Assembly of Experts. The Faqih has evolved to be just another dynasty as opposed to the Supreme "thinker" that was intended.

In Iran as different as things may be, there are similarities for instance from one family comes three cleric leaders; one from the left, one from the middle and one from the right. While they agree on family and religion, they dispute politics with rigor. Sounds like an American/Irish Catholic family to me. A fundamental argument is centered on whether any one person is above the law. For Iran this is the Faqih. For Americans this pertains to our President. And indeed in both countries this leader does have in, varied degrees and through different venue, immunity to the law.

With regard to the press in Iran and in particular the credibility it has with the people; it is of no surprise that the Iranian young people were devastated to hear that one of their airliner was shot down. They were convinced that the action was really of the Iranian government. They would not believe that the Americans actually shot down the airliner until they heard it on international radio BBC. In the midst of a cleric driven culture revolution in Iran during the 1990's western influence crept back in via the satellite dish. By the late 90's the political leaders were indeed of the mind to relax the cleric rule. Yet, still within this climate, on all social issues the government consulted the Fiqih. And the clerics, just when the people had a glimpse of free press, had the last word. They placed a ban in Western press again Hence as a matter of law, the clerics decide what music, books, movies, and theater you can partake in. “The rest of the story” is underground.

In the period of relaxation of the cleric rule though live sports from the States were allowed with a few second delay so that the broadcasting technicians could cut all shots of American women that would be improperly dressed. This means to say all American women. However, by the close of the 90's the clerics could stand not more and issued a fatwa condemning satellite dishes and VCR's which resulted in Basij militants barging into homes and destroying the condemned devices. Majid Qaderi, the director of Iran's Intellectual Development of Children says, " Barbie is a Trojan horse. Barbie’s an American woman who never wants to get pregnant an have babies. She never wants to look old and this contradicts our culture. Thus we replace Barbie with our version of Sara"

The current head of the Ministry of Culture and Islam, Ayatollah Mohajerani describes freedom slightly different than in the West. "Obviously we don't share the same definition of freedom. The main difference is that in the West, it's freedom from something, which means that obstacles must be removed in the way of individuals. But in religious terms, it is freedom for which means that freedom must be in service of the perfection and prosperity of human beings"

The Iranian movie industry gives reason to have hope amidst a sea of irony for Iran's people. It portrays a State whereby the pendulum of judgement in censorship swings with the mullah’s opinion more so than with the rules of Islam. What this really means is that there is a "due process" in place. It is those in power that dictate what is shown by interpreting what they see in a film. The moviemakers of Iran, like those here in the States, are somewhat radical in the eyes of their Cleric rulers.

Yet at the same time, films since the revolution examine the values of Iranian life. Each film director is allowed to see events through his/her own eyes and capture that vision. IF his/her eyes are Islamic then the move is about religion. Most movies are not religious yet Iranian films abide by the hejb (no kissing), largely because an Iranian director would prefer to portray love in an artful form rather than a graphic bedroom scene. Iranian films get awards at Cannes and other film festivals. They do indeed express the emotion of Iranian culture. The crossroad that Iran's movie industry finds itself has foreboding consequence in either direction. In the course of less censorship, Iranian filmmakers are free to express more. However, with that freedom comes the competitive giant from Hollywood. The expression of Iranian culture through film must face the forces of extinction from either the left or the right.

Leave it to the artist to again speak for the people. Directors, in my mind an artist, in Iran make a critical point in their message. To the outside world, the revolution and the theocracy born out of it were one and the same. The political upheaval aimed at ending autocratic rule and redistributing power was one thing, but the subsequent Islamic government that eventually replaced the monarchy - and then imposed its own restrictions - was quite another.

The women’s role in Iran has seen the same pendulum swing in the post revolution as all other cultural shifts in Iran. The initial onslaught of cleric rule and male dominance has given way to the need and therefore inclusion of women. The war with Iraq placed a real demand on women as a resource, which led to women in government and led to their louder voice. However prominent women’s leader say "We want our right but in an environment that is compatible with our beliefs. That means we don't believe we have to live in a Western system in order to share power. But we are not going to trust men in our own system to grant us our due." It is women of this caliber that are redefining Iran’s interpretation of the Koran. The Ayatollah Khomeni in fact evolved from a conservative view on women to more modern guidelines. This transformation manifested itself personally in the rules imposed upon his wife versus his the rules impose upon his daughter. The personal evolution was lost in translation by the mullahs of the early revolution. The new President Katahmi has recently moved the women’s issues back towards the center, in relative terms. Here is a point of contrast; an Iranian woman feels “the hejb doesn't limit me, it frees me to be a person judged not by beauty but by actions and thoughts.” Is this not the goal of our Western women’s movement?

On sex and marriage, the rules that were originally put in placed in 1979 have since been modernized. Men and women are still forbidden to intermingle and touching is absolutely taboo in public. Most Iranian people can live with the morals that are implied and therefore many appreciate the dress that is required, however tempered and with some color. As far as birth control Iran has received international acclaim for the methods of education and distribution of all the various methods of birth control. This acclaim is recognized in the United States as well. This transition was largely due to the Ayatollah Komeini and several of his Cleric officers in the Assembly of Experts. The movement has enabled Iranian women to become professionals. Komeini's daughters all three are professionals by career and modern working wives. Marriages are still arranged whereby the mothers of the son go to the mothers of the daughters and select a bride. It is also astonishing to read that the legal age for marriage for a girl is nine. This is primarily because first it is the official age for puberty and second she can make the transition from her father to another man. In divorce, the laws have been made largely comparable to that of the United States. In my opinion because the shift from all awards of rights to the man to a 50/50 split and equal bias on children; that Iran has a more realistic view on the division of property than that of the United States.

Twenty years after the revolution Iran is getting back to the original intent of the revolution, but like the undertow of the oceans surf, the Cleric mullahs continues to impede the achievement of the original goal. The struggle between power and empowerment rages on. The undertow is indeed not Komeini or his successors of rank. It is the momentum of the mullah movement immediate underneath the surface. The Hizbolleah continues to spread the revolution abroad while maintaining internal activism towards militant Islam. Each year on November 4th Iran sponsors a protest whereby the youth of Iran shout "death to the great Satan" while also calling for a dialogue with the United States. The protesters are wearing all the USA sports gear and at the same time burning the American flag. It is almost a paradoxical whereby Islam’s peaceful intention of faithful religious practice is contrasted against the temptations of a degenerate product of the West, but the interpretation is warped by over zealous mullah’s quest for power.

There is an active movement now in the forth wave of the revolution to correct the inside of the regime. The goals now stated are freedom, justice, and religion; with democracy on the top of the list. Iran does indeed have a constitution and an elected government that acts with due process. This movement lay with the students of Iran's universities. Their enemy is indeed the Cleric mullahs. Unfortunately the Fiqah can and do, at any moment change law and arrest alleged dissidents when they feel the young have exceeded their power. Example: Parliament speaker was quoted on July 7 1999 as he revoked freedoms of the press saying “ The press is a gateway for cultural invasion, so we must take measures to stop it." However within the same Parliament session, Statesmen Mohajerani was quoted as saying "freedom can't be repressed by any law. We have to create laws in accordance with freedom, not freedom according to our laws. If crime is committed, we'll take action. But let the people have their say first".

I point this out because I read about a country, while not vested with the same culture, are indeed working through to freedom and liberty with debate. There is progress, and I question any interference from any outsider, especially the United States. This is a difficult assessment because of the tollateriate practice of the Clerics with their Hisbollah muscle. The book closes with a description of government that is tolerant to protest until the Cleric regime feels they have lost control. The author describes situation whereby all the democratic instruments are in place. She describes a culture that appears to have a say in its destiny. Then right when you think you are going to break through, the Mullah Clerics step onto the scene with a government sanction Hisbollah terror action vested upon their own people. There is no freedom of press if you consider writing or speaking against the regime.

The final conclusion however describes a successful revolution in terms of objectives accomplished. Iran clearly has a Theocratic Government guided by the laws of Islam. But at what cost? Since the revolution, baby boomer phenomena occurred. This was a result of Islamic regulated non-birth control during the first ten years of post revolution policy. Today one in twenty students have a hope for a college education. The schools are bursting at the seams at primary level. Inflation is at 25%. The Iranian currency has seen a 800% increase in it’s peg to the dollar. Today the price for a set of tires cost the same as what a whole car cost in 1979. While merchandise has found it's way back into the worlds largest Brasserie, the people cannot afford it. There is a high degree of discontent that is fueled by hunger for the conveniences of Western life. The Iranian people reach for the West and at the same time shout death to Satan. Keep in mind Muslims do not view Satan as we do. With all this said you could easily argue a case of confusion for the Westerner. You could argue the same case for the Iranian people.

There is hope in the hearts of the youth in Iran. They do not hold the same disdain towards the West. In fact hunger breeds disdain towards their own government instead. As the USSR's economy fell under the weight of its communist ideology, Iran may well follow suit. And thus Western foreign policy should be one of patience. It should be a policy that monitors with vigilance and safe guards towards security. The safe guard could indeed include military action only towards a regime that has proven to export terrorism and not the people. The proof must clearly be presented to the international community. I read nothing in this book that suggests Iran as a country or a people that pose a threat to the United States. For that you would have to read up on Hizbollah, terrorist groups, Iraq, or Saudi Arabia. For that matter we should be keeping an equally watch on the militia camps of with fanatical views here in the United States.