Home News Iranian Opposition Examining the Commitment of the Iranian Resistance to Freedom and Democracy

Examining the Commitment of the Iranian Resistance to Freedom and Democracy

Unlike others, including Shah's son, the Iranian resistance has thoroughly revealed its detailed platform well ahead of time, leaving no important aspect undisclosed for Iran's future.
Unlike others, including Shah's son, the Iranian resistance has thoroughly revealed its detailed platform well ahead of time, leaving no important aspect undisclosed for Iran's future.

The question of who will succeed the mullahs’ regime in Iran is a matter of great concern for many Iranians. After decades of living under the rule of a brutal and inhuman regime, which has been led by religious clerics, there is a natural curiosity about what the future holds for the country.

But this question also reflects the political maturity of the people who, having been deeply wounded by Khomeini and his accomplices’ profound betrayal after the anti-monarchy revolution, now harbor concerns and despondency.

These concerns signify that after enduring the dark and bloody experience under Khomeini’s rule, one can no longer trust any charlatan adorned with a crown or turban, or anyone associated with them.

In other words, in today’s Iran, the era of sitting idly and making decisions on behalf of the people without paying the price of revolution, without enduring hardships, without a well-defined process of struggle, without necessary guarantees, without support, and without other revolutionary actions, has come to an end.

One of the significant flaws of the revolution was that the generations involved in the 1979 revolution were clear about what they were against—Shah’s regime.

However, they lacked comprehensive knowledge about the alternative that would replace it. The future plans for Iran and the nature of its government remained unclear.

Exploiting this vacuum, Khomeini rode the waves of revolutionary fervor, seized the revolution, and steered it toward fascism, totalitarianism, and a clerical absolute dictatorship.

It is crucial to understand that the formation of the anti-monarchy revolution was never about Islam. It did not entail the rule of the clerics. The core motivation behind the anti-monarchy revolution, which followed the constitutional revolution, was to attain the freedoms outlined in the Declaration of Human Rights.

It aimed to liberate Iran from the clutches of tyranny, subjugation, and various forms of domination and slavery. The people of Iran sought to establish freedom, social justice, prosperity, and progress in their homeland while upholding national and human dignity and honor, comparable to progressive nations worldwide.

If we examine Khomeini’s statements in Paris before he entered Iran, we can discern the deliberate use of the following expressions to get the people’s attention and support:

“Freedom of expression, freedom of the press, freedom for communists to express their opinions, a government based on justice and democracy, a democratic government, voluntary relinquishment of power, lifelong absence of Islamic Republic officials, belief in human rights, not reverting back 1400 years and embracing manifestations of civilization, freedom for religious minorities, elimination of exploitation…”

Perhaps many of us have come across these two sentences from him:

“What you have heard about the status of women in the Islamic Republic is propaganda spread by our enemies. In an Islamic government, women will enjoy complete freedom in education and all their activities, just like men.”

“The form of government is a republic. A republic means that it is a republic in every aspect.”

None of these concepts were ever part of Khomeini’s beliefs. He had not mentioned them in his previous works. There is no trace of them in his books such as ‘Valayat al-Faqih,’ ‘Kashf al-Asrar,’ ‘Tahrir al-Wasila,’ or any of his other writings.

The reason Khomeini expounded on these concepts in Paris was that the revolutionary society at that time had embraced the revolution with the aim of realizing such ideals.

These ideals were propagated and disseminated by the progressive and revolutionary forces of that era, namely the MEK and the Organization of Iranian People’s Fedai Guerrillas (OIPFG). Khomeini deceitfully found it expedient to align himself with the prevailing sentiments.

However, as soon as he set foot in Tehran and took control of affairs, he revealed his true nature and reneged on his promises. Consider how he justifies this pragmatic, opportunistic, and treacherous approach on December 11, 1983:

“We aim to implement Islam. Therefore, it is possible that I said one thing yesterday, another thing today, and something different tomorrow. It is not logical to expect me to adhere to the same stance just because I said something previously” (Khomeini’s letters, vol. 18, p. 241).

Up until this point, it is logical to give anyone the right to be skeptical. It is natural for them to be concerned about the future of their country and not want to be deceived again. However, from this juncture onward, comparing the MEK with Khomeini is neither accurate nor realistic.

The MEK stands firmly against Khomeini and the Velayat al-Faqih system. Over the past four decades, it has proved to be the unique antithesis of this regime.

If there were anything common between them, we would not witness such enmity. Practically, one should set back in favor of the other one, or at least cooperate with it.

Should the MEK be held accountable for Khomeini’s betrayal? The truth is that they were the first victims of Khomeini and paid a heavy price, incomparable with any other political current.

Continuing to harbor mistrust is precisely what this regime desires and seeks to propagate. Khomeini’s colossal breach of trust aimed to discourage the Iranian populace from further resistance and force them to accept the prevailing circumstances. Trust must be earned—it is not freely given. It is the result of behavior and actions.

Beyond the process of earning trust, it should be clarified that Khomeini’s words in Paris never emerged from a concrete platform or action plan.

He had made no commitment to anyone for their implementation. There were no obligations to fulfill those verbal positions he expressed during interviews with international or local news agencies of other countries.

On the other hand, what Mrs. Maryam Rajavi presents in the 10-point plan is endorsed by the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) and the comprehensive outline of the transitional period’s interim government plan.

Each article has undergone extensive discussions and scrutiny, drawing upon the rich legacy of universal revolutionary experiences and the historical struggles of the Iranian people.

The 10-point platform does not merely belong to a single organization, such as the MEK. It represents the collective will of a coalition comprising various organizations and individuals, and it reflects the long-standing aspirations of the Iranian people.

This platform has gained approval and support from most representatives of numerous parliaments around the world. Its fundamental principles were publicly shared in the interim government’s program years ago. Hence, it carries a sense of commitment and credibility.

Khomeini consistently avoided delving into details. He arrogantly and deceitfully postponed addressing various matters, claiming that the time was not right to discuss them.

In contrast, unlike other groups or individuals who purport to offer an alternative, including Shah’s son, the Iranian resistance has meticulously presented its detailed platform well in advance, leaving no important aspect undisclosed for the future of Iran.

This approach stems from a profound belief that people must be aware of what they seek. Keeping the future unknown and deferring important issues is precisely what the dictatorships and their allies desire.