There is wide ptead agIc 'mciit that Khomeini's death will
touch off a new struggle for power. There is no obvious suc-
cessor or plausible alternative to this 81-year-old man.
Ayatollah Beheshti might have had the ability to carry on, but
even that was not entirely certain. There arc no established in-
stitutional structures or ongoing programs in the government.
Khomeini can leave a last will and testament, but it is far
from evident whether it will he carried out after he is gdne.
At this point, one can imagine three possibilities for post-
Khomeini Iran. First, Khomeini could successfully transfer
sufficient authority to the l.R.P. to enable the revolution to
muddle throtich on the brink of chaos for several more
years. Second, a military coup could occur, with or without
a civil war, that would restore a moderate civilian govern-
ment resembling that of Bakhtiar. Such a government
would be conservative in social and economic policy and
follow a pro-/Vestern foreign policy. Third, democratic
forces could gather enough strength within the military and
the clergy to emerge victorious after a struggle that would
likely plunge Iran into a period of civil war.
Only this third option would preserve and extend the
gains of the Iranian revolution. Despite the failures of Kho-
meini's leadership, the revolution has maintained its anti-
monarchist and anti-imperialist character, in addition, Kho-
meini's own words, if not the deeds of his regime, lend an
aura of !e cy to hi opponents' democratic dcmands.
Even if the Bani-Sadr/Rajavi forces take power, there re-
mains considerable doubt that their alliance could hold
together. There is also the question of whether outside
powers would stand idly by while the revolution was being
put back on a progressive track.
It must be understood that the ease with which Khomeini
and the Islamic Republican Party achieved a monopoly of
power in Iran was greatly facilitated by the failure of the
various democratic elements to form a broadly based coali-
tion that supported concrete proposals for social and
economic change. During the crucial year of 1979, while the
ut ?. clerics, relying on the mantle of Khomeini's un-
disputed leadership, were building a nationwide organiza-
tion, a dominant propaganda machine and an extensive
patronage system, the main democratic personalities and
groups were often involved in factional maneuvering to gain
Khomeini's temporary support in the ongoing battle for
power inside Iran.
Khomeini exploited the rivalries among the democratic
elements and eventually eliminated them altogether. If a
coalition of democratic forces similar to the National Coun-
cil of Resistance formed in Paris by Rajavi and Bani-Sadr a
few months ago had existed in the early months of 1979,
Khomeini and the 1.R.P. might not have been able to side-
track the revolution—certainly not with such apparent ease.
It remains, of course, to be discovered whether the demo-
cratic elements of the iranian revolution have learned this
essential lesson from the tragic turn of events over the last
several months. One thing, though, is clear: without-a solid
organizational structure and a coherent and carefully spelled-
out program, the democratic forces have no realistic pros-
pect of achieving their objectives. Quite possibly, a second
January30, 1982
failure on their part would demoralize the democratic con-
stituency in iran for a long time to come.
Let us hope that Khomeini's own words of late
December 1978 will come back to haunt him:
“Whenever repression is intensified to an eNtraordi- k
nary degree, the natural and inevitable result will be an
explosion. Hence the revolutionary movement, which
will continue until the Shah's regime is destroyed.”
Now, of course, the “revolutionary movement”
has turned against Khomeini's regime. 0
APPEAL FROM EXILE
Khomeini's Reign
Of Terror
MANSOUR FARHANG
J'uman liberation in one part of the world is
ultimately inseparable from liberation in other
parts. Thus, all people who support the cau*
of freedom are morally obliged to speak out in
defense of the rights and the humanity of the Iranian peo-
plc, whose peaceful and popula& revolution his beeti
transformed into religious fascism.
On behalf of President Aboihassan Bani . .Sadr, I wish to
appeal to the conscience of the world, to all men and women
supporting the cause of human freedom, to break their
silence and condemn the crimes of Ayatollah Khomeini's
regime.
No government in recent decades has established such
totalitarian and barbaric political order as the present
government of Iran. During a four-month period last year,
more than 3,000 innocent people were executed without
public hearings. The regime intrudes upon the most in-
timate aspects of daily life. Homes are entered and their
occupants seized not only for political reasons but also on
the mere suspicion that they have violated the dictates of
the state in the conduct of their private aftairs. There are
currently about 50,000 political prisoners in Iranian jails,
where torture is routinely practiced. it has also been
estimated that another 50,000 dissidents have been driven
underground. Hundreds of people have been killed or im-
prisoned for giving shelter to critics of the regime. It is
a tragedy that these hideous crimes are being committed
Mansour Farhang was Iran s U.N. representative from
December 1979 until June 1980, when he resigned in protest
o r'er Ayatollah Khomeini's stand on the resolution of the
hostage situation. He then served as senior foreign policy
adviser to President Aboihussan Bani-Sadr until he was
forced into exile in August 198). A senior fellow at the In-
slitute for World Order, he is the author of U.S. Im-
perialism: From the Spanish-American War to the Iranian
Revolution (Soul/i End Press) and is currently at work on a
book about the politics of the Iranian revolution.
__________ -_________ TheNation.
— .- ..- . -
BP00059 1
1
ianuJry 30, 1982
lihe Nntion.
in the name of Islam and the Shiite tradition.
The condemnation of these continuing crimes in Iran by
all concerned people will expose the true face of Khomeini's
regime and provide hope and inspiration to the Iranian peo.
pie, who are living under an unimaginable reign of terror.
Before the revolutionary victory of February 1979, Iranians
suffered under the political and economic oppression of the
Shah. In the present struggle, we are opposing not only
political and economic Oppression but also cultural and
religious totalitarianism.
It is important to note that the political siruggle in Iran
today is not between the clerical and the nonclerical forces.
Only a tiny minority of the mullahs have arrogated to
themselves the divine right to govern Iran. A theologian as
prominent as Sheik Au Tehrani is in prison. Young clerics
like Ahmad Mohaddess, Amir Sharif.Razi, Yunes Baraij
and Mohsen Aleesehaq—all with records of devotion in
religion and resistance—were recently executed. Habib
Ashouri, another distinguished theologian and scholar, was
executed for criticizing the regime. Many high-ranking
ayatollahs in Qum, Teheran, Isfahan and Mashhad are
under virtual house arrest. Ayatollah Lahouti, who spent
twelve years in the Shah's prisons and was an outspoken op-
ponent of the present regime, died mysteriously. Ayatollah
Golzadeh Chafouri, a popular theologian and political
figure, was forced into seclusion after the execution of his
son last year. Thus it is sheer deception for Khomeini to pre-
sent himself as the only legitimate spokesman for the Iran-
ian Shiite hierarchy. In fact, according to the teaching of
Shia Islam, acceptance of religious authority is voluntary.
Khomeini violates this tradition whcn, in thc riaiae of lsiasii,
109
he justifies execution or imprisonment as an appropriate
punishment for refusal to follow his orders.
Political opposition of any type is not tolerated in Iran to-
day. Those who dare to speak out against the government
are quickly—and often brutally—silenced. Dr. Shafiali, a
well-known physician, and his wife were executed for sup-
porting the People's Mujahecleen in Isfahan. Abolfazl
Ghassemi, a 67-year-old National Front leader who was
elected to Parliament from his native city of Darch-Gaz,
was sentenced to life imprisonment for criticizing the
regime, and just last week, another prominent National Front
leader, Shokrollah Pakneczad, was executed, Incidents such
as the killing of Mujahedeen members Rahman Rahnama
and Jamshid Jalilpour in Tabriz prison are so commonplace
that they are not even announced to the public.
The Iranian regime has a special hatred for artists, writers
and intellectuals. 1-lussain Navab, a young and talented
journalist, was executed simply because he was a popular
editorial writer for Engelab-e Islarni, the newspaper of Bani-
Sadr's supporters and the largest-circulatjo daily until the
government shut it down last June. Rashid Sadroihefazi,
an engineer and political activist, and Manouchehr Massoudi,
a prominent lawyer who spent time in the Shah's prison
and defended many political prisoners of the Shah's
regime, were executed because they had worked in Bani-
Sadr's offices. Saud Soltanpour and Abdol-Reza Chaf-
fouri, progressive writers affiliated with the Fedayeen
Khalq, the Marxist guerrilla organization, were executed
without public trial.
The Iranian regime pretends not to care what others think
of its repressive actions. For example, Amnesty Interna-
-k..--
The Ntit•ion.
January 30, 1982
‘ tional's request to investigate charges of political executions
was rejected by Khomeini as part of a conspiracy against the
Islamic Republic. Needless to say, this seeming disregard for
world opinion should not be taken seriously. No repressive
government has ever admitted that it was influenced by in-
ternational expressions of concern about its policies. The
present Iranian regime is no exception. Silence is not a
defensiblc Option. Those who support the cause of freedom
and justice out of moral or humanistic conviction have no
choice but to speak with greater urgency in the face of this
repressive regime's total disregard of human values and the
right of people to defend them. 0
Organizing Statement of the Emergency Committee for
the Defense of Democracy and Human Rights in Iran
We who sign this statement welcomed the Iranian rev-
olution and considered its triumph a great victory of the
Iranian people against a cruel monarchy and foreign
domination.
We were appalled by the coup against the constitu-
tional order of han engineered by the Central Intelligence
Agency in 1953, which began twenty-seven years of
tyranny. We opposed the role of the C.LA.'in establish-
ing the Savak and in guiding the policy of suppression of
democratic rights and the exploitation of the population.
We also opposed the weight of the American presence in
Iran during the Shah's years, especially the sale of ad-
vanced arms designed to dominate the region for
American financial and geopolitical interests.
Above all, we worked to expose the sustained viola-
tions of human rights by the Shah's regime, the
systematic torture and the wholesale suppression of
political dissent.
The Iranian revolution unfolded amidst universal
demands in Iran for an end to censorship, for the release
from prison of all dissidents irrespective of their political
persuasion and for the realization of full democratic
rights of political groups to organize, meet, publish and
to present their views and programs to the nation.
Whatever our own political persuasions, we were
united in the belief that a free polity in which all might
exercise their rights was inseparable from the quest for a
just order expressed by all participants in the Iranian
revolution itself. This fundamental promise of the
revolution has not been kept..
The government which has emerged in Iran has
established a one-party state and resistance to its role has
been met with repression. Nationalists, socialists, na-
tional minorities and dissenting individuals have been
prevented from exercising their democratic rights.
Political parties have been outlawed, newspapers closed,
meetings forbidden and a monopoly of both the political
process and the means of communication allocated to
one faction of the religious movement.
Religion has served not merely as a source of ideas or
guiding principles for those who subscribe to them, but
rather as a rigid prescriptive imposed on all and made an
inseparable part of the State. This theocratic develop-
ment never was part of the Iranian revolution, nor of the
Islamic faith itself.
Arbitrary executions have been widespread and
thousands have been arrested without charges, right of
defense or the protection of a judicial process. Indeed,
prominent among the victims of this repression have
been numerous ii dividuals who played courageous roles
in the struggle against the Shah, including many who
spent years in the Shah's prisons. The national minor-
ities, whose aspirations for autonomy and the expres-
sion of their culture placed them in the front ranks of
the long struggle against the Pahlevi tyranny, have
found their just demands treated as ruthlessly by the
present government.
As in the past, we oppose injustice in Iran. We de-
fended the Iranian revolution then and we defend it to..
day. It is precisely because of these convictions that we
join together again to calt br the renewal ot the promise
of the Iranian revolution: for the right of all those who
fought against the Shah to exercise their democratic
rights in Iran, for an end to autocratic rule, imprison-
ment of opponents, arbitrary execution and the use of
terror against those who appeal to the Iranian people for
a different course of action than that decreed by the new
rulers of Iran.
We support no particular political tendency in Iran,
save that of the sacred rights of the Iranian people to
determine their own political, economic, social and
cultural future free from outside interference of any
kind. Pointing to the failures of the current Iranian
leaders provides no pretext for outside intervention,
especially by the two superpowers.
Our pledge is to speak Out on behalf of Iranian na-
tional and human rights and to inform the American
people as accurately as possible about unfolding
developments in Iran.
—Mary Anderson, American Friends Service Commit-
tee; Rev. William Sloan Coffin, Riverside Church, New
York City; David Dellinger, author; Prof. Wi/lam Dot-
man, california Slate University at Sacramento; Prof.
Richard Falk, Princeton University; Jack Levine, lawyer;
Don Luce, Southeast Asia Resource Center; Prof.
Everest Mendelson, Harvard University; Prof. Saul
Mendlovilz, Rutgers University; Prof. To,,, Ricks,
Georgetown University; Prof. Edward Said, Columbia
University; Ralph Schoeninan, author; George Wald and
Ruth Weld, scientists; Prof. Burns Weston. Iowa Univer-
sity; C. Dale While, Methodist Bishop.
LETTERS.
IRANIAN HAHAIS
N.E. Vienna. Va.
Mansour Farhang writes it his article on Iran
[ “Khomeini's Rc gn of Terror,” The Na-
lion, Jan. 30J that “human liberation in one
part of the world is ultimately inseparable
from liberation in other parts.'' iarhang's
interview on The MacNeil -i e/zrer Report
three years ago gave the impression that he
did not believe in liberation for Bahajs. Has
he changed his mind? Has he the courage to
denounce the persecution of the Bahais in
Iran, including the recern execution of the
members of the Bahai Natioiial Assembly
and the Bahai assembly o Teheran? Does he
advocate amending the Iranian Constitution
so that it protects Bahais as well as Moslems,
Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians? Does he
believe that Bahais should be left in peace
and given freedom like everyone else? If
Farhang fails to respond, many of us will
know what to think about the fine words of
his article. John Huddleston
FARHANG REPLIES
Prince,'on, N.J.
I have never made an extensive study of the
treatment of Bahais in Iran, nor have I writ-
ten about it. My unfortunately phrased
remarks to which Huddleston alludes have
been interpreted to mean something other
than what I believe. The execution of more
than 4,000 Iranians during the past seven
months demonstrates beyond doubt that
Khomeini has set out to eliminate anyone he
arbitrarily defines as a threat to his rule.
Among the victims of this shocking assault,
the Iranian Bahais are the only people whose
persecution, which includes confiscation and
destruction of property, as well as summary
arrests and executions, is motivated solely by
fascistic aggression without any provocation
whatsoever. For the Bahais in Iran pose no
threat at all to the regime.
The truth is that not only have the Bahais
been persecuted for more than a century but
they have also been the most vulnerable of
all the religious minorities in the country.
This has been the case regardless of what
ideological or political orientation happens
to be in power.
Shaykh Mohammed Taghi Falsafi, an
anti-Baha preacher and a passionate sup-
porter of the 1953 coup, is currently one of
Khomeini's favoritemujlahs and a sery mi-
portant person in his ruling circles. Further-
more, the present government in Iran is
heavily influenced by Anjoma n-e Hojjat i ‘yeh,
an anti-Bahaj organization that was founded
in the mid- 1950s. Even though Anjouian..e
Hojjati'yeh never took part in prerevolu-
tionary Opposition politics after the revolu-
tionary victory of 1979, its nienibers joined
the elements that formed the Islamic
Republican Party. President Said-Alt Kliant-
end and Foreign Minister Alt-Akbar
Vaiayati have been active in Aitjonian-e
Hojjati'yeh for years.
Since the early rnoflth.s of the revolu-
tionary victory and particularI - since the
forced resignation of Prime Muti icr Mehdi
Bazargan in November 1979 the Khomeini
regime, just like the Shah's regime during the
1955-56 period of state-led persectititin of the
Bahais, has increasingly repressed its pro-
gressive political opponents anti used the
Bahais as scapegoats, However there is no
comparison between the brut ilitv itiflicted
t ri dissidei it and l3ahais in I 9 5-56 and the
present period. Khomeini is tat wore brutal
than the Shah ever was.
The Bahais and other religiou 5 Iltinorities
in Iran are not, as in the past, merely faced
wit Ii intolerance and opportuni ti ' exploita-
tion of their vulnerability. They are, rather,
confronted with a fascist totalitarian system
whose ideology rejects diversity and cQex-
istence. No protection could be gained by
amending the Constitution, a fascist docu-
ment that should be abolished rather than
altered. Therefore, the sttuggle for religious
freedom in Iran is inseparable from the
struggle for the complete destruction of the
regime Itselt. And it is imperative that the
crimes and the repressive policies of the
regime be exposed as widely as possible.
Such a campaign should make a special ef-
fort to reach the Islamic world and focus on
the violation of the human and democratic
rights of a/I Iranians.
FEMINISTS ANI) PLATH
Iortsour Farhong
New York Civ
I am disappointed that Kacha Pollitt, in her
otherwise thoughtful and judicious con-
sideration, and deserved celebration, of
Sylvia Plath's Collected Poems [ “A Note of
Triumph,” The Nation, Jan. 16J should
have chosen to joust, however glancingly,
with a homemade scarecrow called “the
feminists.”
There is no feminist party line on Plath,
on motherhood or on any other issue, except
the full' participation of women in human
endeavors, Pollitt writes that''.,, the
feminists, too, will have to come to terms
with the tendernc s and purity of Plath's
maternal feelings I don't see what
“coming to terms” is necessary. The
redemption of niotlierhood as valid adult ex
perience and valid subject matter for poetry
and fiction has long been d primary feminist
concern, reflected in the work of Audre
Lorde, Susan Griffin, Aba, Alice Walker,
Marie Ponsot, Robin Morgan, Sharon Olds
and myself, to name just a few self-identified
feminists who have wi itten as mothers.
Although if Plath's “maternal feelings'' as
evinced in her work were limited to
“teitdcriies.s and purity,” we would be deal-
ing with a very different and less important
poet. It is precisely the complexity of obser-
vation and insight, the by-no-means pure
emotional depth, of I'lath's poems on
mothering and on her children, that make
them of more than sentimental value to
readet's,'feminists included.
I know of no feminist cr11 /c who thinks, oc
would “like to think,” that Platli was
unknown at the time of her death. And I
wonder how Pollitt knows what “many
feminists would like to think.'' Even critics -
who are not feminists have noted that Pl:itlt ‘s
career, though not her work, was subsunted
by that of Ted Hughes during their niarriac .
I have the impression th it Pollitt, iii an ef-
fort to be balanced and fair, felt obliged to
take feminist critics to task because she had
so aptly pointed out those male critics who
diminish ot seiisajionaIj Pi oh's acl.ksc-
ment because of her gender. But if Pollitt
had seen fit to quote specific feminist critics,
as she quotes Alvarez, Steiner, Spender,
Howe et al., I might know at whom her
rebuttal was lirected; and' a reader not
familiar with feminist writing would not get
the impression such writing was done by a
Central Commit tee. Marilyn Hacker
POLLFrT REPLIES
New York City
Good point. Katha Pot/itt
TASSA WAYS NOT RECOMMENDED
Washington, D. C'.
The article on tampons [ Kathleen A. Wan-
da, “Tampons Can Be Harmful to Health,”
Jan. 2-9] was well done, and we are happy to
see The Nation publicize this very important
issue. However, there was one misstatement,
which we ask you to correct.
Woman Health International did not
“recommend” Tassaways as an' alternative
to tampons (we do not recommend any spe-
cific product or devicej but merely reported
what several doctors had said about it.
What W.H.I. does recommend, first of
all, is that all tampon boxes have warning
labels on them to advise women of the
danger of toxic shock syndrome. Other
recommendations are:
(1) Further labeling that would list fibers
and additives present in tampons, and
medical contraindicatiojis.
(2) Immediate removal of superabsorbent
additives, deodorants atid any known toxic
substance from tampons. -
(3) A research program to develop a safe,
effective tampon or substitute device and a
parallel investigation of the synergistic long-
term effects of exposure to chemicals and
fibers that have been used in tampons for
more than forty-seven years.
Charlotte Orwn
Inj 'orrnalion Director, W. Ii. I.
I 1 I e ‘/ U K)lh
Iebrtiary 27, /98,?
H
