More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Brad Hirschfield

Brad Hirschfield

Posted: June 4, 2010 07:03 PM

Lessons from the Millions Mourning Ayatollah Khomeini

What's Your Reaction:

Millions turned out to publicly mourn the passing, 21 years ago, of Ayatolla Khomeini, who led the revolution that overthrew the despotic Shah of Iran and replaced him with a totalitarian Islamic theocracy. Worth the trade? I hardly think so. But that is not the most important question today. Certainly not as speeches given by the current leaders at the memorial ceremonies excoriated the United States, rebuked as heretics any who challenged the current regime, and fantasized about the end of Israel.

The real questions today are not about the past. They need to be about the present and how understanding it better can help us build a better future. How do we get past the options of banging the drums of inevitable war with Iran, as some seem to love doing, or of pretending that today's Iran shouldn't scare pretty much anyone able to read this post, as the way to avoid admitting how tough the situation is?

We start by asking better questions about the meaning of those millions who took to the streets to mourn Ayatollah Khomeini. If they are there because they idolize him and believe that today's Iran honors his legacy, then things are far worse than many want to admit.

If the average Iranian believes that the totalitarian theocracy of 21st-century Iran is the best way forward for their nation, then those of us who oppose theocracy and/or totalitarianism need to speak out much more forcefully about the problem of Iran. It does not matter that this has traditionally been an issue for conservatives and/or Republicans. In fact, many of the human rights abuses and church-state (or mosque-state) issues in Iran are the bread and butter of liberal advocacy groups in the US. So why not speak out when it comes to Iran? The answer cannot be that it's "their" issue.

On the other hand, if the millions who turned out for the memorials did so because they were coerced by the government, then things may be more promising than we often imagine. It may be that people are not so happy with the status quo. It may be that more people than many imagine are still looking for a new way forward. And if that is the case, then offering something other than stark choices between American culture and Islamic totalitarian culture is incredibly important.

I know that like so much of what goes on in the Middle East, and especially in light of this past week's events off the coast of Gaza, we tend to see what we already believe rather than ask how new events present new opportunities and invite us to see the world in new ways. I also know that if we want things to improve, whatever our definition of that word is, we need to do more than use current events to confirm past conclusions.

As Albert Einstein remarked, "No problem could ever be solved at the level of consciousness which created it." Nowhere more than in our thinking about the Middle East should that insight be more forward in our minds.

 

Follow Brad Hirschfield on Twitter: www.twitter.com/bradhirschfield

Millions turned out to publicly mourn the passing, 21 years ago, of Ayatolla Khomeini, who led the revolution that overthrew the despotic Shah of Iran and replaced him with a totalitarian Islamic theo...
Millions turned out to publicly mourn the passing, 21 years ago, of Ayatolla Khomeini, who led the revolution that overthrew the despotic Shah of Iran and replaced him with a totalitarian Islamic theo...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 49
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
03:56 PM on 06/10/2010
All religion is bad particilarly when governments are involved with it
Nations like Iran will never progress until they remove religion and religious leaders from gov.
The US will follow the Muslim lead if religion gets a hold in this country, that is why intelligent people should never vote for religious conservatives.

Qdog
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Talossa
Not all liberals are silly.
01:43 AM on 06/08/2010
Thank you, Rabbi. I have never been able to understand why so many people on the left, who deplore all religion and not just "fundamentalism", have such an enormous blind spot when it comes to Islamic fundamentalism and its treatment of women, its disregard for human life, its totalitarian political ideology and its imperialistic and colonial heritage. I suspect it is just a horribly warped application of the principle that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."
ThinkCreeps
Seriously, it's time.
02:53 PM on 06/08/2010
I am imagine that your lack of understanding is something to do with your apparent inability to read and comprehend.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Talossa
Not all liberals are silly.
08:45 PM on 06/08/2010
Personal attacks are always a sign that you've lost the argument.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CJWebber
10:22 PM on 06/08/2010
There have been far more women leaders is Islamic countries than there has been in North America, where there has only been 1: Kim Cambell, PM of Canada.

Why do you suppose that is?

Could it be that women there aren't treated as poorly as you have been led to believe?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Talossa
Not all liberals are silly.
02:35 AM on 06/09/2010
There are 2 countries in North America. There are more than 30 predominantly Islamic countries. So by the law of averages, there should be more "women leaders" in Islamic countries than in North America. Instead, we find that 50% of the countries in North America have been headed by women, while what, 6% in the Islamic world (Indonesia and Pakistan, and what else?) were so led.

Need I add that 100% of Jewish states were headed by women. :-)

Actually no particular region lives up to that standard very well. Campbell was an accidental PM (never elected) and may be the single most dramatically repudiated leader of a democratic country in history. Bhutto was the daughter of a male politician in a society where family ties rule. So is Megawati. Women rulers who rose to their high office on the strength of their own qualities include Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meir, neither of whom I would imagine would get your vote.
11:43 PM on 06/07/2010
Not that I'd want the Shah and Savak back but truth be told, the current government is far more repressive than the former ever thought of being.

May Iranians have a secular and true democratic government SOON!
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
rf dude
Just an average Man of Bronze
11:38 PM on 06/07/2010
Thought bubble over AK's head: " I left Paris for this - WHAT was I thinking"...
;;
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
rf dude
Just an average Man of Bronze
11:33 PM on 06/07/2010
Ayatollah.

Smile.

Happy.

Yay...
;;
ThinkCreeps
Seriously, it's time.
07:01 PM on 06/07/2010
"Go for a walk in the street, or I'll beat you to death" has a certain motivational charm.
ThinkCreeps
Seriously, it's time.
06:49 PM on 06/07/2010
Lessons?

Not rioting and falling into the grave would be a good start.
06:43 PM on 06/07/2010
I hope that someday Iran will be secular and people will be free to practice their religion or not.

There are many Muslims who feel that this theocracy has led millions of people away from religion in Iran. I gather that Iran's pre-Islamic poets are more genuinely adored than the Ayatollahs of today.

The police and prison guards who imprison, beat, torture, and rape their prisoners hide behind their religion and if I were a devout Muslim, I'd have great resentment towards them for this.
05:55 PM on 06/07/2010
Christians are the best hope for Iran. An Arab messenger is no hope. "Jesus is your savior."
photo
Uncle Bob
Darwin loves you.
11:21 PM on 06/07/2010
I would suggest, those that are for secularism are the people that are most likely to have an effect on the government. The reason i find this significant, this isn't some tiny percentage, such as christians. A lot of moderate muslims are for it too.

Secularism is the only path to separation of church and state. And it doesn't matter who is arguing for it. They are all equal under the structure they promote.
12:28 AM on 06/08/2010
Get a life.
03:35 PM on 06/07/2010
Madeline Albright may have acknowledged that overthrowing Moussadegh was a mistake, but what about the Cheneys? If it was so important to keep Iran from gaining too much power in the Middle East, then we made a big mistake toppling Saddam Hussein, because he was serving as a counterbalance to Iran's power. If we are just focused on the identity of Iran as a totalitarian theocracy and nothing else, we are setting ourselves up once again to act in short-sighted ways with unintended consequences.
07:46 PM on 06/07/2010
How is Dick Cheney relevant to the 1953 Iranian coup d'état? Dick Cheney was 12 years old when this took place. You are mixing multiple discussions here. Your initial response suggested that we needed to acknowledge our mistakes in manipulating the political landscape in Iran. As I stated, Madeline Albright took this action in 2000. What else is there left to acknowledge?

From reading your post here, am I to gather that you are under the impression that Saddam Hussein should have been left in power? That his atrocities against the people of Iraq were okay because he was a "counterbalance" against Iran? Wow, that sounds indefensible and incredibly short-sighted to me.
05:33 AM on 06/08/2010
We thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Had we not thought that, the presumption is that Saddam Hussein would have been allowed to stay in power. That would have balanced Iran's power, and if Iran was as much of a threat as is now being insisted, letting Saddam Hussein stay in power would have made sense. The state of human rights in post-Saddam Iraq is nothing to brag about, I might add.
bklynsparrow
creating reality from unreal things
08:38 PM on 06/08/2010
Bush senior left Hussein in power because he was a counterbalance. Yes, he committed atrocities against his own people- and what did Bush Jr. accomplish for the Iraqis? Hundreds of thousands of civilians dead. Over 4000 American soldiers dead and tens of thousands more wounded and suffering. Constant terrorist attacks on schools, markets, police. Most importantly- we didn't go into Iraq because we cared about what Hussein did to his own people.I really don't even know why we went in other than to satisfy the neocons who were having a bizarre fantasy of world domination.

If you want an honest answer- should Hussein have been left in power- I say yes. The Iraqis would have eventually taken matters into their own hands- his sons would never have been able to hold onto power- too spoiled and not intelligent enough.
03:34 PM on 06/07/2010
May God find a place this man, know his heart and deeds, both in equal measure and mercy abound.

All the best
Knute
TR Knudtson
02:55 PM on 06/07/2010
In March of 2000, Secretary of State Madeline Albright acknowledged the role that the United States played in Mohammed Massadegh's overthrow before a meeting of the American-Iranian Council. With that in mind, how many more times should we apologize to Iran?

Robert Baer, in his book The Devil We Know, suggests that the current Iranian leadership could care less about more apologies. They have moved on and are more concerned with spreading their influence and control throughout the Middle East. Understanding and humility are the last things that we need to embrace when dealing with a totalitarian theocracy.
05:01 PM on 06/07/2010
If understanding and humility were the last things we need to embrace when dealing with Iran, would their opposites -- ignorance and conceit -- be the first?
09:19 PM on 06/07/2010
Is it possible that you are actually this naive? Did you watch the violent response of the Iranian mullah's to those that protested the Iranian presidential election in 2009? We are dealing with a brutal dictatorship here. Oh well, you go right on living in your Kumbaya fantasy world.
01:12 PM on 06/07/2010
Yes, it is unfortunate that the government of Iran is a totalitarian theocracy, but it would behoove us to remember how it got that way. In 1953, Iran had a ruler, Moussadegh, who wanted to do something regarded then -- and by many Americans, still now -- as an unpardonable offense. He wanted to socialize Iran's oil industry! The CIA is said to have helped 1) to have him overthrown, and 2) to install the Shah. The Iranian people endured the Shah's dictatorship for 26 years. Then, in what must have seemed to them like a miracle, Ayotallah Khomeini succeeded in bringing the Shah down. I think we have to remember this history, because until we acknowledge how WRONG were the actions we took -- and most of us have not yet acknowledged it -- we will not be able to approach the future of our relations with Iran with the sort of understanding and humility that the circumstances require.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TeraWatt60
Cogito Ergo Sum
12:59 PM on 06/07/2010
Major violent revolutions rarely produce a better government that what was revolted against. France got rid of the King and replaced him ultimately with Napoleon, Russia got rid of the Czar and got Lenin and Stalin. England got rid of Charles I and ended up with Cromwell(close analog of Iran). Cuba and Nicaragua overthrew a fascist American puppets and replaced them with dictatorships with no real difference in everyday life

Iran follows in this "grand tradition" by overthrowing the Shah and getting theocratic trash oppressing them even more but this time instead of for the aggrandizement of one man (the Shah) the mullahs claim to be doing it for Sky Daddy...pathetic
07:36 AM on 06/08/2010
Tere
That's what makes the U.S. special.
We overthrew England and got......George Washington.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Albert Amato
12:48 PM on 06/07/2010
Iran's treatment of women and gays is abhorrent and the memories of those Democratic protesters jailed, beaten, stoned and killed is still fresh in everyone's mind.
Let's hope for a more open and tolerant society in their future.