Interesting commentary by former Imperial Minister Houchang Nahavandi regarding Ayatoilet Khomeini:
FP : Let's go back to Khomeini for a moment. Tell us a bit about who he was as a person and the evil he perpetrated.
Nahavandi: Unfortunately. many of the different works published about Khomeini's life are wrong and inaccurate. His Indian origins were ignored when he was in Paris. There is nothing wrong with being of a different origin than Persian but even now it is forbidden to talk about it in Iran.
The title 'Imam' was given to him by two French journalists, where as in shiism this title belongs only to the twelve direct descendants of the Prophet.
He was not a cultured man. Most probably you have read in some papers that he gave the order to the Iranian Air Force to destroy American satellites, and to the Ministry of Agriculture, to flood the American market with Iranian wheat so as to make the economy of the ‘Great Satan’ become totally dependent.
Khomeini was presented to world opinion as a “brilliant philosopher and theologian” who was some kind of “example for all” that even supposedly his worst enemies could never contest. The various mandates he made especially dealt with “the way to urinate and to defecate,” “purity and impurity,” and “women and their periods.” In the others, one could here and there find a few thoughts of a philosophical, religious or political order, such as:
“It is proven that the Western physicians are totally ignorant,” “Women from the Prophet of Islam’s lineage have their menopause at the age of sixty. The others at over the age of fifty.”
As for political issues:
“Islam alone is to govern.”
“Those who want to set up democracy want to drag our country into corruption and perdition. They are worse than the Jews. They must be hanged. They are not men. They have the blood of animals. Be they damned’.
“All the laws in the world, except those of the Islamic republic, come from a handful of idiotic syphilitics. They are null and void. Islam does not recognize any other law but its own in the world.”
Finally, here are a few examples from the culture of the “great theologian and philosopher’:
“Socrates, a great theologian. He learnt philosophy from Pythagoras and devoted himself totally to theology and ethic. He discarded worldly pleasures, took refuge in a cave in the mountains where he fully dedicated himself to the only God. He tried to convince people of other gods than the real one. After what he had said, the people demanded from the Sultan that he should be put to death. The latter was forced into it and poisoned him.”
“ristotle was the son of Nikomachos from Stagira, one of the greatest philosophers in the world. Avicenna said that nobody was ever able to contradict his theories. Yet, the French Descartes thought he had discovered flaws in them later on; specialists, however, can easily realize how childish and groundless Descartes’s claims in philosophical and theological matters were. Woe betide us Muslims for being intimidated by the West, for taking our own level of knowledge lightly when the Westerners will not be able to reach it before a thousand years.”
Other words, on the contrary, did not make people smile:
“We must give rise to repeated crises, and give a new and better value to the idea of death and martyrdom... If Iran disappears in the future, it is not important; what is important is to drown the whole world in a situation of crisis.”
“All the existing forms of corruption are the products of the nation and of nationalism.”
“Those who think they are Iranian and who believe they must work for Iran are wrong.”
“Blood must be spilled, for the more Iran bleeds, the more the revolution will triumph.”
“Blood must flow.”
“The mother who reported her son so that he would be tried and hanged is an example for the people. It is a model of Islam. If your children, brothers and sisters do not follow the given advice, report them so that they can be chastised.”
“Our dear pupils must keep a close watch on their teachers. The teachers must keep a close watch on themselves. The pupils, my dear children must keep a close watch on one another and report any deviation.”
“Israel must burn to ashes.”
Hundreds of other sentences could be quoted. The regime that originated in the revolution applied Ayatollah Khomeini’s ‘real discourse’ with a frightening zeal. The people with a good conscience who had shown enthusiasm for the man looked away, kept quiet and let things happen, as had been the case long ago with so many other bloodthirsty dictators.
In his interviews, Khomeini was presented as a democrat and liberal man, but the public ignored that the interviews were written by experts who just said what had to be said.
In France, all was prepared for his arrival, including transmitters in his residence. His anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist writings are even stronger than Hitler's.
When he finally arrived in Tehran from Paris with two hundred journalists in an Air France aeroplane which had been named Liberté (‘Liberty’) on the occasion. He granted an interview to the representatives of the Iranian national Radio and Television while he was on the aeroplane. The journalist asked him, among other things:
“What are Your Holiness’s feelings on finding His way back home after so many years?”
“Hitshi” (“Zilch”) “His Holiness” answered.
Everything had just been said, in substance and form. The future was to prove it.
There is much more to be said about Khomeini, and you will find lots more on him, with documents and references, in my last book "Iran, the Clash of Ambitions".
The aim of the mystification of Khomeini was to bring down the previous regime. But time has come for the truth to be revealed to history.
FP : Why do you think the Left, which is supposedly dedicated to democratic ideals, venerated this despot and leader of a death cult? It appears the Left has followed in that tradition by siding with radical Islam in our terror war. How would you explain this morbid pathology of the Left?
Nahavandi: The leftists, especially in France, had always shown sympathy to the revolutionary regimes. Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, Michel Foucault were leaders of Khomeini's support committees.
Michel Foucault went to Iran twice – in September and in November 1978 – and wrote a series of eulogistic articles on Ruhollah Khomeini in the quality Western press, notably in Le Monde. He met him at least once in Neauphle-le-Château, and analysed his philosophical stands. Simone de Beauvoir also went to Iran to support the Islamic revolution. Jean-Paul Sartre contented himself with Parisian stands.
The socialist Party led by François Mitterrand proclaimed its “resolute support” to the movement. The French Socialist Party organized a public demonstration in its support and its executive office saluted the victory of the Islamic revolution on February 14, 1979: “a popular movement of an exceptional dimension in contemporary history.” Many European leftist movements sent their delegations to the international conference held in Tehran in favour of the hostage-taking operation of November 4th 1979.
Khomeini was not “a sort of social-democratic saint, a religious figure who was to be fundamentally admired,” as the American ambassador to the UNO had said [Ambassador Andrew Young]. Professor Richard Falk, who was very a popular academic from the highest spheres of Carter's power circles said: “Imam Khomeini is a miracle in the whole history of human kind, there has never been a leader who could compare, and I do not think there will be another one,” before adding that “he had made the most beautiful moment in the history of Islam come true, the model of a peaceful revolution without a bloodshed, the example of a humanist government.” These individuals’ words represented blindness, insincerity or simply hatred for their own country.
There was not the slightest regret shown on the other side of the Atlantic either. When things went wrong and when the truth broke out, none of these good souls, with the exception of one or two, expressed any regret. They looked away. They forgot everything, but they did not learn anything.
It seems that the Left, "democratic" epigone of the bloody French Revolution (600,000 dead peoples with children, women and old peoples atrociously massacred) has shed into the world and among the Nations a real mob fuelled by a sort of hysterical rage against the any idea, concept, expression related to harmony, beauty, balance, liberty, order. There is an inner principle of death that moves their "souls". One could even think that the leftists feel vaguely or precisely something already corrupted in their roots, deep into their souls. They just don't want to fall "alone", but to bring down with them the whole world into their dedicated chaos. That would then be a "transcendental" pathology. To destroy or to subvert is for the Left a challenge similar to a chess party.
In addition to his newly released book "Iran, the clash of ambitions" Mr Nahavandi has a book dedicated to the late Shah of Iran entitled: "The Last Shah of Iran: Fatal Countdown of a Great Patriot Betrayed by the Free World, a Great Country Whose Fault Was Success". Although I am yet to read these two books I would recommend these books on the basis that the reviews i've read regarding them are excellent and Mr Nahavandi himself is a respected Imperial statesman of a calibre which is rarely found nowadays! A must-have for any historical or current reference to Iran.