Revival: The Iranian Revolution, State Building, Social Movements,
and Islamic trans-nationalism
In media news coverage this past week, there was a great deal of attention dedicated to the French decision to ban the Niqab veiling in public spaces. The government decision to prohibit the veiling in order to protect women from being demoralized because of religious traditions sparked debates around the globe. This event exemplifies how contemporary western societies are reacting to the visible religious revivalism, in this case Islamism. In my personal opinion, the proposed ban, which is scheduled for final vote in September, is not democratic hypocritical and discriminatory because it takes away the right of a women to freely choose to express their religion and I also believe that the “real” reason behind this law is the increasing fear of a worldwide Islamic movement. Therefore, this kind of legislation will only encourage more resentment between Muslims and the west, whose relationship has been apprehensive since the attack on US in 2001, invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, and decades of Israeli Palestinian conflicts. These events have fueled extremist revolutionary Islamist groups, inspired by the success of the Iranian Revolution, to use any pretext to validate their violent Jihad against the west secular values.
The significance of Islamic Revolution in Iran and the magnitude of its impact in contemporary global politics is unprecedented. The goal of the Iranian revolution was to disintegrate a secular and pro-west government and institute an Islamic state ruled by God’s law (the shariah). After the independency from European colonialism, the majority of Muslim countries were ruled by Muslim Secularists who envisioned transforming their nations into modern states using western ideologies of secularization and modernization which are incompatible with Muslim traditionalism. In case of Iran, the autocratic shah government overthrew populist and nationalist Mossadegh from power with the help of the United States (due to its interest in relation to strategic military location bordering ex USSR) in 1953. Many scholars state that Anti-American sentiments in Iran started from this event. The Shah pushed a plan to modernize Iran, nationalizing many private companies, implementing an extensive land reform program, westernizing society and imposing centralization of his government. The Shah autocratic monarch ruling suppressed the participation of cleric establishment in government. Iranians were disappointed by the Shah government because its failure in socio cultural political and economic areas including providing economic equality among population and continuing his Israeli trade policies. This exacerbated a decrease in his popularity and protests, which were encouraged by clerics and seen around the country. With the advice of the United States, Pahlavi’s regime strongly oppressed peaceful demonstrators and as many as fifty thousand were killed. Ayatollah Khomeini, who was actively involved in the opposition’s discourse to the shah’s program of secularization and westernization, was exiled to Iraq and then moved to Egypt and France. Exile served Khomeini very well because he was free from censure and able to propagate his call for an Islamic revolution in Iran. His followers created a system of information distribution in Iran that enable his written anti-government sermons and taped speeches to be shared throughout the country. By then, millions protested on the streets holding Khomeini’s posters and were willing to sacrifice their lives for a government change. The Shah presented his last plea to Iranians promising to form a national government with free elections, but the Iranians had “it” with him and totally distrusted his promises. With no choice, He left the country in Mid January 1979 when Khomeini heroically returned from exile and established the theocratic Islamic government capitalizing antiforeigner sentiments. His inner circle of Revolutionary Islamists Shi’ah ulama ruled the country by the precepts of Islam with Khomeini as their supreme spiritual leader. Their first most important tasks were to reform Iran’s legal system, cultural institutions, education programs and economic system to conform to Islam. They institutionalized the Islamic Revolution and created the Islamic constitution with the shariah law. The United States embassy hostage crises showed the world the Iranians’ xenophobic anger against Americans instigated by their leader. The US government was stunned by the success of the Islamic Revolution because it never gave importance of the role of religion relation with politics in Muslims society. Americans were unprepared to deal with the new government in Iran. This was clearly emphasized by the taking of American diplomats as hostage for 444 days. Iranian students invaded the US embassy in retaliation to Americans permitting the shah to seek cancer treatment in the US, who underestimated the improvement of Iran-US relations after the revolution. The failure of Carter’s government in resolving the issue, demonstrated the world that even the superpower US was vulnerable and could be defeated. In the BBC documentary we can evidently perceive the expression of fear, confusion and frustration of Pres. Carter dealing with Iranians in his televised address the nation regarding his unsuccessful military operation in attempting to rescue the hostage. This impact was beyond the boundaries of Iran. It sent a message to all Muslims, living under the rules of secularist autocratic leaders that there was hope. Khomeini used this event to show the entire world that he would not tolerate any outside intervention in his government and he also encouraged all Muslims to rise against their secularist pro-western government. He indeed was successful and his revolutionary ideals inspired the resurgence of different Islamic militants groups throughout the Muslim world. The hostage crises backfired at Khomeini because in violating international laws he isolated Iran, which was consequently categorized as terrorist state. The world condemned him and even religious leaders in his inner circle were against his position in the hostage crises. Many Muslims including Shi’ah perceived his radical position as prejudicial to the image of Islam. In this context, Saddam Hussein invaded Iran and the war lasted eight years. Western countries took Iraq’s side, including the US who provided military equipment to Saddam Hussein. Iran suffered immensely from the war with hundreds of thousands dead and financial problems. Members of Khomeini’s government insisted in the Khomeini authorization of the UN proposal for a cease fire that was signed on July of 1988. Khomeini died on June 3, 1989. Iranian leaders were sucessful in providing a peaceful power transition, which is also evident in the BBC documentary. Ayatollah Khamenei was appointed the new spiritual leader and Rafsanjani was sworn as the new president. Both leaders were less radical then Khomeini in their foreign policies and advocated the importance of re-establishing relationships with the West. In 1997, Khatami won the elections with 70 percent of votes defeating his conservative opponent. Iranians supported Khatami’s ideals of reform, especially regarding freedom of speech. In his address to OIC, he said that Iran was entering a new era and embraced the idea of maintaining peace and tranquility with other nations. In the BBC documentary it was very interesting to see the willingness of the Iranian government to share intelligence information with the Bush administration in the Afghanistan war. Whether this was done purely by interest of the Iranians in having Americans deal with the Taliban for them, it is exceptional that information between these two rival countries was exchanged. However, the reformist leaders in Iran were stabbed in their back when President Bush included Iran in his “axil of evil” during his State of the Union address in 2002. This caused major opposion to Khatamis and modernist Islamist government in Iran and ultimately opened many wounds in the Muslim people aggravating their anti-American feelings. Iran has shown the world their role as an important political player, being a mediator or external support
The conflict between Palestinians and Israel has also helped increase the revival of Islamism and sympathy of their cause by the Muslim people. The prolonged and unresolved issues regarding the situation of Israeli settlement in Palestinian West Bank and Gaza, and the occupation of Golan Heights and the quest for Jerusalem are fueling the disapproval of Secularist leaders and support for radical Islamists groups. When Israel defeated the Arabs in the Six Day War of 1967, Arabs leaned on Islamism to cover the sentiment of lack of identity, inferiority and most importantly sense of hopelessness. Religious activism was the only remedy to authoritarian secularism. In the 1973 somewhat successful Arab invasion of Israel, the effort was perceived in the Muslim World as victorious and generated a religious symbolism of God’s deliverance. Islamists constantly remind their followers that Islam was the only way to defeat their enemies. Yasser Arafat, the leader of the PLO tried to secure the Palestinian State through several diplomatic talks with Israel (including the famous Madrid Peace conference and Oslo Document of Principle which resulted in mutual recognition between Israel and PLO), but was not successful to reach the final talks. The situation is worse since the PA is has been unable to control the extremist groups’ attacks on Israelis. Likewise, Jewish extremist attacks have further accelerated the process of Islamism. The election of Hamas (defined as a terrorist organization by Israel , US and EU) was a worried subject among westerners.
Lebanon has also been a country with significant emergence of Islamic movements. Based on the inspiration of the Iranian revolution, Hezbollah is a revolutionary Islamic group that is also being admired by Shi ah and some Sunnis throughout the Muslim world. Hezbollah popularity has concerned secularist groups in the Arab world because they are afraid that inspired by their accomplishments, will inspire opposition groups to call for a revolution within their countries, especially where division among sects are not predominant and increases the pan-Islamic desire. Hezbollah has also been admired among revolutionary Islamists due to its military power against Israel. Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982 to finish with the PLO base and to install a pro-Israeli government in Beirut. When Israel was welcomed in the beginning of the war by Lebanese Christians and Shi ah who did not want the presence of PLO in its territory. However, as causality occurred with the war, they started to fear Israel especially because Israel refused to leave even after they expelled PLO from the region. Hezbollah (whose members in leadership had study in Najaf or Karbala in Iraq and were inspired by the revolutionary commitment to political change) and Islamic Amal started a jihad campaign against the Israeli occupiers. Iran played a vital supporting role for Hezbollah who not only consulted with Iran’s leader for advice but also received financial and military assistance. Syria also had interest in supporting Hezbollah since it would be a way of preserving Syria alliance with Iran. Hezbollah claimed that the ultimate responsible force for the Israeli retaliation on Lebanon was the United States who has in its mission to inflict suffering upon Muslims. In Hezbollah’s open letter, it stated that Lebanese government were impregnated with corruption as a product of western imperialism so their goal was to terminate any influence of imperialist power in the country. It justified the use of violence and liberate Palestinians from the Israelis without accepting negotiations (this explains the connection of Palestinian movements and Hezbollah who does not validate the efforts of PLO in making peace with Israel). With the increase of Israeli casualties in the war, by 1995 Israel retreated from most of Lebanon. Palestinians observing that Hezbollah had success against Israel, convinced them that revolutionist Islamists were more effective than the current negotiation attempts done by their secular leaders. There is an important difference between Hezbollah and Hamas illustrated by Norton in his book Hezbollah “Whereas Hamas in Palestine has intentionally targeted Israeli civilians, such as with suicide bombings, Hezbollah usually did not do so over the course of Israel’s long occupation in Lebanon.”
The French ban on veiling reported in the media this week demonstrates the fact that we in the west are terrified by the revival of Islamism. We keep walking the in circle of ideological threat instead of admitting that Islamism is the only voice that millions of impoverished and oppressed Muslims have found to trust and live for. What will it take for us to recognize this cry? Unless the western government and especially the US bring to an end its hypocritical support for governments which ignores human rights, inequality, democracy, improvement of economic development, extremist groups will continue to gain support among frustrated hopeless Muslims.