The formation of Sharif Imami’s national reconciliation government and the Imposition of martial law in eleven main Iranian cities leading to the events of Bloody Friday had proved ineffectual in quelling the fervour of revolt. Thus, in accordance with a plan proposed by the American National Security Council and influenced by the views of National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski and the congressional group defending “aggressive and suppressive measures,” the Shah set up a military cabinet and appointed General Azhari to lead it as prime minister.

The night before the formation of the military cabinet, the Shah appeared on television, and while confessing to his mistakes and those of his regime, he made his famous statement: “I have heard the revolutionary message of you people, the Iranian nation,” and pledged that he would make up for things he had done in the past. Despite its aggressive actions, which included an attack on the offices of the country’s leading newspapers forcing their closure, Azhari’s cabinet was seen as being nothing more than a paper tiger, or as the Shah himself put it “a lion without a mane and tall.” In the midst of the upheaval, the Shah pinned all his hopes on support from America. On Carter’s authorisation, Brzezinski

Assured the Shah that he had the US’s full and complete support “without any reservation whatsoever” in the present crisis. When the Shah told Brzezinski that the situation was deteriorating day by day, he received the reply: “We will do whatever we can to help, you must be sure of America’s unequivocal and complete support and bring in a military cabinet as quickly as possible.”^{( 526)}

One of the steps Azhari’s government took in an attempt to deceive the people was the arrest and detention of a number of generals and ministers of the former governments. Concerning this Qarabaghi in his confessions writes:

“General Azhari made use of article five of the regulations governing military government and arrested a number of political and military personalities, among these were: Amir ‘Abbas Hoveyda, the former prime minister; Manuchehr Azmun, former advisory minister in charge of administrative affairs; Dariush Humayun, former minister of information and tourism; Mansur Ruhani, former minister of agriculture; General Nassiri, former head of SAVAK; Manuchehr Nikpay, former mayor of Tehran; Lieutenant General Sadri, former head of the town and city police; ‘Abdulazim Valian, former governor-general of Khurasan province; Shaykhulislam Zadeh, former minister of health; Nili Aram, former deputy minister of health; and Fereidun Mahdavi, former minister of trade. According to a report in the ittila ‘at newspaper, Lieutenant General ‘All Muhammad Khadami, the former director of Iran’s national airline, committed suicide when military agents arrived at his house to arrest him.”^{( 527)}

In the present speech, Imam Khomeini (may God grant him peace) refers to these desperate acts and says: “Now they have set off down another road, namely arresting those who until a short time ago were the Shah’s accomplices in crime - some of whom had aided and abetted him for twelve or thirteen years in every crime he committed - on charges of treason and criminal offence. They have arrested one accomplice to protect the other.

In his speech, Imam emphasises the fact that those arrested were “the Shah’s accomplices in crime.” One of them was Amir ‘Abbas Hoveyda, a man who for thirteen years from January 27, 1965 (Bahman 7, 1343 AHS), after the revolutionary execution of Hasan ‘Ali Mansur, served as the Shah’s prime minister. According to SAVAK documents, Hoveyda was one of the key elements in the formation of the Freemasons in Iran, and was a member of the “Tehran,” “Moulavi,” Ike” and “Kouroush” lodges, as well as the “Great Lodge of Iran.” Freemasons such as Nasir Yeganeh, Javad Mansur, Hasan. Zahedi, Manuchehr Partow, Majid Rahnama, Fathullah Setudeh, Mehrdad Palo, Ira) Vahidi and Hushang Ansari, who were all official members of lodges connected toinstitutions of world freemasonry and international Zionism, played a prominent role in Hoveyda’s cabinet.^{( 528)} so it was not without reason that during Hoveyda’s premiership, Iran was one of Israel’s allies.

In one of SAVAK’s reports, the following is found concerning the secret of Hoveyda’s success: “Whether in the party or in a parliamentary faction, Hoveyda never expresses his own positive or negative opinion, it is clear to everyone that the Shah is personally controlling the affairs of state and the presence or absence of Mr. Hoveyda does not affect the change of programme.”^{( 529)}

At one time, the Shah used topraise Hoveyda as a trustworthy prime minister who worked twenty hours a day! Yet, today, in an attempt to deliver himself from the anger of the people and quench the flames of revolt, he sends Hoveyda toprison. Addressing the Shah, Imam Khomeini says: “You brought these thieves to power,” and with these words he upset the regime’s plan to divert public attention away from the personage of the Shah and to focus the guilt for the crimes on others. The regime’s predicament at this time can be understood from the words of Azhari, Qarabaghi writes: “ . . . During the conversation, General Azhari stated: ‘General Oveissi was here yesterday and told me that he was the most hated man in the country.’ Azhari added that during the meeting General Oveissi began to cry and stated that he wanted to leave the country!”^{( 530)} General Oveissi later fled Iran by military plane on the orders of the Shah.^{( 531)}

In another part of his speech, Imam Khomeini points to the release of political prisoners. Years ago, at the height of his power, the Shah had stated in an interview with foreign reporters that: “In our country, we do not have even one political prisoner, those in the prisons are a number of sedition-mongers, some of whom receive their orders from abroad and who want to disrupt the country, and some of them are separatists.”^{( 532)} However, confessions acquired in later years in Islamic revolutionary courts from SAVAK heads show that most of these prisoners remained In prison for years on unfounded charges and despite being subjected to medieval forms of torture, they remained firm in their Islamic stance.

Neither the Shah nor the governments of Sharif Imami or Azhari set the political prisoners free, the main reason behind their release can be found in Ayatollah Taleghani’s reply to Imam Khomeini’s congratulatory message: “I myself and all prisoners owe our freedom first of all to the kindness of dear God, and we believe that according to His almighty will oppressors will be abased and the oppressed and poor will rule supreme. Secondly, we are indebted to the sacrifices made and blood shed by these long-suffering and oppressed Muslim people of Iran who, under your guidance as a marja’ and leader with faith, determination and worthiness, have created pride and honour for the nation with their holy war and by the spilling of their blood in the torture chambers and battlefields or in the streets and alleyways.”⁽⁵³³⁾

On this day (November 9/Aban 18) in 1978, dozens of people were killed in demonstrations in lsfahan, Najaf Abad, Kermanshah and Babul. In Tehran, thousands of people gathered at Bihisht-i Zahra for seventh-day commemorations for those martyred on November 5 (Aban 1 3 students Day]).⁽⁵³⁴⁾

Let’s take a closer look at the arrest of these men to see if they have added to or diminished the crime. It was you (addressing the Shah) who formed the governments and approved of them all. These criminals that you have now had arrested were all once members of your government! They were your accomplices in crime! Are you now calling them criminals? You are the one who brought these criminals to power! Are you calling them thieves now? You are the one who brought these thieves to power! You brought these criminals and traitors into your governments and worked with them in plundering this country and tormenting this nation!

If two or ten people work together and perpetrate a crime or commit treason, then later one of them, who is more powerful than the rest, turns the others over to a court of law, is his own crime forgiven because his accomplices have been arrested? Or does this act actually constitute acknowledgement of his own treason because he brought these men to power? Some of these men have been in the government for twelve years or more, and do you (addressing the Shah) mean to tell us now that you were not aware of what they were doing for these twelve years, that you have only recently found out about it? Are you saying that you were not aware until a few months ago of the activities of this man who was once your prime minister and adviser, and was involved in the running of affairs doing everything under your supervision and on your command? That you have only found out in these past few months? If someone betrayed and pillaged this country for twelve or thirteen years and you did not know about it, then you are not fit to hold this post - if indeed it can be called a post! You are unworthy of this position! The fact of the matter is that you were aware of what was going on just as you are today. You were two accomplices in crime! But you were the key partner and he was the small fry. Now if the key partner arrests his subordinate and throws him into jail, does this mean that the crime is forgotten? Well, you have arrested the small fry, now the nation wants the kingpin. The nation wants to punish you for the same reasons that you have had these accomplices of yours arrested. The people want to see you arrested.

What the regime and its supporters are doing now is seeking a way to save him, but this is not a sensible way, this is not the way out! All this talk and all of these deceits are brought about because they think they have a chance be it only one in a thousand, to trick the people, the ordinary people that is. However, we see that the people will not be fooled.

His accomplices in crime have been arrested and his speech is repeated again and again,^{( 537)} the people have heard it and we have heard it too along with that of the military prime minister, we have seen the bayonets and the attacks on the people. The regime’s agents broke down the doors of a hospital and burst in killing the people there.^{( 538)} the people of Qum were attacked and three people killed in a public bath by gas.^{( 539)} In Hamadan and everywhere the situation is the same, yet still the people continue to shout out, the strikes continue, the revolt continues, it cannot be stopped. A nation which has been trampled by these criminals for more than fifty years has now opened its eyes and sees that it must defeat them by force, by bringing pressure to bear and by creating tumult, by demonstrations, strikes and the suchlike. The people know that if they are in the slightest way remiss, the situation will return to how it was fifty years ago and they will not be able to create such a movement, such an uprising, as this again, not even in another fifty years’ time. The nation knows this. It knows that if this movement is not carried through to its final stage and does not continue until this man is overthrown, then the situation will return to being as bad as it was at the time of Riza Shah, or even worse. And this time if this man regains his power, then neither children nor the elderly will be spared, all his opponents, which means the whole of the nation, will be crushed, none will be spared.

Do not believe all this talk about social justice! Every so many days he would ascend the rostrum and rant on about social justice, an open political climate, free elections, a great civilisation, the gates of a great civilisation and other such myths, a hundred of which mean nothing now to the Iranian people. He would say these things one after the other, and he is still doing it. Whenever he speaks, it is about such things! The only thing that differs is the audience. Sometimes he speaks to the bazaar merchants. When he went to Qum, just before the events of Khurdad 15, they say that he was so confused that instead of going in the direction of as they waited for the bodies of those killed in the events of November 4 (Aban 13) to be handed over to them for burial, and clashed with a number of the demonstrators.

5- during the period of martial law in Qum, nearly two thousand people took to the streets of this city in a peaceful demonstration to express their opposition to Azhari’s military government and their support for Imam. Agents from the police and military charged with stopping the demonstration and dispersing the people at first followed the demonstrators, but then suddenly at a certain place they opened fire at them. The people ran towards a public bathhouse, which was nearby, and a large number of them took refuge inside. The agents shot canisters of poison gas into the building and a number of demonstrators inside were killed. The exact number of those killed in this incident is not known.

The shrine, he set off down a side Street! They had to go and tell him: sir, this way please.” (The audience laughs). They had to guide him to the shrine, and when he arrived there and took up his position to speak, he was shaking. Still he abused the people. He abused the devout merchants of Qum calling them the “bearded ones” and other such things. He spoke about the ‘ulama in an even worse manner, calling them impure animals!^{( 540)}

Now however, he comes before the nation, repents once again and claims to be sincere when he says to all the sections of society that he has made mistakes, which he will not repeat! Well if, as he claims, his past actions were mistakes then why is he killing again now? If he accepts that he made a mistake, is there a more serious mistake than murder? Is there a mistake as grave as that of killing, the women and the youth of this nation? He has acknowledged his mistakes, and he says that these won’t be repeated, so why is he doing just that? How can the people be expected to believe that he won’t make such mistakes again when he is presently killing the people. Is it at all possible for the military to kill someone without first receiving the Shah’s permission to do so? Are they killing the people for anyone else’s sake other than his? As long as he gives the command and the military feel obliged to obey and dare not do otherwise, the killings will continue. No one will kill the people and perpetrate such vile deeds if he does not order it. It is on his direct command that they are made to kill the people and do other things, on the direct command of this same man who says he made a mistake and asks for the Iranian people’s forgiveness; this same man who promises and guarantees not to do such things again.

You (addressing the

Shah) have given promises and guarantees before. At the beginning of your satanic rule you gave the same promises, you went to the Parliament and swore your oaths and then you went on to commit these mistakes, as you call them. So, what is so different this time? At least at that time you gave the people a grace period, you waited until two or three months after you had made your promises before you broke them. Today however, you perpetrate these vile deeds, these crimes, at the same time as you admit to your past mistakes and promise not to repeat them. So how can the people be expected to accept your repentance? If we suppose that, God forbid, andaiim were to tell the people to settle down now, how could the people be expected to listen to him? They would say that he was making a mistake, or that he was a naive and gullible person who did not realise what kind of man the Shah really is, that is if they were being polite about it, otherwise they would say he was a court-affiliated ‘aiim! The nation cannot be thought of as being unaware; a nation, which has stood up, is shouting out and is seeking its constitutional rights cannot be put to sleep by these things now.

From one direction, we are faced with multifarious propaganda. Propagandists both in Iran and abroad are using the issue of religious minorities in Iran to create the distorted view that were an Islamic government established in Iran, then all minority religions would be swept away. Do you (addressing the Shah) treat religious minorities better or does Islam? You are trampling both the minority religions and the majority religion underfoot and are destroying them! You have eliminated all human rights in Iran. You have allowed neither Muslims nor non-Muslims to be free. In Islam however, the religious minorities are shown respect, they are free. Yet we are repeatedly asked the same question: “If an Islamic government were established (in Iran), how would it treat the religious minorities?” They ask this question because they are constantly instilled with the idea that in the event of an Islamic government being set up in Iran, all the Jews or all the Christians or Zoroastrians would be murdered. At what period in Islamic history did an Islamic country during peacetime - I am not speaking of a country at war here - massacre its religious minorities or murder people from minority religions. Hazrat Amir (Imam ‘All) wanted to die of shame when a Jewish woman, a dhimmi, who was living under the shelter of Islam, had her anklet stolen while he was ruler. He said: If a person were to die in circumstances such as mine, it would be worth it.”^{( 541)} Is then Islam or an Islamic government going to do the things they say it will do to those of religious minorities? This is all propaganda created by the Shah and his supporters and trumpeted over their loudspeakers to tarnish the image of Islam and Islamic government and sully the reputation of the Muslim clergy - at least in the eyes of those non-Muslims and non-religious people outside Iran.

They promote the idea that they (the clergymen) want to have a reactionary government, a reactionary Islamic government. This man himself portrays Islam as being reactionary. On the one hand, he invokes “the true religion of Islam” and on the other, he says that those who preach Islam to the people are reactionaries! They are reactionary in that they have gone back one thousand four hundred years! They propagate something, which belongs to one thousand four hundred years ago. The fact that he himself is reviving something, which belongs to two thousand five hundred years ago, is irrelevant!^{( 542)}He is not considered to be a reactionary, only those who are promoting progressive laws from one thousand four hundred years ago, those who say that this man should be delivered a blow in the mouth for depriving the people of freedom, for establishing foreign rule in Iran and placing the people under the rule of the superpowers, are considered to be the reactionaries! While those who are stealing the wealth of the people through force and suppression, those who have deprived the people of freedom, they are seen to be the civilised ones who open the gates of freedom! They say they are afraid that Islam will take power and keep the women behind closed doors, that it will lock the doors of their homes so they can’t come out. Such talk and such myths come from abroad and God forbid that some of our own youth should be taken in by these. In the earliest age of Islam, women participated in the wars. They were there on the battlefields tending to the wounds of the injured, and many were killed there! Who has told you that women will be locked up? They are free like men. Who says the religious minorities will be maltreated? One of their worries is that these casinos will be closed down. This will happen; the doors to the centres of corruption will be closed. An Islamic government will not allow these cabaret clubs, which have dragged our youth into corruption, to remain open. It is of no concern that these intellectuals, these modernists, support these centres of corruption, an Islamic government will close them down. An Islamic government will change cinema as it is at present, these cinemas today are dragging our youth towards corruption and lewdness, it should not be this way, a cinema should be instructive, it should be morally edifying.

Islam opposes corruption; it is against the corruption of the youth and of Muslims. It is against robbery, it opposes the plundering of the treasury. Islam does not oppose civilisation, it opposes this barbarism, it opposes this corruption that the regime has instigated, it opposes the use of the people’s money in the setting up of casinos on that island somewhere.^{( 543)}

these things will be stopped. If an Islamic government comes to power it will sweep away these effecters of corruption, it will not allow our youth to be corrupted, it will not permit our system of education to be kept in a state of backwardness so that our youth do not develop. Some of these youth who have come abroad to study have told me that (even here) they are not allowed to develop their scientific studies beyond a certain level. Of course, Islam opposes this.

Islam wants men and women to develop. Islam freed women from those circumstances, which existed for them during the age of ignorance of pre-Islamic times. Islam did not serve men to the extent that it did women. You cannot imagine what circumstances were like for women during pre-Islamic times and to what degree their situation improved with the advent of Islam. Today, women are being treated worse than they were during the age of ignorance. At that time, they were regarded as unimportant and today the Shah says that women should be playthings, dolls! Such talk insults the dignity of women. He is mistaken in his beliefs about women. Islam does not want women to be treated as dolls, Islam wants women to have a say in all affairs just as man does, however unlike the Shah, it does not want women to make up, enter society and mingle with men. Islam wants to stop all this. It wants women to preserve their dignity and respect, it wants to give them pride, it wants to stop them from being treated as a mere object. They want to sell women from this man to that man. Islam is against this. Can Islam be said to be against women? Islam did a service for women, which has no precedent in history. Islam raised women up out of that slough and gave her back her pride. Is then Islam against women?

This is all propaganda. They want to separate you from Islam, drive you away from the clergy and steal your wealth. They want to prevent you from progressing in the field of education, they want to rob you of your subterranean wealth and keep you in captivity forever. Today, if the nation does not join hands together and free itself from this captivity, whatever the cost, then the nation will remain captive forever.

Anyone who speaks a word in support of compromise with this man is committing treason against Islam, the Muslims and the country. Take care not to do such a thing, and keep watch over others so that they do not do this either. If at one time someone were to speak a word of compromise, deliver him a blow in the mouth so that he will not make such a mistake again.