On October 21, 1978 (Mehr 29, 1357 AHS), Mr Mehdi Bazargan and Mr Nasir Minachi set off for Paris to visit Imam Khomeini. What follows is an account of their meeting as related by Imam’s son^{( 125)} : “Mr Bazargan, Mr Minachi, Dr Ibrahim Yazdi and I went together to see Imam. As he had done many times before, Imam said that the Shah must go, the imperial regime must be destroyed and an Islamic Republic established, adding that the people must be told clearly and openly that these are the aims so that the movement will not be deviated. Mr Bazargan said: The Imperial system has three pillars: the Shah, the army and America. We must follow a step by step policy: 1 - The Shah must reign not govern. 2 - We must make the army and police forces aware that if the Shah attempts to Interfere in the affairs of state, they have to act to stop him. 3 - Later, if it Is in our interests, we will limit America’s role so its Influence in Iran will gradually be severed.’ Imam said: ‘You say that the Shah must reign, but If he does and the people lose their fervour and he once again goes back to his old deeds, what power then is going to motivate the people to rise up again?’ To this they had no reply but asked whether it was possible to defeat the Shah while the army remained in place. Imam replied: ‘the army is with the people. The traitors and army heads must be removed, the rest are with us.’ Nevertheless, Mr Bazargan insisted that his proposals were the best.

“After this meeting, Mr Bazargan went to London where he reiterated his opinions in an interview. His speeches at gatherings of Iranian students in London were met with much criticism and opposition. He remained In London for only a few days and then returned to Paris. Upon his return, Dr Yazdi approached Imam and asked him to meet with Mr Bazargan again. Imam replied: ‘He must accept the aims of the movement, approve them and announce them to the people, then I will agree to see him.’ A few days later, Mr Bazargan had still not altered his stance and thus Imam did not agree to a meeting with him despite repeated requests and disputations that to refuse to see him would cause Mr Bazargan loss of face. Thus, Mr Bazargan left Paris for Tehran without having had a further meeting with Imam. The radical wing of the Freedom Movement abroad issued a declaration agreeing with Imam’s views on the movement in Iran, but in Tehran it was announced that this declaration did not reflect the official stance of the Freedom Movement.

Recapitulating the reasons why Mr Bazargan was chosen to head the provisional revolutionary government does not fall within the scope of this work, but naturally, the matter will be discussed where appropriate in the subsequent speeches of this anthology. Suffice It to say at this point that in one of his proclamations, I mam said: “I confess today, ten years after the victory of the Islamic Revolution, as I have done before, that some decisions made at the beginning of the Revolution as regards entrusting posts or important matters of state to a group of people who did not have a sincere and true belief in the pure religion of Muhammad, may the peace of God be upon him and his descendants, were erroneous and their bitter effects will not be easily eliminated. Although at the time I personally was not in favour of these appointments, still I accepted the Judgements and recommendations of friends.” Imam’s friends at that time believed that, in the light of prevailing circumstances, Mr Bazargan was the best choice for that post.

Although during Imam’s stay in France steps were taken by the French government to restrict his activities, Imam continued to issue declarations and directives and to deliver speeches. On October 18, 1978 (Mehr 26, 1 357 AHS), in a message to the hajj pilgrims, he said: “ . . . the massacres that have occurred in Iranian cities over the past few months have blackened the pages of history. With the support of America and with all the infernal means at his disposal, the Shah has fallen upon our oppressed people, turning Iran into one vast graveyard. General strikes engulf the country, and the Shah wishes to avenge himself on his oppressed people during his last moments.

On October 21, 1978 (Mehr 29, 1357 AHS), the Leader of the Revolution in reply to remarks made by US President Jimmy Carter in support of the Shah delivered two important speeches in which he ridiculed Carter’s supposition that the recent opposition to the Shah had been caused by his quick and decisive implementation of democracy in Iran.^{( 126)} Carter had made these remarks in a press conference at a time when William Sullivan, the US Ambassador to Iran, believed: “The Carter administration had made human-rights practices a touchstone for the nature of its relations with governments around the world. It was generally conceded that the shah’s regime was not a democratic one and that it abused human rights.”^{( 127)}

In his first speech, Imam Khomeini points to the manner in which Riza Khan was brought to power by the British and how later his son, Muhammad Riza, was imposed on the nation on the orders of the foreigners and the Allied forces in Iran at that time, and he asks Carter: . . . “during which of these two Pahlavi periods, and especially this most recent period when this man has moved aggressively to establish democracy, have the members of Parliament truly represented the people?”

In the book Documents from the US Espionage Den, published by the Muslim Students Following the Line of the Imam, it Is stressed that: “For election in Tehran, confirmation of the government and the court was sufficient, active support was not necessary . . . the elected delegates were those whom the Shah wished to see enter government and included women, workers, members of guilds, merchants . . . “ And in another book we read:

“From the time that the Shah’s power became absolute, the Parliament was treated as the rubber stamp of the king.”^{( 128)}

Fully aware that detailed reports on the political situation in Iran reached the American President, imam Khomeini swept aside any intimations of President Carter’s ignorance of the Shah’s true nature, saying: “Mr Carter knows What kind of a person this Shah is, he knows only too well what kind of person has been given the mission...

In his press conference, Carter claimed that the US did not interfere in the internal affairs of Iran. However his Ambassador to Iran, William Sullivan, in his famous book Mission to Iran painted a different picture: “in 1957, after considerable organisational effort by the CIA, the United States government devised for the shah a framework of a modern intelligence system and helped him establish it. It was given the name Sazman-e Ettela’at VA Amniyat-e Keshvar (Iranian State Intelligence and Security Organisation) and, from the initials of this title, soon became known as SAVAK. Recruits who were designated for this new service were given training in intelligence and counter Intelligence methods in the United States and, later, in Israel. They were trained not only in fundamental police work but also in the analysis of Soviet techniques and, above all, in the detection of sophisticated Soviet electronic espionage.”^{( 129)} in this speech, Imam also refers to the establishment of American espionage bases in Iran and asks Carter: “Who has set up these bases in the mountains of Iran? For whom have they been set up? Does this not constitute interference in the affairs of our country? Are not these remarks of yours in themselves a form of interference? Is it not you who oblige the Shah to destroy the country in this manner?” Sullivan in this regard writes: “Whatever the quality of the information exchange, our intelligence collaboration with Iran was more than justified, in Washington’s view, by Iran’s willingness to let us position two major listening posts on Iranian soil overlooking the rocket- and missile-launching facilities that the Soviets maintained in their central-Asian republics. From these stations, we could monitor every electronic activity at those facilities, as well as Soviet military activity in the whole arc of territory facing toward the Persian Gulf. They were essentially simple antennae with tape-recording devices, manned by civilian technicians who lived in barren isolation, but their product was the most sophisticated compendium of military intelligence in the entire watching brief that we maintained on the Soviet threat.”^{( 130)} in his press conference, Carter described the supporters of the Shah as “reformers” and his opponents as a “number of communists and reactionaries.” Carter’s comments emanate from the awareness of the American political elite that the formation of an Islamic government under the leadership of Imam Khomeini would not augur well for American policy in the region. With the prospect of the espionage bases being destroyed in Iran and the American oil companies suffering extreme losses looming high on the horizon, Carter could do no other than adopt the political ruse of portraying a favoured dictator as a ruler meeting unjust opposition because of his quest to “aggressively implement democratic principles” and drag his country along the road of progress!

In the present speech, Imam notes the three main points of Carter’s comments and bases his replies on the reality of the situation in Iran. In response to Carter’s statement that “we have no intention of interfering in the internal affairs of Iran,” Imam says:” . . . you have no intention of interfering? Where haven’t you interfered? What are your advisers doing in our army? . . All these disasters which occur in Iran and in Eastern countries are brought about by the heads of these so-called superpowers.

Carter has made three statements: one is that the Shah has moved quickly and decisively to establish democratic principles in Iran and this, he says, has been the cause of opposition from the leftists and the conservatives; another is that the Shah has formed a progressive society in Iran^{( 131)} and in the third statement he once again repeats that he has no intention of interfering in the internal affairs of Iran^{( 132)} , Now the Iranians themselves must study these remarks and decide whether they have been made for them, for a Western audience, for the American people or for people on another planet!

Well, lets look at his first statement, that the Shah has moved aggressively to establish democratic principles in Iran. Has the situation in the country changed from the time that he opened his eyes in his cradle to an Iran ruled by his father to the time that he himself. Upon he orders of the foreigners and Allies, assumed power and began his rule? Does this democracy, which he has moved aggressively to implement. Or this freedom that he has granted the people “quickly and decisively,” include all these deeds that he has perpetrated throughout his reign? Which of the many Parliaments, the National Consultative Assembly. As they call it, and the Senate, that have come into existence throughout the whole Pahiavi era

- And I have witnessed events from the inception of the Pahiavi rule - have been selected by the people, as is their right, to determine their destiny’? When have the people ever voted in a free and fair referendum’? During which of these two Pahiavi periods, and especially this most recent period when this man has moved quickly to establish democracy, have the members of Parliament truly represented the people? Isn’t it the case that they are ordered into Parliament’? The people believe that it is the Shah who gives the orders as to who should enter Parliament. Hut the reality is that the foreigners give the orders. They give a list of the names of those they want to enter Parliament! The Shah has said himself on several occasions that although this practice is not observed now, it was at one time and that then the embassies provided a list of the names of their chosen delegates, that is those who served them not the people. And he had to oblige them! But now of course the Shah claims that we are no longer subservient to any power.

It is the indisputable right of the people to he able to vote freely and to send the delegate of their choice to Parliament, a right which all the world recognises and which forms the basis of democracy. The destiny of a nation lies in the hands of the representatives in Parliament, and the people themselves should be able to determine their own destiny, indeed the constitutional law has given this right to the people. From the time that the present Shah assumed power, or rather was brought to power, to the present day, has this democracy of his, which according to Carter he implemented aggressively, ever granted the people this indisputable, manifest right of theirs? Have we ever had a representative in the Parliament who truly represented the people? You can go to any city in Iran and ask the people there who the person is who represent them in Parliament, what kind of a person he is. It is a well-known fact that most of the people in Iran Do not even know who represents them in Parliament! This nation should determine its own fate, should appoint its own representatives, but most of the people do not know who is representing them. When you tell them their names, they mean nothing to them! This “aggressive democracy” has robbed the nation of their indisputable, manifest right! Try to find even one city where the people voted freely for their representatives! Take Tehran for example, this is the capital, the political hub of the country, if there is freedom then surely it is to he found there. But none of these Tehran delegates has reached Parliament through the free vote of the people. This is no secret, it is a well-known fact. So who is Mr Carter making these remarks for - the people on the planet Jupiter who know nothing about this world, or for the people on this planet’? If he is speaking for the latter then where in the world isn’t it known that there is nofreedom and democracy in Iran? Which one of the world’s newspapers is not informed of this’! Yes, perhaps many of them write in support of Mr Carter and say that democracy and freedom do exist in the country, that the people have selected their delegates through their votes, hut they are aware that this is not true, just as Mr Carter is. Mr Carter knows what kind of a person this Shah is, he knows only too well, what kind of person has been given the mission, he knows the problems the people have to suffer.

This covered one aspect of freedom and democracy: the indisputable right of the people to vote. Now let’s take a look at another: freedom of the press. Whatever the newspapers of Iran wrote, they did so on the orders of “His Imperial Majesty Aryamehr”; they never voiced the opinions of the people, they simply sang the praises of the Shah. The press now say that they were never free! Even the regime’s own newspapers now say that they have never been free to write what they wanted. They are not allowed to be free now either. Throughout the years of his reign - we are not concerned with that of his father here which was either worse than this or just the same - when has he ever allowed freedom of the press? Which one of the newspapers that Iran has had from the very beginning of his reign, when the Allies bestowed the monarchy upon him and imposed him on the Iranian nation, has been free and it was His Imperial Majesty who made it free? He says that now he has granted freedom of the press, but what about a year ago? If now he says he has made it free, then obviously, we did not have freedom of the press a year ago. So he is a criminal, he’s a traitor. Even according to the logic of Carter, this man who wants to make him appear innocent and exempt from blame, he’s a traitor!

Carter says that the Shah has now moved aggressively to implement democracy and this is the source of opposition to him. But he has only recently decided to grant the nation this quick, decisive democracy, as the Shah himself said: “We want to grant freedom to the nation.” Will no one stand up and ask him: “Who are you to grant freedom to the people? Their freedom is supposed to be secured by the Constitution, now you want to grant it to them? Who are you to grant freedom?” Your rule is illegal, you should never have ruled. Even if we suppose that your rule is legal, all the time that you have sat on your usurped throne you have governed, never was any government in the country empowered to do anything, you did it all, thus the responsibility for all the crimes lies on your shoulders. Carter says that you have now granted freedom to the people and implemented an aggressive democracy; this means that freedom and democracy did not exist previously and the country was administered through force. This is in itself a crime and according to the law the person who bears all the responsibility should be tried before the people, he shouldn’t be allowed to escape, he should be grabbed and put on trial for all the bloodshed he has caused and for depriving the people of their freedom. He should be made to answer for his crimes.

The newspapers in the country then were never free and neither were the radio and television, the two other mediums used for propaganda purposes. These two organs were never allowed to speak the truth either. When the Shah violates the law, when he murders the people, can they say that the Shah has done this? When have the media dared to say that the Shah gives the commands. Even now, they say that it is the government, which is responsible, or it is the fault of the police or due to martial law.

This is all nonsense. It’s the fault of this man. Even in defeat he 1’ continues with his deeds. The police are not concerned about the people’s demonstrations, they are ordered to stop them. They all say they are just carrying out orders. Those we spoke to after the attack on the Fayziya Madrasa in Qum, when the students were beaten and some even killed, told us that the attack was carried out on the orders of His Imperial Majesty; even the police in Qum said this. And this was the truth, he ordered the attack and up until the present day all the atrocities that have been perpetrated in this country have been done so on the orders of His Imperial Majesty. No one else is responsible other than him. What kind of freedom do the people have in this media?

Carter says that the Shah has given the people a “quick freedom” and a “quick democracy!” He has given the people so much freedom now that they have had enough and are shouting out against it because his democracy has been so quick! The leftists and rightists are now complaining to the Shah, their argument being that he wants to grant freedom and they are opposed to this, they do not want it...! What these people really mean when they take to the streets and call for freedom and independence is that they do not want freedom and independence! The Shah wants to give them freedom and independence but they are shouting that it is not what they want! They are showing their opposition in this way! This interpretation issues from what we read in the newspapers. Carter has said that because the Shah has moved aggressively to establish democratic principles this has been the source of much opposition to him from the conservatives and leftists, as if he has granted freedom and now the different political groups and the various factions are opposed to it and are asking: “Why have you granted us freedom?” The people too oppose him for giving them freedom! This is Carter’s logic concerning the freedom, which the Shah has given the nation.

Now what about this progressive country he has created, this progressive attitude he has towards social problems? Mr Carter claims that the Shah has set his country on the road to progress and that this has been another source of opposition to him; that this has always been a source of opposition to him! Mr Carter’s understanding of the meaning of progress seems to be totally different from ours. Otherwise, how can a country in which everything has been destroyed be described as progressive? Wherever you look in the country, you can see what the Shah has brought about by the tenets of this “White Revolution” of his, as he calls it. According to him, his White Revolution has destroyed the feudal relationship which existed between the landlord and the peasant, indeed he says landlords and peasants no longer exist^{( 133)} ! There are, as he has repeated on numerous occasions, only villagers and free men and free women^{( 134)} ! But in fact, these villagers, these poor people are those who have lost all their means of livelihood (because of this White Revolution). These “land reforms” have completely destroyed the country’s agriculture. Agricultural production in the country is now only sufficient to meet the needs of the nation for thirty-three days of the year, food has to he imported from abroad to satisfy demand for the rest of the year. As for these other institutions that he has set up, the Literacy Corps^{( 135)} , the I-Do not-know-what corps,^{( 136)} the Religious Corps^{( 137)} , the people know why they have been created, they know why this Literacy Corps has been sent into the rural areas: to sing the praises of the Shah, to spread falsehoods, to make the people believe that they should all obey the Shah and that “the command of God and the command of the Shah” are one and the same^{( 138)} .

Everything that this man has done in the country has driven it further and further into a state of backwardness. He does not allow a virtuous person to exist in our country, he is afraid of true human beings, he is afraid that if a virtuous person is found he will stand up to him and his regime and ask them why they are doing these things. This is why he and₁his lackeys Do not let the people select their own representatives because they know that the elected representatives would stand up to them and question what they do in the country. They know that elected representatives wouldn’t let the government do just whatever it wanted, they would interrelate. They wouldn’t let the Shah do whatever he wanted, they would stop him, they would object, they would ask him to explain. So obviously, he won’t allow the people to send their own representatives to the Parliament.

Where is this progressive country, this progressive society that we do not know about, that we have not been told about? Where has he caused this country to prosper? He has turned this country into nothing other than a base for others; he has allowed others to dominate us. America is now involved in all aspects of our lives. Is this what you call a “progressive country?” The first sign of progress in a country lies in its independence, in it being able to provide for its needs without help from others. Is our country independent? America dictates to us from one direction and the Soviet Union from the other. America digs its claws deep into the depths of our oil wells while the Soviet Union does the same to our gas supplies. In what way is this country progressive’! Which one of our universities is progressive? Where is our educational system progressive? Do we have a progressive army? Can an army, which is under the command of American advisers, be called our army? According to the way Carter thinks, surrendering everything the country has to him represents progress. Of course Carter, who is an oil-devourer, must say that the country has progressed. He wants the oil, he’s devouring our oil, of course he must say such things.

Now let’s move on to Carter’s third remark. Of course, all three of his remarks demand more explanation than this, but you yourselves know enough about these matters and so it is not called for here. His third remark was that America has no intention of interfering in the affairs of Iran. So, Mr Carter, you claim you have no intention of interfering? In what have you not interfered? What are your military advisers doing in our army? Why have they come here? To do what? Who has set up these bases in the mountains of Iran? For whom have they been set up? Does this not constitute interference in the affairs of our country? Are not these remarks of yours in themselves a form of interference? Is it not you who oblige the Shah to destroy the country in this manner? Do you not interfere in the affairs of the country at all? The Shah himself has said that lists of names were given to the regime. Of course, now he claims that this practice does not occur any more, but he’s lying, even now these lists are sent to the regime. Even now, the parliamentary delegates are selected from their lists. “I will not interfere!” You are talking about a country in which the people are aware of their situation; they know what is being done to their country and what has befallen them. “I will not interfere!” Why is he saying that he won’t interfere? The Iranians know that he interferes, the world’s media know that Mr Carter, and whoever becomes president in America, will interfere in the affairs of our country and prevent us from standing on our own two feet.

We have no independence, we are not free, the people are in no way free and the press is still not free. Martial law does not allow the press to speak out. Why do not these newspapers, that now claim to enjoy freedom, write about what the Shah is doing? If you look at all the newspapers, there is not one word written therein which says that the person perpetrating all these crimes is the Shah himself. He is the one who has committed these crimes from the beginning of his rule until the present.

The day that the pillars of this regime crumble, the press will speak out, but for now they are afraid because now the country is under the control of a martial-law government which will either close down the newspaper that speaks out or execute its employees. How can you claim that there is freedom and progress? It’s ridiculous to say that this opposition has come about because the Shah wishes to give the people freedom and set the country on the road to progress. Is Carter really saying that all this uproar the people are creating in the streets, all their cries of protest, are because the Shah wants to give them freedom and they Do not want it! What a ridiculous statement to be made by anyone, let alone the President of a country! They have written about this in the newspapers and no one remarks on its absurdity. It appears that these are simply idle remarks, because everyone knows about the situation in Iran.

All our problems are caused by the heads of these nations, the heads of these governments. All these disasters, which occur in Iran and in Eastern countries, are brought about by the heads of these so-called superpowers. These powerful countries seek to dominate the weaker nations and rob them of their natural wealth. They devour their oil while the weak nation goes hungry; they exhaust their mines while the people go hungry; the people live on top of these large oil deposits yet they go hungry. This is the logic of these great “superpowers” such as the Soviet Union and America and the like. This is how they want it to be, but we do not want it to be like this.

Our first step must be to change the present situation in Iran. The Shah, the government, the ministers and the representatives have all been imposed on this nation, the people did not select their representatives; the members of the Senate have not been appointed by the people to the extent that they should have been. When the Parliament has been appointed without the vote and consent of the people, then it is not legal because according to the constitutional law, the Parliament should be voted for by the people. If the Parliament is illegal then the ministers that are appointed, the Prime Minister who is appointed, are also illegal, and all the agreements that they sign with other countries, whether with America or elsewhere, no matter what kind of agreements they are, be they oil or arms agreements, are null and void. For according to our Constitution, the fundamental principle of government is that the Parliament should Sanction the government, it should vote on their policies, but when Parliament has not been voted for by the people, then the foundation of government contravenes the law and consequently all agreements made contravene the constitutional law⁽¹³⁹⁾.