Why Are Lifelong Governments and Systems Rejected, Condemned and Doomed to Failure?
In the Name of God
Why Are Lifelong Governments and Systems Rejected, Condemned and Doomed to Failure?
Lifelong governments and systems are the ones in which the ruling system does not recognize any expiration date for itself, and as a result, the nation is deprived of the right to determine its political destiny for good and, along with their future generations, must endure such a system forever, doomed to destruction, social deprivation and … if they ever protest. Among such systems, there are the imperial government and the Islamic government, which do not envisage any end or alternative for themselves and condemn the present and future generations to obey their system. This is undoubtedly a betrayal and violation of the rights of current generations and the next generations in such a way that when people are born, political decisions have already been made for them until the end of their lives, and they only have to look to the hands of the one in power, who will put a morsel of bread in their palms, saying, “Oh, your majesty,” so that they are not left in extreme hunger and deprivation. In other words, in such a system, people find themselves in a situation where, before they are born, a version of a lifelong and permanent political system has been written for them, meaning that the country belongs to certain individuals, including the Shah (king) and his family. Therefore, there is no affinity between lifelong governments and democracy. But if such a claim is made, they should be asked, “Is such a system supposed to be in power for only four years?!”
The Reasons and Causes of the 1979 Revolution
It is an indisputable fact that in ancient times, in all corners of the world, warriors and strong individuals used to take over the affairs of the country through brute force and sit on the throne of power under the name of king and wear a royal crown. Until the last two centuries, with the process of human mental development and the change in the scene of bullying and swordsmanship and the lack of need for bullies and swordsmen, the era of monarchy, which consisted of the domination of a powerful person with absolute dominance, became obsolete. Thus, with such intellectual growth, the experience of the throne, monarchy, and imperial system gave way to intellect-centredness and specialization. Or, if it still continues in some places, it has become symbolic and ceremonial, and kings and emperors have left major national decision-making to the people. With the advent of such an era, in the last two centuries, Iran also turned to the experience of the Constitutional Revolution in order to reduce the absolute power of the Shah and hand over the administration of affairs to the nation, with the Shah having a symbolic role. Regrettably, Iran was unable to implement the Constitutional Revolution, and the Shah refused to cede his absolute power to the nation. As such, the various populations of the nation still had no political role in the administration of the country, and it was the royal decree that continued to determine the fate of the people, and this continued until the 1979 Revolution, as the issue of the absolute power of the Shah and the lifelong rule of the imperial system was one of the reasons for the 1957 revolution because the people, especially the new generation, discerned that they lacked any political influence and that in fact, lifelong and hereditary political systems do not recognize any rights for the nation and everyone must obey royal orders, and if they oppose it, they must leave the country at best. The Islamic regime also cheated the nation very badly by declaring the Islamic Republic and holding a vote during the referendum, and as it was revealed behind the scenes, they had deceived the nation. Because behind the scenes, they imposed a lifelong Islamic government on the people in which everything is subject to the command of the Supreme Leader and deprived the next generations of their inalienable rights, political life, and right to choose. In fact, a hereditary monarchy and imperial system are no different from an Islamic regime with an elected leader, as both commit betrayals and violate the inalienable rights of future generations.
Examining the causes of the 1979 Revolution can be a guiding light to find the right path for the future. This revolution actually began with the Constitutional Revolution. That is, when considering the intellectual growth of human societies in most of the world’s countries, especially in the West, which was the pioneer of modern and intellectual movements, the control of the king’s absolute power was considered. The United States, a newly established country, made a place for itself in many parts of the world, with republics and parliamentary governments, etc., and in some places where the king and emperor were very much an ancient symbol, they became ceremonial officials who did not play much of a role in running the country’s affairs. In Iran, too, the progressive movement began to move away from the absolute monarchy and inalienable kingdom, and with the introduction of the Constitutional Revolution, the National Consultative Assembly was formed, but it was cannonaded by Mohammad Ali Shah Qajar on June 23, 1908 (2 Tir 1287). This event, also known as “Day of Cannonballs”, was carried out on the orders of Mohammad Ali Shah and by the Russian Cossack Brigade under the command of Colonel Vladimir Lyakhov and led to the temporary end of the constitution and the beginning of a new period of despotism. Thus, the Shah’s absolute power remained in full force.
The accession of Reza Shah Pahlavi as the king of Iran was a complex, multi-stage process that took place in the context of the turmoil and weakness of the late Qajar era and with the role of both internal and external forces. Here are the main stages of this happening:
Reza Khan was initially a plain soldier in the Cossack Brigade. Because of his qualities, such as boldness, fearlessness and individual abilities, he rose through the ranks in the Cossack army. He was able to attract the attention of the commanders and gradually achieve higher military ranks. At one point, he was even responsible for the protection of foreign embassies, which indicated his rising status in the army. The coup d’état of February 22, 1921 (3 Esfand 1299) marked a pivotal moment in Reza Khan’s ascent to power. In this coup, which was carried out with the cooperation of Seyyed Zia al-Din Tabataba’i (a supporter of Britain), Reza Khan occupied Tehran as the commander of the Cossack forces. Ahmad Shah Qajar, the last king of the dynasty, was forced to recognize the coup plotters. As a result, Seyyed Zia al-Din Tabataba’i was appointed prime minister, and Reza Khan was given the title of “Sardar Sepah” and became the Minister of War. As Reza Khan’s influence and power increased, he eventually rose to the position of prime minister. By this time, the weakness and incompetence of the Qajar rule had become more evident, and the dynasty was collapsing. With his military and political support, Reza Khan paved the way for the end of Qajar rule.
Finally, in 1925 (1304 Shamsi), with the formation of the Constituent Assembly and the dethronement of Ahmad Shah Qajar, the Qajar monarchy officially ended. The Constituent Assembly then formally handed over the monarchy to Reza Khan and the Pahlavi dynasty. Thus, Reza Khan ascended the throne of Iran under the name of “Reza Shah Pahlavi”. In short, Reza Shah’s rise to power was a product of Iran’s internal weakness; political and social turmoil; Reza Khan’s personal capabilities; and, of course, the (direct and indirect) support of foreign powers, especially Britain. Just as after the end of World War II and revealing Reza Shah’s betrayal of Britain in giving way to the Germans, Reza Shah was exiled to the island of Mauritius by order of Britain, and he showed no opposition or resistance. Although Reza Shah had provided significant assistance to the Allies by building the Trans-Iranian Railway. During World War II, this railway played a vital role in transporting Allied military aid from the Persian Gulf to the Soviet Union, and for this reason, it became known as the “Bridge of Victory”. This is in response to those who believe that Reza Shah served Iran, including by building the Trans-Iranian Railway. While the route was not built for the Iranian people, critics argue that its construction was intended to serve the interests of the Allies and not the Iranian people, even though the Iranian people paid for it. However, the north-south route was chosen, mainly to allow military aid to reach Russia from the south of the country. Some believe that the north-south route of the railway (from Turkman port to the current Ayatollah Khomeini port) was more in the interests of foreign powers (especially Britain and Russia) than of Iran. This is while some experts and politicians of the time (including Dr Mohammad Mossadegh) believed that the east-west route (to connect to India and Europe) could have been more commercially beneficial to Iran.
The beginning of Reza Shah’s conflict with the people through the forced wearing of the Pahlavi hat:
In 1927 (1306 Shamsi), the government of Reza Shah issued a decree requiring all Iranian men to wear a round, brimmed hat called the “Pahlavi hat” instead of traditional hats and turbans. This hat was similar to Western military hats and the French “kepi” hat, and its main difference from previous common hats was that it had a visor on the front. This order was first issued to government employees and then to schools. On the 25th of December 1928 (1307 Shamsi), the National Consultative Assembly passed the “Uniform” Law in the next stage. With the passage of this law, police officers began to enforce it more seriously, and violators were imprisoned for up to seven days. Only clerics and religious students were exempt from this law, with permission from the government. The imposition of the Pahlavi hat was met with widespread resistance and dissatisfaction among the people, especially in traditional and rural areas. Many saw the measure as an invasion of privacy and a violation of their traditions and religious identity. In some cases, such discontent also led to protests and clashes, including the uprising at the Goharshad Mosque in Mashhad in 1935 (1314 Shamsi), which was severely suppressed. The Pahlavi hat itself was a prelude to more profound changes in clothing. In 1935 (1314 Shamsi), with Reza Shah’s visit to Turkey and under the influence of Ataturk’s reforms, another law was passed that replaced the Pahlavi hat with a chapeau (full-brimmed hat) and made European leather shoes compulsory. These changes, along with the 1936 decree to “Unveil the Hijab” (Kashf-e Hijab) for women (1314 Shamsi), were part of a larger plan to change the outward culture of the Iranian people, which in turn triggered a negative resistance against Reza Shah’s decision. Finally, with Reza Shah’s abdication in 1941 (1320 Shamsi) and the occupation of Iran by the Allies, the laws on compulsory clothing, including the Pahlavi hat and the chapeau, were abolished, and the people were once again free to choose their dress. The hat, which was made compulsory for men to wear, met with much resistance and was eventually abolished after Reza Shah’s abdication. This event is a symbol of the conflict between tradition and modernity and the people’s resistance to state impositions in Iran’s contemporary history.
Reza Shah Pahlavi abdicated from the throne on September 16, 1941, and left Iran via Bandar Abbas. On September 27, 1941, he sailed from Bandar Abbas to Bombay aboard the ship “Bandera”. The British government then ordered his exile to Mauritius on September 27, 1941, aboard another ship named “Burma”. He stayed on the island of Mauritius for about five months and then was transferred to Johannesburg in South Africa, where he eventually died on July 26, 1944.
Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi coming to power:
1 – Succession after the exile of Reza Shah (Shahrivar 1320):
* Occupation of Iran by the Allies: In September 1941 (Shahrivar 1320), following the outbreak of World War II and due to Reza Shah’s policies of neutrality and inclination towards Nazi Germany, as well as the need of the Allies (Soviet and British) to use Iran’s route to send aid to the Soviet Union, Iran was occupied by the Allied forces.
* Election of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi: After the exile of Reza Shah, the Allies considered various options for succession, including the return of the Qajars or even a republic. But finally, with the proposal of Mohammad Ali Foroughi (then Prime Minister) and the agreement of the Allies, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who was the crown prince, ascended to the throne. On September 16, he took an oath to uphold the principles of the constitution and constitutionalism in the National Consultative Assembly.
2- Consolidation and integration of power after the coup d’état of August 19, 1953:
* The weakened period of the Shah’s power: After ascending to the throne in 1941, Mohammad Reza Shah did not have much power in the early years. The country was under Allied occupation, and a relatively open political space had been formed, which led to the growth of various political parties and movements. During this period, more power was in the hands of the prime ministers and parliament. However, with the beginning of the movement to nationalize the oil industry and the rise of Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh as prime minister in 1951, a struggle began for control of the government between the Shah and Mossadegh. Mossadegh sought to limit the Shah’s power within the framework of the constitution and was largely successful in this regard.
The Mossadegh movement refers to a series of political, social, and economic developments in Iran led by Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh, the Prime Minister of Iran at the time, in the early 1950s. The most important part of this movement was the nationalization of Iran’s oil industry.
The most important aspects of Mossadegh’s movement are:
* Nationalization of the oil industry: Mossadegh’s most prominent and important action. Prior to that, the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (later British Petroleum or BP) had full control of Iran’s oil industry and was making huge profits, while Iran’s share was very small. With the plan to nationalize the oil industry, Mossadegh and the National Front sought to regain Iran’s sovereignty over its oil resources and use its revenues to develop the country. This action led to an oil crisis with Britain and an oil embargo on Iran.
* Fight against colonialism and tyranny: Mossadegh was a nationalist and legalist who believed in national sovereignty and the strong role of the people. He resisted the influence and interference of foreign powers, especially Britain, in Iran’s internal affairs and believed that the Shah should reign, not rule. This approach pitted him against Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi and led to political challenges and eventually conflicts with the court and foreign powers.
* Social and economic reforms: The Mossadegh government made efforts for economic and social reforms, including social welfare programs, land reforms, and tax increases (including land lease taxes).
In 1953, after a period of conflict between the Shah and Mossadegh, with the support and guidance of the British intelligence agencies (MI6) and the American intelligence agencies (CIA), a coup d’état was carried out against Mossadegh’s government. This coup was carried out in two stages; in the first stage (25 Mordad, 16 August), the first coup attempt failed due to the resistance of the people and forces loyal to Mossadegh. The Shah left Iran and fled to Baghdad and then to Rome, and he was defeated. But eventually, due to the nationalization of the oil industry and the concerns of Britain and the United States about the influence of communism in Iran (despite Mossadegh being anti-communist), in the second stage (28 Mordad), with the reorganization and support of domestic and foreign agents, the United States and Britain, in cooperation with domestic elements, organized a coup called Operation Ajax or “Operation Boot” that led to the fall of Mossadegh’s government on 28 Mordad 1332 (19 August 1953). The CIA and MI6 paid some thugs (Shaaban Bimokh, Pari Bolandeh and the gang of notorious people, etc.), the military, and the parliamentarians attempted to organize demonstrations and riots against the Mossadegh government, including a mob attack on Mossadegh’s house, which led to Mossadegh’s arrest and looting of his house. With the victory of the coup, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi returned to Iran and took full control of power. The Mossadegh movement is a symbol of Iran’s struggle for economic and political independence and nationalism against foreign powers, which had profound consequences for Iran’s contemporary history. After this coup, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi returned to power, and Mossadegh was arrested, tried, and sentenced to imprisonment and then house detention. Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi issued a decree to dismiss Mossadegh and appoint Major General Fazlollah Zahedi as Prime Minister. After his arrest, Mohammad Mossadegh was tried and sentenced to three years in prison, after which he spent the rest of his life in exile in the village of Ahmadabad, Karaj.
After the successful coup of 28 Mordad (August 19) and the return of Mohammad Reza Shah to Iran, he gradually consolidated his power. This coup was a turning point in his reign, increasing his authority and reducing the role of the parliament and civil institutions. After the coup, the country’s political space was severely restricted and repressed. Political parties, especially the National Front and the Tudeh Party, were outlawed, and many of their members were arrested, imprisoned, or executed. SAVAK (the State Intelligence and Security Organization) was formed to suppress dissidents.
The coup of 28 Mordad can be considered the end of the peak period of nationalism in Iran, as it paved the way for an era of tyranny and foreign dependence. This coup is an important turning point in Iran’s history that had long-term consequences for the political, economic and social structure of the country. After that, the Shah’s absolute power was restored once again, and another lifelong rule began, which later became a one-party system in which all diversity of the nation were to be members, and, according to the Shah himself, anyone who did not comply with this order had to leave Iran.
Also, the Shah tried to modernize and increase the power of the country by implementing programs such as the “White Revolution” and military development, but at the same time it carried out the suppression of dissidents and the expansion of security apparatuses such as SAVAK. Working on the military forces and creating a very powerful army, especially the creation of a strong air force, was one of his actions. This has been a common feature among all kings and sultans throughout history because it is considered a guarantee of their permanence, and it is with the help of the army and the armed forces around them that the kings all claim to be divine and can instill a sense of permanence and longevity of their rule in the nation. This is apart from the fact that the imperial system was supposed to play the role of the region’s gendarme, a powerful barrier against the influence of communism and the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
The series of anti-Shiite actions that had begun even beforethe Constitutional Revolution always created a wave of opposition between these two groups, against each other, and a constant antagonism was evident. This contradiction was also quite evident during the reign of Mohammad Reza Shah. Especially since all clerics had to pray and praise the Shah in their sermons and speeches, and if this had not happened, the preacher would definitely have faced security issues. Ultimately, however, these factors led to the Khordad 15 Uprising, a pivotal event and a turning point in the contemporary history of Iran that occurred on Khordad 15, 1342 (June 5, 1963) and is known as the beginning of the Islamic movement in Iran. This uprising took place following the arrest of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and in protest against the anti-Shiite policies of the Pahlavi regime.
Ayatollah Khomeini spoke strongly against the Shah’s policies and his dependence on the United States and Israel. In particular, his speech on the evening of Ashura in 1963 (13 Khordad) at the Feyziyeh School in Qom, in which he likened the Shah to Yazid and condemned him for his tyranny and collaboration with Israel, was the peak of these protests. Arrest of Ayatollah Khomeini: Two days after the Ashura evening speech on 15 Khordad 1342 (June 5, 1963), the Shah’s security forces raided his home in Qom, arrested him, and transferred him to Qasr Prison in Tehran. Ayatollah Khomeini was exiled to Turkey and then to Iraq a year after the uprising (1964).
With the news of Ayatollah Khomeini’s arrest, a wave of anger and protests began in various cities of Iran, including Tehran, Qom, Varamin, Mashhad, Shiraz, and Isfahan. People took to the streets and demonstrated with slogans such as “Either death or Khomeini.” The demonstrations in Tehran, especially in Barforoushan Square, reached their peak and were accompanied by bloody clashes between the people and the military and police forces. These protests were bloodily suppressed, and a large number of people were killed and injured. There is no exact figure for the number of martyrs, but some sources have mentioned hundreds and even thousands of people. The bodies of those killed in Tehran were buried en masse in the Mesgarabad cemetery. In addition, many political and religious leaders and activists were arrested and imprisoned. Some, including Tayyeb Haj Rezaei and Esmaeil Rezaei, were also executed.
Ayatollah Khomeini played a pivotal and main role in the formation and leadership of the 15th of Khordad Uprising. Through his speeches, he made the people aware of the nature of the Pahlavi regime’s policies and called on them to fight. His arrest also served as a catalyst for the explosion of popular anger. After this uprising, Ayatollah Khomeini called the 15th of Khordad the “Day of Allah” and considered it a turning point in Iranian history and the backbone of the Islamic movement. Despite the repression, the 15th of Khordad (June 5th) uprising was recognized as the serious beginning of the Islamic movement in Iran led by Ayatollah Khomeini. This uprising showed that the clergy and the people have great mobilizing power and can resist the government. Also, the 15th of Khordad (June 5th) uprising strengthened the position of the religious authorities and the clergy among the people and brought them extensive and deep influence. In addition, this event defeated the reformist movement, which led to the arrest of the leaders of the National Front and the dissolution of the Freedom Movement.
Overall, the Khordad 15 (June 5th) uprising, although seemingly suppressed, sowed the seeds of the Islamic Revolution and paved the way for the victory of the revolution in 1979. This uprising was a symbol of the power of people’s unity and religious leadership against imperial tyranny.
It should be noted that Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi appointed Baha’i compatriots to the majority of military, civil, ministerial, and economic positions in the administration of the country. Although the Baha’i people themselves believe that they reached these positions and ranks due to their capabilities and abilities, this was considereseriousreat slander for the Shiite clerical community of Iran. Mohammad Reza Shah even called himself “Khodaygan” (godlike) to increase the slander and was addressed as the Khodaygan, the Shah of Shahs Arya Mehr, the great army commander.
But in the years before the revolution, with inflation of several hundred percent (according to the video of Mohammad Reza Shah’s explanations), we were a mere importer, completely importing wheat and barley, sugar, oil, raw materials for all industries, including detergent industries, etc. We had an assembly industry (and Hoveyda, in a recorded video speech, said that intellectuals were clueless: we have money, so we buy and import). The country became a completely import-dependent and needy land. But the claims were that we had reached the gates of a great civilization. While many parts of Iran had no water, no electricity, and no roads and were living in slums (as many of them still are in the same conditions).
But the issue of calling the Shah a god was, on the one hand, a great insult to the consciousness of the Iranian people at that time and showed that the nation was nothing compared to the godliness of the Shah of Shahs (but only a servant, a slave, etc.) and on the other hand, the lifelong rule of the Shah sent the message to the generation of that time and future generations of Iran that the nation, especially the future generations, had no right to political choice and were condemned to endure that system forever, and the ruling oppression did not allow any protest. So that the political groups opposing the system at that time all had to choose the “armed policy” (the slogan: ‘The only way to liberation is the armed battle’). Because there was no possibility of unarmed political activity, or, in other words, it was useless. Because no one could speak up if intending to peacefully save Iran’s political system from a lifelong, hereditary, one-party, and ceremonial system. In fact, all lifelong regimes consider the country their own, as if by virtue of their own existence and the generosity of their family, they are allowing the nation to eat a morsel of bread, survive, and serve. Of course, on the condition that the nation does not speak up (as a young man at that time, I bear witness to these matters with my flesh and blood and am ready to prove it.) Although I received two royal awards in the last year of Abbas Hoveyda’s prime ministership in the prime minister’s palace (1977, 1355) and the following year from Jamshid Amouzegar (1978, 1356) as the next prime minister in the prime minister’s palace. But at that time, I did not consider myself to have any right to political choice and simply had to bow down and eat a bite of bread, which naturally was not, is not, and will not be compatible with my spirit. The imperial system considered the entire country to be its own and had all the economic arteries in its hands, and, in the form of the Alborz Foundation and the Ashraf Foundation, it had absolute dominance over all economic activities in all fields. All these issues and other problems together caused the people to think about getting rid of this situation and demand the right to political choice and sovereignty over their own destiny, which eventually led to the 1979 (1357) Revolution, and the fire under the ashes of several decades of tyranny suddenly flared up. However, after the victory of the 1979 Revolution, they were deceived about the interim government and the trust they placed in the transitional government group, who were also deceived by the words and statements of Ayatollah Khomeini declaring that the clergy would not have any political position in the administration of the country’s affairs. It was claimed that the Islamic Republic would come to power and it would be presented to the people’s votes, that it would take over the administration of affairs for four years and then participate in the next elections again, and… all were lies and deception, and the people were fooled. Because behind the scenes, they were orchestrating a lifelong Islamic rule in which they seized the right of future generations to make political choices and trampled on their legitimate rights in advance with this single-party lifelong government. In this case, the only difference between the Islamic system and the imperial system is that the lifelong Islamic government has not been hereditary, although, of course, the discussion of it becoming hereditary is now more or less being raised, in which case this system is also an imperial system in another way. Only the type of clothing and the political discourse have changed and altered. Here, it is necessary to pay great attention to the role of the interim government or the transitional council and the fact that it can pave the way for another dictatorial regime. Otherwise, another big blow will fall on the Iranian nation. In this regard, the first red flag is the acceptance of lifelong governments such as the Islamic regime and the imperial system, and the second red flag is the acceptance of individual leaders, especially self-proclaimed leaders, who certainly have no goal other than the seizure of power.
With this in mind, it can be easily concluded that if Shahanshah Arya Mehr had respected the Constitutional Revolution and accepted that, as in the time of Mossadegh, the authority to govern the country was more in the hands of the people; if he had not called himself a god; if he had not spent the capital of the Iranian nation on courtly ceremonies; and… the Iranian nation would not have made a revolution, and as a result, we would not have been in this deplorable situation now. Personally speaking, I consider the current deplorable situation to be the result of the wrong policies and behaviors of the previous regime.
To be continued…
Mohammad Ali Taheri
The Founder of Erfan Keyhani Halgheh School & Taheri Peace Organization
Toronto, June 25, 2025 / 5 Tir 1404
