Saturday
Jul312010
Iran Analysis: Looking Back on the 1980s (Verde)
Saturday, July 31, 2010 at 6:28 
In recent weeks, one of the effects of the post-election crisis in Iran has been a look back at the early history of the Islamic Republic. In June, Mostafa Tajzadeh wrote an open letter asking for forgiveness for actions taken by reformists in the 1980s. This week, Mir Hossein Mousavi --- before his 1988 resignation letter as Prime Minister was published on the website of former President Abolhassan Bani Sadr --- issued an statement to disclose his version of events during the Iran-Iraq War.Mr Verde explains the significance:
No one in the Iranian public knows anything about the decisions taken by politicians and military commanders during the Iran-Iraq War. There has never been any public scrutiny of the decisions taken. There is no independent information available about the actual events.
On the regime side, the narrative is this: “Backed by both the West and the East, Saddam Hussein attacked Iran in order to destroy the revolution, hence the war is called 'jang-e tahmili' (imposed war). The army of Islam fought heroically, hence the war being referred to as 'defa’-e moghddass' (Holy Defence). The whole world supported Saddam and eventually we were forced to accept the ceasefire, which Ayatollah Khomeini referred to as a chalice of poison.”
I am not saying this narrative is entirely false. Of course, Saddam started the war and the Iranian forces fought heroically against the odds on many occasions. My point is that the narrative is tainted by official propaganda. That is far from unexpected, but the problem is that there is no independently verifiable information, with the excuse that this is a "holy" matter, about the official thinking and decisions beyond the propaganda. Some people may be reluctant to question issues regarding the war, because it may appear that they are disrespecting the many servicemen, volunteers, and civilians who were killed during it.
However, this crisis and infighting within the Islamic Republic is producing an unexpected result. The recent revelations were spurred by the claims of Mohsen Rafighdoost, who was Minister of the Revolutionary Guard from 1982 to 1989. He makes it sound like the war was used as a tool for internal in-fighting of the regime: “Mr Hashemi [Rafsanjani, who had been put in charge of the war by Ayatollah Khomeini] told me: go and sit in your Ministry, I want to throw the ball into the court of the Government. He then gave an order that Mr Mousavi [then Prime Minister] became the head of the war effort, Mr Behzad Nabavi became the logistical deputy, and Mr [Mohhammad] Khatami became the propaganda deputy.”
Rafighdoost's implication is that Rafsanjani, knowing that the war effort was in bad shape, wanted to put Mousavi in charge so that once Iran had to accept the United Nations ceasefire resolution --- an acceptance which soon occurred --- Mousavi would be blamed for the failures. Rafighdoost also says that the government of Mousavi was hindering the war effort.
Mousavi responds that when he was put in charge, Iran was indeed in a very bad shape. He claims that in the first War Council meeting that he chaired, the regular Army and Revolutionary Guard commanders told him that Iran would certainly lose the Khuzestan Province to an Iraqi attack. He claims that the bulk of Iranian forces were massed around an unimportant height in Kordestan Province at the time, and even there they were in danger of being outflanked by the enemy.
As for management of the war, Mousavi claims that it had been handled badly since 1982.
At this stage it is impossible to know whose account to believe (maybe a combination of the two?).
A few years ago, after a public quarrel with Mohsen Rezaei, Revolutionary Guard commander in the 1980s, Rafsanjani published a secret message from Khomeini, in which the Ayatollah detailed his reasons for accepting the ceasefire. Unexpectedly Khomeini’s main reason for accepting the ceasefire was a letter from IRGC commander Rezaei. That letter said that Iran did not have any attacking capabilities for at least another five years. Even after that, it would only be possible to win the war if Tehran had hundreds of new planes and tanks and other modern weaponry such as laser-guided missiles and atomic bombs and if foreign powers were stopped from exerting influence in the region. Ayatollah Khomeini said that the Government was unable to support the war effort to this extent and everyone else except Rezaei was of the opinion that the war should be stopped.
I cannot help getting the feeling that officials are using nationally important information for their personal or factional gain, yet one effect of these disclosures is that they will further erode the Islamic Republic's historical foundations. In this crisis, the regime’s important days being tarnished: Qods [Jerusalem] Day in became “not Gaza, Not Lebanon” day, 13 Aban [in November] was a day when the regime's commemoration was so heavily guarded that it looked as if its marchers were prisoners, 16 Azar [National Students Day in December] became an occasion on which universities across the country voiced their protests, the funeral of a Grand Ayatollah Montazeri in the holy city of Qom turned into an anti-Khamenei demonstration, the religious celebration of Ashura [27 December] became a day on which the regime murdered its own citizens on the street, 22 Bahman [11 February] saw Iranian cities turned into military camps, and 14 Khordad [4 June] saw the humiliation by regime insiders of the grandson of Ayatollah Khomeini on the anniversary of his death.
Now the carefully guarded regime-backed version of the Iran-Iraq War is being disputed by regime insiders.
Next chapter to come soon?
Reader Comments (11)
For those who missed it - Mousavi's statement
Opposition Leader Mousavi Reveals Untold Facts of the Iran-Iraq War
http://www.payvand.com/news/10/jul/1240.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.payvand.com/news/10/jul/1240.html
Arshama,
Mr Verde's analysis ends with "Next chapter to come soon?"
If, as he also wrote, "No one in the Iranian public knows anything about the decisions taken by politicians and military commanders during the Iran-Iraq War. There has never been any public scrutiny of the decisions taken.", and people are now finally going to start a public debate about how the war was prosecuted (even if they are only doing so as part of their in-fighting), I certainly hope the use of children as "human waves" against the enemy becomes a "next chapter". Unfortunately, this novel is very, very long.
Catherine,
Independent reports exist, but are simply ignored, and I ask myself why? After all we are discussing this matter on a site, which is not menaced by censorship.
The next chapter is already on the table, i.e. the fact that even 20 years after the war has ended, more than 100.000 Iranian victims of Iraq's chemical attacks did not receive any compensations or adequate health and social care. 20 years means that the reformists have ignored them as well, while the regime has constantly utilised these severely ill persons for their propaganda against western states who had furnished Saddam with chemical plants and commodities, especially Germany.
Jaras reports that AN has refused to implement the relevant law, recently adopted by the Majlis: http://www.rahesabz.net/story/20523/" rel="nofollow">http://www.rahesabz.net/story/20523/
No idea, why Larijani and the hardliners have finally decided to care for chemical victims, but according to Osman Mozayyan, head of the Legal Association for the Defence of Chemical Victims in Sardasht, it is the first law of its kind.
I recently read a report about these victims, who suffer from heavy lung insufficiencies and defacement, forced to stay at home for both reasons and living in misery. Another excellent example for this Holy Republic's Islamic justice!
Arshama
Arshama,
Thank you for providing the information about the use of children in war and other disgraceful acts during the Iran-Iraq war.
It should be noted that with the exception of a few speeches (like the Rafsanajan speech about 12 to 72 year olds, in the Wikipedia article) the Islamic Republic has never provided any report or information of the actual decisions behind the actions in the way; information which could be publicly and independently scrutinized. Furthermore, the regime has not shown any inclination of opening up even parts of its archive to public scrutiny. There is some “information” which is claimed to be from “archives”, but this is just regime’s carefully choreographed propaganda rather shabbily dressed up as “facts”.
The fact is that the Islamic Republic has not provided any independently verifiable information regarding the war.
My point is that while no such information has ever been officially supplied, regime insiders are “leaking” information when it suites THEM. And even then we can’t know for sure if what they are saying is the whole truth, or even if it is true at all. For example, look at the current case: Rafighdosst and Mousavi did not see it fit for the rest of us to know about the “truth behind the curtains” until each wanted to score points against the other now that there is a crisis within the regime.
I think anyone who is of any independent mind, knows very well about the executions (which started right after 22 Bahman 1357 and are still continuing), the child soldiers (for that all you have to do is to go to any war cemetery in Iran and read the dates of birth and dead on the war graves), the bussing of untrained and ill-equipped men to their certain deaths at the front, etc (the list is very longs). Again, it is obvious that the regime has totally neglected the people who were affected by the war (the families of the war dead, the war injured and the civilians who lost all that they had in the war) and instead the country’s wealth was ransacked in the name of helping these people, and the proceeds instead ended up in the pockets of regime officials and their associates (you don’t have to take my word on this point; even Mousavi says this in his reply to Rafighdoost).
The regime has been very careful to leave out from its version of the “history” of the war, everything other than what it thinks are the war’s “glories”. The point is that the current crisis is reach to such a level and to such a depth within the regime, that even this facade is being torn down by regime insiders, but they are still not providing solid facts; just their “version” of it. So in conclusion, the Islamic Republic has not provided any publicly scrutinized and independently verifiable information about the decisions during the war.
As you say: “It is nice to see that even 31 years later such crimes are not worth mentioning.” In fact it is not nice at all.
Regards,
Verde
Mr Verde,
RE "The regime has been very careful to leave out from its version of the “history” of the war ... The point is that the current crisis is reach to such a level and to such a depth within the regime, that even this facade is being torn down by regime insiders, but they are still not providing solid facts; just their “version” of it."
Although perhaps also for political reasons, could this not lead to even more revelations from Iranians abroad who were behind the scenes during the war (or have direct knowledge or evidence of event/decisions) and will have more factual tales to tell? Or do you think all revelations will be tainted or suspect? Aren't there independent historians of any nationality who have investigated the (inside machinations surrounding) decision-making regarding the prosecution of the war?
That new Iranian-adapted version of the Pink Floyd song is really appropos - "Tear down the wall!" I know you would prefer it not to be in order to score points, but isn't it better if the facade comes down once and for all?
Catherine,
Re. “Although perhaps also for political reasons, could this not lead to even more revelations from Iranians abroad who were behind the scenes during the war (or have direct knowledge or evidence of event/decisions) and will have more factual tales to tell? Or do you think all revelations will be tainted or suspect?”
We are seeing that in the case of the 1980s executions (right form just after 22 Bahman 1357 and the early and late 1980s) various revelations are leading to a more complete picture of the events being created. Examples: As you probably know Geoffrey Robertson has produced a report about the 1988 executions (http://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/files/Iran%2520Massacre%2520Report.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/files/Iran%20Mas...) and Abbas Millani has written a book about the imprisonment and execution of Amirabbas Hoveyda. [It should be noted that there is much more information available about the executions than these reports. These include the accounts of families of the executed and the few prisoners who survived, but not much from officials or operatives within the regime, Montazeri being an exception.]
So with the passage of time as information is accumulated we get a more complete picture of events. This is happening with the executions, it is also happening with the war. The regime however does not want these issues to be investigated and it therefore presents its version of the history in a way that major events are just ignored. We had regime insiders like Montazeri reveal some details about some of the executions (for example he did not talk of the executions of the early days of the revolution) , and now people like Rezaii, Rafsanjani, Rafighdoost and Mousavi are revealing some information about the war, but all of these are individual efforts and not a policy. Montazeri revealed information about the executions because he said they were wrong. The people who are at the present time revealing information about the war, are doing do mainly as a means of attacking their opponents or defending themselves (although it should be noted that Mousavi said that the war was managed badly wince 1982, but has not revealed more information about this).
My point is that what we are seeing is another indication of the deepening crisis. Such acts will help deepen the crisis themselves.
Re. “That new Iranian-adapted version of the Pink Floyd song is really appropos - "Tear down the wall!" I know you would prefer it not to be in order to score points, but isn't it better if at least the facade comes down once and for all?”
I’m afraid you are wrong here. I would love it for the “wall” to be torn down. I am NOT saying that I wish people to score points with these things; I am saying that THEY ARE trying to score points. I am merely pointing out the obvious.
I think it is disgraceful for people who have withheld information about the war (and still are doing so) to provide snippets in order to score points. By doing so, they are disrespecting all of those (on both sides of the war) who have suffered. Imagine this: try to place yourself in the place of a war veteran or family member of a war dead. What would you be thinking when you see this sort of political play with the information about the war, about your life or your dead loved one?
I think that the “wall” is being torn down. And it is a good thing. As it is coming down (brick by brick at times) more information is being provided, which despite the danger of it being tainted with dishonesty or politics, will eventually help produce a fuller picture of what actually happened behind closed doors.
In conclusion, I have these points (which I was trying to make in the piece):
- These revelations about the war are a sign of deepening crisis within the regime.
- It is disgusting the way people (on both sides) are revealing the information they have withheld about the war in order to score political points now.
- The better option would have been if the archives – the real archives – were opened up officially (we know this one would not happen; it is therefore wishful thinking on my part)
- The more information - no matter how tainted it is – that is provided, will help in creating a better understanding of actual events in the long run
As you said in an earlier post in this thread, “Unfortunately, this novel is very, very long.”
Regards,
Verde
Mr. Verde, re "Imagine this: try to place yourself in the place of a war veteran or family member of a war dead. What would you be thinking when you see this sort of political play with the information about the war, about your life or your dead loved one?"
Do you have any information how this 'infighting' - to score points - is being received by the people you described?
When visiting Iran I went to the grave yards of the war victims, to get an idea on how massive the toll was. Every Iranian I spoke, was so grateful for my visits: it showed me how much this is still part of the daily life of every Iranian.
Mr Verde,
Thanks as always for your reply. RE "I am NOT saying that I wish people to score points with these things; I am saying that THEY ARE trying to score points."
That was quite clear. Most everything in your posts generally is, actually. I didn't say you wanted people to score points; I said I know you would prefer it if revelations were made for other reasons than scoring points. But you seem to agree that it doesn't matter how the truth comes out, as long as it finally does.
"- The more information - no matter how tainted it is – that is provided, will help in creating a better understanding of actual events in the long run".
RE "I think it is disgraceful for people who have withheld information about the war (and still are doing so) to provide snippets in order to score points. By doing so, they are disrespecting all of those (on both sides of the war) who have suffered."
Yeah, like WitteKr, I've visited quite a few war and martyrs' memorials and cemeteries in Iran and I know what an important place the war and its victims occupies in the Iranian heart and psyche. You seem almost to be in two minds about how much the crisis (in particular the self-serving disclosures) is going to "erode the Islamic Republic’s historical foundations". Are you afraid too much could be torn down?
As for the time it takes for the truth to come out, just look at the worlds of trouble Spanish "super judge" Baltasar Garzón (famous for issuing n international arrest warrant for Pinochet for the alleged deaths and torture of Spanish) got himself into Garzón after he opened an inquiry into alleged crimes against humanity committed by the Nationalist government during the Spanish Civil War and the years that followed the war.
Catherine,
Re. “Are you afraid too much could be torn down?”
I don’t think there is ever “too much” when it comes to tearing down of such “walls”. I think the more that is torn down the better. There is no reason that the truth about the goings on behind the scenes should remain the property of regime officials only, and for them to use it as a tool to further their own causes.
Some might argue that Mousavi is doing this to attack Khamenei and his gang in the current standoff. I say fair enough, but if Mousavi and other former officials had revealed the dreadful truth about the regime handing of things earlier, maybe we would not be in the current mess in the first place.
You either want the truth to come out or you don’t. If you want the truth to be kept from the general public, then you should be happy with the state of affairs in Iran today. Today’s Iran is the result of 3 decades of hiding the truth by the Islamic Republic. If you on the other hand want the truth to come out, then there should be no limit to it. You can’t say, I want the truth, but only “enough” of it to hurt X, but not “too much” because we don’t want Y to be implicated and I definitely want Z to remain a saint!
(In case you’re wondering: X=Khamenei, Y=Mousavi, Z=Khomeini)
Regards,
Verde
WitteKr,
Re. “Do you have any information how this 'infighting' - to score points - is being received by the people you described?”
I have no solid information about this. I think it is too early to be expecting any solid information about the effects of the Mousavi-Rafighdoost argument (in any case, I have a feeling that this episode may be the “effect” of an internal fight, rather than the “cause”, but we’ll have to wait and see).
But there is one indication: many of the people involved in the post-election protests (and those who were/are jailed as a result) are family members of the war dead or war veterans or their families. I think that goes to show, that despite what might be “expected” the regime does enjoy solid support amongst the families of the war dead or the veterans.
As for the war casualties and their families, there is one point to remember. Regime institutions have been pretending to support the families of the war dead and the veterans of the war. But this has only been a charade. The wealth of the country has been plundered in the name of the families of the war dead and the war injured, with the proceeds going to corrupt officials and their cronies (example: in his reply to Rafightoost, Mousavi accuses him of such corruption in Mostazafan foundation). This has resulted in the families of the war dead and the war injured feeling let down by the authorities and the term “families of martyrs” or “war injured” becoming synonymous with corruption in society.
As Arshama pointed out in an earlier post here, the government doesn’t even pretend anymore that it cares about the war injured. It is refusing to implement a law that would help the injured of the chemical attacks.
But despite all these short comings, the regime line has been that the war casualties were a result of aggression on the part of Saddam and the support of the whole world of that aggression. There was no talk on the regime side of incompliance in managing the war effort or incorrect long-term tactics. But now the intra-regime quarrel is revealing sides that had so far been kept hidden by the regime’s war related propaganda: the fact that some of the war strategies (like aiming to capture Baghdad) were plain and simple unachievable and the fact that much of the war effort was mismanaged. Taking this newly available information, it would mean that at least some of eth war casualties (can’t put a figure on it yet) would have died not in the defence of the country or Islam (as they may have seen it) but as a result of regime’s incompetence.
Regards,
Verde
"You either want the truth to come out or you don’t. ... Today’s Iran is the result of 3 decades of hiding the truth by the Islamic Republic. If you on the other hand want the truth to come out, then there should be no limit to it. " etc
Mr Verde - I couldn't agree with you more! And what you say goes for all countries, btw. Let's hope Mr Assange over at Wikileaks gets some submissions from other parts of the world soon....