In reviewing Iranian reactions to the Obama election and emerging team, I came across a recently translated report of comments made by Iran’s still influential Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani on November 4th — on the anniversary of takeover of the US Embassy by Iranian students in 1979. Ordinarily, such days are filled with chants of “Marg Bar Amrika” (death to America).
Yet on this occasion, 29 years later, Rafsanjani, son of the revolution, flatly questions the taking of the Embassy as a mistake.
I’ve been tracking Rafsanjani since his days as Iran’s Parliamentary Speaker, and my first oped in the Christian Science Monitor in 1989 focused squarely on his capacity then as President and as a pragmatic revolutionary to control Iran’s “hardliners.”
Today, as chairman of Iran’s important Expediency Council, Ayatollah Rafsanjani remains as wily and “interesting” as ever; one year he’s the bane of the reformists; another he’s their presumed ally in reversing the tide against presumed radicalism.
He’s also taken writing histories of the revolution, via books and long sermons. Self-serving no doubt, he’s provided a rich haul of controversial insights, in the process pushing Iranians to reconsider critical junctures and mistakes made along the revolution’s course. Rafsanjani’s revisionist streak has raised, if not fully answered, key questions concerning numerous sensitive subjects:
*how the velayat-e faqih system became enshrined in Iran’s constitution;
*the fateful decision to pursue the retreating Iraqi armies into Iraq in 1982;
*how he helped win the release of the US hostages in Lebanon;
*how Khomeini was persuaded to accept the “poisonous chalice” of ending the war with Iraq.
Yet despite past revelations, I am still struck by Rafsanjani’s bald observation that the student takeover of the US Embassy in Tehran can now be criticized, not praised. As reported by the Fars News Service (translations in both BBC and WNC data bases), Rafanjani was speaking at Sharif University at an event to review the “achievements, dangers and opportunities” of the Iranian Revolution — at the advent of its 30th Anniversary.
Rafsanjani’s specific comments on the embassy takeover arise amid an apparent listing of the revolution’s mistakes, including a cultural revolution which “purged” needed University professors:
“Not everything during the Cultural Revolution was in our hands…. Even Mr [Ali] Khamene’i and I knew nothing about the occupation of the den of espionage. At that time, we were in Mecca and at 12.00 at night we heard a report on the radio that the den of espionage had been occupied and that [Mehdi] Bazargan [the Prime Minister in the Provisional Government] had resigned. Therefore, certain things were done at that time that now we can criticize and say that such and such a step should not have been taken…. Of course, at that time, the country was not in an orderly [monzabet] state and a permanent government was not in place.”
While Rafsanjani excuses himself from that step (storming the US Embassy) which “should not have been taken,” we have no indications that he invoked the usual defenses of students fearing 1953 being repeated. (the Shah being restored by the CIA to the Iranian throne) To the contrary, we have Rafsanjani the “pragmatist” matter-of-factly recognizing that certain actions taken during the revolution’s course had negative repercussions for Iran — for the revolution.
Simple, yet profound — and pregnant with possibilities for the future of US-Iran relations.
So happy some one is trying to find positive things to report. Who else admits having made a mistake? Keep up the good work, Helena.
Abbas, hi. Actually it was Scott writing. But I’m sure he’ll read your compliment.
Hi Abbas/Helena. Of course, this entire realm of the diplomatic hostage crisis continues to haunt US-Iran relations, particularly from the American side. Last decade, former President Khatami did repeatedly express regret over the crisis. As I recall, he took considerable flack inside Iran for doing so, just as many in the US criticized him for couching such expressions of regret in the context of Iran’s own grievances with the US, e.g., to 1953.
Speaking of which, both former President Clinton and especially US Secretary of State Albright did indeed make an effort late in their tenures to express understanding for Iranian resentments over US actions in 1953. Those were also extraordinary remarks at the time.
Whether those comments, or those of Khatami and now Rafsanjani, constitute “apologies” sufficient for all is an open question — yet I find them quite remarkable and encouraging.
such days are filled with chants of “Marg Bar Amrika” (death to America).
Excuse me Helena is this mistake here?
Iranian Mullah chants same one for years not just in those days, isn’t?
I love the United States! They can violently invade and destroy a country, flattening entire cities, turning millions of human beings into destitute, homeless refugees, and tearing apart societies that have taken millennia to develop, but let another country “invade” their embassy space and take a few hostages, and they are outraged, simply outraged, and even decades later continue to demonize every aspect of the offending country and refuse to accept any conciliatory gesture.
WHAT a country!
Go ahead and criticize the USA, the policies, it’s war….
Meanwhile we can will guess at the inference of what he is really saying (and what he will stand behind), because in Iran one of its top leaders still has to infer and dance around what he is really saying.
And what is he really saying if he doesn’t actually say it? Tomorrow he can define it totally different. Giving accolades to this type of language, I’ll agree it is a step in the right direction, but it is premature. I look forward to when an Iranian leader can criticize the revolution as easily as he can say -Quote “Death to America.” Do you know if he may have actually said/chanted this?…. Does anyone know? Or can anyone definitively report he has never said it? No problem saying that throughout the world… what a shame.
To Salah’s query, my general impression has been that the sloganeering about “death to America” has become increasingly rare, even on Friday “sermon” sessions with this or that hardline speaker. They have tended to get trotted out for various “events” in commemoration of key early Revolution events — such as the takeover of the “den of espionage.” (Even then, they’ve been less prominent)
John – not sure what you’re referencing at end of your post. Rafsanjani, in step with “the Leader,” has recently referenced the US again as Iran’s “enemy.” Much intense verbiage still out there — and even Iranian reformists (and pragmatic conservatives) remain quiet suspicious of just what the election of Obama portends…. (esp. with Hillary “obliterate” Clinton as SoS)
Last thing — for Shirin — without disagreeing with you, of course the reason why even Iranians might retrospectively deem the embassy takeover as a “mistake” was that it left the country, the budding revolution, with precious little sympathy (“international legitimacy”) in the eyes of the world. Saddam Hussein, among many, saw it, and calculated he could get away with invading Iran and settling a few scores…. (and indeed, the UNSC sat on its hands and did very little — further feeding iranian sense of the world being on the side of “the aggressor”….)
Saddam Hussein, among many, saw it, and calculated he could get away with invading Iran and settling a few scores…. (and indeed, the UNSC sat on its hands and did very little — further feeding iranian sense of the world being on the side of “the aggressor”….)
Don’t take my statement in nay way as a justifying for lunatic Saddam and his stupidity. But the fact Scott and many continuously saying Iraq invasion of Iran?
For Iraq there were no intentions from Iraq to invade Iran, there were borders disputed tween Iraq and Iran (Shat Al-Arab “ Revere of AL-Arab) south in Basra). Iraq and Iran agreed in 1975 what it called Algiers Agreement during shah time when Shah Iran stop support the Kurds in return Iraq accepted Shah Iran request to push out Khomeini from Najaf. When he was represent threat to Shah regime, so Shah Iran for his best interest he requested from Iraq the deportation of Khomeini out of Iraq.
There was another thing that not picked by international media and not widen reported is Iranian early day before the war started were shilling Iran villages and town near the borders in area close to Diyala Province and (Missan) Amara.
So in fact the aggression stating by Iranians first but not picked in international media
Anyway in same talk’n her in 2003 we saw real invasion of country by US were UNSC playing best tool to proceed the invasion which still after six years. This what invasion is and this where (“international legitimacy”) should be discussed.