• 2 February 2010
  • Posted By Layla Armeen
  • Events in Iran

The anniversary of the Islamic Revolution, February 11, is commemorated in Iran as a day to recognize the Iranian people’s stand against all forms of dictatorship.  That day 31 years ago was one of the bloodiest of the Iranian uprising that toppled the Pahlavi dynasty and its dictatorial regime. This year, the government expects massive popular protests to erupt as Iranians continue to hijack official government holidays to demand their rights and demonstrate their frustration with the disputed June 2009 election that put Mahmoud Ahmadinejad back in office for another four years.

In a recent interview on his website Kalameh, Mir Hossein Mousavi, one of the main speakers for the opposition movement, discussed how elements of dictatorship have not been eradicated from the Iranian power structure, even after the Islamic Revolution. Mousavi stated that a theocratic totalitarianism is the darkest form of dictatorship man has seen in history, hinting that the “revolution” has not reached its goals and is therefore incomplete.  He went on to say that people should be the decision makers in their social and political journey and not the unelected officials who are currently in charge.

Mousavi’s remarks, coming at a time when tensions are at their highest level between the Iranian government and the Iranian people, are a unmasked call to stand up to the status quo. One could go a step further and interpret his comments as a suggestion that a revolution remains in progress as the anniversary of the Islamic Revolution approaches.  Mousavi said “the “revolution is not completed because dictatorship still exists.”

Posted By Layla Armeen

    3 Responses to ““Revolution is not Completed; Dictatorship Still Exists””

  1. Rob 1 says:

    Very deep and powerful interview. It puts to rest the IRI-manufactured fantasy of the typical IRI apologist that Moussavi, Karroubi and other opposition leaders are backing down. Here is the continuously updated translation of the interview:


  2. Eric says:

    Well duh Moussavi. The dictator and the little henchman are still in power.

  3. Publicola says:

    The interview is an excellent sort of taking stock of the present political concepts of the “green” democratic and social movement, assessing some past, but momentous events and features (which might be interpreted as a way of dealing with issues having arisen since the movement’s post-election beginning) :

    The Iranian revolution under Khomeini, its contents, methods, outcome and results have to be scrutinized, put to the test, if not questioned;

    military and armed forces are not to be fought via military or terroristic means, but must somehow be won over (example of the Shah-military quoted);

    the existing political scene can and must be won over by the social and political movement (the “Greens”)

    the “green” movement is a new type of movement: it is not a separate political party to be identified as such, but a broad political and social movement which develops independently of any supposed leader-figures via broadly-based democratic discussions, ideas and decisions;

    the movement’s clientele are all Iranian citizens, but in particular the disadvantaged lower social classes supported by the intellectually and creatively active spectrum of the population;

    the “green” movement is constitutional and one of its main political weapons is its insistence upon the observance of the constitutional rights, rules and regulations, in other words and in particular:

    • the freedom of the press
    • “habeas corpus”,
    • court trials deserving that name
    • questioning of the death sentence
    • freedom, justice and a (an Islamic) republican system
    • social justice as part and parcel of political freedom
    • the strict observance of the Montequieuan separation of the powers of the the legislative, the executive and the judiciary force
    • religion not to be (mis)used and/or instrumentalized by the executive power(a cautious approach towards the separation of state and church/religion)
    • forcing and pushing back the unconstitutional infringement of the legislative and judiciary power by the security and military forces
    • strengthening of the reliability and stability of the various administrative institutions within their constitutionally fixed functions
    • the strict adherence to the constitution does not foreclose any future consensual amendments to the constitution

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Sign the Petition


7,350 signatures

Tell Google: Stop playing Persian Gulf name games!

May 14, 2012
Larry Page
Chief Executive Officer
Google Inc.
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, California 94043

Dear Mr. Page:

It has come to our attention that Google has begun omitting the title of the Persian Gulf from its Google Maps application. This is a disconcerting development given the undisputed historic and geographic precedent of the name Persian Gulf, and the more recent history of opening up the name to political, ethnic, and territorial disputes. However unintentionally, in adopting this practice, Google is participating in a dangerous effort to foment tensions and ethnic divisions in the Middle East by politicizing the region’s geographic nomenclature. Members of the Iranian-American community are overwhelmingly opposed to such efforts, particularly at a time when regional tensions already have been pushed to the brink and threaten to spill over into conflict. As the largest grassroots organization in the Iranian-American community, the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) calls on Google to not allow its products to become propaganda tools and to immediately reinstate the historically accurate, apolitical title of “Persian Gulf” in all of its informational products, including Google Maps.

Historically, the name “Persian Gulf” is undisputed. The Greek geographer and astronomer Ptolemy referencing in his writings the “Aquarius Persico.” The Romans referred to the "Mare Persicum." The Arabs historically call the body of water, "Bahr al-Farsia." The legal precedent of this nomenclature is also indisputable, with both the United Nations and the United States Board of Geographic Names confirming the sole legitimacy of the term “Persian Gulf.” Agreement on this matter has also been codified by the signatures of all six bordering Arab countries on United Nations directives declaring this body of water to be the Persian Gulf.

But in the past century, and particularly at times of escalating tensions, there have been efforts to exploit the name of the Persian Gulf as a political tool to foment ethnic division. From colonial interests to Arab interests to Iranian interests, the opening of debate regarding the name of the Persian Gulf has been a recent phenomenon that has been exploited for political gain by all sides. Google should not enable these politicized efforts.

In the 1930s, British adviser to Bahrain Sir Charles Belgrave proposed to rename the Persian Gulf, “Arabian Gulf,” a proposal that was rejected by the British Colonial and Foreign offices. Two decades later, the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company resurrected the term during its dispute with Mohammad Mossadegh, the Iranian Prime Minister whose battle with British oil interests would end in a U.S.-sponsored coup d'état that continues to haunt U.S.-Iran relations. In the 1960s, the title “Arabian Gulf” became central to propaganda efforts during the Pan-Arabism era aimed at exploiting ethnic divisions in the region to unite Arabs against non-Arabs, namely Iranians and Israelis. The term was later employed by Saddam Hussein to justify his aims at territorial expansion. Osama Bin Laden even adopted the phrase in an attempt to rally Arab populations by emphasizing ethnic rivalries in the Middle East.

We have serious concerns that Google is now playing into these efforts of geographic politicization. Unfortunately, this is not the first time Google has stirred controversy on this topic. In 2008, Google Earth began including the term “Arabian Gulf” in addition to Persian Gulf as the name for the body of water. NIAC and others called on you then to stop using this ethnically divisive propaganda term, but to no avail. Instead of following the example of organizations like the National Geographic Society, which in 2004 used term “Arabian Gulf” in its maps but recognized the error and corrected it, Google has apparently decided to allow its informational products to become politicized.

Google should rectify this situation and immediately include the proper name for the Persian Gulf in Google Maps and all of its informational products. The exclusion of the title of the Persian Gulf diminishes your applications as informational tools, and raises questions about the integrity and accuracy of information provided by Google.

We strongly urge you to stay true to Google’s mission – “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful” – without distorting or politicizing that information. We look forward to an explanation from you regarding the recent removal of the Persian Gulf name from Google Maps and call on you to immediately correct this mistake.



Share this with your friends: