[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 188 (Tuesday, November 28, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2241-E2246]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       IRANIAN REGIME PROVEN TO BE MAJOR VIOLATOR OF HUMAN RIGHTS

                                 ______


                      HON. JAMES A. TRAFICANT, JR.

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, November 28, 1995

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, the Iranian regime has proven to be a 
major violator of human rights, particularly those of women in Iran. 
The present regime of Iran is the world's leading state-sponsor of 
terrorism, has adamantly worked to subvert the peace process in the 
Middle East, is vigorously pursuing an ambitious nuclear program, and 
has used every opportunity to interfere in the internal affairs of 
other nations. This has gone on for 15 long years. There must be an end 
to this misery for the people of Iran and relief for the rest of the 
world.
  Experience has shown that change must come from within. The Iranian 
people have demonstrated that they seek a different course than their 
rulers. Demonstrations, riots, and strikes in Iran within the past year 
further testify to their reality. Meanwhile, the National Council of 
Resistance of Iran, as the only alternative to the present regime, has 
declared that it seeks a democratic, pluralistic and secular Iran.
  In March, on the anniversary of International Women's Day, I stated 
in this chamber that the clerics' number-one enemy is a woman: Maryam 
Rajavi. She was elected by Iran's parliament-in-exile as the future 
president of Iran. The unprecedented participation of women in the 
resistance is the best testimony to the movement's democratic nature.
  Recently, Mrs. Rajavi, whose headquarters are in Paris, paid a visit 
to Norway, where she was warmly received like a head of state. She met 
with leaders of all major parties, spoke at the Foreign Relations 
Committee of Norway's parliament, and attended a Sunday prayer service 
at Oslo's most famous church, where she was received by a high official 
of the Norwegian Church. She also attended an enthusiastic gathering of 
1,500 of her supporters is Oslo, and addressed dignitaries at the City 
Hall. In this speech, she outlined the goals and objectives of the 
Resistance she leads, and eloquently spoke of her vision for a 
democratic and peace-seeking Iran of tomorrow.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is extremely important for our leaders and 
citizens to better acquaint themselves with her views. In addition, 
Norway must be lauded for its firm stance against the Iranian regime, 
and its support for Maryam Rajavi. I, therefore submit a copy of the 
text of Mrs. Rajavi's speech, to be printed in the Congressional 
Record.

  Text of the Remarks by Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, The Iranian Resistance's 
            President-elect, Oslo, Norway, October 31, 1995

       Ladies and gentlemen, dear friends, I would first of all 
     like to thank Mr. Lingas, Mrs. Nybaak and all those in the 
     Committee in Defense of Human Rights in Iran for all the work 
     they have done to defend the rights of the Iranian people.
       It is a source of great pleasure to be among the leading 
     thinkers, intellectuals and representatives of a nation which 
     for many years heroically resisted against foreign occupation 
     and the reign of Hitler's fascism, liberated itself and 
     instituted a society which is doubtless one of the most 
     advanced democracies in the contemporary world. It is a 
     society wherein women have a leading role in guiding its 
     affairs, in and of itself the most realistic and best 
     hallmark of democracy in today's world.
       I am therefore confident that I am speaking to an audience 
     which well understands the suffering of an enchained nation 
     of 70 million, who for the last 16 years have been subjugated 
     by a brutal religious fascism that has eliminated all 
     vestiges of democracy and popular sovereignty. Norway's 
     policy of distancing herself from the conventional 
     conciliatory approach to the Khomeini regime, and paying heed 
     to human rights and the resistance in Iran, assures our 
     people that democracy and justice have an adamant advocate in 
     today's world. The formation of the Norwegian Committee in 
     Defense of Human Rights in Iran itself best reflects this 
     commitment to and respect for the principles of human rights 
     and justice by Norway's political, cultural, social, artistic 
     and literary personalities.
       Allow me to use this opportunity to outline the issues 
     which, in my view, must be considered by the international 
     community. What is transpiring in my fettered country, Iran, 
     namely the reign of the mullahs' medieval religious 
     dictatorship, not only represents a national catastrophe for 
     all Iranians, but is also a source of a global problem and 
     danger threatening stability and peace the world over.
       Firstly, the mullahs have extended their state-sponsored 
     terrorism across Asia, Africa, the United States, and Europe, 
     including Germany, Switzerland, Italy, France and Norway.
       Secondly, the clerics are exporting the cultural and 
     political dimensions of fundamentalism, especially to Islamic 
     countries and various Muslim societies. This is followed by 
     an expansion of the fundamentalist extremist networks.

[[Page E 2242]]

       Thirdly, they oppose peace and advocate turmoil everywhere, 
     as reflected in their regime's enmity to the Middle East 
     peace process.
       Today, virtually everyone is aware of the crimes 
     perpetrated by Khomeini's anti-human regime within and 
     without Iran. You know that the clerics have executed 100,000 
     of the best youth of my country purely for political reasons, 
     for opposing the ruling dictatorship, and for defending 
     freedom and democracy. The names and particulars of 16,000 of 
     them have been complied in this book. The victims include 
     intellectuals, university students and faculty, high school 
     students, teenage girls, pregnant women, elderly women, 
     businessmen, merchants and even dissident clerics. In many 
     cases, several members of a single family have been executed. 
     Many more have been subjected to the most barbaric, medieval 
     tortures.
       Nor is the appalling predicament of women under the 
     mullahs' rule a secret. Inconceivable atrocities are 
     committed against women on the pretext of combating improper 
     veiling. Everyday, thousands of women are lashed, sent to 
     prisons or viciously assaulted and insulted. These crimes 
     are unprecedented in other areas of the globe. The rulers 
     of Iran brazenly carry out hideous crimes under the banner 
     of Islam. According to Khomeini's fatwa, virgin girls are 
     raped by the Revolutionary Guards prior to execution to 
     prevent them from going to heaven. Those condemned to 
     death have their blood drained before execution.
       The export of terrorism, fundamentalism and belligerence of 
     this regime, under the banner of Islam and revolution, is 
     another well-established fact. It is evident in the regime's 
     insistence on perpetuating the unpatriotic war with Iraq, 
     which lasted some eight years and left millions dead or 
     wounded and $1000 billion in economic damages on the Iranian 
     side alone; in its enmity to Middle East peace; in its 
     interference in the affairs of Islamic countries; in its 
     decree to murder foreign nationals; and in its more than 100 
     terrorist operations throughout the world. The echo of these 
     despicable-criminals' bullets still lingers in this city.
       And it is clear to everyone that the regime has adopted 
     policies of setting up intelligence, propaganda and terrorist 
     networks in other countries; allocating astronomical funds to 
     procure conventional arms, and biological and chemical 
     weapons of mass destruction; and especially of endeavoring to 
     obtain nuclear weaponry--all to back up the export of 
     fundamentalism and to secure the survival of the religious 
     dictatorship.
       I shall refrain from further elaborating on the regime's 
     crimes and conspiracies. In the time that I have, I wish to 
     address a pivotal issue: How to confront this regime and the 
     fundamentalism and terrorism it fosters. This issue is key, 
     because on the international level, all approaches and 
     policies vis-a-vis the mullahs' religious, terrorist 
     dictatorship have proven futile. Indeed, in many cases they 
     have been taken advantage of by the regime, which has been 
     the only party to benefit from them.
       For many years, particularly following Khomeini's death, 
     Western countries indulged in a guest for a moderate current 
     within the regime. They pinned their hopes on improving the 
     regime's behavior through economic engagement. 
     Simultaneously, a number of big powers invested in a policy 
     of appeasement in an attempt to ingratiate themselves with 
     Tehran, and prevent the export of terrorism to their own 
     countries. Consistent with this approach, the official 
     European policy toward Iran today is one critical dialogue. 
     The experience of the past 16 years has confirmed, however, 
     that none of these policies has borne fruit. They have failed 
     to have any impact on the conduct of this international 
     outlaw.
       A symbolic and quite fitting example is the inhuman and 
     anti-Islamic fatwa against Salman Rushdie. About seven years 
     have passed since the decree was issued. All European efforts 
     to change the status quo through dialogue, discussion and 
     economic and political incentives have proven futile. 
     Khomeini's successors have time and again reiterated that the 
     decree must be implemented. For seven years, the regime has 
     used the Rushdie affair as a bargaining chip in seeking more 
     concessions from the West. The atrocities that this regime 
     perpetrates against its own citizens are beyond description. 
     Needless to say, the moderation of such a regime is but a 
     mirage.
       It is ironic that when even the Khomeini regime's first 
     prime minister, Mehdi Bazargan, acknowledged in an interview 
     with the German daily Frankfurter Rundschau in January that 
     the mullahs have the support of less than five percent of the 
     Muslim people of Iran, and lack both religious and social 
     legitimacy, the international community nevertheless allows 
     Tehran to promote their evil anti-Islamic, anti-human 
     objectives among Muslims elsewhere, turn Western countries 
     into hunting grounds for their opponents, and blackmail 
     European countries by staging terrorist operations on their 
     soil to promote their evil anti-Islamic, anti-human 
     objectives among Muslims elsewhere, turn Western countries 
     into hunting grounds for their opponents, and blackmail 
     European countries by staging terrorist operations on their 
     soil. Indeed, the extensive economic and political support 
     provided by a number of countries, coupled with the kowtowing 
     by certain circles to the terrorist mullahs' political 
     blackmail, have been instrumental in prolonging this regime 
     and delaying the establishment of democracy in Iran by the 
     Iranian people and Resistance.


          misperceptions about mullahs, source of appeasement

       In my view, beyond economic interests or fear of 
     terrorism--which in many cases justify and give impetus to 
     them--these misguided policies and drastic miscalculations 
     stem from the lack of a correct, objective understanding of 
     the nature of the Khomeini regime, and of the roots and 
     extent of its fundamentalist, backward outlook. For precisely 
     this reason, these countries lose sight of the regional and 
     international implications of their approach. This 
     misperception of the regime's durability is compounded by a 
     comparable deficiency in objective appraisals or knowledge of 
     the legitimate, democratic alternative to this regime, which 
     is capable of bringing democracy to Iran.
       Although there are fundamental differences between the 
     Khomeini regime and Hitler's fascism, in terms of their 
     political, economic and military capabilities, a parallel may 
     nonetheless be drawn with the conciliatory treatment of 
     Germany by some European countries in the years preceding the 
     Second World War. This policy of acquiescence, embodied in 
     the Munich agreement of 1938 or the relations between the 
     Soviet Union and Hitler's Germany until even the first or the 
     second year of the war, stemmed from the notion that certain 
     concessions at the expense of other countries, who were 
     abandoned in their Resistance against fascism, would stop 
     German expansionism. Hitler benefited greatly from the 
     policy, which enabled him to advance his goals.
       Today, due to the experience of the past 16 years, a more 
     profound understanding of the clerical regime's nature has 
     emerged and, in a few cases, a more realistic policy has been 
     adopted. Here, allow me, on behalf of a Resistance movement 
     which for 16 years has waged an all-out cultural, ideological 
     and political struggle against this regime, to briefly share 
     with you our knowledge and awareness of this regime. This 
     understanding and our consequent principled policies have 
     enabled us to resist against the most ruthless dictator of 
     contemporary history and prevent him from casting us aside. 
     In fact, we have experienced continuous expansion and growth.
       Misperceptions of the regime have not only led to mistaken 
     policies by the international community. For the same reason, 
     many Iranian political parties and groups regrettably failed 
     to stand up to this religious, terrorist dictatorship, 
     surrendered to it, or were eliminated altogether from the 
     Iranian political landscape.


                   the notion of the velayat-e faqih

       In reality, the outlook and conduct of Khomeini and his 
     regime neither belong to our age, nor compare to most 
     dictatorships that have emerged in the twentieth century. 
     This regime represents the most retrogressive form of 
     medieval, sectarian dictatorship. Having failed to alleviate 
     any of Iranian society's problems or needs, it is attempting 
     to impose itself under the guise of Islam on the people of 
     the world, especially Muslims.
       The mullah's religious dictatorship is based on the 
     philosophy of Velayat-e Faqih, presented in its present form 
     for the first time by Khomeini. He explains his views in his 
     book, ``Islamic Rule or Velayat-e Faqih,'' written in the 
     1960s. His theory is based on the one hand upon imposing 
     absolute authority over the populace, and on the other upon 
     extending this authority to all Muslims, i.e. ``exporting 
     revolution.''
       In his book Khomeini states: ``The Velayat-e Faqih is like 
     appointing a guardian for a minor. In terms of responsibility 
     and status, the guardian of a nation is no different from the 
     guardian of a minor.'' These are Khomeini's exact words. 
     During his reign, he repeated several times that if the 
     entire population advocated something to which he was 
     opposed, he would nevertheless do as he saw fit.
       He went as far as to write: ``If a competent person arises 
     and forms a government, his authority to administer the 
     society's affairs is the same as that of Prophet Muhammad. 
     Everyone (meaning Muslims everywhere) must obey him. The idea 
     that the Prophet had more authority as a ruler than His 
     Holiness Imam Ali [the first Shi'ite Imam], or that the 
     latter's authority exceeded that of the Vali is incorrect.''
       With these words, Khomeini granted himself the same 
     authority as the Prophet of God, but he did not stop there. 
     Twenty some years later, in 1988, he wrote an open letter, 
     published in the regime's dailies, lashing out at some views 
     suggesting that ``government authority is contained within 
     the bounds of divine edicts.'' Khomeini wrote: ``. . . The 
     Velayat takes precedence over all secondary commandments, 
     even prayer, fasting, and the hajj . . . The government is 
     empowered to unilaterally abrogate the religious commitments 
     it has undertaken with the people . . . The statements made, 
     or being made, derive from a lack of knowledge of divinely 
     ordained absolute rule . . .''
       In this way, Khomeini propagated the notion of the Velayat-
     e Motlaqeh Faqih (absolute rule of the jurist), something 
     which his heirs and theoreticians within the regime went to 
     extremes to stress. Mullah Ahmad Azari-Qomi, one of the most 
     authoritative theoreticians of the Velayat-e Faqih notion, 
     wrote: ``The Velayat-e Faqih means absolute religious and 
     legal guardianship of the people by the Faqih. This 
     guardianship applies to the entire world and all that exist 
     in it, 

[[Page E 2243]]
     whether earthbound or flying creatures, inanimate objects, plants, 
     animals, and anything in any way related to collective or 
     individual human life, all human affairs, belongings, or 
     assets . . .''
       This world view, as practiced by Khomeini and his regime, 
     culminates in absolute ruthlessness and oppression when 
     dealing with the issue of women. Azari-Qomi writes about the 
     marriage of virgin girls thus: ``Islam prohibits the marriage 
     of a virgin girl without the permission of her father and her 
     own consent. Both of them must agree. But the Vali-e Faqih is 
     authorized to overrule the father or the girl.'' In other 
     words, the Vali-e Faqih can forcibly marry a girl without her 
     own or her father's consent. In this way, this regime not 
     only applies maximum political suppression on the citizenry, 
     but interferes in the most personal affairs of their lives, 
     from compulsory veiling to varied forms of discrimination 
     against women, to banning smiles and stoning women to death.
       Misogyny is the most fundamental feature of the Velayat-e 
     Faqih, and the structure of the clerical regime's system 
     rests upon de-humanizing women. As far as women in the work 
     force are concerned, their opportunities are less than 10% of 
     those of their male counterparts. This ratio decreases as the 
     quality of the job or its political nature increases. No 
     women manage the affairs of the society, particularly its 
     political leadership. The regime's constitution absolutely 
     and unequivocally bans women from judgeships, the presidency 
     and leadership.
       All evaluations and laws within this regime are based on 
     the precept that women are weak and the property of men, for 
     which reason they have no place in leading or managing the 
     society. A woman must stay at home, rear children and cook, 
     the tasks for which she has been created.
       The official, legal deprivations and restrictions, and even 
     statistics represent only a small part of the gender 
     apartheid. Its more significant aspect is in the spirit of 
     the anti-human relationships emanating from this regime, to 
     the extent that one woman wrote in a state-controlled daily 
     that it makes women regret that they were created as women in 
     the first place. Indeed, it is these relationships which 
     force women, especially young women, to set themselves on 
     fire in utter despair under the mullahs' reign.
       The mullahs' misogyny has given rise to horrifying crimes. 
     The wholesale execution of thousands of women, even pregnant 
     women, is unique to this regime. The flogging and torturing 
     of women in public, execution methods such as firing bullets 
     into their wombs, the ``residential quarters'' in prisons 
     designed to totally destroy these defenseless women, and the 
     multitudes of tortures and atrocities invented by the 
     mullahs, demonstrate the unparalleled savagery of their 
     enmity toward women. Why does the regime so barbarously and 
     relentlessly suppress women? What explains the clerics' 
     misogyny?
       The foundations erected by Khomeini's religious despotism 
     and the installation of the regime's suppressive institutions 
     and forces have been fortified by promoting and reinforcing 
     gender-based distinctions and discrimination. In the name of 
     religion and such pretexts as improper veiling, the clerics 
     suppress women, eliminating them from the social scene.
       This enmity toward women is not, however, merely a by-
     product of the mullahs' reactionary beliefs. If the clerics 
     show the slightest laxity in their misogyny and gender-
     apartheid, allowing women to enter the social arena free of 
     the reactionary restrictions unique to this regime, the 
     mullahs' suppressive organs and institutions throughout 
     society would lose their raison d'etre. The clerical regime, 
     a religious dictatorship, would subsequently lose its 
     vitality, because the dynamism and conduct of the repressive 
     forces in defending the theocracy is, before anything else, 
     rooted in safeguarding gender-distinctions under the pretext 
     of defending ``Islamic rule.''
       As far as the regime's foreign policy and the export of 
     terrorism are concerned, both Khomeini and his successors 
     pursue specific goals, unequivocally defined. Following 
     Khomeini's death, Rafsanjani stressed: ``Islamic Iran is the 
     base for all Muslims the world over,'' adding that Khomeini 
     ``truly and deeply hated the idea that we be limited by 
     nationalism, by race, or by our own territory.'' Elsewhere he 
     says: ``Iran is the base of the new movements of the world of 
     Islam . . . The eyes of Muslims worldwide are focused here . 
     . .''
       The book Principles of Foreign Policy of the Islamic 
     Republic of Iran, published by the Iranian regime's foreign 
     ministry, states: ``Islam recognizes only one boundary, 
     purely ideological in nature. Other boundaries, including 
     geographic borders, are rejected and condemned.''
       After Khomeini's death, his son Ahmad said: ``Islam 
     recognizes no borders . . . The objective of the Islamic 
     Republic and its officials is none other than to establish a 
     global Islamic rule . . .''
       The mullahs ruling Iran dream of a global Islamic 
     caliphate, much like the Ottoman Empire. They say the Islamic 
     revolution will suffocate within Iran's borders and cannot be 
     preserved without the export of revolution. Mohammad Khatami, 
     Rafsanjani's former Minister of Islamic Culture and Guidance, 
     who is also known as a moderate within the regime, writes: 
     ``Where do we look when drawing up our strategy? Do we look 
     to bast (expansion) or to hefz (preservation)?'' Particularly 
     after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the mullahs refer to 
     the split between Trotsky and Stalin in the 1930's, noting 
     that developments in the Soviet Union proved the validity of 
     Trotsky's theory of a ``permanent revolution,'' and that the 
     only way to preserve the Islamic regime is to foment Islamic 
     revolutions in other countries. The slogan of ``liberating 
     Qods (Jerusalem) via Karbala,'' with which Khomeini continued 
     the Iran-Iraq war for eight years, reflected the strategy of 
     ``bast.''
       Ali-Muhammad Besharati, the current Interior Minister and 
     former Deputy Foreign Minister, stresses that ``the third 
     millennium belongs to Islam and the rule of Muslims over the 
     world.'' By Muslims, of course, he means none other than the 
     mullahs. Mohammad-Javad Larijani, a key foreign policy 
     advisor to Rafsanjani, said: ``The true Velayat-e Faqih is 
     in Iran. This Velayat is responsible for all of the Muslim 
     world. . . One of its objectives is expansion. . .'' 
     Larijani is one of the regime's roving ambassadors who 
     engages in a great deal of posturing for the Europeans. 
     Rafsanjani recently sent him to Europe for some deceitful 
     maneuvers concerning the Rushdie case. Khamenei's latest 
     emphasis that the Jews must be expelled from Israel and 
     Israel annihilated are also an extension of this policy.
       I must emphasize here that the mullahs' outlook and 
     theories about government and Velayat-e Faqih cannot be 
     viewed as an interpretation of Islam. They are the first to 
     offer such a criminal reading of Islam. This is unprecedented 
     in Islamic history. Even many traditional clerics, more 
     senior than or on par with Khomeini in Qom and Najaf 
     seminaries, were strongly opposed to the Velayat-e Faqih 
     perspective. In reality, the mullahs interpret Islam solely 
     in terms of the needs and interests of their dictatorship.
       The fact is that Khomeini and his clique lack any 
     historical or political ability to govern a big nation with 
     several thousand years of history and a rich culture. To stay 
     in power, they see themselves as increasingly compelled to 
     employ repression and religious tyranny insider the country, 
     and export terrorism and fundamentalism, in an effort to 
     expand the geographic sphere of their influence. For this 
     reason, after Khomeini's death, contrary to all expectations 
     that his heirs would pursue a ``moderate'' path, they were 
     forced to fill the void of Khomeini's charisma, the unifying 
     element which gave the regime religious legitimacy, with 
     greater suppression and export of fundamentalism. The 
     Rafsanjani regime's record of terrorist activities abroad and 
     interference in Islamic countries and the affairs of Muslims 
     elsewhere is far worse than when Khomeini was alive.


           how did khomeini become a national & global threat

       Allow me to also refer to how the regime is taking 
     advantage of Iran's cultural, political, human and geo-
     strategic potential in pursuing its evil objectives:
       For 14 centuries, since the advent of Islam, Iran and 
     Iranians have always played a key role in shaping and 
     advancing the policies and cultural identity of the Islamic 
     world. Iranians wrote most books on Shi'ite and Sunni Figh 
     and Hadith, on Arabic grammar and on interpreting the Quran. 
     In philosophy, logic, mathematics, medicine, astronomy, 
     chemistry and other sciences of the era, Iranian scientists 
     led the Islamic world. The books of Avecina, the renowned 
     11th century philosopher and physicians, were translated into 
     many languages and taught in Western universities until 
     recently.
       With an eye to Iran's vast land mass, geo-political 
     position, population and many other factors, the country 
     enjoys an exceptional position in the Islamic world. In the 
     last 14 centuries, it has had a tremendous impact on Islamic 
     countries. The mullahs have made maximum use of this 
     potential to export their fundamentalism and advance their 
     objectives. In other words, if a regime much like Khomeini's 
     has assumed power in any other Islamic country, it would not 
     have enjoyed such stature. It is not without reason that 
     Larijani says Iran is the only country capable of leading the 
     Islamic world. This explains why the clerical regime in 
     Tehran serves as the heart of fundamentalism throughout the 
     world, just as Moscow did for communism.
       Many fundamentalist currents existed in Iran or elsewhere 
     before Khomeini's ascension to power, but they were nothing 
     more than isolated religious sects. With the establishment of 
     an Islamic reign in Tehran, they were transformed into 
     political and social movements, and into serious threats to 
     peace, democracy and traquillity.
       In fact, the Khomeini regime uses propaganda, political, 
     financial, military and ideological assistance, and beyond 
     all these, its status as a role model and as a regional and 
     international source of support, to direct Muslims' religious 
     sentiments toward extremist and undemocratic trends. The 
     mullahs exploit Islam's spirit of liberation and its call for 
     justice and freedom, to further their medieval rule. Instead, 
     consistent with the experience of the Resistance, the 
     sentiments of Muslims and Islam's freedom-seeking spirit 
     could have been and can translate into a modern and 
     democratic movement which, while respectful of Islam, aspires 
     to a secularist, pluralist form of government.


                           what's to be done?

       So far, I have referred to the internal and international 
     conduct of the Khomeini regime. Now, I wish to address the 
     solution.

[[Page E 2244]]

       On the basis of our 16-years of experience in the struggle 
     for democracy, the only solution is to offer a political and 
     cultural alternative to the Khomeini regime. I say political 
     because this alternative must overthrow the regime and 
     replace it with a democratic, secular government. The head of 
     the viper is in Tehran and unless crushed there, there is no 
     hope of uprooting fundamentalism.
       I say cultural because this alternative must present a 
     democratic Islam, with a peaceful, tolerant culture 
     compatible with science and civilization, to confront the 
     mullahs' Velayat-e Faqih theory. Only thus can it prevent the 
     mullahs from imposing themselves as the representatives of 
     Islam in the minds of the people of Muslim countries.
       Even before Khomeini's rule, we understood the danger of 
     the Velayat-e Faqih, because we knew the mullahs and Khomeini 
     intimately. While in prison in the final months before the 
     shah's fall, the Mojahedin leader, Mr. Massoud Rajavi, 
     repeatedly pointed to backward religious currents as the main 
     threat to the democratic anti-shah movement and warned 
     against the dangers of religious fascism. In 1979, Khomeini 
     succeeded in usurping the leadership of the Iranian people's 
     antidictatorial revolution, relying on marja'iat (religious 
     leadership) for religious legitimacy, deceit and the people's 
     lack of experience and awareness. The shah's widespread clamp 
     down on organizations fighting for freedom, including the 
     arrest and execution of their leaders, assisted Khomeini 
     along the way. Relying on the overwhelming support of the 
     people, who longed for freedom and independence, he became a 
     dangerous force which destroyed everything in his path.
       From the onset, the Mojahedin, as a democratic Muslim 
     force, saw it incumbent upon themselves to expose Khomeini's 
     demagoguery and false portrayal of Islam. They thus 
     represented a cultural, ideological and political challenge 
     to the ruling mullahs, and embarked upon a relentless 
     campaign to explain the facts to the people. For the first 
     time, there was a cultural alternative to the Khomeini 
     regime.
       What we knew of Islam, the Quran and the life of the 
     Prophet of Islam (peace be upon him) was totally contrary to 
     the behavior of the new rulers. Like all great religions, 
     Islam is the religion of compassion, tolerance, emancipation 
     and equality. The Holy Quran often states that there is no 
     compulsion in religion. In so far as political and social 
     life are concerned, it stresses consultation, democracy and 
     respect for other people's views. Islam seeks social 
     progress, and economic, social and political evolution.
       Fourteen centuries ago, when people in the Arabian 
     peninsula were burying their girl children alive, Islam 
     accorded women equal political, social and economic 
     identities and independence. The Prophet of Islam profoundly 
     respected women. The first Muslim was a woman, and four out 
     of the ten original Muslims were women.
       After two and half years, the Resistance's endeavors paid 
     off. Cracks appeared in Khomeini's religious legitimacy, and 
     his use of the weapon of Islam began to lose its effect. No 
     longer did the people view Khomeini and the ruling mullahs as 
     infallible. To prolong his rule inside the country, Khomeini 
     had resorted to a blatant crackdown. Everyone knew that the 
     Mojahedin, the largest opposition force seeking freedom, were 
     Muslim themselves and that Khomeini's quarrel with them was 
     not over Islam, but over preserving his dictatorial rule. Our 
     message defended political freedoms and the people's 
     individual and social rights, and opposed dictatorship and 
     the regime's misuse of Islam.
       Mr. Rajavi lectured on Islamic teachings in one of Tehran's 
     largest universities in 1980. 10,000 university students and 
     intellectuals took part every week, and tapes and transcripts 
     were distributed in the hundreds of thousands. The discourses 
     exposed Khomeini's reactionary views promulgated under the 
     banner of Islam, discrediting him among the religious youth. 
     In a ruthless onslaught to curb the extensive influence of 
     the Mojahedin in all universities, in spring 1980 Khomeini 
     closed down all universities for the years to come on the 
     pretext of a cultural revolution. For our part, we have 
     continued our efforts in this respect as one of our 
     primary tasks.
       Another of the fundamental aspects of this cultural 
     struggle has been to target the heart of the clerics' 
     Velayet-e Faqih culture, namely the issue of women and 
     mullahs' ultra-reactionary, misogynous treatment of them. In 
     this regard, we did not stop at simply exposing the clerics. 
     In other words, our women, in diametric opposition to 
     Khomeini's culture, advanced through unprecedented effort and 
     activities and assumed heavy responsibilities at the highest 
     levels of the Resistance.
       With its unique perspective on this issue, the Iranian 
     Resistance succeeded in incorporating women in the front 
     lines of the movement and in the highest levels of military 
     command, as acknowledged by most observers. In the political 
     arena as well, we are witnessing the ascension of women to 
     important political positions. At the organizational and 
     management levels, the highest positions are occupied by 
     woman who have shown that when given the opportunity, they 
     can excel in assuming responsibility. Today, 52% of members 
     of the Resistance's parliament are women. Women fill the 
     majority of positions within the National Liberation Army's 
     high command. The leadership of the Mojahedin consists of a 
     24-member, all women council. The women of the Resistance 
     have thus proven that, just like men, before all else it is 
     their human qualities and consequent social and political 
     abilities which count. They have righteously overcome all 
     obstacles in performing their duties.
       Hence, a glance at the regime and the Resistance quickly 
     reveals two distinctly opposite cultures. Diametrically 
     opposed to the Khomeini regime, whose very existence depends 
     on their suppression and elimination of women, the victory 
     and advancement of the Resistance would have been impossible 
     without woman and their role in the leadership and command. 
     The first to attest to this fact are the male activists, 
     combatants, and commanders, who are best aware of the 
     glorious path that has been traversed.
       It is also significant that the Resistance's elimination of 
     the most persistent and profound form of discrimination 
     against the most oppressed sector of society, namely women, 
     and its fostering of relationships among people which allow 
     women to attain their legal and social rights, is the best 
     guarantee for democracy and pluralism in the future Iran.


                        a democratic alternative

       Obviously, we did not stop at introducing a cultural 
     alternative, we also gradually established a political 
     alternative. In 1980, during the first presidential 
     elections, Massoud Rajavi was a candidate for president. All 
     religious and ethnic minorities, the youth, women, and 
     opposition groups and parties supported Mr. Rajavi's 
     candidacy. Sensing the danger, Khomeini issued a fatwa a few 
     days before the election, banning him as a candidate because 
     he had not voted for the Velayat-e Faqih constitution. 
     Several months later, during the elections for parliament, 
     the Mojahedin and other democratic forces announced a joint 
     slate. This time, despite the many votes cast for them. the 
     regime prevented even one of the Mojahedin candidates from 
     taking office through widespread rigging. In each of the 
     election rallies of the Mojahedin in Tehran and other cites, 
     hundreds of thousands took part.
       In the first two and a half years of Khomeini's rule, the 
     Pasdaran (Revolutionary Guards) killed 50 supporters and 
     members of the Mojahedin in the streets. They arrested 
     several thousand, subjecting them to brutal torture. The 
     regime also dispatched gangs of club-wielders into the 
     streets to clamp down on dissidents. In contrast, the 
     Mojahedin did not fire a single bullet, relinquishing their 
     legitimate right to self-defense to prevent more violence and 
     bloodshed. The Mojahedin's goal was to resolve the political 
     problems through peaceful means.
       On June 20, 1981, in protest to the repression, the 
     Mojahedin organized a peaceful demonstration. In a short span 
     of time, some 50,000 Tehran residents joined the march. 
     Khomeini issued a fatwa to suppress the demonstration. Guards 
     opened fire indiscriminately, and hundreds were killed or 
     wounded. Thousands were arrested and executed the same night 
     in groups of several hundred.
       Khomeini and other officials of his regime had realized 
     early on, even before the overthrow of the shah, that the 
     Mojahedin could stand against both a religious and political 
     dictatorship, due to their freedom-seeking and tolerant 
     interpretation of Islam and their popularity and social base. 
     In other words, the Mojahedin were the antithesis to the 
     clerics. In summer 1980, several days after Mr. Rajavi spoke 
     to 200,000 Tehran residents in Amjadieh sports stadium, 
     condemning the slaughter of the Mojahedin and dissidents in 
     other cities, Khomeini reacted by saying that the enemy was 
     ``neither in the Soviet Union, nor in the United States, nor 
     in Iranian Kurdistan, but right here--in Tehran.''
       In reality, the religious dictatorship was trying to 
     portray democracy and popular sovereignty as contrary to 
     Islam. In consequence, it could suppress any democratic 
     initiative on the charge of being anti-Islamic. The mullahs 
     relied in this tactic on the people's unawareness. Khomeini 
     was, however, well aware that the Mojahedin would thwart his 
     pretenses about Islam and religious legitimacy. Thus, he 
     spared no effort against the Iranian Resistance, because he 
     knew that if could eliminate us, he could overcome his other 
     problems and stabilize his rule. Among the crimes the 
     Khomeini regime perpetrated to destroy its main enemy, I can 
     mention his order for the mass execution of all members and 
     supporters of this Resistance, purely for being affiliated 
     with the movement, his declaration that their lives and 
     properties are fair game, and the assassinations of the 
     Resistance's activists abroad.
       In this way, Khomeini, who in 1979 was welcomed as a 
     religious and political leader by millions in Tehran, 
     continued after June 20, detested, only through the force of 
     the bayonet, torture and execution. The people, meanwhile, 
     were chanting death to Khomeini. As such, the only avenues 
     which remained for the freedom-seeking and patriotic people 
     and forces was to rid themselves of the mullahs to establish 
     democracy.
       In order for the Resistance for freedom to achieve 
     maturity, a political alternative--a vast coalition of 
     opposite groups--was needed. Although the basis for such a 
     coalition had taken shape in the first presidential elections 
     and the parliamentary elections, 

[[Page E 2245]]
     after the start of the extensive, all-embracing suppression, this 
     coalition had to be formalized and transformed into a 
     political alternative. Thus, on July 21, 1981, the National 
     Council of Resistance was formed with the objective of 
     establishing democracy in Iran.
       After 14 years, the Council, the longest lasting 
     democratic, political coalition in Iran's contemporary era, 
     has 560 members. A significant number of other committed 
     personalities, whose membership has recently been approved, 
     will soon join it. The Council encompasses the democratic 
     opposition, the representatives of ethnic and religious 
     minorities, nationalist figures, and Muslim, secular and 
     socialist leaders. It acts as the Resistance's Parliament.
       The Council's 25 committees will serve as the basis for the 
     future coalition government following the mullahs' overthrow. 
     In office for a maximum of six months, the Provisional 
     Government's primary task is to hold free elections for a 
     Legislative and Constituent Assembly. According to the 
     Council's ratified decisions, in tomorrow's Iran, elections 
     and the general vote will constitute the basis for the 
     legitimacy of the country's future government. Freedom of 
     belief, press, parties and political assemblies is 
     guaranteed, as are the judicial security of all citizens and 
     the rights stipulated in the Universal Declaration of Human 
     Rights.
       All privileges based on gender, greed, and beliefs will be 
     abolished and any discrimination against the followers of 
     different religions and denominations will be banned. No one 
     will be granted any privilege, or discriminated against, on 
     the basis of belief or non-belief in a particular religion or 
     denomination.
       In tomorrow's Iran, the national bazaar and capitalism, 
     personal and private ownership and investment toward the 
     advancement of the national economy will be guaranteed. As 
     for foreign policy, Iran will advocate peace, peaceful 
     coexistence, and regional and international cooperation.
       According to the Council's ratified plans, in tomorrow's 
     Iran, women will enjoy equal social, political, cultural and 
     economic rights with men. They will have the right to elect 
     and be elected in all elections, and the right to freely 
     choose their occupation, education, political activity, 
     travel, and spouse, Equal rights to divorce and freedom of 
     choice in apparel will be guaranteed for them.


                       the regime's current state

       In this way, 16 years after the mullahs' rule, the 
     overwhelming majority of people, from women to workers, to 
     employees to university faculty, intellectuals and even the 
     bazaar merchants and clergy, who were hitherto considered the 
     traditional basis of the regime, are deeply disaffected. 
     Unemployment grips 50% of the labor force. With an inflation 
     rate of over 100%, some 80% of the people live below the 
     poverty line. Corruption and astronomical embezzlement by the 
     regime's officials, some of which has been exposed, have 
     eliminated any credibility the regime might have had.
       In a word, the abysmal economic, social and ethical record 
     of the regime and 16 yeas of resistance by a democratic 
     alternative against it, have left no legitimacy or popular 
     base for this regime. In the eyes of the Iranian people, the 
     regime and its leaders are a bunch of criminals, thieves and 
     corrupt individuals. Khomeini's death and the death of the 
     last remaining grand ayatollahs; the lack of the minimum 
     qualifications in Khamenei as the regime's religious leader; 
     and the absence of an acceptable Marja-e Taqlid (source of 
     emulation) who would support the regime have either 
     eliminated or seriously undermined the last vestiges of the 
     regime's religious legitimacy among the most retrogressive 
     sectors of the society and the most traditional forces 
     supporting it.
       Today, religious fundamentalism does not exist as a social 
     issue or problem in Iran. We are, rather, facing a form of 
     fascism under the guise of religion which holds the reins of 
     power. It is not without reason that today only 30% of the 
     regime's Revolutionary Guards, its main suppressive arm, are 
     volunteers, whereas at the end of the Iran-Iraq war in 1988 
     and Khomeini's death in 1989, more than 70% were volunteers 
     ideologically loyal to the regime. Even those remaining are 
     receiving greater material incentives, and continue 
     essentially because it is a well-paying job. In short, they 
     have been transformed from a volunteer army to a suppressive 
     mercenary force which fights against the people for its own 
     survival.
       On the international scene, however, the situation is very 
     different. Although word of the regime's difficulties and 
     internal crises and crimes against the people has inevitably 
     reached the outside world, the policies of other countries 
     toward the regime have not allowed the Iranian people's all-
     out Resistance and more importantly, that Resistance's 
     cultural and ideological challenge to the mullahs to extend 
     beyond Iran's borders.
       For this reason, the regime has done its utmost to tarnish 
     the image of the Resistance at the international level and 
     forestall its advances, through dirty deals and agreements. 
     This is one of the primary issues of discussion between the 
     regime and its foreign interlocutors. The regime pursues its 
     policies and prevarication against the Resistance in 
     international arenas and foreign countries through its own 
     operatives or through persons who have acquiesced but pose as 
     oppositionists
       The regime's extreme sensitivity and hysteric reactions to 
     the international successes and political relations of the 
     Resistance with other countries, governments and parliaments 
     confirm that this is its Achilles heel. This also explains 
     the repeated appeals by the regime's leaders and diplomats to 
     other governments to prevent the presence of the members and 
     sympathizers of the Resistance. By the same token, the 
     economic relationships between Western countries and Tehran's 
     rulers, and the resultant petro-dollars are used only for 
     domestic suppression, weapons purchases and the quest to 
     obtain nuclear arms and export terrorism and fundamentalism. 
     A significant portion of the revenue has also been diverted 
     into the mullahs' foreign bank accounts. For their part, the 
     Iranian people have received nothing but suppression and 
     greater destitution.
       The extensive economic ties with this regime have not only 
     failed to contain fundamentalism, but have also emboldened 
     the regime to continue these policies. Experience has also 
     shown that the clerics use these connections as a cover to 
     undertake more terrorist and fundamentalist activities 
     abroad.
       In a word, the 16-year experience of the Iranian Resistance 
     in dealing with the fundamentalist rulers of Iran and the 
     experiences of international politics regarding Iran under 
     the banner of the mullahs demonstrate that:
       Any policy based on appeasing this regime is doomed to 
     failure. Laws governing a religious dictatorship are 
     different from the experiences and laws applying to the world 
     community as we approach the end of the 20th century. This 
     regime's laws emanate from the Middle Ages. Decisiveness is 
     the only language with which one can and must communicate 
     with this regime.
       Any notion that would equate the conduct of the Khomeini 
     regime with Islam is a strategic and dangerous mistake from 
     which only the mullahs benefit. By publicizing, supporting or 
     recognizing the democratic alternative, which has the 
     greatest respect for Islam as the religion of the majority of 
     the Iranian people, and which at its core encompasses a 
     Muslim democratic movement, is the only way to deny the 
     mullahs the means of characterizing and exploiting 
     opposition, hostility and decisiveness on the international 
     level toward them as enmity to Islam.
       In this way, the world community and Western countries will 
     not be compelled to surrender to the blackmail of Khomeini's 
     anti-human regime under the banner of Islam, to accept its 
     double-talk on the cultural and religious distinctions of 
     Iran and Islamic countries, or to tarnish the universal 
     principles of human rights by giving concessions to this 
     anti-human regime. Regrettably, the regime has recently 
     received such concessions in a number of cases.
       Furthermore, the people of different countries, especially 
     Muslims, will to a great extent obtain the objective 
     understanding of the Khomeini regime that the people of Iran 
     have arrived at, and few will be beguiled by the regime's 
     Islamic posturing and demagogic slogans.
       In other words, exercising decisiveness against the regime 
     and support for the Iranian Resistance constitute two fronts 
     against fundamentalism. On the one hand, by standing firm 
     against the regime and supporting the Resistance, the pace of 
     change by the people inside Iran toward democracy and peace 
     will be expedited. Thus, the material and spiritual source of 
     support for fundamentalism will be eliminated and its heart 
     will stop beating. On the other hand, by exposing the anti-
     Islamic nature of the mullahs in Western and Islamic 
     countries and introducing the democratic alternative to this 
     regime, the fertile grounds for the growth of fundamentalism 
     will dry up. We have gained this experience with 100,000 
     martyrs.
       Norway has more than once demonstrated that on the 
     international level, it does not take yield to routine 
     political and economic considerations in defending democracy 
     and human rights. The courageous actions by your country to 
     assist liberation movements and its pioneering role in 
     resolving international issues, have given Norway a special 
     stature among the people of different countries. In the same 
     way, your firm stance vis-a-vis the religious, terrorist 
     dictatorship ruling Iran has aroused enormous friendship and 
     respect among the people of Iran.
       On behalf of the Iranian people and their just Resistance 
     for peace and freedom, I see it incumbent upon myself to call 
     on the government and the people of Norway to impose 
     comprehensive sanctions on, and sever diplomatic relations 
     with, the mullahs and put the issue of Iran and the 
     Resistance on the agenda of their foreign policy, and to 
     convince especially the European countries to adopt a 
     decisive policy and recognize the right of the Iranian people 
     to resist against this anti-human regime.
       And here, I want to address Norwegian women in general and 
     those supremely qualified women in particular who have held 
     positions of enormous political and social responsibility in 
     your country for many years. I call upon you to rush to the 
     aide of your sisters in Iran, who have ably resisted against 
     the misogynous clerical regime and for their part have 
     demonstrated that a woman is equally a human being. Of 
     course, in this path, they have made great sacrifices and 
     endured intolerable prisons and torture.
       I also call upon the Norwegian youth, whose decisive role 
     in the political life of Norway I have witnessed during my 
     stay in 

[[Page E 2246]]
     your country, to come to the aid of the Iranian youth who are suffering 
     from the most extreme pressures.
       The Iranian people are determined to bring democracy and 
     peace to their homeland. Doubtless, a democratic Iran is 
     indispensable to the return of tranquility and lasting peace 
     to the entire Middle East region and the uprooting of 
     terrorism throughout the globe.
       I again thank our dear friends, particularly the members of 
     the Committee in Defense of Human Rights in Iran. I hope to 
     soon be your host in the democratic Iran of tomorrow.

                          ____________________