Tag: Khomeini

The ‘Ayatollah’ opposing US imperialism, and Iran’s Islamic ‘regime’

Kadivar offers a rare insider critique of Iran: opposing US imperialism and Israeli aggression, while also challenging the authoritarianism of the Islamic Republic from within Shia theology itself. He traces his own journey – arrested under both the Shah and the Islamic Republic – and explains how the revolutionary promise of freedom, democracy, and justice was only partially realized. We explore how guardianship of the jurist reshaped Iran. This conversation takes a deep look into how power, religion, personalities, and competing visions of destiny have interacted to make Iran, Iran.

The American side did not truly come to negotiate

L’Humanité. This war was directed against the Iranian people, the country’s territorial integrity, its civilization, and its culture, far more than against the Islamic Republic itself. This military aggression is a war of modern barbarism against a people and a country that refuse to submit to brute force, lawlessness, and injustice. This war has had an extremely negative impact on the democratic and liberation movement in Iran, delaying it indefinitely. Iranians firmly defend their homeland, while remaining fervent critics of the system in place. Velayat-e Faqih is a symbolic matter.

War will increase religious fundamentalism around the world

Iran’s movement for democracy and freedom has suffered a lot of damage. After the war, the country is ruled by the IRGC, not by the symbolic supreme leader. Most Iranians do not support the regime. But this invasion has strengthened Iranian hardliners and the IRGC. All these replacement commanders or political figures that are coming to power after Netanyahu’s foolish assassinations are harder-liners and more radical than those who were before. Netanyahu and Trump are spreading fundamentalism in the world. Their policies are against peace, international law, and American values.

The US-Israel War Against Iran and Iran’s Internal Conflicts

Keynote Address — 2026 South Carolina Political Science Association Annual Conference: This illegal, unconstitutional, and unjust war must end immediately — with a non-aggression agreement that includes adequate guarantees against any renewed aggression toward Iran. Iranians stand firmly opposed to religious despotism, yet simultaneously support their Army in defending their homeland against foreign aggression. Popular solidarity in defense of the nation — including a broad willingness to defer domestic opposition to the Islamic Republic — has increased markedly. Ultimately, this military aggression has weakened and set back Iran’s freedom-seeking, democracy-demanding movement.

Iran at a Crossroads: Protests and Political Futures

The Islamic Republic bears direct responsibility for the bloodshed, and its Supreme Leader is the principal accused. Opponents of the Islamic Republic can be divided into two groups. The national opposition adheres to three core principles: non-intervention by foreign powers, rejection of domestic tyranny, and a peaceful, democratic transition away from the Islamic Republic. According to the second type of opposition, the Islamic Republic must be overthrown at any cost—even through foreign intervention, and internal armed conflict. A referendum on the constitution of the future system must be held.

Religion and Politics In Post-Revolutionary Iran

This course will narrate a fair and balanced critical and historical analysis, and is organized into five thematic sections: a brief overview of the relationship between religion and politics in Iran, an intellectual history of the Islamic Republic, examining the concept of the “sacred as secular” and exploring the dynamics of secularization within a theocratic system, the governance in the name of Islam, focusing on theology and theocratic rule in the Islamic Republic, and the revolt against theocracy: the Mahsa Movement and the feminist uprising against theocracy in Iran.

Religion and Politics in Post-Revolutionary Iran

What is the relationship between religion and politics in general and Islam and politics in particular? What does ‘political Islam’ or ‘Islamism mean’? What was Khomeini’s political thought? What does theocracy do with secularism and democracy? What is the role of election in a quasi-democratic regime? How did regime expediency secularize the administration? What is the relationship between civil law and Islamic law (sharia)? Why did the Islamic Republic of Iran transform from a competitive electoral to a non-competitive electoral authoritarian regime?

Condemning the attack on Rushdie

I strongly condemn today’s bloody attack on Salman Rushdie, the author of Satanic Verses in New York. Based on Islamic and Quranic teachings, this illegitimate attempt is condemned. The way to deal with false thoughts is scientific criticism, not physical elimination. “The bloody fatwas against Kasravi, Taha, Fawda and Taqī, as well as the legal rulings to kill Rushdie and Abū Zayd, must be publicly condemned to prevent their recurrence, for they only weakened and harmed Islam. Issuing such fatwas is a sign of the inability to provide a rebuttal.”

The Era of Cooperation and Assistance

The book is a documentary of the agreeable years of constructive cooperation between Khomeini and Montazeri before and after the 1979 revolution. The Assembly of Experts recognized Montazeri as the next leader of the IRI. This hurried action proved to be detrimental to Montazeri, and did not bear any advantage for him at all. These resolutions were the brainchild of Ali Khamenei which were directed and realized with the assistance of Hashemi Rafsanjani. Compared to Khomeini, Montazeri had a relatively liberal mindset regarding domestic politics, public rights, and civil liberties.

Islamic Political Philosophy after 40 years

Khomeini’s political theory of the absolute appointive guardianship of the jurist council was based on several problematic prerequisites or hypotheses: 1) The teachings of Islam could not be practiced completely unless political power was held by the jurists. 2) The establishment of an Islamic State as the necessary premise of implementing Shari’a. 3) Shari’a as Islamic law as state law. 4) Jurist ruler can make any law or suspend any law including Shari’a rulings for the purpose of public interest or regime protection. It is absolutely wrong theoretically and practically.