A Few Words with Ahmad Zeidabadi

My kind and caring friend, Ahmad Zeidabadi, has taken up his pen and written a few lines reviewing and critiquing my remarks on the BBC. Ahmad is called "the honor of the community of writers," a title I believe he fully deserves, because he never sold his pen for fame and bread, nor under the regime's threats or enticements, and he paid the price with years in prison. I hope that throughout his life, may it be long, he remains this way for himself, his family, his friends, and the entire nation of Iran.
I thank Ahmad for his kindly critique, but I think it is necessary to clarify a few points in this regard.
First: Ahmad wrote that in this interview Mohsen was angry and lacked his usual calm. He is right. I am not only angry; many times over the past few weeks I have choked up and wept. I do not know whether, given the monster of censorship in Iran, Ahmad has been able to see the videos of the people's protests and the regime's savagery. Had our country been invaded by a foreign army, it would not have treated the oppressed nation of Iran this way. At least more than a thousand defenseless people have been killed in this assault by the killers serving the Leader and his son. Among them are dozens of children. An eight-year-old child was killed in his father's arms. Dozens of young people aged 17 to 25 were shot in the head from a distance of one or two meters, from the front or from behind. They were hungry, unemployed, and without a future, and their only crime was wanting an ordinary, minimal life, and this oppression and aggression continues. And this in a country where the children of state officials, the so-called "superior genes," sometimes hold as many as eleven jobs and are swimming in a sea of wealth and power. Given what has been done to the oppressed people of Iran, one would be justified in dying of grief, let alone being angry.
Second: Ahmad wrote (admittedly with a bit of anger himself) that Mohsen, speaking as if from the position of God Almighty, dictated everyone's duty and laid down dos and don'ts. In my view, this judgment takes my statements out of the context of the discussion (taking the text out of its context, as they say). The discussion was about the reformists and the conduct of Mousavi, Karroubi, and Khatami. Within this framework, I insisted that there is no longer any space left between the people and the regime. In fact, I wanted to say that for twenty years the reformists inside the regime have acted as a moat between the people and the regime, and whenever the people have wanted to reach the focal point of power in the Islamic Republic, meaning the Leader and the institution of velayat-e faqih (guardianship of the Islamic jurist), the reformists, by promoting the idea of taking part in elections, the "something is better than nothing" argument, and reform from within the system, have tried to squander the people's energy in this moat. My point was that with what Mr. Khamenei and his son did in the Bloody Aban of 1398 (November 2019), they effectively showed that they no longer wish to speak with the people in any language other than force and bullets. They have left no political solution within the system, and the political forces on the scene have no choice: they must either stand with the people or line up behind Khamenei and his killers, and of course, if for whatever reason they want neither, they can sit silently. There is no longer any space or moat between the dictator and the people for them to try to fill once again with the water of elections. In this discussion, my main address and main criticism were directed at Khatami, who, instead of condemning the crime, praised Khamenei and the role of the Leader, and even advised the government to appreciate the blessing of this murderer who brought the people's movement into eclipse (read: led it to the slaughterhouse). Otherwise, in that very interview I repeated at least twice that it is the people who, with their vote, will determine Iran's future and Iran's government. Because of the divisiveness of the other party in the debate, who was trying to pit Mousavi against Pahlavi, my emphasis in this discussion was on the unity of all democratic forces against the bloodthirsty dictator, so that by removing him and his system, the establishment of democracy in Iran becomes possible. I took part in this discussion not as an analyst or intellectual, but as a member of the Transition Management Council and a politician. It is obvious that the language of a politician, especially when speaking about political rivals, differs from the language of an intellectual or journalist, let alone in a private conversation such as the one Ahmad referred to.
Third: However, apart from debating and confronting political rivals, when it comes to the general public, I have never dictated anyone's duty, and I do not. Regarding the very existence of the Islamic Republic, I also believe that ultimately, in a free referendum under the supervision of international organizations and conducted by them (not this regime, since you cannot hand the thief over to himself to take to the police station), the people should be asked once again: Islamic Republic, yes or no? (a question which I believe, after forty years of this system's performance, unlike in 1979, can now be asked, and I am convinced that an absolute majority of the people will choose "no."