Those who have studied the history of revolutions from across the world know what disasters revolutions brought about in the countries where major revolutions happened. All of those revolutions or many and the most important of them led to dark dictatorships. The French revolution two centuries ago, the revolution in the Soviet Union a century ago, and revolutions that were created in the form of coup d'etat or the like trampled upon the rights of the people, stopped democracies and disregarded the people's votes. The Islamic Revolution managed to give freedom to this nation, and in the shortest time - that surprised the world - brought to the ballot boxes the people who had not experienced exercising their power of voting and contributing to the management of the country. It made them able to play a role in the country's affairs, in the same way, that the modern world recognizes, and cannot disapprove of in the least. There have been many elections ever since in this country. The people have taken part in elections without facing losses. This was the great art of the Islamic establishment. Even in the so-called democratic countries, sometimes bloody and bitter events happen during elections. Our nation took part in different elections with utmost serenity. They had obstructed this nation's talents, enlightenment, and world view. The wellbeing of one nation was summarized in the wellbeing of a thousand families. The nation was cut loose. The Islamic government followed up on all these problems to resolve them in the correct way and achieved many accomplishments. Wherever there is still a problem - be it economic, moral or cultural - if one looks closely, [they understand that] the problem results from an action [we have taken] contradictory to Islam, and this has led to the problem. Wherever we succeeded, it was the result of following Islam. Wherever we failed, it was the result of disregarding Islam. This was why our magnanimous Imam [Khomeini] insisted so much on implementing Islam in our laws, our officials' actions, and our government and judiciary officials’ behavior. Wherever there is a problem, it is because of putting Islam aside. When I look at the greater picture of it, I see the enemy's ruse and propaganda, and its psychological warfare. On the one hand, they want to prevent Islamic laws from being implemented in different ways and pressure this nation economically and by imposing economic sanctions, so that the right initiatives would not lead to the achievements of goals. On the other hand, they spread their propaganda to say: see how the Islamic establishment failed! This is the enemy's psychological warfare. January 9, 2003

1. The deviation of the revolutions in France and the Soviet Union

I am telling you, this is the first great revolution in the history of the world's revolutions that has been able to keep moving on a straight path and direction in such a long time. This is unprecedented. At the end of the 18th century, less than 15 years after the French revolution, this revolution against tyranny was transformed into the gravest despotism in France. The French nation had risen during a revolution dubbed "The Great French Revolution" against tyranny. Their goal was to fight against the monarchy and the royal regime. But 15 years had not passed yet when a monarchy much more oppressive, powerful and overwhelming than the Bourbons - who had been overthrown - came to power and a full-blown tyrannical empire was formed. After that, for half a century or more, France was in constant turbulence. One group would grab power from another, and one would pounce on the other. Different regimes and opposing kings seized power and subjected the nation to constant terror, anxiety, and loss. This is the revolution known as the Great French Revolution in the world.

The Russian revolution deviated much faster than 15 years. The revolution accomplished with the help of the proletariat was soon transformed into the Stalinist dictatorship that went on for years, and was inherited by Stalin's successors. The people in that great country had no free will for an important part of their personal lives, let alone regarding social, political, governmental and state affairs. This is the issue with the revolutions in the world. Smaller revolutions that have happened in the world, each had a similar fate. Anyone acquainted with history can see many amazing things by observing them. The only revolution that began with the people, continued with the people, stayed with its word, and its path, and did not alter its objectives is the Islamic Revolution of Iran. This revolution began in the name of God, for the people, to achieve justice, independence, and liberty, and has followed this path ever since. Its slogans are the same slogans, and God willing will remain the same. Feb 7, 2005

The performance of the Islamic Republic and the Islamic Revolution has been very good and successful. Can anyone tolerate all these problems? At that time, such government changes had taken place in Africa, Asia, and many other places. None of the governments could tolerate the difficulties. Also during the pre-Revolution era, many great revolutions in the world - such as the French Revolution, and the Russian Revolution of 1917 - could not resist these different events. I mean they deviated from their course from the very first day. Being democratic, Islamic, and moving towards the ideals - the fact that a young man comes here after thirty years and says in a loud voice that the ideals of the Revolution are his wishes and demands - is a great achievement for the Revolution. It was never the same in other revolutions.

Take a look at the literary works of the 19th century in France which go back to the end of the 18th century when the French Revolution took place. Early in the 19th century, Napoleon started his rule. Then, look at the literary works of mid 18th century - 1830 to 1840 - which are many. Take a look at their poetry and novels, and you will see what a situation they were in 30 years after the victory of their revolution. There was total despotism, corruption, and a dreadful state of class discrimination at that time although there were mottos of justice, equality and anti-despotism. This achievement of the Islamic Revolution is a great achievement. Worse than that was the Russian Revolution of 1917. And the events which took place in the contemporary era were mainly revolutions in name only. They were mainly coups, or an armed group seizing power in a country, like Cuba and other places. Most of these movements happened in the same way I mentioned. They could not overcome the difficulties or remove the barriers.  May 3, 2008

2. What destiny did the French popular revolution have?

The French Revolution was a popular movement, and it achieved victory. But that victory was not safeguarded. The French Revolution took place in the year 1789. In the year 1800 - that is to say, 11 years after the French Revolution - another monarchy was re-established in France. Napoleon came to power as if there had been no revolution. After Napoleon died, members of the same royal family who had been removed by the French Revolution - namely, the Bourbons - came to power again. For many years the right to rule was passed on from one monarch to another. Therefore, the people of France gave rise to the French Revolution, but they failed to safeguard it. This is a very important point. Thanks to religious faith, thanks to Islam and thanks to the fact that the spirit of the Quran was constantly instilled into the hearts of our people, we managed to safeguard our Revolution. This is what can ensure the survival of movements, their continuation and their victory. This must happen. Feb 20, 2011

3. The French Revolution was an unavailing revolution

In the French Revolution there might have been only a handful of intellectuals who had this idea, but in the real world, the issue of rationality was not even discussed. No, the only thing that mattered was freedom, mostly freedom from the shackles of monarchy and the autocratic government which had dominated them since a few centuries earlier, namely the rule of the Bourbons who had dominated every aspect of the life of the people of France. It was not just the court, rather each French aristocrat was a king. What you have heard about Bastille and Bastille prisons was not limited to those times only. Bastille probably remained the same for several centuries. It was a chaotic situation. Intellectuals such as Voltaire, Rousseau and Montesquieu, who were witness to those conditions and had the talent to think carefully, would reach certain conclusions and say certain things. And their ideas and comments were completely ignored in the French society where all the action took place. Notice that there was no reference to the ideas of Montesquieu, Voltaire and others in any of the speeches that luminaries of the time - such as Mirabeau and others - would deliver. Everything they said was about the corruption of the ruling system, its autocracy and other such things. This is the truth behind the French Revolution.

In a sense, the French Revolution was a failed revolution. Only eleven or twelve years after that revolution, a powerful empire was established by Napoleon, an absolute monarchy. Even the predecessors of Louis XVI - who was killed in the revolution - did not rule the way Napoleon did. At the coronation ceremony, they invited the Pope to put the crown on Napoleon's head, but Napoleon did not let him do that. He grabbed the crown from the Pope and crowned himself. Of course, these things are secondary issues. In contrast, it would be good if we paid attention to the fact that it was Imam Khomeini (r.a.) who did not let such tragic things happen in our Revolution on a smaller scale in one form or another. It was that commanding and charismatic leader who did not let such things happen in our Revolution, otherwise you can be sure that similar events would have happened. In the twelve-year period between the French Revolution and the rise of Napoleon, three different groups of people came to power. Every new group massacred and wiped out the previous group and they were in turn massacred by the next group that came to power. And the people were living in the worst conditions, in complete chaos. This is what the French Revolution was. In many ways, the same is true of the Russian Revolution of 1917. That is to say, the Russian Revolution was similar to the French Revolution, but the conditions were different and various factors guided and controlled the people. It would be good if these things were taken into consideration. Unfortunately, I see that the associations I am in contact with - historical, academic and other such associations - do not pay attention to the points that these revolutions contained.

Of course, as you know, several revolutions have taken place in France. The French Revolution is the one that took place at the end of the 18th century. After around forty years, there was another revolution and around twenty years later, there was yet another revolution, a communist revolution. The first communist revolution in history happened in France, where communes were established. There were several factors that motivated this intellectual movement. The Renaissance was the first factor. The Renaissance was not an abrupt event. Many events took place over the first two hundred years of the Renaissance. One of these events was the Industrial Revolution and another event was the French Revolution. It was they themselves who put forth the idea of freedom, so they have worked on this issue. A large number of philosophers carried out research and wrote thousands of articles and books. In all western countries, hundreds of books have been written on the subject of freedom. Later on when the idea of freedom reached America, the same thing happened in America as well. Nov 13, 2012

4. Comparing the domestic and foreign enemies of the Islamic Revolution with those of the revolutions of France and the Soviet Union

In a pathological study of a revolution, the role of internal and external factors must both be considered. There is of course a risk of extremes here—and I would like to keep away from this risk—and caution the people to stay away from it. The risk is to [exaggeratedly] focus on external factors and forget about the internal ones; or vice versa: to focus on internal factors and forget about the external ones. There are people who suffer from these two extremes. The risk is real. If one looks closely, one would see that the external factor is the animosity of the enemies of the revolution both ways. Look, it is important that at the time of the Great French revolution, there was no serious (foreign) power, and communication was not such that they could stand against and oppose the revolution. But after Napoleon's victories, England and others opposed him. Of course the English bankers opposed, the Lords in France, or Germany, or major feudalists opposed him. However, there was not a consistent and coordinated political power to plot and wage a political, military, propaganda and psychological warfare simultaneously.

Regarding the Russian revolution, when it happened, Russia lost some of its enemies actually! Because Russia had some traditional enemies. It was involved in the Great War. One of Russia's enemies in the war was Germany. As soon as the Russian revolution succeeded—contrary to our revolution after whose victory a war was imposed— the war was over. The Soviet Union—Russia—stopped its operations in the First World War, and left behind the Allies front, which was opposing Germany and the Axis. In fact, they totally deserted the Eastern front, and suffered from heavy blows. This situation lasted for about a year, until the Soviets reentered the war near the end and benefited from it! So at the time, [the revolution of the Soviets] did not have many enemies. What matters is that the enemies of the Russian revolution—political, or economic enemies—fought against its content. In contrast, with our revolution both the enemies of the revolution—that is, the ones who suffered politically [such as those who previously had influence on Iran]; or those who suffered economically [such as those who were previously benefiting from Iran, natives or foreigners]; and the enemies of the religion, that is, those in the world who were opposing the origin of the religion because of long term goals, their ideology and way of thinking, showed animosity. That is why the Soviets showed as much animosity towards our revolution as the United States. At least it was like that during the war. Although the Soviets did not have any influence in Iran to lose.

See, we had two types of enemies inside the country. In the case of the Russian revolution, feudals, and similar groups opposed the revolution. But there were intellectuals who did not benefit from the previous regime, and later aligned themselves with this regime and the regime attracted them too, rather cunningly. So, you see intellectuals who were not content during certain periods, but eventually joined the new Soviet regime and collaborated with it. They wrote books for it. You can read those books today. These were the same intellectuals. Novelists, poets, musicians and others, they all collaborated. Not in Iran, where there were people who did not oppose the revolution because they had lost materialistic benefits; rather, because this was a religious government, and they hated the religion, and did not accept it. This is one of the important issues and facts. Because the revolution was upholding and promoting the religion, and invited people to practice the religion, and they did not agree with the religion, and did not accept it under the influence of Western culture, or different ideologies - or as they said, tendency towards different ideologies and schools of thought. There were governments who did not have imperialistic motivations, and could not have any, but for whatever reason - political or ideological - were against the religion, and so opposed the Islamic revolution. That is why there has been such an extensive front against our country, and this continues today. March 6, 1999

5. Why does the Islamic Revolution not drain, while other revolutions do?

One of the remarks that constitute the main line of the enemy's psychological warfare today—which I must mention—is that they say the third generation of the revolution are separated from the values and ideas of the revolution! Then, they make up philosophies in support of their remarks--like all other fraudulent arguments they make up to justify their lies-- so that nobody would dare reject their remarks. They claim that this remark is based on a philosophy! What is that philosophy? That philosophy is that in all the revolutions the third generation following the revolution turns against its values: a nonsensical lie! Which revolutions are you referring to? In 1789, a revolution took place in France; then, not the third generation, not the second generation, rather, the very first generation of the revolution turned away from it! After only four or five years, a movement was created against the first revolutionaries and took power for a few years; then, again after four, five years, movements were launched against them. By 1802, the quintessence of the French revolution had changed so much that a person like Napoleon could emerge again and become the king! The country that had fought against monarchism, and executed Louis XVI by guillotine, after about ten years, moved to a place where they would allow the crowning of Napoleon Bonaparte: a man who called himself an emperor and exclusively ruled over the country for many years. Then, for about ninety years, royal regimes - of course, different monarchies and various dynasties - continued to rule over France, and they were constantly engaged in conflicts, decadence, and corruption! That revolution did not reach the second generation, let alone the third generation; because the foundations of the revolution were loose.

Today, after two centuries, some people in the Islamic Republic are unashamedly presenting to the Iranian people ideas that failed to launch a revolution at the right time, making a fuss about it: they [dare] present them to the [real] revolutionaries who managed to successfully launch the greatest revolution with robust foundations, and safeguard it against storms of events for many years!

The Soviet Union’s October Revolution did not reach the third generation, either. Hardly seven years had passed since the revolution when Stalinism took over. Stalin who came to power was such a brutal person that today whenever someone is a bully, cruel, and inconsiderate, they are actually analogized with ‘Stalin’. That's right, Stalin was really a manifestation of these negative traits. The so-called labor government, which was supposedly formed to support underprivileged classes, became a rule of absolute despotism! Stalin did not even allow the Communist Party—which was controlling everything in the Soviet system—to make a decision in certain matters. With that harsh and brutal characteristics, Stalin continued the autocracy for some thirty years; nobody dared to protest. Maybe you've heard the story of the strange exiles. The first book that was published after the collapse of the Soviet Union, in describing the disastrous suppressive situation of the Soviet Union, was a novel - I do not remember the title now - two volumes of which have been translated into Persian; and I have read them. The book is very well written, describing the situation at that time. Although it is about the situation after Stalin—that is when the situation had completely changed—yet, the ruling method of that despotism continued. Hence, it was not about the second or third generation; at the very beginning [following the revolution], everything was lost.

What philosophy is this? Based on which revolution has it been formed and where has it been experienced, that the third generation of the revolution turn away from the revolution? This depends on what the ideas of that revolution are. If the ideas of a revolution can convince the second, third and tenth generations—because of their authenticity—then that revolution survives eternally. The ideas of the Islamic Revolution are ideas eternally valid. Justice is never outdated; freedom and independence are never obsolete; fighting against the interference of foreigners is never obsolete. These are ideas that are always attractive for generations. Their theoreticians made up philosophies, and some simple-minded people believed them here. They said the third generation of the revolution reject ideas, and since the attraction of the revolution diminishes, we can go and take the revolution from the revolutionaries and control it ourselves! ‘Ourselves’ are whom? ‘Ourselves’ are those who dominated the country for many years before the revolution! I tell you, this is a very naive and stupid thinking. They must know that, undoubtedly, the same enthusiasm, faith, and emotions that were present in the young generation of that day, who could bring about that event, are still present in this young generation. They should know that every stone they throw towards the revolution will boomerang and hit their own heads. The revolution will never be obsolete, and the flames of the revolution will remain fresh and it burns when it comes into contact with their worn cotton storage. February 27, 2001

6. Two differences between the Islamic Revolution and other revolutions

The great Islamic Revolution in Iran was truly an exceptional revolution. We have read about other revolutions in history and have seen some revolutions in our time. I wish you, dear Iranian people, read more books and historical writings, so you would have read books and documents on what I am about to share with you now in a few words—for [books and documents] are unparalleled. The Iranian revolution was really different from other revolutions. The difference was both in the manner the people’s movement was formed and in the motivations leading to its formation. We can compare it with the October revolution in Russia that brought about the 70 or 80 year-long Communist rule, to see how and with what slogans that revolution and popular uprising was formed; how much brutality happened during that revolution; and to see how the situation was different in the Iranian Revolution. The difference is extremely vast. The comparison is made between the revolutions that were made by the masses; because that revolution was also popular. Before that, there was the French revolution, which is called a ‘revolution’; while, it was in fact a military coup d’état and it was so distinct from being a revolution that we can hardly compare the two as revolutions. Our revolution is unique and extraordinary compared to the popular uprisings we see in different regions: in terms of greatness, wellbeing, purity, avoidance of deviations and brutalities, as well as sustainability, capacities, sovereignty and the consequences of them […]. This revolution is truly extraordinary in different dimensions; yet it has a great feature, which I would like to elaborate here.

In my mind, I was comparing this characteristics with the formation of the Islamic Republic. That is, if we accept that this revolution has accomplished two feats, one is the formation of the Islamic government which has been unprecedented during history since the early years of Islam until now, and more remarkably so, in such a world and region as ours. The second feat of you people's great revolution, which is comparable in importance with the first one, and as great and in some opinions even greater, is the revival of the Islamic identity in the world. That is, every individual of the Islamic Ummah everywhere in the world, developed [more than before] a feeling of identity, character and power because of this revolution, and saw themselves not as a condemned group, individuals, or nation. Some of them took to the political scenes and seized the power or tried to do so. In a country like Algeria, this feeling of Islamic identity went as far as Muslims winning the elections. This was so dangerous for the imperialism, that they organized a coup d’état against the winners. They were apprehended and imprisoned, and people were suppressed and dispersed. Of course, they will not be able to put out this fire and flame. But for now, they are safe. In a country like Turkey, just a few weeks ago, this Islamic identity and presence, went so far that the party recognized as Islamic gained the upper hand against other parties. Of course here again, the imperialism and the enemies, the United States and its allies, started working, like what happened in Algeria but in a different form, to prevent this party from creating a government. February 9, 1996

7. The tendency of the policies that dominate the world is to remove and obliterate the popular justice-seeking movements

The particularity of the great Islamic Revolution that has made it appear to analysts and specialists as an unprecedented phenomenon of the recent centuries, was not seen in other important revolutions of history previously; neither in the French revolution, nor in the Communist Revolution in the USSR; nor in the smaller revolutions that were consequences of the two revolutions and followed their direction. Meanwhile, bear in mind that the predominant tendency among the domineering powers has been to digest the justice-seeking movements of the masses in different parts of the world into their own political and cultural perceptions and, indeed, they obliterate the identity of those popular justice-seeking movements, an example of which had also happened in Iran in the past. The justice-seeking movement which occurred a hundred years ago during the Constitutional Revolution in Iran was a religious and popular movement. At that time, the political system that dominated over the world—that is, the British—digested this justice-seeking movement based on Islamic principles into their political and cultural structures. They dissolved and abolished the movement and replaced it with a constitutional movement of British nature. As a result, the constitutional movement—which was an anti-autocracy movement—ended in [the emergence of] Reza-Khan's dictatorship, which was worse and more tyrannical than Ghajar dictators.

In a similar way, those who led the movement for the nationalization of oil industry merged the movement with the American liberal democracy. Consequently, the Americans betrayed the movement of nationalization of the oil industry. The Americans teamed up with the British, who were the opposing party during the justice-seeking movement in Iran, and obliterated the nationalization movement. Then, it was followed by the dark and violent reign of Muhammad-Reza for over 30 years in Iran—the reign that pressured the Iranian people. The justice-seeking movements of the African and Asian nations were confiscated during decades by the Communists and the dominant political system of the Soviet Union, and were replaced by dictators who favored the interests of the Soviet Union. This has always been the recurring trend in the world in response to the justice-seeking movements of the world's nations. June 4, 2002

Some individuals think that the Islamic Revolution solely belonged to the year 1979 and that, today, it is over: This is a false belief. The Revolution just began in 1979, it did not come to an end that year. The beginning of change and reform in [Iranian] society took place during 1979. It took place on the "22nd of Bahman"--which was only a starting point. Gradually, the movement of the revolution should persist, deep and wide, inviting in more comprehensive and intelligent thought. It should never end. And it should not be the case that when we say someone is revolutionary that the people think of them in a negative light; it should not be the case that when we say an individual is revolutionary that they are unintelligent or absent-minded: neither are practical. The management of our country is respectable. The Constitution is respectable; all principles of the Constitution should be observed. The Revolution has been created in this mold [the constitution], so this mold should be considered worthy of respect: This is necessary. Feb 18, 2018

8. Why is the Iranian Islamic Revolution an exception?

I carefully studied the developments that have happened over the past 2 or 3 centuries - during which great revolutions have taken place - but I did not find a single case like the Islamic Revolution. I advise you to study the history of the same era: you may find a similar case. I did not find a transformation that started in a particular way and pursued the same path, the same goals, the same ideals and the same positions during later stages. They either did not continue at all, like the Russian Revolution, or they continued but with a considerable time lapse and with many hardships, like the French Revolution or the movement that led to America's independence, which might or might not be called a revolution. The initial goals were finally reached in one way or another, but with a lot of efforts and with a considerable time lapse. For example, the Great French Revolution has been called "great" because after this revolution two or three other revolutions happened in France over the next 50, 60 years, but the initial revolution was more important and more significant which was carried out in the year 1789 against the French monarchy, the same thing that happened in Iran. Of course the royal family that was ruling France at that time was far more established and powerful than the pathetic Pahlavi family. They were the Bourbons. They had ruled France for several hundred years and there were very powerful rulers among them. As I said the French Revolution happened in the year 1789.

The French Revolution was a popular revolution in the real sense of the word. That is to say, the people were present in it, just like our own Revolution. The leaders were also purely populist leaders with new ideas and they were after establishing a society pivoted on the role of the people. Of course what they had in mind was not ideological, but they wanted to have a populist government. They wanted to have a democratic government. The revolution took place in the year 1789. In only 3, 4 years, the first group that had carried out the revolution was sidelined by an extremist group. Some of the revolutionaries were executed and the extremist group rose to power. The extremist group was in power for 4, 5 years. Then the people reacted and remove them from power because of the radical way in which they treated the people. Some of them were executed and a third group came to power.

That is to say, three different groups of people came to power in 11, 12 years and each new group eliminated members of the previous group. Over the first 10, 11 years, famous political figures from different revolutionary groups were executed. Later on the chaos that resulted from these events - it is obvious that chaos would be created in such a country - exhausted the people's patience. In the end, a group with three members was formed and Napoleon was one of the members. He was a young army officer who had made certain achievements in Egypt. He became famous and came to dominate the other two members of the group. Later on he became king and emperor. The country that had suffered all those losses in order to remove a king from power, the country that had executed King Louis XVI and his wife turned back into a monarchy after Napoleon. Of course Napoleon was an active and powerful military leader and he did great things for France. He had non-military achievements as well, but his achievements were mostly military achievements. He annexed several European countries to France. He annexed Italy, Spain and Switzerland to France. He conquered several European countries and annexed them to France. Of course after the fall of Napoleon those countries regained their independence one after the other. That is to say, his conquests were not stable. But a country that had suffered all those losses to carry out a revolution and establish a populist government easily turned back into a monarchy. After Napoleon's exile and death, monarchy remained the system of government in France for around 50 years - that is to say, until around the year 1815. Of course there were very difficult and bitter upheavals. If you read 19th century French novels, including the books of Victor Hugo, Balzac and others, you will clearly see the signs of the upheavals and the hardships and bitterness that the people of France went through.

Of course later on in the 1860s, another revolution took place and Napoleon III who was a relative of Napoleon Bonaparte was removed from power. A republican government came to power. Later on the republic changed as well. There was the French First Republic, the Second Republic, the Third Republic and so on until the country turned into what is known today as France, which is a democracy. The French Revolution had to face all those hardships. That is to say, after its emergence the French Revolution did not have the capacity and power to integrate with the people. It did not have the power and capacity to establish its foundations among the people and to continue. This has been the case with almost every development that has happened in the world over the past 100-200 years.

The same things happened in America. The American Revolution - namely, America's liberation from the British government - took place 5, 6 years before the French Revolution, around 1782. Of course America's population was not more than 4, 5 million at that time. They started a movement and established a government. Certain figures - such as the famous George Washington and others - came to power, but the same things that happened to the French Revolution happened to the American Revolution as well. After the initial movement had been carried out, the American nation went through a lot of hardships. They went through extraordinary civil wars. At least one million people were killed during one of these civil wars, which was the most important civil war and it happened between North and South. In fact the war was between the north eastern part of America and the south eastern part because at that time the American government had just gained control over the western part. At least one million people were killed. Of course accurate statistics did not exist at that time. The statistic is based on the estimates of those who have spoken or written in this regard. Finally after the passage of around 100 years since America's independence, the American government gradually became established and managed to continue its movement on the original path.

Of course the crimes that were committed and the tragedies that were caused by the rulers and their armies are a long sad story: attacking the neighboring countries and massacre of Native Americans. I am sorry that our youth do not know about these events. When a person knows that the civilization, progress and wealth of certain countries is the result of a large amount of vandalism, misconduct, brutality and injustice in the past, he will gain a new perspective on what he has to do and on the duties he must fulfill.

The same things happened in the Soviet Union in another form. The goals that had been specified in the Soviet Union were not fulfilled. The goals were ideological in nature. It had been claimed that the Soviet government was a populist government - a socialist government, a government founded on the people and committed to fulfilling their needs. These principles were violated from the early years. After the Russian Revolution took place in the year 1917, the path of the revolution changed in 5, 6 years. The people were eliminated from government calculations in the real sense of the word. A communist party with millions of members came to power, and within the party power belonged to the few individuals who were at the highest levels of the party. During certain eras such as the Stalin era, power was in the hands of only one person. However, later on the central board of the communist party had control over everything in the country. A lot of pressure was exerted on the people. Many limitations were imposed. The people went through a lot of hardships. During those times, certain writings used to leak out of Russian borders. Some of these writings used to be translated into Farsi and I used to read them. Before the collapse of the Soviet Union many of these bitter and unpleasant dimensions were kept hidden. It was only after the collapse of the Soviet Union that many things became clear: what they had been doing and what limitations they had imposed on the people. The literary works of the time show the hardships that the people of Russia went through during the rule of the Soviet Union. That is to say, the revolution was totally derailed from the beginning. The revolution did not just fail to continue. No, the original promises were not fulfilled at all.

These are the revolutions that have taken place over the past few centuries. Of course there were also certain pseudo-revolutions in the Middle East region and mostly in North Africa and Latin America, which were not genuine revolutions. They were mostly coups. In the late 1950s and early 1960s a leftist revolutionary movement was started in North African countries - namely, Egypt, Libya, Sudan and Tunisia. All these countries became revolutionary. But apart from a few exceptions, the same people who had carried out the revolutions started to stray away from the original path. The revolutions were leftist, anti-America, anti-England and anti-France. This was how they had encouraged the people to step into the arena. But the same people who led the revolutions to victory suffered from a deviation and developed a tendency towards colonial forces. One of these people was Tunisia's Bourguiba. He was the leader of the Tunisia Revolution. Basically he was the one who gave rise to the Tunisian Revolution. But he turned into a puppet for France and the west. He went off in a direction which was later on followed by Ben Ali. Similarly, in Egypt, Anwar Sadat was one of the supporters of Gamal Abdel Nasser. He was among the people who had carried out the coup or what they called "Free Officers Movement". Basically, during the time of Gamal Abdel Nasser, the Free Officers Movement had been started with the goal of liberating Palestine. But there was so much deviation that they made peace with the regime that has occupied Palestine and they hatched plots against Palestine. Finally, a few years ago, they even cooperated with the Zionists to put a siege on Gaza and to eliminate the people of Palestine. That is to say, the original movement made a complete U-turn.

The same thing happened in Sudan. I do not think you remember Nimeiry. I remember the time when he obtained his first official position. He was a revolutionary officer who actually saved Sudan from the clutches of the west. But the same person developed a tendency towards the west. He turned into a puppet for the west. The revolutionary people who are currently in power in Sudan rose up against him and removed him from power. Jaafar Nimeiry gradually changed from an anti-west element who had carried out a coup against his pro-western government to a western puppet and mercenary. The same is true of the others.

I remember that during the 1340s when Gamal Abdel Nasser was in office, we used to tune in to the Egyptian radio station "Sawt al-Arab" in the city of Mashhad. Gamal Abdel Nasser had travelled to Libya and he delivered a speech on Sawt al-Arab along with Jaafar Nimeiry and Muammar Gaddafi - who was a young man in his late twenties and had just carried out a coup. They used to get together and make radical revolutionary statements. Even Gaddafi used to invent slogans that filled us with excitement at that time. We were engaged in revolutionary activities and it was illegal to listen to the Egyptian radio station. We used to gather in a house at night: one of my friends had a radio and we used to use it to listen to Sawt al-Arab.

This was what the movements were like. That is to say, due to different reasons, revolutions deviated from the original path at the beginning or later on. In certain cases this deviation lasted more than several decades. In a country like France the deviation lasted for more than 70 years before they gradually managed to realize some of the original goals - and not all of the goals, but a portion of them.

The Islamic Revolution is an exception. The Islamic Revolution was a movement that was carried out with specific goals in mind. The goals that had been specified were general in certain cases and they were gradually broken down and made more specific later on, but the Revolution had clear goals. Demanding islam, fighting the arrogant powers, demanding independence for the country, bringing about dignity for humanity, defending the oppressed, bringing about scientific, technological and economic progress for the country - these were the goals of the Revolution. A look at the statements of Imam Khomeini (r.a.) and the main documents of the Revolution would reveal that the goals were rooted in Islamic texts. Being popular and relying on the faith, beliefs, motivation and passion of the people were among the essential pillars of the Revolution. This path has been continued. There has been no deviation. This is a very important point considering the fact that thirty three years have passed since the Revolution. Aug 10, 2011

9. The Iranian Islamic Revolution was a 100% popular, contrary to other revolutions

The 20th century, is the century of big and small political changes in the world, and many revolutions, coup d’états, and upheavals have happened in it. In the 20th century, if you search, you will not find any of these events that were not influenced by behind-the scenes-agreements and the influence of foreign powers. Of course among all of them, the October Revolution in Russia is an exception. It was of another kind, but the other political upheavals in the world were either influenced by political parties with Soviet backing, or coup d’états by members of the military seeking power. It was not the work of the people like the revolution that happened in Iran. Even the October revolution in Russia was not by the people, and as I said its analysis and explaining is a whole other extensive story.

The Islamic revolution in Iran was a hundred percent by the people. During the revolution, if you went to any village in this country, you would see people risen, speaking out, demanding and asking, and all these demands and words were going around the same unique pivot, which was the message of Islam embodied in our great and beloved Imam (Khomeini). The importance of the Islamic government from its Iranian aspect is this: first of all it is a hundred percent by the people. Then, it is the opposite point of what our country had suffered from for centuries. That is, the ideology of the monarchy and the royal officials. You will not find any nationality that could create such deep motivations in the hearts of every individual. Every one of the people were demanding and following this revolution and government with all their hearts. Even the most indifferent contributed. This is how the revolution is from the Iranian aspect. November 3, 2001

10. The development of the Islamic Revolution is astonishing, compared to other revolutions in the world

You should compare the condition of the people with their condition 40 years ago. The people's power, greatness, progress, awareness and strong international presence is not comparable with the beginning of the Revolution. The people have progressed on a daily basis. The Iranian nation is this... These people are a religious, knowledgeable, self-confident and an independent nation. They know what privileges they have, and they insist on them. And this is while 40 years have passed after the Revolution.

We cannot speak about history at length here. There are two, three revolutions which are among the greatest revolutions in the world: one is the French Revolution; another is the Russian Revolution and another is the American independence movement. All these movements were launched in the past 200 years. The American independence movement occurred about 230, 240 years ago – it occurred in the 1770s or 1780s of the Christian calendar. A few years later, the French Revolution would occur, about 100 years after that, the Russian Revolution would be launched. These events took place in the recent past.

If you look at the history of these revolutions, and if you compare their first 40 years with that of the Islamic Revolution, you will be astonished at the greatness, progress, and rapid development of our Revolution! Those revolutions never managed to move forward at such a speed, and with such intensity and strength. This has nothing to do with the developments of the time and the like. These events have not been impacted by such factors. There are other factors involved. The Iranian nation is such a phenomenon. Jun 20, 2018