Iran Politics Club      
Website For Thinking Iranians
Back to index  

Islamic Barbarian Theocracy
Invaders and Occupiers of Iran


Islamic Barbarian Theocracy: Invaders and Occupiers of Iran
Amir Arsalan

I have come across some sentiment that depicts the current Islamic Regime as a foreign occupying force in Iran. The term "second Arabo-Islamic invasion of Iran" has gained popularity. Are these sentiments based on the truth, or are they baseless and just rhetoric?

Indeed, these barbarians can only be thought of as foreign invaders. They call themselves Iranians, but are they really Iranians?

What does it mean to be Iranian? It means to hold dear the traditions, ideology, and ways of life of Iran. It means to love Iran itself, and more importantly, the citizens of Iran.

As we all know, Iran (land of the Aryans) is a country with very old and deep rooted traditions, going back at least 7500 years. A nation which is that old cannot be expected to remain static. Change is of course inevitable in its history. But what type of change can be deemed acceptable and simply an evolution of a society, and what type of change is deemed unacceptable and antagonistic to the foundations of that society?

Those changes that act to advance a society, both technologically as well as morally, while staying true to the basic principles of that society will be considered acceptable and should be integrated into that society. Those that set a society back, either technologically or morally, and are antagonistic to the founding principles of that society must be considered unacceptable.

So, let's examine Iran's history from the perspective of who in our history was a legitimate Iranian regime and who was merely a foreign occupying force. Let's review who merely brought changes that aimed to build upon and improve our existing Iranian culture, versus who brought changes that were designed to undermine and destroy the Iranian culture and Iran. As always, a historical perspective will help clarify the present circumstance.

The Achaemenians built upon the existing cultures of the Elamites and Medes. They accepted them as their own, stayed true to their tradition for the most part, and accelerated that society in an amazing way. There was technological, economic, military, as well as moral acceleration. Their impact was so great, and so positive, that they not only expanded Iranian culture but also became its primary defining feature.

After Alexander's conquest, Iran fell under a foreign occupying force. The subsequent Seleucid Empire was obviously not Iranian, but Greek. They did not arrive with the intent of evolving Iranian culture, but rather to dominate it, use it, and overwhelm it with another culture: Greek. Some of the results were positive, in so much as Greek culture is as rich as ours and has much to offer. Nevertheless, since it set out to overwhelm and subjugate Iranian culture instead of simply enriching its foundations, it can be viewed only as a foreign occupation. Fortunately, it did not succeed.

The Parthians, another Iranian tribe, drove out the Seleucids and restored Iranian culture. They remained true to the spirit and culture of Iran, and did their best to make positive contributions. Though their contributions were limited (although it may have been more involved than we think, only because our historical records regarding this period are so relatively scant), because they were loyal to Iranian citizens and culture, they must be viewed as players in the advancement of the nation.

The Sassanids, second only to the Achaemenids in their service to Iran were also a major defining feature of Iranian culture and identity. They considered themselves the direct descendants of the Achaemenids, and obviously sought to preserve Iranian culture and identity while serving their nation. They took a great role in advancing the foundations of Iranian civilization in many different aspects.

Then came a major turning point in our history: the Taazi barbarian invasion of our Iran. This was the second of many foreign occupying forces to dominate Iran. With the Taazi invasion, Iran was again faced with an enemy from within which aimed to undermine its civilization and identity. The first factor used to destroy a national identity was an attack on its predominant religion: Zoroastrianism. With physical and economic coercion, the Taazi barbarians were able to convert a large portion of Zartoshdtis to Islam. The Taazi language and customs were also forced on the native Iranians. The ruling Umayyads and Abbassids were Taazi dynasties, with loyalties only to themselves, their Taazi tribesmen, and their Taazi culture and religion. Iran was to them only a commodity, used for its natural resources and its people. The moral system that the Arabs brought with them was much more primitive and barbaric compared to the system which already existed under the Sassanids. And those Arabs were clearly determined to wipe out as much as they could from the Iranian culture and collective memory. Magnificent artworks were destroyed, and the Arabs had themselves a good old fashioned "book burning." You may recall the old Taazi edict "We need no other book other than the Quran." Clearly, this invasion served as a devolution of Iranian culture. Fortunately, the Arabs did not completely succeed in their goal of destroying Iranian identity. It is noteworthy that Iran was the only nation to be dominated by Taazi rule for so long yet retain its identity as non-Taazi. Others were not as fortunate. One of the greatest of ancient civilizations, Egypt, never recovered from the barbarian invasion and has remained Arabic forever. In that respect, Egypt's place in history remains very lamentable.

After the Taazi occupation, the Saffarids retained control over Iran. They identified themselves as Iranians, sought to regain Iranian culture and tradition, and aimed to serve the citizens of Iran instead of using them as a commodity for a foreign power. Yaqoub Saffarid made it a point to restore Persian language by making it the mandatory language of his court. The fact that we don't speak Arabic today is owed to the Saffarids and none other than Ferdowsi. The Saffarids kept the language alive long enough for it not to be completely extinguished, but were not able to completely restore it. However, they played a very important role, because they kept it alive long enough for a genius like Ferdowsi to come along centuries later and use it in such a way that only an epic poem can do. In doing so, he ignited a flame in all common Iranians to regain their language.

A multitude of different dynasties followed, most of which were foreign: Turkish, Mongol, etc. The vast majority of these had no interests in building upon the existing Iranian culture, and again, can only be viewed as foreign occupying forces with only self serving motives.

The Saffavids followed, which served a very important role. Their role in Iranian identity and culture was very ambivalent. They wished to promote an Iranian agenda and revive Persian culture. In that, they were quite successful. But in pushing for Persian unity, they used Shiite Islam as a tool. Forced conversions were implemented, as well as religious persecutions. Because of them, islam was here to stay. Since islam is clearly a foreign ideology and not at all conducive to Iranian culture and identity, as well as morally inferior to the original Iranian way of life, this act of the Saffavids unintentionally had very clear anti-Iranian results in the long term. Hence the ambivalent role of the Saffavids to truly serving Iranian identity and culture. Nonetheless, in intent the Saffavids cannot be viewed as a foreign occupying force, and overall served the Iranian purpose.

A number of other mediocre dynasties followed: Afshar, Zand, Qajar, which were Iranian and clearly not foreign occupiers. Though Iranian, their contributions to Iran (with the exception of a few noteworthy individuals such as Amir Kabir, who was actually not a king) were minimal to none. It was a time of great incompetence and stagnation, which left Iran greatly vulnerable again to foreign interests in the twentieth century.

Enter the Pahlavi dynasty: the greatest Iranian dynasty since the Sassanids and Saffarids in my opinion. The Iranian patriotism and service of this father and son to the Iranian nation, culture, and identity is unquestionable. After a millennium and a half, they were the first to truly recognize the important role that our pre-islamic heritage and civilization serve in our identity. They sought to rebuild Iran where the Sassanids had left off. They catapulted Iran forward by two centuries in a matter of half a century. The manner by which they served the traditions, culture, and citizens of Iran can only be viewed as a great evolutionary step forward. Unfortunately, their efforts were halted, undermined, and greatly reversed with the Revolution.

This was more a Revolution from without than a Revolution from within. Regardless of its origins, the result was obvious: a ruling theocratic Islamic regime from hell. Power was handed to Islamic Mullahs, people whose only intellectual interest is the religion that spurted from an Arabic, tribal, nomadic way of life. A religion which developed and has remained in medieval times. The mullahs and their Islamic followers' allegiance is understandably only to themselves and their ideology which binds them to Arabo-Muslims. Their education (if you can call it that) and upbringing had always been in relation to this foreign religion, which can only identify with the Taazi mentality and cause.

Their upbringing is Taazi, their thoughts are Taazi, their traditions are Taazi, their culture is Taazi, their religion is Taazi, their clothes are Taazi, their language is Taazi, and unfortunately, their morality is Taazi.

Are we really surprised that their allegiance is Taazi?

Now let's review part of the role that this theocracy has played in the last 27 years.

1. Changed the national flag. The lion and sun, which is unrelated to monarchy but represents ancient Iran, was replaced with the double swords of a Sikh symbol. What's a Sikh symbol doing on our flag?

2. Implemented religious persecution of any minority non-islamic (and even sometimes Islamic) religious group.

3. Persisted on the use and knowledge of the Arabic language, while de-emphasizing Farsi. Coercing students to learn Arabic if they wish to get an education.

4. Attacked ancient Persian cultural monuments and archeological sites. If not for the resistance of brave Iranians, Persepolis would have been demolished by now.

5. Insisted by coercion on naming Iranian newborns using foreign Taazi names instead of proud Iranian names, by refusing to issue birth certificates to those with purely Iranian names.

6. Attempted to suppress the ancient traditions of Nowruz and Chaharshanbeh Souri commemorating the Persian new year. Fortunately, this was yet another unsuccessful and pitiful attempt to subdue Iranian culture.

7. Falsely changed history books, giving misinformation to young students regarding Iran's history. Deceitfully and purposefully depicted the Iranian nationalists, patriots and kings as tyrannical while glorifying and legitimizing the barbarian Taazi invaders and their descendants as heroes.

8. Neglected Iran's citizens and infrastructure, while using its natural and human resources to achieve their goals: self-serve, and propagation and support of Arabo-Islamo-Fascism and terrorism.

Let's also not forget that Khomeini barely spoke any Farsi; Arabic was his first language. He always called for propagation, preservation, and expansion of Islam; he never said a caring or positive word about Iran. The only times he mentioned Iran was in relation to how it could serve Islam and the Islamic agenda. Iran has been made Islam's commodity since 1979.

Have the current ruling mullahs behaved any differently than the Umayyads or Abbassids? Are they any less a foreign occupying force? Have they tried any less to destroy Iranian culture, identity and heritage? Have they oppressed and terrorized the legitimate Iranian citizens any less? Have they used Iran's human and natural resources in order to serve a foreign interest and ideology any less?

The name Islamic Republic of Iran is a misnomer. There is nothing Iranian about this regime, and these terrorists should not be allowed to use the word "Iran" to describe their regime. From now on, I refuse to refer to this illegitimate, tyrannical, barbaric, immoral, and foreign occupying force as "IRI," and will simply refer to it as "IR," or the Islamic Republic (and even the term Republic is a misnomer, since this regime is not represented by its people).

Back to History Index

Support IPC
IPC operating since March 30, 2000
    Duplication of contents are allowed, only by naming the source & link to IPC
All rights are protected & reserved by Iran Politics Club © 2000 IPC