Terrorism and Islamic Fundamentalism: Two Sides of the Same Coin PDF Print E-mail
Tuesday, 19 July 2005
More than eight years have passed since Islamic Fundamentalism: The New Global Threat was first published. During this period, the idea that Islamic fundamentalism led by Tehran-by abusing Islam, the religion of compassion and love-would carry out its ill intentions and would be a threat to peace, security, friendship, and human rights in the world has had many challenges. In academic discussions, some tried to prove that Islamic fundamentalism would moderate over time, while others tried to change the word fundamentalism to extremism. In politics, many tried-by giving concessions-to open a dialogue and discussion with the leaders of this ominous phenomenon.
     The bombing of the Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires; the unsuccessful attempt to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Bangkok; the assassinations of publishers and translators of Salman Rushdie's books; the terror plot against Maryam Rajavi, the president-elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran in Germany; the import of huge 320-millimeter "supermortars" rocket launchers to Europe by the Intelligence Ministry; the terror plot against Yasser Arafat; the explosion in Riyadh; the bombing of the Khobar Towers in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia; the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania; 128 terrorist operations against Mojahedin in Iraq, including the bombing of a Mojahedin city bus near a hospital in Baghdad and the firing of 77 surface-to-surface missiles on Mojahedin bases in Iraq-these are but a few of the terrorist and aggressive activities that Tehran rulers and their agents or fundamentalist allies have carried out, killing thousands of innocent people. Yet even when the head of Tehran Radio and Television said, "Missile attacks on the bases of the Iranian [Resistance] in Iraq are a warning to other smaller nations of the region not to play with a lion's tail," many international stakeholders preferred to ignore it.

 The September 11 Tragedy: A Strategic Blitz

     The tragic events of September 11, 2001-the hijacking of passenger planes in the United States and attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, in which thousands were killed-shocked the world, especially the United States, as the most destructive terrorist incident in contemporary history. One former U.S. government official mentioned in the first few hours after the attack that there was a question of how the terrorists had been able to carry out their plan without U.S. intelligence agencies having any clues or information about it. No one doubts that from a political, economic, and security point of view, the negative impacts of the deadly attacks of September 11 are far greater than those of the Persian Gulf War in the 1990s.
     Even if there are doubts about the identities of the perpetrators of this tragedy, there is no doubt that they all belong to one camp: Islamic fundamentalism. They dare to use the name of God and Islam to step on all values and to cross any lines in order to advance their evil intentions. In his address to the U.S. Congress on Thursday, September 20, 2001, President George W. Bush described the perpetrators as radical Muslims and extremists who stand shoulder to shoulder with fascism, nazism, and totalitarianism. If we want to bundle all these descriptions into one name, I believe none can be more expressive than Islamic fundamentalism.
     It is a deadly mistake if, in a search for a response to the September 11 incident, we lock ourselves in a technical, tactical, and informational labyrinth, attempting to analyze the personalities of the direct perpetrators of this incident. Beyond all the analysis, the past twenty-two years have taught us that in today's world, terrorism is the other side of Islamic fundamentalism and is in fact needed for its existence. When you confront such a dreadful enemy but you try to handle it with friendship and compromise, you certainly will be blitzed.


 Islamic Fundamentalism-Based Terrorism

     Terrorism is a tactic, a function, and a method whose driving force is an ideological and political goal. Without such a driving force, terrorism would dry up and fail. In the 1960s and 1970s, terrorism was based on nationalist, secular views and in many cases was chauvinistic. For reasons that we will not discuss here, it started to decline in the second half of the 1970s. Despite the fact that reactionary religious movements existed throughout the twentieth century, they were never in a position to engage in terrorist activities until recently.
     The roots of Islamic fundamentalism go back to the first centuries of Islam. But Islamic fundamentalism in its current context, theory, and power emerged after Ruhollah Khomeini came to power in Iran in 1979. The Khomeini regime transformed the idea of creating a global Islamic rule from an unachievable ideal to an achievable goal by many fundamentalist groups, and it also gave these groups global backing.
     In a historical example, in the second half of the nineteenth century and beginning of the twentieth century, more than a few Marxist parties existed in Europe. But the October revolution victory of Russia's Bolsheviks, who were much younger than many other European parties, made that movement a global one. Until the demise of the Soviet Union, even those Marxist parties that had ideological differences with Moscow used to get their credibility from it.

Export of Revolution: A Specific Goal

     Khomeini institutionalized the "export of revolution" and creation of a global Islamic rule, not only as an ideal but as a specific goal and program within various parts of his constitution. The foreword of the regime's constitution reads, in part, "Given the context of Iran's Islamic Revolution, which was a movement for the victory of all the oppressed over the oppressors, it provides the ground for continuation of the revolution inside and outside the country, specifically in spreading international links to other Islamic and people's movements, tries to pave the way for the creation of unique global ummah so the continuation of the struggle for the salvation of deprived and suffering nations can be settled." Another part of the foreword, under the headline "Ideological Army," reads, "The Army of the Islamic Republic and the Revolutionary Guards Corps. . . carry not only the duty of protecting the borders but also ideological duty, i.e., Jihad for God and struggle to spread the rule of God's law in the world."
     The Eleventh Act of the constitution reads, "The government of the Islamic Republic of Iran is obligated to base its general policy on the coalition and unity of the Islamic nations and to try to fulfill the political, economic, and cultural unity of the Islamic world."

 Tehran: The World Capital of Fundamentalism and Terrorism

     Iran enjoys a unique position in the world of Islam due to, among other factors, its strategic location, natural resources, and historical and cultural role in the development of the Islamic civilization. Thus, the mullahs' victory quickly turned Tehran into the world capital of fundamentalists-similar to the relationship between Moscow and Marxism. More significant than money or arms, Tehran provided the fundamentalist currents with inspirational, political, regional, and international support.
     Fundamentalist movements, which till then were mostly isolated and weak, became the clerical regime's arms for the export of terrorism and fundamentalism, and as such, the menacing phenomenon of terrorism became global. Attempts to separate terrorism from fundamentalism are dangerous or futile at best.
     During the 1980s and 1990s, at least 90 percent of the major terrorist attacks were linked either to Tehran as the epicenter of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism or to its surrogates and agents and movements that managed to thrive only under the light of Tehran's mullahs. Some of the terrorist attacks carried out either by Tehran or fundamentalists under its hegemony and influence are


•The occupation of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and the taking of American hostages in 1979. This was, in fact, a clear declaration of war by this new phenomenon that effectively demonstrated its antiWest potential and hysteria.
•Taking Westerners, especially Americans, hostage in Lebanon in the 1980s.
•The explosion of the U.S. Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983.
•The bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988. The explosion of an Air France 747 passenger jet in Tehran's airport in 1983
•Several bombings in the streets of Paris in 1986, which caused many deaths and injuries among civilians
•The hanging of U.S. Colonel William Higgins, who worked for the United Nations, in Lebanon.
•The shipment of 51 packages of explosives to Saudi Arabia (which were discovered before detonation) in 1986 in order to kill many pilgrims. The massacre of more than 400 pilgrims to Mecca in 1987
•The bombing of the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires.
•The killing of antifundamentalist intellectuals and authors in Turkey. . The decree to kill Salman Rushdie.
•The killings of many Iranian dissidents, particularly the Mojahedin, in Germany, Switzerland, France, Sweden, Italy, Turkey, Pakistan, and United Arab Emirates.

     These terrorist attacks, which have left thousands of casualties behind throughout the world, are just a small fraction of the bloody record of Islamic fundamentalism led by the mullahs ruling Iran.
     With such a track record, it came as little surprise that two weeks after the tragic events of September 11, 2001, the clerical regime's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, said in a speech: "We do not believe that the American administration is sincere in the fight against terrorism. It is not sincere and is not telling the truth. It is pursuing other objectives. We do not regard the United State to be qualified to lead a global movement against terrorism."
     Speaking before thousands of his supporters, who were chanting "Down with America," "Down with Israel," "Down with Mojahedin," Khamenei added: "I repeat for the public opinion in our country and throughout the world, we want everyone to know that Islamic Iran will not participate in any movement led by America. . . . The most intransigent and the most evil terrorists are sitting by your side in America."
     News agencies reported on September 26 that Mohammad Khatami "strongly lambasted Bush" and said: "The statement by Bush that you are either with us or with the terrorists was the worst kind of dichotomy. . . . A mundane superpower can reach this height of arrogance and illusion because the person concerned thinks he can distinguish what is good and what is bad by himself."


The Mullahs Call for Terrorism

     The regime's top officials have repeatedly called for criminal acts or have taken responsibility for them. On the seventh anniversary of the U.S. Embassy takeover in Tehran, Hashemi Rafsanjani, the speaker of the Parliament at the time, said: "They hold us accountable for the blow the Americans received and the humiliation they suffered in Lebanon. We are indeed responsible [for it.]"
     In a Friday prayer sermon on May 5, 1989, Rafsanjani said: "If for every Palestinian martyred by Israeli mercenaries, five American or French citizens are murdered, they would no longer commit such crimes. . . . The Palestinians might say, in that case, the world will call us terrorists. I say, however, do they not label you already?"
     Mohsen Rafiqdoust, the minister of the Revolutionary Guards at the time, said: "In the victory of the revolution in Lebanon and many other places, the United States has felt the impact of our might on its ominous body, and knows that both the TNT and the ideology which in one blast sent to hell 400 officers, NCOs and soldiers at the Marine Headquarters have been provided by Iran. This is well understood by America: that is why they are so helpless in the Persian Gulf."
     Mohsen Rezai, then commander in chief of the Revolutionary Guards, said: "The Muslims' fury and hatred will bum the heart of Washington someday and America will be responsible for its repercussions. . . . The day will come when, like Salman Rushdie, the Jews will not find a place to live anywhere in the world."
     Mohammad Khatami, the Iranian regime's president, who is now talking about dialogue among civilizations, once said the following about the British author Salman Rushdie: "Salman Rushdie, the author of the book Satanic Verses, must be executed according to the religious fatwa of Imam Khomeini, and there is no way for him to escape the execution of this order. By the publication of blasphemous Satanic Verses, the criminal East and West, particularly the British rulers, proved to the world that they are not only an enemy to the Islamic Republic and Imam but are an enemy to the religion of Islam and more than one billion Muslims around the world. The silence on the part of Arab rulers about the publication of Satanic Verses proved that they defend Islam and the Quran only rhetorically.


Enmity toward Peace and Freedom

     One of the characteristics of Islamic fundamentalism, especially as set forth by the ruling mullahs of Iran, is its enmity toward peace and penchant toward sabotage of the Middle East peace process. The conspiracies of the mullahs and their associates in Palestine and Arab countries against Arafat, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Palestinian Authority continued unabated. In every state-controlled demonstration in Tehran in support of Palestine, "Down with Arafat" and "Down with revisionists" have been routine slogans. So far, several assassination plots against Arafat have been designed by Tehran's regime that were discovered and neutralized. An intifada meeting in Tehran last April basically was aimed at putting pressure on the PLO and boosting opposition and anti-peace groups' standings.
   As for Israel, the Iranian regime has always wanted its eradication from the face of earth.

Terrorism and Fundamentalism's Financial and Organizational Backing
 
     The regime leaders' remarks on exporting terrorism and fundamentalism enjoy a huge financial and organizational backing from vast networks inside and outside the country. The Intelligence Ministry, the Revolutionary Guards Corps, Khamenei's office, the Foreign Affairs Ministry, the Islamic Culture and Propaganda Organization, the Guidance Ministry, and many other government institutions are involved in exporting terrorism. The regime's organizational structure for exporting terrorism and fundamentalism-compared to eight years ago when this book was first published-has significantly improved.
     A large section of the mullah regime's intelligence Ministry is focused on terrorist activities and espionage abroad. Many Western intelligence agencies admit this fact. For example, the Qods Force, as the fifth force of the Revolutionary Guards Corps, was formed specifically for terrorist activities outside Iran. Section IX of this book explains the Qods Force structure and its operations.
     The Islamic Propaganda and Communication Organization is a huge system that is present in dozens of countries and has hundreds of millions of dollars in its budget. Besides laying the groundwork for exporting terrorism and fundamentalism, it is engaged in recruiting Muslims and Arabs for the regime's terrorist squads. This organization was formed by merging five large organizations on Khamenei's order, and it operates under his supervision. The regime's embassies and representative offices abroad, as well as other institutions that are apparently involved in cultural and religious services abroad, serve the purpose of exporting terrorism and fundamentalism.
     The dimensions of the mullahs regime's atrocities have grown to such an extent that despite economic and political implications, the judiciaries of some countries, especially European countries, have stressed the role of the regime's leaders in those atrocities. Judge Roland Chatelain, the Swiss investigative magistrate, announced in 1990 that the assassination of Dr. Kazem Rajavi was carried out by thirteen Iranian nationals, all of them holding Iranian regime service passports. He stated in June 1998, however, that this assassination was done by the mullahs' Intelligence Ministry.
     A German federal court in Berlin, after a four-year-long trial regarding the killings at a Mykonos restaurant, asserted in its verdict that a committee of the highest ranking leaders of the Iranian regime-including the supreme leader, the president, the intelligence minister, and the foreign affairs minister-had ordered assassinations outside the country, including those on Mykonos. Earlier, the Berlin court had issued an arrest warrant for mullah Ali Fallahian, the regime's intelligence minister.
Khatami's Era
     Four years ago when Khatami became president of Iran, many believed that everything would change in the regime of the mullahs. The Velayat-e-faqih and that the theocratic regime would follow the path of moderation. Knowing Khatami and the nature of the Velayat-e-faqih system, the Iranian Resistance made no such misinterpretation.
     Nine years ago, when I was compiling this book, while I never thought Khatami would one day become the president of this regime, I mentioned his role as a relatively low-level cleric at the head of the Ministry of Islamic Guidance, a major lever in exporting terrorism and fundamentalism. As one of the chief theoreticians of the regime, he said about the thesis of exporting the revolution: "Where do we look when we are defining our strategy? Do we look at the protection of our territorial integrity or at the expansion? Do we look at expansion or protection? We definitely have to think about expansion.
     At another time he stated: "The question is what shall we do to enter the world stage? We need a force that our enemy would not have. This force should be superior to technology and weapons. Our balancing force is the newly born and awakened Islam that is prepared to make sacrifices throughout the world. The Islamic Republic will survive if it is backed by that global force. In Algeria the Islamic movement is serious. We can count on Sudan. New centers of power in the Islamic world are in the making. The rising Islamic force in the world is considerable, and we should seriously include it in our calculations."
     He said about the United States: "The U.S. bully is a double disaster. The most cultureless people are Americans-a bunch of bullies, hooligans, adventurers. The worst people from across Europe went there and made money. A baseless culture and with the technology of force. . . . Now Americans, a bunch of the most cultureless people in the world, have the most assets of the world. This is one of humanity's double disasters."
     Nevertheless, the presidency of Khatami became an opportunity for some in the West who wanted to do business with the mullah regime. They referred to Khatami as "moderate," a supporter of "civil society" and "removing tensions," and a hope for "democracy." They tried to pave the way for expanding their relationship by exacerbating the illusion of Khatami's moderation, giving a human face to fundamentalism and identifying Iran under the mullahs' rule as a model for Islamic democracy. But the Iranian People and Resistance knew from the beginning that Khatami neither wanted to reform nor was capable of reforming this regime, nor is this medieval regime reformable.

Khatami's Record

     The essence of any real political reform is free elections. This requires abandoning repressive measures; ending suppression, torture, and execution; and allowing freedom of political activities of opponents. In a fair assessment, one has to measure Khatami's four-year record based on these requirements. Khatami has never been faithful to his own early slogans, such as "opponents' freedom," "civil society," and "rule of law" and has used them to give a cosmetic appearance to the religious fascism and absolute rule of the mullahs†-that is Velayat-e-faqih - and to gain more shares of power. The Iranian Resistance, which struggles for Iranian people's basic rights, i.e., freedom, democracy, peace, and justice, welcomes any reform and political dialogue and would be the first winner of such a process. But the reality, as Patrick Clawson wrote in the Wall Street Journal, July 16, 1999, is different: "Khatami's agenda is not to bring Iran back to the modern world. His goal, instead, is to strengthen the Islamic republic through reforms that would restore its popularity." A glance at Khatami's four-year record provides this image:


•  Oppression, torture, inhuman punishments such as public stoning, amputation of hands and gouging eyes, which are aimed at terrorizing the society, are more common than ever. More than 1,100 public executions, 16 announced stonings, and public floggings of thousands of people are part of the disastrous human rights record under Khatami. Khatami played a major role in suppressing the uprising of students and other people of Tehran in July 1999 and personally ordered a crackdown on the demonstrators via television.
  •More than 50 publications were closed down during the last four years, and no opposition newspapers were allowed to be published. These publications belonged to the regime's factions.
  •No political opposition party, organization, or group was permitted to operate, and even members of the "Freedom Movement," who were tolerated during the past twenty years and acted as a safety valve for the regime, were sent to jail. This group has always maintained its loyalty to the Velayat-e-faqih.
  •With the collaboration of Khatami and Khamenei, the perpetrators of political assassinations by the Intelligence Ministry-which claimed more than 120 victims according to the regime's officials - were set free and the related cases were settled behind closed doors.
  •Khatami personally ordered the closure of Arya, a newspaper of his own faction, because it pointed to Khatami's role in the mass execution of political prisoners in 1988. Arya wrote in March 2000: "The main resolution of the suspicious assassinations is to go back to the past and to open the case of mass execution of political prisoners in the summer of 1988. Everybody involved in that must be removed and sent home." Ressalat, referring to Khomeini's fatwa for the mass execution of political prisoners, pointed out in April 2000: "This verdict was issued at a time when Mr. Khatami was the cultural deputy of the commander in chief and supported vigorously the Imam's order."
  •As explicitly stated by Ali Shamkhani, the minister of defense, the bombing of Iranian Resistance bases within the first few weeks of Khatami's election (September 1997) was with the agreement of all the regime's leaders and specifically Khatami. The decision to launch seventy-seven missiles of mass destruction against the Resistance's bases, according to Mohsen Rezai, the secretary of the Expediency Council, was made in the Supreme National Defense Council, led by Khatami. In its first four years Khatami's regime has launched seventyseven terrorist operations against the Iranian Resistance abroad. These facts show clearly that Khatami has no hesitation about exporting crisis and terror outside of Iran's borders.

The Growing Trend of Threat

     The International Herald Tribune on April 3, 2001, reported "the State Department's top Middle East diplomat said that Iran had increased its support for 'terrorism,' one of the key markers by which Washington assesses the Iranian government. Edward Walker, assistant secretary of state, [stated], 'I would say that in my judgment the problem of Iranian support for terrorism has increased. . . . This is problematic.'"
     In May 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell in a Congressional hearing said that the Iranian regime "continues to hang on to an ideology" that is not relevant to the twenty-first century. The State Department's annual report, Patterns of Global Terrorism, published in April 2001, once again named Iran as the world's "most active state-sponsor of terrorism."
     The Los Angeles Times on May 6, 2001, quoted an American official who said, "Iran has become more active (in terrorism) since last fall The increase has been pretty steady and pretty intense. . . . In the past, Iran tried to limit direct links to extremist operations. . . . Now the Revolutionary Guards in Lebanon are providing more operational support. According to Arab and US sources 'The Jordanian government is sufficiently concerned about Iran's heightened profile that King Abdullah II raised the issue during his visit to Washington last month. It is a change because in recent years, Jordan had witnessed a drop in Iran's activities, and then they went back up again last fall,"
     Michael Sheehan, then coordinator for counter-terrorism of the State Department, in an address at Brookings Institute on February 10, 2000, said: "The primary area of concern for me in counterterrorism today is in Southwest Asia, and specifically in two countries-Afghanistan and Iran. . . . Iran continues to support such terrorist groups as Hezbollah, Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and Ahmad Jabril's PFLPGC, for the purposes of attacking the Middle East peace process. As CIA Director George Tenet recently testified, Iran remains the most active state sponsor of terrorism, and I fully agree with that assessment."


Weapons of Mass Destruction

     During Khatami's tenure, not only has the domestic situation deteriorated, including personal and social freedoms, but Iran's policy regarding terrorism has not changed. George Tenet, CIA director, at a hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee on February 7, 2001, said, "Islamic militancy is expanding, and the world wide pool of potential recruits for terrorist networks is growing.  In central Asia, the Middle East, and South Asia, Islamic terrorist organizations are trying to attract new recruits, including under the banner of anti-Americanism. . . . Iran's desire to end its isolation has not resulted in a decline in its willingness to use terrorism to pursue strategic foreign policy agendas - Tehran, in fact, has increased its support to terrorist groups opposed to the peace process over the past two years."
     The Iranian regime's intense effort to obtain and proliferate weapons of mass destruction continues to be a top priority for Khatami. A report submitted to the U.S. Congress by the National Intelligence Council in September 1999 stresses that "Iran is the next hostile country most capable of testing an ICBM capable of delivering a weapon to the United States during the next 15 years. Iran could test an ICBM that could deliver a several-hundred kilogram payload to many parts of the United States in the last half of the next decade using Russian technology and assistance."
     In a January 2001 report, the Pentagon stated, "Iran is one of the countries most active in seeking to acquire nuclear, biological, chemical weapons - and missile - related technologies. Iran's NBC and missile programs continued in the last several years notwithstanding President Khatami's moderation of the regime's anti-Western rhetoric."


The Policy of Rapprochement with the Mullahs

     Considering the current circumstances, the Western policy of rapprochement with the mullahs has only emboldened them to further pursue their policies and goals. Let us examine a case in point. U.S. officials have long been aware of the mullah regime's role in the explosion of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia (June 1996), which killed nineteen U.S. military personnel. In June 2001, an article published in New Yorker magazine as well as an independent UPI report revealed, quoting U.S. officials, that FBI director Louis Freeh had prepared a list of individuals responsible for the Khobar Towers explosion. He had submitted the list to the Bush administration for prosecution. This list included the names of some officials within the mullah's regime.
     UPI reported on May 6, 2001, that the United States had "airtight evidence" that the mullah regime was the chief culprit behind the June 1996 terrorist bombing. Quoting a U.S. official, UPI wrote: "The FBI reached that conclusion in an early stage but was forced to withdraw it because of political considerations."
     The International Herald Tribune wrote on April 3, 2001, "Iran-watchers inside the U.S. government say there was pressure from the Clinton White House to play down any criticism of the Khatami administration, which it saw as more conducive to improved ties."
     Tehran interpreted Washington's approach as a sign of weakness. This, in turn, made the mullahs more adamant in pursuing their terrorist policies. These policies were considered the government's "Achilles heel." In March 2000, Madeleine Albright, in her speech to the Asia Society, introduced U.S. sanctions on certain Iranian export products and stressed her government's readiness to improve relations with Tehran. The ruling mullahs, who were only too happy to receive such one-sided rewards, seized the opportunity to increase their terrorist activities and the export of fundamentalism. It is ironic that a few months after granting such a concession to the mullah regime, State Department officials complained of witnessing a "noticeable increase" in the mullah regime's terrorist activities within the region. At the same time, the State Department failed to make a connection between that increase and the policy of appeasement and rapprochement with the mullahs

Crisis in Afghanistan: The End Result of the Mullahs' Rule

     Along with a policy of export of revolution and terrorism, the regime has done its utmost to create centers of crisis. Lebanon was the first and perhaps the most costly experience. The mullah regime was able to use the particular circumstances in Lebanon to turn it into a serious center of terrorism and fundamentalism.
     The dilemma of Afghanistan was primarily created by the mullah regime and will no doubt continue until the regime is overthrown. In the spring of 1979, after the change of government in Iran, the Soviet Union, relying on the shift in the balance of power in the region, occupied Afghanistan. During the next few years, while maintaining a cordial relationship with Moscow, the Tehran regime tried to exert considerable influence in shaping events in Afghanistan. This task was accomplished through influencing the Islamic movements that were opposed to the Soviet Union. To that end, various branches were created within the Revolutionary Guards Corps and the Intelligence Ministry to further fan the flames of civil war in Afghanistan. Most importantly, due to the presence of the mullah regime in the region and through its continuous efforts to prevent the creation of a democratic and modern alternative, it was able to impede national conciliation in that country.
     It would be a superficial assumption if one were to view the developments as the result of a natural course of actions within Afghanistan. The history and background of Afghanistan do not justify the complete lack of any democratic movements. Two preventive factors played a part: one was the active role played by Tehran and the other was the West's, in particular the United States', compromise with various reactionary forces in that country. It thus did not prevent the destructive role of Tehran in the formation of such a climate.

A Historical Error

     In order to respond to the question that was raised at the beginning of this writing and to explain the reason for the September 11 surprise attack (outside the tactical and technical realm), we have to emphasize that it is due to not taking Islamic fundamentalism as a major and serious threat. A secondary reason is attempting to appease the mullah government, the center of worldwide fundamentalism. The Mojahedin and the Iranian Resistance have time and time again warned that Islamic fundamentalism and the mullah regime will not cease their terrorism. They should be considered the most important threat to human civilization in this era. Did we have to pay such a heavy price in order to take this threat seriously and to become aware of such an evil force?


A Unilateral Response Does Necessarily Include Tehran

     Considering recent events, if we use a military response against terrorism only in Afghanistan (or elsewhere) without concentrating on the totality of fundamentalism, its sociopolitical roots, and its regional center of power, this strategy will act against itself and will further encourage the fundamentalist elements. The response to terrorists should not be selective. This means that while those responsible for the September 11 tragedy should be punished, those responsible for the Khobar bombing, the bombing of the U.S. Marine base in Lebanon, hostage taking in Lebanon and Tehran, and many more terrorist crimes (committed by the agents of the Tehran regime) should not go unpunished. Allowing this would strongly undermine the seriousness of the fight against terrorism.
     Fundamentalism, as well as its twin, terrorism, will remain a threat to peace, stability, and tranquility as long as its worldwide capital is in operation. Only by overthrowing the mullah regime and its capital will the threat be removed. At that time, even if the fundamentalist elements continue to exist, similar to the fate of Communist parties following the collapse of the Soviet Union, they will either have no role or at the very least will not constitute a threat.
     If, along with military measures, we do not focus on political, regional, and international efforts, the Tehran regime will remain the heart of fundamentalism. Without a political force of action against the Iranian regime, all military, political, or ideological measures against Afghanistan or any other interested party will not render the desired end result. As William Safire, in his September 17 New York Times column, concluded: "If. . . the great majority of peaceful Muslims can be helped to win their internal theological war, today's military solutions need not beget tomorrow's tragedies."
     I believe that in dealing with Islamic fundamentalism, in addition to security and military solutions, there is a need for political and cultural solutions as well. This is the best and only practical way to demonstrate that the goal is to fight against terrorism and fundamentalism, not animosity against Islam.
The Symbol of a Tolerant and Democratic Islam
     The symbol of a tolerant, antifundamentalist and democratic Islam is Maryam Rajavi. She has played a key role not only in exposing the true nature of the misogynist regime ruling Iran but in preventing the fundamentalists from taking advantage of the religious sentiment of the People for their objectives.
     In a speech before some 15,000 Iranians and foreign dignitaries in Germany in June 1995, referring to the fundamentalists ruling Iran, she declared: "These demagogues commit their crimes in the name of Islam, a despicable and horrendous act, and itself one of their most heinous crimes. As a Muslim woman let me proclaim that the peddlers of religion who rule Iran in the name of Islam, but shed blood, suppress the people, and advocate export of fundamentalism and terrorism, are themselves the worst enemy of Islam and Muslims. The day will come when they will be forced to let go of the name of Islam."
     A year later on the anniversary of the beginning of the Resistance, in a huge gathering of some 25,000 people in London, she called for the formation of an international front against fundamentalism. She said in part of her speech:
From Tehran, the beating heart of theocracy, the octopus of fundamentalism has extended its blood-drenched tentacles into Islamic states and Muslim societies around the world. It is the main threat to global and regional peace. Exploiting the religious beliefs of more than one billion Muslims, the mullahs ruling Iran promote expansionism, while exporting crisis and discord. Their foreign policy consists of meddling in the affairs of Islamic countries, issuing fatwas to murder foreign nationals, and launching terrorist operations abroad. Other aspects of this policy include spending huge sums on armaments of all kinds, especially weapons of mass destruction such as biological, chemical, and nuclear.
Such a foreign policy is inherent to the fundamentalists' nature. The theocracy ruling Iran thrives on crises. It is hostile to the most important global peace initiative in the Middle East, and its policies and actions only nourish warmongering extremists and fundamentalists. These realities demonstrate how the ominous specter of religious fascism haunts global peace. The world community, for its turn, has a moral duty to confront and overcome this phenomenon.
I again emphasize here that these reactionaries who suppress the Iranian people, and particularly Iranian women, and export terrorism and fundamentalism under the cloak of religion, have nothing to do with Islam. They are the peddlers of religion and exploit the name of Islam to advance their sinister, inhuman objectives. Islam is the religion of peace, freedom, liberty, equality, love, mercy, and liberation. The mullahs' fundamentalist mindset, however, rests upon vengeance, enmity, and ignorance and is at war with human values and world peace.
As we approach the end of the twentieth century, fundamentalism's brazen enmity toward human values and world peace has spilled onto issues of international concern. . . . The international community has failed to demonstrate enough sensitivity to the dangers of appeasing the religious, terrorist dictatorship ruling Iran. Hence, the mullahs still find opportunities to take advantage of such conciliation. Through terrorist blackmail, they take the policies and even the moral principles of governments hostage.
     Finally she declared: "A common front against fundamentalism serves the interests of global peace and will preclude a repeat of the bitter experience of appeasing fascism on the eve of the Second World War."