State terrorism and the history of terrorism in Iran

Majid Hakki,
[email protected]

Introduction
This article has a dual purpose. The first is to oncider a model through which acts of state violence may be adjudged to be state terrorism. The second is to provide empirical evidence for the theoretical model in order to highlight the state terrorism of Islamic republic of Iran against its own people.

There are numerous reports of widespread human rights violations in the Islamic Republic of Iran since 1979 throughout the country and particularly in Kurdistan after Ayatollah Khomeini's - the supreme leader of the Islamic republic - Fatwa against Kurdish people on August 19, 1979. After issuing the Fatwa, the revolutionary army and soldiers of the Islamic republic invaded Kurdistan. It is widely believed that following the invasion and the subsequent war against the Kurdish people, over 50 000 Kurds have been killed, hundreds of villages have been destroyed and tens of thousands of people have been forced to move from their home lands.

Thus, there has not been any international allegation against Iran that would claim and emphasize that Iran is responsible for what could actually be called genocide in Kurdistan. Of course, the Iranian officials deny the above mentioned and reject that any policy resembling terrorism is in place. They believe that the the official line in Iranian Kurdistan is a "rough place" and that the war in Kurdistan is against separatist and anti-revolutionary forces that are supported by USA and Israel. During 1979 – 1999 at least 200 opposition group members were assassinated by the Iranian regime abroad – and among those who were killed, 61 persons were killed in EU countries.

The Government of Iran has also been accused of funding, providing equipment, weapons, training and giving sanctuary to terrorists1.

The rhetoric of a state is often no indication of its actual practice and it is for this reason that a conceptual model is crucial. In order to be able to understand the process and function of state terrorism it is necessary to identify acts or policies that can be considered as terrorist. For this purpose we will discuss seven dimension conceptual model of Garzón (2000)of state terrorism.

Definition
Terrorism is an emotive term. It is naturally associated with small anti-state extremist groups who employ familiar tactics to achieve their goals: kidnapping, hijacking, the use of concealed bomb and assassination are the standard methods. Talking about the definition of state terrorism

becomes complicated by a lack of common understanding of the phenomenon and its implications.

One major difficulty is that, in many cases, it is the state that resorts to threat and violence, i.e imprisonment, execution or acts of war in order to protect the society to which it belongs from internal and external disruption. Indeed Weber's (1984) famous analysis that the state is the entity that "claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory”, presupposes that the very existence of the state is determined by the right to use violence1. For any definition of terrorism to be considered comprehensive, it must set out the parameters for the inclusion of acts by the State. To this day, defining what terrorism is, let alone who can carry it out, has been a major difficulty. The topic seems eternally deadlocked. The objective here is to argue that, Within any definition of the term

, actions and atrocities committed by the state should be included. It is easy to see how diplomacy, personal political bias and regard for the "status quo" can pose difficulties within a field like this. This article will argue that, regardless of what state is involved; some actions of the state can and should be included in the definition of terrorism.

Before considering individual examples of state acts of terror, we will examine two main argument including:

The State has the monopoly of legitimate violence within its borders. Therefore the very nature of the State is incompatible with the crime of terrorism. The very basic principle of this argument, the Hobbesian notion that by entering into a State we authorize all actions of the sovereign as legitimate, is now being questioned. Wilkinson (1992) notes:
"The state's monopoly of violence cannot be justified simply because it exists, but only by a demonstration that it is morally legitimate"2

The second main argument claims that including acts of the State alongside acts by non-State groups widens the topic too much, and they should be considered separately. Silke (1996) wrote,
"I cannot help but feel that state terrorism is actually a rhinoceros which has strayed close to our terrorism elephant. So while there are similarities between the two, they are ultimately two different creatures3"

When the state terrorist generally adapts and perverts existing legal and security structures, follows a pseudo-democratic framework of arrest, charge, trail and sentencing, usually facilitated by the introduction of national security or emergency legislation which can also be used to bypass any or all of these stages while maintaining a facade of legitimate behavior. Alternatively, the right of the state to indulge in war is often used as a means to justify and disguise the use of terrorism. One only has to think of the frequent Turkish incursions into Southern (Iraqi) Kurdistan against the Kurdish civilians or of Iranian terror bombing in South Kurdistan border area, to understand how civil war and ethnic conflict can raise considerable concern about serious human rights violations in areas where military forces are operating.

According to Spanish judge Ernesto Garzón (2008), "State terrorism is a political system whose rule of recognition permits and/or imposes a clandestine, unpredictable, and diffuse application, even regarding clearly innocent people, of coercive means prohibited by the proclaimed judicial ordinance. State terrorism obstructs or annuls judicial activity and transforms the government into an active agent in the struggle for power".

According to Garzón (2008) the state terrorism exhibits the following dimensions:

it is systematic
it is actually or potentially violent
it is political
it is committed by agents of the state, or by proxies who operate with the resources of the state
it is intended to generate fear
it is intended to communicate a message to a wider group than the immediate victim(s), and
The victim(s) will not be armed and organised for aggression at the time of the incident.
According to Garzón (2008), the definition of State terrorism is completed and explained by making reference to its most important functional elements, as seen from an institutional viewpoint. State terrorism requires:

A certain ideological organization based on dogma; an idea held as absolute, unquestionable, and which serves to excuse or justifies the destruction of all that opposes it. Such was the role of the so-called "National Security Doctrine."
An effective body of propaganda which justifies and argues in favor of the means applied and counteracts and stigmatizes contrary positions.
The internal discipline of ideological organizations: elimination of the self-critical capacity of members of the organization whose function was to apply coercive means through certain mechanisms of "internal discipline4."
The Islamic Republic of Iran has consistently been the world's foremost state terrorism. It has actively applied all above mentioned terrorism dimensions and supports terrorist groups in Middle East, most prominently the Lebanese group Hezbollah5.

A brief history of terrorism in Iran
Terrorism has a long history in Iran. Modern terrorism هas entered Iran's political scene from 18th century18 century.

Throughout the history, terrorism has been used in different modes. In ferdowsi's tale – The father of Iranian literature -the terrorism is like a black cloud of heroes’ loss in past history. The word assassin or murder and terrorist come actually from Iranian political culture and is expanded to the rest of the world. But It has been traditional terrorism, which has not followed necessarily political purposes.

Iran's first modern terrorist attack took place in 1905 when Mirza Reza Kermani shot King Naseradinin. Mirza Reza had no personal enmity against the king, but he showed his opposition to the monarchy system by shooting the king6.

As the effect of the French Revolution and the Russian Bolsheviks in 1905, the first modern terrorism was foothold in Iran. It has been the case that In Iran the kings of the power game secretly kill each other. Iranian kings have murdered their children or their father for the sake of power. But Mirza Reza attack on king Nassraddin was the beginning of new season of terrorism. Since then, this kind of terrorism becomes established in Iran.

After assassination of king Naseraddin, rulers also took advantage of assassinations to get rid of the opposition. Before Pahlavi regime numerous of terrorist attacks were made in Iran against dissidents, as well as the ruling power.

After Pahlavi rise to power, the first state terrorism began in 1930. King Reza Pahlavi called Kurdish leader Smail Khan Simko to Oshnawieh city for negotiation and conclusion of a peace on Kurdish issue with him. Kurdish leader who was on his way for negotiation place was killed before he arrived to the meeting place. On the other hand, the Islamic movements and the extreme left movements’ terror attack on Pahlavi’s authorities and western citizens in Iran were so cold act of heroes! And each group tired her best to win the killing competition.

After the end of World War II and rise of Mohammad Reza to power with support of western terrorism was used to “teach citizens”.

After defeating the autonomy administrations of Azerbaijan and Kurdistan, Pahlavi regime not only killed the administration bodies in Iran, but began to carry out the murder of his opponents, even beyond its borders, particularly in Iraq. Iranian security police –SAVAK- acts of terrorism and espionage networks in Iraq are part of the conflict between the countries. Following rise of Ayatollah Khomeini to the political arena of Iran in 1960 and when he exiled to Iraq, he declared the murder of western citizen and Pahlavi’s administration officials. As a result tens of people were killed by his order.

After the 1979 revolution in Iran, the terrorism in Iran and Middle East got new beginning. In October 1979, Iran hostage 55 American and used them as a weapon against USA. As a consequence the terrorism and hostage-taking became a new ruling power in international relations. Since 1980, Iran has been an active actor and supporter of terrorist groups in Lebanon, Syria and Palestine providing financial and logistic and training support for the terrorist organizations like HAMAS, JIHD and HIZBOLLAH.

With regarding to the relation between Israel and Palestine, all fractions of Islamic Republic agree with Ayatollah Khomeini, the late founder of Iranian regime. Ayatollah Khomeini and after him Ayatollah Khamenei the Supreme leader of the regime, who is also decision maker in foreign policy called Israel “cancer of the earth”.

Since 1981, Iran has actively used terrorism as one of the power games in its relations with other countries. This relationship of power is not only supported aircraft hijacking or blows to the Jews, but also it has been trying to peacefully terrorize the exile living members of opposition groups. Till 1997 many Iranians living in Europe were afraid to protest openly Iranian regime or their support to opposition groups. In Februrary 1989, Ayatollah Khomeini declared Fatwa against British writer Salman Rushdie, while the fatwa is not yet implemented, the Iranian government has not windrowed Khomeini’s fatwa against Rushdie.

During 1980 – 1999 at least 70 opposition groups’ members were killed in Europ.7

Over the past twenty years more than 70 opposition groups and members of the Islamic Republic of Iran's opponents have been killed in Europe. Iran is usually a monologue - using the position reached easily without any punishment for their actions. Mykonos - trial, which found Iran's highest leadership is taking place abroad behind the terrorist acts, was the Iranian Islamic international relations, as well as its terrorism policy of the order. After this, Iran has not been so easy to work internationally than before. So, all eyes are on the country's borders and into neighboring countries.

Since 1997 new wave of terrorism began within Iranian borders. The first so called “home cleaning operation” began at the end of November 28, 1998, when the transaction government’s Labor ministry and Iran’s National Party’s leader Daryoush Frouhar and his wife were slaughtered. After that series of murders began and Iran was no longer safe even to moderate government partners.

After the September 11 terror attack, the policy of Iran began to change by supporting the regional extremist like Ansari Islam and Jondo-al – Islam extremist organizations in Iraqi Kurdistan. Thus, Iran wanted to prove her own political power and influence in the Middle East political balance. As during upraising of Syrian people, Iran has sent Revolutionary armies members to support the Syrian regime and deepen the regional conflict.

Is terrorism of the Islamic Republic a tactics or strategy? Answer to this question can be found in Ayatollah Khomeini's speech (1981):

"After the declaration of Islamic republic and victory of Islam, some enemies of Islam and groups and fractions are supported by foreigners and Jews, who oppose Islam and Islamic Republic. Even some of them oppose Us and our referendum. You know well that the Democratic Party of Kurdistan is an outlawed party, because the party is supported by USA and Israel and therefore a party of Satan”8.

"Our mistake was that we didn’t act revolutionary. We gave opportunity to the evil groups. If we had acted from the beginning as we did defeating the evil regime, if we had broken all these dirty pens, and we exclude all satanic newspapers and we have condemned all their leaders to death, and if we have banned all Satan parties and punished their leaders, and we have built up timber trees to all squares, we would have succeeded in cleaning all evils and we had no problems9”.

We do not need respect and understanding in Iran, in Islamic countries or the rest of the World. These schemers are non-believers in God. These schemer groups in Kurdistan and in other parts are evil groups. They must be eliminated by force. The state must take a hard grip against them. Police must defeat them. The army must destroy them. We will take hard grips against them. We will defeat them and all those who are in dialogue with them. The prosecutor must close all newspapers and magazines who are schemer and against nation. We must punish all writers of these schemer publications. Prosecutor must punish all opposing political parties and their leaders. Throw away the hesitation, go to defeat the evil.10 "

1 Dr. A. William Samii, TEHRAN, WASHINGTON, AND TERROR: NO AGREEMENT TO DIFFER, 9/2002, http://www.gloria-center.org/meria/2002/09/samii.pdf[17.9.2013]

1 Max Weber, Essay in Sociology, (London, Routlege and Keagan, Paoul 1984)

2 Wilkins, B.T., 1992, Terrorism and Collective Responsibility

3 Andrew Silke, Terrorism and the blind men's elephant, Terrorism and political Violence, 1996

4 Ernesto Garzón Valdés, Non-Institutional Political Terrorism:A Conceptual Proposal, Democracy and Fundamentalism, 2008

5 Liechtenstein Colloquium Report, Iran’s Security Challenges

and the Region, Volume 1, 2005

6 Rejanews, The first political murder in Iran (http://rajanews.com/detail.asp?id=164679)[ 17.9.2013]

7 The list of Iranian opposition members who assasinated in Euroopean countries, http://www.komitedefa.org/text/ltr.pdf [17.9.2013]

8 Ayatollah Khomeini 20.08.1979

9 Ayatollah Khomeini, after closing Ayandegan Magazine in September 1979

10 Ayatollah Khomeini 17.8.1979