Page 4-Tuesday, January 22, 1980-The Michigan Daily t Is Khomeini still in control? I Ninety Years of Editorial Freedom Vol. XC, No. 91 News Phone: 764-0552 Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan Pakistan aid plan is enough OVIET MILITARY action in 'Afghanistan has raised fears that the national security of neighboring Pakistan may be seriously threatened. But Soviet intentions in that area of the world have implications not only for the nations in the region, but for the en- tire Western world. Correspondingly, the United states last week offered a two-year, $400 million aid package to the government of Pakistan. Presumably, the U.S. government would prefer to have a strong Pakistan check Soviet aggression before it becomes necessary for other coun- tries, or even the United Stares, to do so. But Pakistan's President Moham- mad Zia ul-Haq has termed the proposed aid "peanuts" and is deman- ding more. General Zia obviously would like to milk the perceived threat of further Soviet aggression-whether real or imagined-for all it's worth. General Zia hopes he can trick or frighten a jumpy United States by crying "the Russians are coming, the Russians are coming." General Zia is no fool. He sees that the money coming from the United States can reinforce not only the national security of his nation, but the security of his own political regime as well. The United States has played this game before. Historically, in Latin American nations and other relatively weak countries around the world, a whisper of a communist threat is all that has been necessary to open the floodgates for U.S. military and economic aid. This U.S. support of often-repressive regimes-not unlike General Zia's-has gotten the U.S. into inter- national hot water before. It can do so again unless the government is cautious in its hand-outs to nations that may be threatened. The'U.S. aid proposal is certainly not "peanuts." The State Department has calculated that the proposed assistan- ce-half military and half economic-would substantially in- crease Pakistan's ability to discourage Soviet aggression. And General Zia is certainly in no position to refuse the aid, which the State Department said will probably be accompanied by ad- ditional assistance from other Western nations. It is unfortunate that the U.S. is in a position where its vital interests call for support of a regime such as General Zia's. But if the Stdte Depar- tment is sufficiently cautious in the amount and the use of funds, perhaps the U.S. can avoid the responsibility for entrenching another repressive regime. The aid to Pakistan must be monitored carefully to prevent abuse of the funds. The only real reason for the aid is the Soviet, threat, and the U.S. had better make sure the money is being used to counter that threat and not the threat of one of General Zia's domestic political rivals. A rumor has surfaced in recent weeks among Iran-watchers and knowledgeable Iranians that those masterminding the oc- cupation of the U.S. Embassy are only masquerading as supporters of the Ayatollah Khomeini, and are, in fact, dedicated to his ouster as head of the Iranian state. The rumor seems, on the surface, to be one of those flights of fancy that analysts indulge in when they run out of hard information. Yet in delving into the reasons why such a theory may be plausible, a pattern of facts relating to the course of the entire revolution emerges, shedding a new light on the conduct of the Ayatollah Khomeini. WHEN ONE WATCHES the evening news every night and sees thousands of Iranians shouting anti-American slogans, it seems as though Iran is united in support of Khomeini and opposition to the United States. Whereas the latter may be true, the former certainly is not. Several groups are highly opposed to Khomeini, they are extremely well organized, well armed and well trained. They are fanatically dedicated to the Iranian revolution; but not to Khomeini's Islamic Revolution. Theirs is a secular revolution largely friendly to leftist ideas and adamantly opposed to all ties to the West, as well as to the influences of religioussauthority in the establishment of the new state. It is difficult to group these revolutionaries under a single heading. They format least half a dozen major guerrilla organizations of varying size and political persuasion that have been active in Iran for many years, some extending back to the Mossadeq eraof the early 1950s and before. Some are staun- chly communist, though not necessarily sup- porters of Moscow; others ally themselves with the ideals of the Palestine Liberation Organization; still others model their ac- tivities on the philosophy of Libyan strongman Colonel Ghaddafi. Many of these groups had been carrying out guerrilla operations against the government of the Shah from various outposts in the remote mountains and forests of the country for some time. Fortified with training in Cuba and PLO camps and dedicated to the ovr- throw of the Shah, they saw a perfect oppor- tunity in latching on the powerful charismatic leadership of Khomeini to achieve their goals. They claimed before Khomeini's arrival in Iran from Paris that he was simply a means to an end, and that when he had served his purpose, he too, would be gotten rid of. IN THE SHORT period between the arrival of Khomeini in Iran and the fall of the Bakhtiar government in February, scuffles between Khomeini's true supporters and the armed guerrilla groups and their supporters had already begun on the Tehran University campus. Islamic fundamentalists were at- tacking leftist speakers and destroying leftist revolutionary literature despite calls for unity by their leaders. The leftist groups viewed the Islamic republic with deep suspicion. Noting the ex- tensive financial and political support provided Khomeini by the bazaar merchant class, they felt certain that commercial in- terests would eventually drive Iran back into an alliance with the West. Mustafa Madani, leader of a collective of several guerrilla movements known popularly (but incorrec- tly) in the Western press as the "Fedayeen, " was quoted in the Middle East Journal in Sep- tember as saying, "The Government is the true representative of this new, dynamic capitalist class whose natural ally.will sooner of later be the U.S. again, and a capitalist mode of development. As long as they pray and clamour for unity, they are all right with Khomeini." The events leading to the fall of the Bakhtiar regime had been engineered en- tirely by these guerrilla groups. In fact, the February uprising against the Shah's army at the Doshan-Tepe Air Base in East By William Beeman Tehran-the event that actually put Khomeini in power-now appears to have been entirely planned by the leftist guerrillas, despite claims at the time that is was a spontaneous uprising. INDEED. KHOMEINI was so stunned by the event that he lapsed into silence for two full days. The first member of the religious SUCH AN OPERATION would: . demonstrate their strength and organization; " put Khomeini on notice that they must be recognized and represented; " show the Iranian people that once again they were able to act decisively in accom- plishing revolutionary goals where Khomeini's supporters had failed; * estrange the United States permanently from involvement in Iran; .and give them a chance to discredit their A 0l AP Photo ONE OF THE IRANIANS inside of the U.S. embassy compound in Tehran takes several tapes of Sunday's Super Bowl game from a California radio reporter. Some observers believe that the militant students holding the hostages are becoming more isolated and more radical and will no longer come out into the public view. Students such as this one may be messengers for the militants, rather than members of the group. Sanctions are a bad idea O N NBC TV's "Meet the Press" this past Sunday, President Car- ter reaffirmed his intention to impose economic sanctions against Iran "that would encourage therm to release their hostages." In view of the fact that the U.S. was unable to push any kind of in- ternational measures through the United Nations, and since there is some possibility that other circum- stances may secure the hostages' release anyway, it would appear ill- advised to forge ahead with the plan- ned sanctions at this time. For a host of reasons, Carter cannot concede any major point to the militants in Tehran. Were he to agree to work for the deportation of the Shah to stand trial in Iran, terrorist action might soon become the accepted modus operandi for any violently-inclined group in the world which has some complaint or other to settle with the U.S. While some nations may have legitimate grievances against this country, we must . insist that they address their pleas through more ac- ceptable forums, such as the U.N. and the International Court of Justice. Backing off the proposed economic measures could not reasonably be con- strued as a major concession. The Soviet Union has killed the attempt at a larger-scale set of sanctions; the U.S. would be acting on its own, with an ef- feet no more conspicuous than the ver- bial whistling in the wind.. Furthermore, Iran's other problems may soon force it to release the hostages, provided that its leaders can do so without complete loss of face. For a while, .Ayatollah Khomeini had the world convinced that Iran was possessed of great solidarity and was unified behind him. It has become in- creasingly evident that that is not the case. Shiite Muslims are at odds with Sunnis; Kurds are dissatisfied with the leadership; leftist factions are clamoring for liberal reforms; and many Shiites are lining up behind religious leaders more moderate than Khomeini. The belief that the militants holding the embassy are operating in- dependently of the national leader- ship appears to be well-founded. Lastly, the Soviet presence in Afghanistan may shock the Ayatollah and his cohorts into the realization that their geographical position£ requires powerful friends in the world. It would further both Iran's and U.S. interests to join in staving off the Soviet threat. That consideration alone may win us back our men and women in Tehran. hierarchy to issue any statement on the uprising was the late Ayatollah Taleghani, who happened to be the one religious leader in close contact with the guerrillas. The breach between Khomeini and the lef- tists came quickly. Sadeq Qotbzadeh, whom Khomeini appointed as head of the National Iranian Radio-Television, banned the broad- cast of all communiques from leftist guerrilla groups. On February 15, he went on the air to announce that, "This was an Islamic revolution and no one else had a part in it." The next day Hashem Sabaqian, spokesman for Prime Minister Bazargan, an- nounced: "The leftists have no place in this government." IN THE MONTHS following, the guerrilla groups were systematically harassed, houn- ded out of the headquarters they had established, and arrested. The most significant arrest was that of Mohammad Sadati, a leading member of the Mojahedin-e Khalq "People's Crusader" group. Fourteen prominent leftist student leaders, many of whom had been acive in opposing the Shah's regime from the United States and other foreign countries, were also arrested and nearly executed;sthey remain inrprison even now. By July all leftist literature had disap- peared from the streets and bookstores. Disenfranchised, angry and frustrated, the guerrilla groups declared that they "had gone underground before and would do it again." Clearly, one of the best strategic plans that these groups could adopt to show the gover- nment that they are still a force to reckon with would be an operation such as the takeover of the U.S. embassy, accomplished with delicious poetic justice in Khomeini's name. enemies in Khomeini's inner circle: Bar- zargan, Yazdi, Bani-Sadr, Qotbzadeh, and perhaps Khomeini himself. The theory may seem far-fetched, but if it is true, the United States must face the sad fact that Khomeini is being held hostage every bit as much as the United States. Khomeini's own careful, stepwise en- croachment in gaining influence over the decision-making within the U.S. compound, added to the seemingly inability of his suc- cession of foreign ministers to make their pronouncements on the situation carry and weight with the embassy occupiers, seems to support this possibility. The people who effectively put him in power, and whom he later, renounced, may indeed now be exacting a grim revenge through the embassy takeover: the United States finishes off Khomeini; Iran never forgives the United State; and the leftists are permanently rid of two principal ob- stacles to their capture of the government. Khomeini has made spectacular use of the embassy takeover to achieve social solidarity and political goals. He has also gained con- siderable control over tlie embassy situation. If it indeed proves to be his enemies and not his supporters who are holding the U.S. hostages, Americans will be put in the odd position of rooting for the Ayatollah, hoping that he has a few more good moves up his sleeve. William Beeman teaches anthropology at Brown University and has spent seven of the last 12 years living and studying in Iran. He wrote this piece for the Pacific News Service. 6 Letters to the Daily YS A opinion affront to dignity. To the Daily: The 18 January 1980 article "The Peace Threat Doesn't Come From Moscow" by the Young Socialist Alliance is an affront to human dignity and moral con- sciousness. Your "newspaper" has sunk to an all-time low by printing it. The article sanctions the wholesale enslavement and slaughter of the Afghan people by. the Soviet government. There is no justification for this carnage! It is chic (and convenient) to blame the United States for everything wrong in the world today. If the sun fails to rise tomorrow I'll know it's our fault. But if we are to blame for the butchery in Afghanistan it is because our unilateral disar- Afghanistan position clarified To the Daily: The Daily editorial, "Repor- ters' ouster alarming" (Jan. 19) made no attempt to clarify the Afghan position. While American journalists in Afghanistan romanticized the Islamic rebels, depicting them as desperate freedom fighters in a hopeless fight against tyranny, with no help from the "free world," the truth is categorically ignored. Nothing constructive has resulted from this slanted, if not perpendicular, reporting. What these "journalists who do their job effectively" have been suc- cessful at is plunging the world intn annther cnld war inniar- unmentioned that the socialist regime in Kabul has made land reform its political centerpiece. Nor do the American press agen- cies ever dare to whisper the most atrocious crimes of the Kabul government, the policies of restricting the sale of women as brides and little girls as prostitutes. This is all beside the point. The Afghan right to self- determination is the issue, ac- cording to Western correspon- dents. If the Mullahs of Afghanistan wish to follow the Iranian precedent, fine. Just as long as the Russians stay out of the picture. excuse for Carter to ignore his campaign promises and be con- sidered a patriot for doing so. Certainly the expulsion will not curtail the pouting which charac- terizes the American journalists response to Soviet success. It will quite likely reinforce the public's approval of the Pentagon's urge to confront its adversary without regard to the price we all will have to pay. It will, however, replace the first-hand half-truth reports with second-hand half-truths reports, thereby reducing the credibility of the irreverent lust for blood which these reporters demonstrate. mament efforts have given the Soviets free reign (reign of terror) in the world. They are merely resuming their goal of world conquest, a goal established when the communists tools control of Russia. This leaves the Afghan people with two choices: Worship God and face death or prison, or wor- ship the Soviets and live under their "protection." For true Muslims this is no real choice at all. The Soviets' god is too small for them to worship. So they die defending Islam with slingshots while the Soviets crush their country with tanks. The article you printed justified the extermination of the people because of their religious beliefs. Did you also print pro- Nazi propaganda in the 1930's? Freedom requires responsibility. Your editorial staff ha' demon- strated very little responsibility in the past two years since I've been here. To print this letter would be a welcome start (I've had several letters refused in the past).