As might be recalled, George W. Bush, who decided to occupy Afghanistan in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, listed three countries as part of the axis of evil: Iran, Syria and North Korea. He held that these countries were threats against the new world order and the peace and stability that Americans were seeking to achieve. Therefore, they had to be dealt with, and proper measures should be taken against them.Iraq was left aside via occupation; the Baathist regime was overthrown. Saddam Hussein was executed. Syria managed to get rid of being labeled part of the axis of evil thanks to smart moves it has taken towards Turkey. North Korea kept relying on nuclear energy and weaponry; however, it became evident that it was not such a big threat against international stability. Iran maintains its position. Western analysts argue that Iran is a country threatening the system; they do not even feel they have to act politically on this matter. Apparently, Iran will be one of the most talked about countries in the time ahead. To this end, it is necessary to take a look at what has been going on with this country.
Islam and revolution are two words that come to mind when one thinks of Iran in the last quarter of the 20th century. A bloody revolution took place in this country in 1979; the leaders of the revolution and, of course, the undisputable figure, Ruhollah Khomeini, said it was an Islamic revolution. It was also called a revolution by the working class and the rural villagers. The leaders of the revolution were speaking out to the world from a different perspective. What happened was a great Islamic revolution with extensive participation. The incident shocked the entire world; nobody thought that Islam would have been used to create a political system and to mobilize the masses. Most held that positivism should have been dominant and that religion should no longer have appealed to people in a modern world. Religion should have been marginalized; its sphere should have been limited, and it would have existed only in a private world. However, the Iranian case presented a whole different picture: Religion took on a revolutionary language and promoted revolution against monarchy. There should be an explanation for this. It should be acknowledged that social scientists and intellectuals have remained speechless and desperate to offer a plausible explanation for this incident.
The victorious revolutionist who led the entire insurgency, Khomeini, had a draft Constitution with him on his way from Paris, where he lived in exile for a while, to Teheran to celebrate the success of the revolution. This was the Islamic Constitution of Iran. The Constitution included provisions regulating relations between the state and the citizens as well as the shape of the state apparatus based on Islamic precepts.
Besides, Imam Khomeini and his supporters had another surprise for the world: The Islamic revolution would not revive a 2,500-year-old tradition of monarchy and ensure transition to a republican order. In other words, the revolution that cost thousands of lives would create an Islamic republic in Iran.
Of course, there were other republican regimes in the Islamic world. Some of these were secular, and some called themselves Islamic republics. In that case, this question would be legitimate: What would the difference be between Iran and other examples of Islamic republics? Despite the three decades of the Islamic revolution in Iran, this question still remains unanswered; it still occupies a central place in discussions. And it appears that it will remain so for a long time to come.
