The iranian Regime and Dehumanization

During the Iranian Revolution in 1979 transformed Iran’s political,social,and economic structure. Secular Laws were replaced with Islamic laws creating an outburst. Women were often abused,raped,treated as slaves,and accused of false imprisonment. These tortures things that most women had to face are against the Islamic religion.

Like all other ideological revolutions, in Iran too, the former prime minister, Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mahdi Karoubi, the former chief of parliament, criticized his dictatorship and because of their ranks they were validated for 2009 presidency election candidates, but after a huge engineering of election, Ahmadinejad was reelected and both Mousavi and Karoubi ended prisoned in their own houses XXX.

In the late 1970's, the world was hit with the events of the Iranian Revolution, a movement in which the Shah was overthrown in replacement with Ayatollah Khomeini. Causes for this movement included the economic, political, and socio-economic conditions in Iran before the Revolution. Economically, the Shah's hopes for the country ended up being their downfalls while politically, the Shah's ruling as a dictator prohibited the freedom of the Iranians. Socio-economically, the Shah didn't place much emphasis on religion, angering the majority of the population. The overthrow of the Shah led to the uprise of a religious leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, a figure supported by many. Unlike advice

Various factors influenced the 1979 Iranian revolution, but at the core of this significant event was Islamic fundamentalism. The Iranian religious leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, led this movement to end the thirty-seven-year reign of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, also known as the Shah of Iran (Diller 1991, p.152). The revolution was a combination of mounting social, economic, political and religious strains. The nation of Iran was never colonized, unlike some of its bordering countries, making its people intolerant of external influences. The Shah had gradually westernized and secularized his country, creating a strong American presence that was being felt

Throughout history, instances of genocide, mass murder, and extreme acts of violence are widespread and pervade through every culture and society. As demonstrated by Panh, Lifton, and O’Brien, similar examples of excessive violence can occur in widely different situations. In order for such violence to occur, there first must exist certain systematic factors. In this paper, I will argue that conditions of instability within a country allow for changes in belief and perception, and these changed perceptions leads to dehumanization and the loss of human rights. The Holocaust, the Cambodian genocide and the Vietnam War, all follow this pattern to some extent. First, I will compare and contrast the ways in which the Holocaust and Cambodian genocide follow this pattern, as well as explore the separate factors within each and possible solutions to these factors. Next, I will discuss the dramatically different Vietnam War, compare and contrast it to the other two, and explore how the uniqueness of the Vietnam War impacts the possible solutions for the loss of human rights within this situation.

In George Orwell’s novel, “1984”,is about a main character Winston, who is an ordinary citizen of Oceania. The totalitarian society is led by Big Brother. Television screens are strategically placed everywhere watching citizens’ every move. Leaving them in constant fear and paranoia. The corrupt society lead to some citizens wanting to rebel. If they were ever caught, they would be severely punished. This kept wearing citizens down. The dehumanization of citizens of Oceania was due to propaganda, mind control, and the lack of privacy.

The Iranian Revolution was an uprising by the common people of Iran who were upset about the doings of their Shah and his government. The Shah’s treatment of his own people can be characterized as unjust and cruel. After all, he severely limited the rights of groups whom he felt threatened his power to rule. He opposed the political rights of religious Shiite groups, which especially enraged Iranians, and led to the rise of Ayatollah Khomeini. The Ayatollah was a religious leader who would overthrow the Shah and establish a proper Islamic State in the nation. Ever since, the so called Islamic Revolution has raised concern over the dangers that Iran may pose to the Western world. Nevertheless, the Iranian Revolution was a progressive movement that reflected the major concerns of Iranians towards corruption in government, all with the intention of removing injustices and enforcing rightful liberties and common needs.

According to google, a society is essentially defined by an aggregate of people living together in an ordered community. Aggregate in this definition means people as a whole, made up of numerous individuals. Every living person is different. Whether it be differences physically, mentally, or emotionally, mankind thrives because of its diversity. In the novel 1984, George Orwell writes a captivating story about a man named Winston Smith who lives in a society controlled by a government that exploits various human behaviors, strengths, and weaknesses to not only exert their control over its citizens, but also to eventually dehumanize everyone under its power. Orwell’s novel makes a bold statement by

Luca argues that the shah ‘promoted western values and culture, whilst gaining control of the customary sectors of the Iranian society. This included religion, education and the bazaars’ . This is backed up by Kamran Matin, who states that he attempted to liberalize Iran through his attempt to ‘modernize the bazaars, irritating merchants of the bazaars with his policies such as obligatory membership and dues. He also interfered in the political, economical and religious concerns of the Iranians ’. Trenta further extends the argument and argues that this ‘westoxication of Iran culture and society angered religious leaders. The bazaaris also resented the impositions such as price controls and having to make room for western size malls’ . Trenta further extends her argument and highlights that ‘the Iranian opposition groups viewed and interpreted the interest and intention of liberalizing Iran as a response to the election of President Jimmy Carter in November 1976 as Human Rights was his ‘corner stone’ in foreign policy’ . Due to this coincidence, the Iranian people began to build resentment towards the Shah and his regime. The opposition grew as the Iranians viewed the Shah as a ‘puppet of the united states’ . Trenta argues that the election of ‘Jimmy carter and his rhetoric of Human Rights was merely a coincidence’ .

This was one reverse too far, for Iran's young “cherish a packet of grievances, ranging from the acute shortage of jobs to the social restrictions that ban most boy- and-girl outings. Restrictive though it is, the system allows discussion of these complaints, and many niggling rules have been quietly eased since Mr. Khatami took over” (Anonymous Iran's second revolution? 13). It was, however, after the police and their allies, the Islamist bully-boy militia, raided the dormitories in Tehran University, where they killed at least one student and probably more, that the shout for change began to penetrate “out-of-bounds areas. The students started to call for fundamental reforms, questioning the legitimacy of clerical control” (Anonymous Iran's second revolution? 13). They even went so far as to challenge the sacrosanct heart of Iran's Islamist edifice, the ultimate authority of the “supreme leader.”

The emergence of the Islamic Republic in late 1970’s Iran demonstrates how middle class Iranian people purged themselves of the Pahlavi Dynasty in an effort to continue down a more righteous and egalitarian path. As a result, the country underwent a complete social upheaval and in its place grew an overtly oppressive regime based in theoretical omnipotence. In response to this regime, the very structure of political and social life was shaken and fundamentally transformed as religion and politics became inexorable. As a result, gender roles and the battle between public and private life were redrawn. Using various primary and secondary sources I will show how the Revolution shaped secular middle class Iranians. Further, I will show how the

Before the revolution, Shah Reza Pahlavi was the ruler of Iran. Under his leadership power was clustered and concentrated among his close allies and networks of friends and others with whom he had close relations. By 1970s, the gap between the poor and the rich was widening and huge distrust about his economic policies grew. Resentment towards his autocratic leadership grew fuelling people to dissent his regime further. Shah now was considered an authoritarian who took full control of the Iran government preventing the Iranians from expressing their opinion. The government has transformed from the traditional monarchial form of government to authoritarian with absolute authority replacing individual freedom of the Iranians. This transformation to Iranian was unacceptable because they needed to control their own affairs. They wanted self-government where they could take control as opposed to what Shah was doing. Shah was seen as a western puppet for embracing authoritarian form of government (Axworthy, 2016).

However, the ideas had already spread throughout the Iranian people and religious protesting escalated continuously. People’s ideas of recreating a religious based government persisted to an unstoppable level. Khomeini, whom many protesters felt to be a hero, said in a speech in 1979, “Do not try to westernize everything you have! Look at the West, and see who the people are in the West that present themselves as champions of human rights and what their aims are. Is it human rights they really care about, or the rights of the superpowers? What they really want to secure are the rights of the superpowers. Our jurists should not follow or imitate them” (Ayatollah Khomeini: speech on the uprising of Khurdad 15, 2010). Based on this quote, the “voice” of the protesting Iranians was that westernization was not a good thing because the west does not care for human rights and freedoms of the lesser powers in the world and that the way to change for the better is to impose the Islamic values that already existed into society. In January of 1979, the Shah fled the country under the pressure of the people and Khomeini returned to Iran to be greeted as a hero (Bentley & Ziegler, n.d., p. 1117). Fighting erupted between Khomeini’s supporters and remaining military officials and on the eleventh of February the government fell. On the first of April, Khomeini proclaimed the beginning of the new Islamic republic (Islamic

Although the Iranian government has tried to keep their country running the same corrupt way, many outside organizations are trying to allay the problem. Independent journalists and social media bloggers are writing about the injustice and corruption in Iran. Also, a show called Parazit, similar to the Daily Show, makes fun of the government and brings hope to the Iranian Nation. The show is produced by the Voices Of America, or VOA. The VOA is supposedly funded by the CIA. The new president, Hassan Rouhani, who has also made it his goal to raise awareness about the issue, said, “my advice that I give on a daily basis, on a continuous basis, to the Judiciary, is never about a specific individual.” The president of Iran doesn’t necessarily have the power to change the corrupt laws and fix all of the problems with the government, as most of that power lies within the judiciary branch, but he is advocating for a law reform, and he is freeing illegally detained prisoners in Iran.

Since the 4th century, the Persian world has held great might in world politics. In 1979, Iran was officially established and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Since then it has been an active and vocal player in world politics. It’s rich history of political revolutions have inspired new waves of government control, tyrannical and benign leaders, and great cultural change over time. The strong religious beliefs expressed by the people of this nation are both a form of unity and disunity that cause widespread schisms within this state. As a theocratic republic, the intermingling of religion and government within the state has caused a very controversial history for this nation. Since the late 70’s the influence of a Supreme Leader as well as a government headed by a president rather than a Shah, Iranians have experienced times of great oppression and great change. These studies of Iran have lead to the conclusion that within world politics, government leadership, diplomatic relations, mutual trust and geopolitical relations are main factors in a country’s ability to function internally and communicate with other nations.