Why Iran is NOT an Islamic State

Introduction

The purpose of this article is to lay out concrete evidence to dispel the myth that Iran (as they claim) is an Islamic State.  Before we address this myth, we at iSiyasah.com would like to point out that all those claimants of "Islamic governments" of today are myths too.  There is not one state today that adheres to the principles, rules, and laws that our beloved prophet (SaW) laid down with regards to statecraft and political practice.  This blog post is an attempt at demystifying and deconstructing one such attempt via the "Islamic" Republic of Iran to pass itself off as the Islamic state or model for all other Muslims to emulate.

That being said, Iran is NOT an Islamic state.
The proper definition for Iran would be it is a secular theocracy run by an unelected and unaccountable Shi'ite clergy. In Islamic law an Islamic state or khilafah/caliphate is defined as:

1. Sovereignty for the shar'iah
2. Authority for the ummah or people
3. Single head of state (a caliph)
4. Caliph or executive has the ability to adopt opinions which are binding (he does NOT have to be a cleric to be a caliph).

Q: Is a genuine Islamic State/Caliphate not a theological state, a rule by/for the clerics?
No! Theocracies at their heart believe that there is a chosen group or selected leaders who are infallible and who have an exclusive right to interpret the word of God, where no one is allowed to challenge their interpretation and anyone doing so is condemned. The Prophethood is a theological position, which Allah (SwT) gives to whomever he wishes. The Caliph/Khilafah on the other hand is a human post whereby the people appoint whomever they wish. The Khilafah after the Messenger of Allah (saw) was held by humans, who were not Messengers. 

The Islamic political system is not theocratic in nature with anyone allowed to challenge any ruling
by either scholars or the head of state. In a hadith the Prophet Muhammad (SaW) instructed the ummah with regards to ruling:

“The Prophets ruled over the children of Israel, whenever a Prophet died another Prophet succeeded him, but there will be no Prophet after me. There will soon be Khulafa’ and they will number many.” They asked: ‘what then do you order us?’ He said: “Fulfill the Bay’ah to them, one after the other and give them their dues for Allah will verily account them about what he entrusted them with.”

In Islam, everyone is a man (or woman) of religion and everyone will be accountable to God as to whether or not one has fulfilled their obligations sincerely and to the best of their abilities.

Across the Muslim world some corrupt clerics have hijacked Islam for their own political
objectives. They have used the sincere emotions that the people have for Islam to gain political
influence and have misled them and other sincere scholars along the way. These individuals who
have attempted to project a 'pious' image that they are the ones who are looking after the interests of
Islam are in fact no different to the corrupt politicians who inhabit the same failed secular political systems previously.  These clerics use Islam to get to power, yet abandon it once they have gained their positions, choosing to enrich themselves and their families while participating in the same failed secular system as every other politician.

 

A. Academically speaking:

(for reference the Iranian constitution can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constit...public_of_Iran )

The Iranian constitution is similar to the constitutions in other Muslim countries and was drafted according to the Western system of capitalism. Iran's constitution imitates Western constitutions, in such constructs as in the republican system of governance, the partition between different ministries, its parliamentary system, the separation of powers, and the core appeals to secular western values, thoughts, and concepts as a basis for elected office and legitimacy. All of these are in accordance with capitalist and socialist doctrines and regimes.

As for the statement that the "official religion of Iran is Islam and the twelver Ja'fari school of thought" this then is similar to what can be found in most constitutions in Muslim countries, which does not mean that the state is based on Islam nor that its message is Islamic. Rather, this empty statement is merely related to personal status laws -- i.e. decrees and holidays, accommodating the people's beliefs and their acts of worship that pays respect to certain ritualistic matters of their lives. The Iranian Constitution does not provide that this Deen/Ideology (Islam) forms its ideological doctrine nor that this Madhab (the Jafari school of thought) is the state's message, what it strives to implement comprehensively internally,  nor an aim of foreign policy, which is in fact wholly nationalistic and based upon pure maslaha or naked self-interest (more on that below).

The Iranian state adheres to the current international system of enrollment in international and regional organizations based on capitalism, such as the Iranian membership in the United Nations, the Organization of Islamic Conference, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the International Criminal Court. None of its international relations are based on Islam either in concept or in practice (one only needs to read carefully through these international organizations' roles in regards to conflicts in Israel/Palestine, Lebanon, and Bosnia to see why this is important).

Hence, it needs to be noted that the Iranian state does not carry a specific message nor does it pursue a specific project based on Islam. Rather the nationalistic and secular taint is apparent in the Iranian regime, reflected in the policy of maintaining the existing system, the structure of the state and its territory, and its relations with other outside powers and entities.

For further reading regarding Nationalism and the Iranian constitution we recommend the following:

1. Item by item listing of contradictions of Iranian constitution with Islamic law/Shariah is here: http://islamicsystem.blogspot.com/20...stitution.html 
2. The contradictions between Nationalism and Islam is very well exposed here and here.
3. Is Iran an Islamic State? Good article with references included as well.

B. Exposure of how the U.S. manipulated events and brought about the "Iranian Revolution" as well as how CIA facilitated Khomeini's rise to power:

1. Iran and the Revolution an Exposure of American Plans (this is another well-written article with several references that exposes the link between Iran & the U.S.)
    
2. Dr. Ronen Bergman, an Israeli investigative journalist and author of the 2008 book, ‘The Secret War with Iran,’ says that the BBC put Khomeini on a pedestal and amplified his voice, making his brand of Islam the only alternative option to the Shah’s rule. British journalist Ed West interviewed Bergman in June 2009 about his views, and quoted a passage from book in his article, “How the BBC helped bring the Ayatollah to power”:
   

   “Another propaganda tool for Khomeini was none other than the Persian-language broadcasts of the British Broadcasting Corporation. The channel gave him a platform. His regular broadcasts made him the unchallenged leader of the Iranian revolutionary movement.”

   
   
3. When we met in a west London hotel not far from the notorious Iranian embassy, Bergman pointed out: “The BBC gave free hours of free broadcast to Khomeini from Paris. It is unbelievable. Every time there is a person who is fighting ‘royal’ forces, in the sense of their being autocratic, the BBC gives them a free hand and carte blanche, without trying to understand what their views are.                                                                                                                                        
4. Speaking of the BBC, their recent expose on Khomeini and his links with the CIA is well worth a read here: 

• 2 weeks in January: America's Secret Engagement with Khomeini 

A declassified 1980 CIA analysis titled Islam in Iran, published by the BBC, says Ayatollah Khomeini had reached out to the US in 1963. Photograph: US Government.  Source

      5. The Shah of Iran's words (in earlier link above):

"If you lift up Khomeini’s beard,” he said, “you will find Made In England written under his chin."

      6.  During Khomeini's stay at the Neauphle-le-Château in France, he was visited by delegates       

           from the White House with Khomeini agreeing to cooperate with America. Consequently 

           American newspapers reported about the agreement and the meetings that took place there. 

           These facts were recently revealed by the first President of the Republic of Iran Abul Hassan 

           Bani Sadr in an interview with Al-Jazeera on 12/1/2000. He confirmed that delegates from the 

           White House came to the Neauphle-le-Château in France, where Khomeini lived wherein they 

           were greeted by Yazdi, Bazarkan, Mousawi and Ardibaili.

           There have been many meetings between the two parties, most notably the October meeting                which took place in the suburbs of Paris, during which agreements between the Reagan and
           Bush group and Khomeini's group were signed. Khomeini then declared his willingness to
           cooperate with the United States on the condition they not interfere in Iran's internal affairs. 
           Shortly afterwards, Khomeini returned on board a French plane to Tehran, so the US applied
           pressure on Shahpur Bakhtiar to pass over the rule to Khomeini and threatened the leaders of
           the Iranian army if they stood in Khomeini's way.

C. Prominent Political Actors Within the Regime and Their Ideas and Words Speak for Themselves:

Namely, a senior cleric in Iran EXPLICITLY warns against advocacy of "caliphate" (khilafah) and says Iran is only a "republic":

Published: Nov 13, 2006
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom
Text of report by Iranian Students News Agency (ISNA) website

Highlighting an ideology that says yes to an Islamic rule but no to an Islamic republic, he said: "The fact that there are some that prefer an Islamic rule to an Islamic republic is very dangerous. And that danger is clear; it is, in other words, a return of government to [the era of] caliphate."

The former representative of the vali-e faqih in Esfahan noted: "Had the late imam been alive today, he would have rejected such an ideology. The imam believed that any government that is not based on the votes of the people is meaningless."

Noting that as a firmly established cleric he feels dutybound to warn the people of any future threat to the system, he said: "The return of government to a form of caliphate is a great danger that must be avoided. The people should stand against such a threat; I take refuge in God from those who are currently in favour of such a rule." "

Highlighting a recent meeting he had had with the managers of the office of [Reformist Grand] Ayatollah Sane'i in Mashhad, Ayatollah Taheri-Esfahani said: "I outlined my views during that meeting."

The member of the Assembly of Experts added: "The imam's view of Velyat-e Faqih-e Motlaqeh [Absolute rule of a supreme jusrisoncult] was not that a government should be absolute. The late imam believed in religious democracy [mardomsalari-e dini]."

Reiterating that an Islamic rule is different to an Islamic republic, he said:
"Imam Khomeini always spoke of an Islamic Republic. He never spoke of an Islamic rule."

He added: "The imam's decision was to establish an Islamic republic, and nothing other than that. And I regard the imam's viewpoint as benchmark."

Taheri said: "When the imam stipulated that there should be an Islamic republic and nothing other than that, it means that we should not pursue anything other than a republic. It means, in fact, that the late imam was not willing to rule over the people at any cost, but that [he believed] the people should determine their own governments."

He added: "The imam used to say in his speeches: 'I wish they would call me a servant instead of a leader'. This shows for certain that he did not favor an Islamic rule, since anyone who has claims of leadership never makes such remarks."

Source: ISNA website, Tehran, in Persian 1042 GMT 13 Nov 06, BBC Monitoring

The questions we are left with after reading through all of this are:
Q1:  What is the difference between an Islamic "republic", "religious democracy", and an Islamic "state" or caliphate?
Q2:  Where in the Quran & Sunnah is the term Islamic "republic" or "religious democracy" ever used?

From an Islamic standard (which is the only standard that should be used) these statements that represent the Iranian state are alarming and speak for themselves.

D.  Exposure of Iranian regime political instruments

     1.  Hezbollah

     a) Hezbollah functions as a proxy for Iran (giving it more leverage to use over regional and 

     international enemies).  It is a Lebanese based resistance force which uses appeals to sectarianism 

     as one of its calling cards for furthering Iranian regional influence.

     It's role is best illustrated by its behavior in Syria, where it is currently intervening for sectarian 

     reasons to help the Iranian regime ensure that a future Syria will not challenge Iranian national 

     interests.  It is best to let its own actions/words speak for themselves here:

• Hezbullah Urges Syrians to back Assad Regime
• Hezbollah Reaffirms Support for Assad
• Hezbollah Chief Says He Would Personally Fight in Syria If Needed

        b) What this helps to do is to expose Iranian nationalist motives via Hezbollah
            calculations and motives in Syria  alongside with how hollow the rhetoric of "resistance" and
            sloganeering about Islam was/is when it comes to Iranian sectarian and nationalist interests
            above Islamic ones:          

• Iran Cuts Hamas Funding Over  Syria                 
• Hezbollah Supporters Urge Leadership to Stop Sending Sons to Die in Syria
• Former Hizbullah Secretary General Subhi Tofeili: 

          "Iran Exploited Sectarianism for Persian Project"         

Q:  How does this make Iran an "Islamic" state when it selectively chooses sides in conflicts clearly involving Islam?

Q2: Why did Palestinian Muslims burn relief supplies from Hizbullah if their motives were pure and they were a legitimate part of the "resistance"?

Relief supplies from Hezbollah being burned by Palestinians

E. Looking over the political behavior of Iran you can see a number of contradictions from Islam:

1. the Iranians SUPPORTED the U.S. in operations against the Taliban in 2001 (also documented  here) and in telling their militias in Iraq (SCIRI and some shi'ite groups tied with Iyad Allawi and Nuri al Maliki) to support the U.S. occupation of Iraq.   

2.   Iran and its Actions in Afghanistan

      In Afghanistan, Iran supported the U.S. occupation and the constitution laid down by the
     government  created by America with Karzai as the (figure-head) president, all of that was an
     Iranian service to America. Iran had secured the north of the country when America failed to defeat
     the Taliban. Former Iranian President Rafsanjani mentioned that: 

"If it were not for our troops fighting the Taliban, America would have sunk in the Afghan quagmire."(al-Sharq al-Awsat newspaper, 2/9/2002).

Mohammad Ali Abtahi, Vice President for the former Iranian President Khatami for legal affairs and parliamentary elections in the Gulf and the Challenges of the Future Congress, held in Abu Dhabi on the evening of 1/13/2004, said:

 "If it were not for Iranian cooperation, Kabul and Baghdad would never have fallen so easily. But we received a bonus and we are within the axis of evil!"
(IslamOnline.net, 1/13/2004)

Former Iranian President Ahmadinejad has repeated this on his visit to New York to attend the United Nations meetings in an interview with the The New York Times on 9/26/2008 where he said:

"Iran has provided a helping hand to the United States with regard to Afghanistan and the result of this assistance was the U.S. President's direct threat to launch a military attack against us. Our country has also provided assistance to America in the restoration of calmness and stability in Iraq."

It should be noted that the former Iranian President Ahmadinejad visited Iraq at the beginning of 2008 under direct US occupation of it. Ahmadinejad often incited whirlwinds with his remarks directed against America and it's client, the Zionist state of Israel, although his words were never followed by any real actions. At the same time, Ahmadinejad was the Iranian president most closely aligning with the path of U.S. policy, therefore visiting Iraq under U.S. occupation and two weeks before leaving the government he again visited Iraq to renew his support to Maliki's government, which is there to maintain U.S. influence in Iraq. On top of that, Ahmadinejad visited Afghanistan in 2010 also under U.S. occupation and provided support for the Karzai regime, which serves as a custodian of the U.S. occupation in Afghanistan. 

         Some of these relationships and political actions by Iran aiding the US vis-a-vis Afghanistan are 

         very well laid out in detail here and here.

        

3. Iran and its relationship to Ba'athist Regime in Syria

The relationship between Iran and the Syrian regime is an old one, dating back to the time of the first Intifada in the early 1980's of the past century. Iran, then supported the Ba'athist secular Syrian regime in suppressing the Muslims of Syria, so as to keep it within the American project in support of the regime led by its agents from the Assad family. Iran did this knowing that it is a secular nationalist Baathist system congruent with the regime of Saddam (who was also a Ba'athist) and who the Iranians were fighting although it had nothing to do with Islam, rather Saddam fought Islam and its people. Iran did this well aware that Saddam was linked to both the UK and America, it did not defend the rights of the Muslims, they did just the opposite in declaring war against them and bringing victory to a criminal Kufur regime, and Iran continues to do so. The Iranian regime maintains close relations with the Syrian leadership, which includes military, economic and political ties. Iran transferred many weapons to support the Assad regime and provided it with oil and gas at discounted prices due to the lack of energy reserves in Syria. These political relations can particularly be observed in the Iranian interference in the Syrian revolution very well documented in an open sourced manner here and more recently in how the support has increased as the Assad regime stood on the verge of collapse. Had it not been for Iranian interference by sending troops of the Revolutionary Guards, its' direct interference via its' Quds Force commander, Qassem Suleimani (pictured with Assad's Shabiha commander and killed nephew (Hilal Assad) family below)

Quds Force Commander Suleimani visiting Assad nephew & Shabiha leader Hilal Assad's family

and backed up by troops from Iran's Hezbollah and Maliki's sectarian Iraqi militias that follow Iran, Bashar and his regime would have collapsed long ago. This comment from one of the fighters is particularly telling:

 “If we don’t defend the Syrian regime, it would fall within two hours,” said Ali, a 27-year-old Lebanese fighter who has served with Hizballah for more than 10 years.

The massacres of Lattakia, Qusair, Homs and chemical massacres in al-Ghouta and others bear witness to what this intervention stands for and is accomplishing. 

        In all these cases, the contrast between actions based on sectarian, secular nationalist interests vs. 

        those undertaken to achieve larger, pan-Islamic ones should be very very clear.

4.   Lip Service to Palestine While Fooling Its Own Masses & Supporters

          Nothing quite captures the abject hypocrisy of Iran's rhetoric vs. its behavior, especially in
     regards to alleged "resistance" to the Zionist state of Israel better than its treatment of Palestinians    
     inside of Syria.  One photo in particular sums this up perfectly:

Symbol of Iranian/Hezbollah/Syrian "resistance" to Israel & Support for Palestinians

Some history of Yarmouk can be found here.  Palestinians in Syria are being blockaded and starved to death by both the Ba'athist, atheist regime in Syria as well as its Iranian overlords.  What was/is their crime oh leaders of the glorious "resistance"?

It is no wonder that many Palestinians see through this empty rhetoric and despite their desperate situation as well as Israeli occupation, checkpoints, bombings, and blockades find the courage to call out the hypocrisy for what it is:

"The resistance doesn’t need help from those killing children in Syria & Yarmouk"

None of this should come as a surprise for those who understand Iranian geopolitical interests and  calculations.  Specialists who are close to the regime have already exposed much of its motives

• Fair Weather Friend: Why Teheran Has Been Silent on Israeli Bombardment of Gaza 
• Secret dealings between the Iranian regime and the US and Israel very well exposed in this book here:  Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the US  

     5.  Iran & its Nuclear Program

As for the issue of the nuclear program, it has been at a standstill for years, although the Zionist entity of Israel, supported and encouraged by Europe, threatened more than once over the years to strike this program. America stood in the face of the Zionist entity and prevented it from doing so. Until today America is preventing Israel from doing so.

Chief of Staff General Martin Dempsey on 8/12/2013 visited Israel for this purpose, such that Kuwaiti KUNA agency on 8/12/2013 reported from a radio channel of the army of Israel the following statement: "Dempsey's visit comes just days after a similar secret weeklong visit fully carried out by the commander of the U.S. Air Force Mark Welch to Israel," in which both sides refrained from talking about the nature of research taking place in it. Welch's visit was kept a secret at American request, amid tensions in the region and against the backdrop of Israeli threats to strike Iran. KUNA agency added: "Analysts believe that the commander of the U.S. Army will try to persuade his hosts to refrain from making dramatic decisions in the near future against Iran to give diplomacy a chance after the inauguration of Hassan Rouhani as president of Iran." This follows repeated US rejections of aid for Israel to bomb Iran as well as denial of Iraqi airspace for Israeli planes to bomb Iran.

America did however permit Israel to strike the nuclear reactors of Iraq that were under construction at the time of Saddam in 1981,(after Israel had encouraged Iran to do the same) but it prevents Israel from striking Iranian nuclear reactors which started enriching uranium to 20% enrichment, indicating that it is in their interests to maintain the Iranian regime that works to their advantage in the region. They want it to remain as a deterrent that frightens the Gulf States such that American influence is preserved in these countries (i.e they have reasons and justifications for being in the region), and America works to use it to maintain its own influence in the Islamic world.

Returning back a bit, we find that from the beginning of the nuclear talks in 2003 America focused on sanctions without taking any actual concrete actions against these nuclear facilities, and frustrated the European Union and outraged the Jewish state, and every time talks were held America proposed additional sanctions as a solution to the issue without taking any actual military action. America intervened repeatedly to calm Israeli "fears", because it wants the Iranian regime to remain, and for the nuclear issue to remain open so that it does reach the nuclear bomb threshold and the issue is not resolved at all. America wants it to remain, as we've said, a boogeyman that frightens the gulf states, and raison d'etre for the continuation of the presence of American military forces in the Gulf. 

 

In addition to American exploitation, the nuclear issue (as with North Korea) helps to further provide political cover and justification for the US to push for a missile shield system in Turkey and in central Europe under the pretext of deterring Iranian nuclear weapons and protecting it from them. This is something the Russians have openly said the US is doing. This is on top of a justification for the increase in the Pentagon's budget to deal with these alleged "threats" as well as the profitable arms sales that the US govt. does in hyping up this "threat" to the Gulf Sheikhdoms.

 6.  Threats/Use of Sanctions on Iran

       It could be argued that the threat and use of sanctions by the US Treasury Department is further 

       proof of the animosity of Iran and the US.  Again, lets look beneath the surface and see what is
       actually happening.  Consider the following:

• Iran has faced sanctions of one form or another since its creation in 1979.  Parts for Iran’s ageing civilian airliners trickle in from the black market. A host of sanctioned products, from industrial chemicals to anti-aircraft missiles, come from China. Almost any goods can be found in Iran, at a price.
• Iranian regime insiders, well connected to many of the Mullahs and power brokers in Iran actually profited pretty handsomely from the sanctions: To This Tycoon, Sanctions on Iran were like Gold
• European companies seem to have no problems getting goods into Iran (and payment out of it) via conducting meetings in Turkey and shipping goods to Dubai:

 “Foreign firms are terrified of doing something illegal, but in the end they are businessmen,” he says. “The Europeans send our cargoes to Dubai, documented as the final destination. From there we are in charge.” Amir uses Gulf middlemen to change the documents, for a fee of 3-5%, before the goods are shipped to Bandar Abbas, Iran’s largest port.  Source: (Dodging Sanctions in Iran, Economist 3/13/2013)

• American firms also seem to have little or no problem doing business with Iran (using foreign subsidiaries to do so) further Iranians who wish to purchase American goods also seem to still be able to do so.  It should be noted that just as making alcohol illegal in the US during Prohibition created a blackmarket for it (which Al Capone helped fill), making it illegal to trade with Iran created a blackmarket that Dick Cheney and Halliburton certainly had no problem filling (via Canadian and European subsidiaries). This also involved Halliburton selling Nuclear technology to Iran.  Their excuse here:

Foreign subsidiaries of American companies can do business with Iran as long as no Americans participate in or direct that business. Halliburton says it did not break that law.

• As far as getting oil out from Iran onto the world market, it should be noted from above that Iran is already a member of OPEC and other Western backed financial organizations and instruments which set their market prices not according to actual supply/demand of oil but what promotes "stability" for US/Western economic markets.  Further Iran has resorted to using oil to barter for goods/services that it needs for domestic consumption:  
• To continue selling crude oil to India, Iran is accepting payment in rice, medicine, engineering supplies and steel (Never mind what India does against the Muslim population in Kashmir)
• To sell to China, its No. 1 customer, Iran is delivering the oil on its own tankers backed by state insurance, not on the commercial tankers used in the past.
• Japan remains so eager to buy from Tehran that the government in Tokyo is furnishing the multibillion-dollar marine insurance its ships need to carry Iranian crude.

Conclusion:

Q1:  Are these types and levels of underhanded cooperation to arrive and stay in power (via the "Great Satan") something that is allowed as a political methodology of change in Islam?

Also a true Islamic state would never assist in the destruction of another country, especially those with Muslim populations.

 

F.  'Revolutionary' Rhetoric vs. Reality 

As for what appears on the surface as animosity between America and Iran, it can be understood as follows:

1. Both the atmosphere and public opinion was highly charged against America before and after the Revolution, and America was considered responsible for the suffering of the people and blamed for its support for the Shah, for his cruelty and oppression, and was subsequently described as the "Great Satan" because of it. Given all of this, the rulers of Iran could not directly announce the resumption of talks between the two sides and afterwards the resumption of diplomatic ties, especially America's meetings with Khomeini in Paris, and American pressure on the Iranian military to not intervene against Khomeini's revolution.

All this was not a secret, therefore the Iranian regime was in need of dynamic events with America as justification for sitting with them. So the hostages' incident took place in the American embassy on 4/10/1979 which resulted in the severing of diplomatic ties between Iran and America in order to strengthen Khomeini and strike his opposition and cover the reality of the relationship between the two sides. 

Afterwards American sources mentioned that it was a tidy American theatrical, and likewise former President Hasan bani Sadr mentioned in the previously mentioned interview with Al-Jazeera on 12/01/2000 stated that:

"there was an agreement with the Americans and of their planning and he agreed to that after Khomeini convinced him". 

And both sides signed what is called the Algiers Accords on Jan 20 1982 whereby the hostages were released, and that happened on the day that the American President Reagan came to power in America, with America implicitly recognizing the new regime under the leadership of Khomeini when this agreement ordained the mutual respect by both sides, for each side to not intervene in the affairs of either side, for the protection of the interests of both sides by the appointment of a third party, and lastly, for the return of $12 Billion dollars that the new regime requested from frozen Iranian assets in the US.

Some of this was ironically enough, revealed in the US press as well, when in 1991 former Carter and Reagan officials alleged that George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan had struck a deal with Khomeini NOT to release the hostages until after Reagan was assured of victory in the US Presidential elections, the so-called "October Surprise" operation. 

2. For a long time, Iranian rulers have worked to foster an atmosphere for the resumption of relations, even though secret communication continued between the US and Iran.  Collaboration had occurred underground and behind closed doors (usually at side meetings in Summits or via 3rd party countries) as Iranian officials themselves have revealed.  The continuation of heated rhetoric and media confrontations (for public consumption) between the two countries benefits both countries; Iran appears as though it is standing up to America while covering up its own under-the-table dealings and political cooperation with America in its imperial projects. Iran's hostility can be a contributing factor to the facilitation of those very same projects.  The US in turn, appears publicly hostile to Iran and working against it, all the while using Iran and Iranian actions as an excuse to further deepen its presence in the region, and simultaneously to help limit European and Israeli interests and political actions in the region as well. In the end, public opinion against Iran in America (as well as the West) is deceived to maintain and achieve American interests in the region. 

Some of the rulers that have attained positions of power have been accused of being agents to America by the Iranians such as the former President of the Republic Bani Sadr, so he was overthrown due to the presence of a strong opposition current at the time against the relationship with America that worked to overthrow him. Others with more known dealings, such as the former President of the Republic Rafsanjani, whose relationship with America has been revealed through the Iran-Contra affair, was not overthrown because such a current did not exist at the time. 

Presidents have been punished and described sometimes as "reformers" and "moderates", and other times as "conservatives" and "radicals", but a change in the Iranian policy has not been seen despite the harsher tone at times and lighter tone at other times, and it remains just that -- talk -- not followed by any concrete actions and not applied in reality. As such, the American stance toward Iran has not changed despite the toughening of talk at times by the Republicans and placing it on the list of the so-called "Axis of Evil" and the softening of talk of "engagement" by the Democrats, but America has not taken any decisive and serious steps against Iran. 

When the new Iranian President Rouhani put together the new government he said: "His government will adopt in its foreign policy the prevention of threats and the elimination of tensions" (Reuters 8/12/2013). He chose "Muhammad Jawad Zarif for the position of foreign minister, who was the former ambassador to the United Nations, was educated in the United States, and was an essential participant in rounds of secret negotiations that attempted to overcome the decline in relationship between Washington and Tehran" (Reuters 07/29/2013). Rouhani more frankly announced after the elections when he said: 

"We do not wish to see an increase in tensions between Iran and the United States. Wisdom tells us that both countries need to think more about the future and try to sit down and find solutions to past issues and rectify things" (CNN 6/17/2013). 

The White House replied to him saying: 

"The United States is still prepared to engage in talks directly with the Iranian government with the goal of reaching a diplomatic solution that deals fully with the international community's concern over Iran's nuclear program" (same source), 

which means that Iran wants to end the era of secretly working with America, and begin a new era of openly working with it, but with different forms so it will appear as though it is an influential state regionally that commands involvement in regional affairs.

G.  Conclusion

The matter of doctrine that Iran has specified as official doctrine for the regime, it has not specified it as a message or project it carries, and it has not established its regime on this doctrine, nor has it adopted its constitution or its articles based on it. Instead, the central articles that pertain to the system of governance, foreign policy, and the issues of military and security is taken from the capitalist system, so that it resembles the Saudi regime, which exploits the prevalent doctrine in the land, the Hanbali madhab, to achieve the interests of the regime.

As for the foreign policy of Iran, it is compatible with American interests in the region, and likewise in the larger Middle East and Islamic lands. For example, Iran helped Washington to realize the continuation of the American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan over the past decade or so; by way of its Hezbollah subsidiary in Lebanon, it has redrawn the political landscape conducive to American interests in Lebanon. Iran has collaborated to maintain U.S. hegemony in Syria by way of supporting Assad. Thus, Iran works in Afghanistan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq to serve American interests.

As for outside the region it can be said that America has succeeded in exploiting Iran's conduct to promote its own missile shield program and tying the Gulf Cooperation Council into unbalanced security agreements, as well as in the selling billions of dollars in weapons to Gulf states out of fear of Iran.

It is our hope here at iSiyasah that those who read through blogpost can put aside partisan thoughts, sectarian emotions, and blatant nationalism; and instead, carefully read through all of the links with an open mind and make strong attempts to refer everything back to the Quran and Sunnah (as Muslims are called to do when in dispute) in order to understand just what is the criterion we are to refer to and how/why Iran, like other claimants before it -- is far from anything Islamic.  This site also gives an excellent summary and analysis of why the constitutions other countries such as Sudan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the Taliban, and other Gulf Countries are also wholly secular, subservient to imperial/colonial powers, and simply use Islam and Islamic laws as slogans to fool their own masses.  The subsequent political actions that these states have undertaken have already spoken and validated this.

Lastly, the most blatant and obvious reason how this can be ascertained is by speaking with Iranian people themselves. Just as the strength of the roots of any tree or plant can be seen by the fruits it yields,  Iranian citizens - be they Shi'ite or Sunni, religious or secular, rural or urban -- are united in opposition and hatred of their government. Periodic crackdowns (and rigged elections notwithstanding) nothing will change this fact. Those who wish to learn just how "Islamic" a nation or its system is should sit down and talk with a citizen of that state who has directly lived under it to ascertain just as much.

Insha-allah the truth will prevail and falsehood will perish.