How was Khomeini created to manage the chaos in the Middle East to this day?*
Noël Lechâteau was not an exile… but an operations room…
In politics, there are no "innocent coincidences" when it comes to changing major regimes...
No revolutions descend from the sky without ladders.
What happened in Iran in the late seventies was not just the fall of the Shah and the rise of a religious man, but a calculated transfer of power from an expired instrument to one more suitable for the next stage.
Anyone who reads the documents on which I based my articles, and which will be published when I publish my book, will realize that Khomeini was not an incident, but a project...
And that "Noël-le-Château" was not a quiet French village, but a "stage" where the leader was tailored to fit international needs...
This may seem shocking to those still captive to the romantic narrative of the "revolution of the oppressed," but history, when read from the angle of interests rather than from the angle of slogans, exposes itself.
The real question is not: Why did the Shah fall? But:
Why was Khomeini specifically chosen?
And why did France, which supposedly prohibits political activity on its territory, open all doors for him to turn a remote village into a global broadcasting center?
The truth is clear:
The Shah was not overthrown because he was an enemy of America, but because he overstepped his bounds a little...
He began building a strong army.
He hinted at buying weapons from the Soviets.
- Raising the oil ceiling
- And he closed off hotspots of tension that Washington preferred to keep simmering...
*Herein lies the principle that summarizes the behavior of empires:
It does not first bring down its opponents, but rather it brings down its tools when it thinks that it has become a "state" and not a "job".
Henry Kissinger says – with painful realism – that great powers do not reward loyalty, but rather utility.
This is not a personal cruelty on his part, but rather a description of a global system that discards allies like one discards gloves when they get dirty.
The Shah was a useful glove, then he became a disturbing glove that scratched sensitive American skin!
And here's where the most clever part of the script begins:
The goal was not to replace the Shah with a strong, independent adversary, but with an alternative capable of generating long-term chaos, without completely severing ties with the West...
Therefore, the choice was not a nationalist officer who might lead a nationalist coup that would break away from the house of obedience.
No leftist would throw themselves into Moscow's lap.
There is no weak liberal without a street...
The choice was a religious man, because a religious man does not need an economic program or an institutional vision to rule; it is enough for him to possess a “sanctity” that absolves him of accountability, and to possess a “street” that protects him with anger.
*In the 1953 Musaddiq experiment, the CIA learned the most important lesson: religious figures are the quickest key to the minds of the masses...*
*When the first coup failed, the CIA did not save its plan with tanks, but rather by activating the network of religious figures and buying loyalties with money, then pushing the street to revolt against Mossadegh...*
This is not a novel, but a recurring pattern: money + the pulpit + the street = a successful coup.
Therefore, when Washington wanted to get rid of the Shah, it did not go to the political parties or the elites, but went directly to the religious figures.
She was not interested in who "hated" her in his speech, but rather in who could control the masses and turn politics into a religious ritual, because ritual is not up for discussion.
And so Khomeini awoke from his long slumber in Najaf....
He was not transferred to a nearby Muslim country, but rather smuggled out across the border and then taken to France. France supposedly stipulated that he refrain from political activity, but the opposite occurred:
Noël Le Chateau has turned into a media beehive working twenty-four hours a day...
It was as if the whole world had suddenly discovered that a man in a French village deserved to have broadcasting towers erected for him, radio stations opened for him, and newspapers racing to report his words.
This is not support for a revolutionary, but rather the creation of a symbol.
George Orwell said: “He who has the power to shape language has the power to shape consciousness.”
Khomeini did not initially triumph through weapons, but rather through the language that was formulated for him, and the image that was portrayed of him.
He became a “leader,” not because he was the most knowledgeable or the wisest, but because he was the most likely to be the embodiment of the entire scene.
And here came the moment of the great deception: a religious man was polished as the “voice of the people,” while other political forces were more organized and present.
The most ironic thing is that the wave of glorification was not limited to the media, but was also joined by great philosophers such as Michel Foucault, Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir...!!
Foucault, who was supposed to see the mechanisms of power, fell under the spell of "spiritual revolution," and later apologized after seeing the blood...
But the belated apology doesn't change the fact that he contributed to marketing the myth.
*Here we understand the meaning of Hannah Arendt's statement:*
"The most dangerous thing about totalitarian regimes is not that they lie, but that they make people get used to lying until it becomes reality!"
*
When Khomeini returned to Tehran, he did not begin building a state, but rather began eliminating his partners...*
Because the systems we use do not allow for multiple heads....
Getting rid of the men of the moment:
Yazdi, Qutbzadeh, Abolhassan Banisadr, then it was the turn of the most difficult number: Beheshti.
*This pattern is not random, but a rule:*
Everyone who helped in the ascent becomes a danger after the arrival.
Then came the hostage drama, which credible documents indicate was not merely a revolutionary act against America, but a card played within the American elections between Carter and Reagan.
*Herein lies the essence of Khomeiniism:*
-Open hostility boosts popularity
-And deep understandings that preserve the job....
** The job was clear: to create a permanent regional adversary, to frighten the Gulf, to drain Iraq, to lay the groundwork for a long sectarian conflict, and to make the whole region need an "international mediator."
It never disappears.
From here, the connection with today becomes clear and effortless....
What is happening in the region now is not a "breakaway" from the past, but a direct extension of it...
Iran today, under Khamenei or whoever comes after him, is not a normal state project, but rather an influence project based on proxies.
She doesn't need to win militarily as much as she needs to keep the fire burning....
Because when the fire goes out, the question that every ideological system fears returns:
What is your legitimacy domestically? And why should we pay the price for your projects?
Therefore, the developments in Iran today are not just an economic crisis or social protests, but rather the beginning of a crack in the equation:
The Iranian people no longer see a "revolution," but rather the price they are paying.
They believe that Khomeiniism has turned into a privileged class.
And that the Revolutionary Guard has become a state within a state
And that doctrine has become a meaningless means of control....
This is the most dangerous thing that regimes face: when people lose faith, only fear remains, and fear does not build a future.
Khomeini, therefore, was not the antithesis of the Shah, but rather the most suitable alternative for managing a new phase:
A phase of calculated chaos, a protracted conflict, and a bleeding equilibrium.
Today, when we look at the burning maps from Iraq to Syria to Yemen, we don't need much intelligence to understand that Khomeiniism was not just an internal Iranian event, but a re-engineering of the Middle East.
*I repeat the conclusion that should be said at the end of every article, and with coldness:*
Khomeini died, but what was created for him did not die; because systems do not live by individuals, but by functions....
*When the job ends, the symbol falls away, even if its image remains hanging on the walls.*
*=================*
*
Ihsan Al-Faqih.*
*From the book Khomeini and Khomeinism... The Origin of the Story.*
As received by email, originally in Arabic, translated and forwarded to the benefit of our blog readers.,, I haven't read the book myself, but the idea in this short summary is pretty clear.
As always, my many thanks to all.
