From Hoveyda’s Exoneration to Mir Hossein Mousavi’s Forced Confession
There’s not much distance between Hoveyda and Mir Hossein; both became prime ministers within a few years of each other but under two different regimes. Their fates were similar; both became disfavored and ended up in prison and house arrest. The Shah imprisoned Hoveyda, who was no longer prime minister, shortly before leaving the country, and Mir Hossein was placed under house arrest 20 years after his term as prime minister ended.
The accusations against Hoveyda are similar to those that his supporters and critics of the Islamic Republic level against Mir Hossein Mousavi. Why does the expatriate opposition, especially the monarchists, harbor such animosity towards Mir Hossein Mousavi and attack him? Are the charges they list and insist upon real and fair?
Why do they consider him so influential and culpable in the policies of the Islamic Republic even after more than 30 years since his term as prime minister, while he has been under house arrest for years and has recently launched the harshest attacks on the government? Apart from the specific idea that the opposition sees him as a rival and tends to be hostile to any figure they perceive as a competitor, it seems they are caught in a double standard in their political dealings. Essentially, anything that conflicts with their interests, and not necessarily with truth and fairness, is met with insults and excommunication.
Double Standard
The expatriate opposition’s double standard in dealing with Mir Hossein Mousavi is evident where they exonerate the Shah’s prime minister for similar accusations but deem Ayatollah Khomeini’s prime minister guilty. None of them have ever blamed or criticized the Shah for imprisoning Hoveyda, suggesting that if he hadn’t been imprisoned, he might not have met such a painful fate.
Moreover, they do not attribute any role or share to Hoveyda, rightly or wrongly, in the policymaking and erroneous decisions of the previous system or regime and the Shah. They fully accept his statements or claims that he was merely a pawn in a cog or an executor of the Shah’s orders.
They accept Hoveyda’s claim that he had no knowledge or role in the plans and actions of SAVAK, rightly or wrongly, but when it comes to Mir Hossein, they are unwilling to apply the same standard. Hoveyda is known as the powerless prime minister, and it seems he was not averse to portraying himself this way in court, even if it was to escape the death sentence. However, supporters of the monarchical system prefer to remain silent on this issue and pretend not to hear or see because admitting it would mean acknowledging that the Shah was an absolute, undemocratic power.
Hoveyda said in court, rightly or wrongly, that the system was like that; I did not create that system. There were prime ministers before and after me who worked with this system, and I was just a continuation of that path, not its creator. I had no knowledge of SAVAK’s actions. The head of SAVAK was, of course, my deputy, but he neither took orders from me nor reported his activities to me.
From SAVAK to the Judiciary
However, the prosecutor in Hoveyda’s court believed, rightly or wrongly, that Mr. Hoveyda, you said similar things in the previous session and blamed the system. The court is not trying you, but rather the system, a system that you represent and execute. In that system, the nation was ignored, the country was under foreign influence, and SAVAK brutally tortured and killed young people and fighters.
In short, tell us, did you think this system was correct for you to continue it? The expatriate opposition has similarly placed Mousavi under house arrest in the position of an accused in such a court and seeks to extract forced confessions from him. The expatriate opponents of Mousavi should judge themselves.
If the Shah’s prime minister was truly a powerless pawn unaware of SAVAK’s actions, as he claimed, why shouldn’t Ayatollah Khomeini’s prime minister be the same, with the difference that at least the head of SAVAK was Hoveyda’s deputy, but Iran’s judiciary was entirely independent of the executive branch and the prime minister’s office? In a structure where the McFarlane negotiations, related to the government, were conducted out of the prime minister’s sight, why should judicial decisions have been brought to his attention?
The revolutionary court asks Hoveyda to answer for SAVAK’s actions, while Hoveyda says I was also detained by SAVAK and imprisoned. If I live long enough, I will write a book in which I will speak about everything from September 1941 to the last day of my premiership.
Now the expatriate opposition also wants Mousavi to be accountable for the actions of the system that placed him under house arrest. Hoveyda wanted to write his answers in his memoirs but didn’t get the chance. Hopefully, Mir Hossein will have that opportunity.
