“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

Yet American specialists on Iran do not believe that even those two severe decimations of its leadership will result in the collapse of the Iranian government. In their opinions none of the guerrilla resistance organizations would be able to run the country—deal with its growing economic difficulties, say, or its other great challenges. Nor, despite Western fears, does the Russian-oriented Tudeh, Iran’s Communist Party, seem anxious to take over; instead, the leaders of the Tudeh are supporting the government [at least so far], just as the armed forces do. Despite the appearance that the revolution in Iran—made up as it is of all of those diverse consciousnesses—is feeding upon itself in very destructive ways, in ordinary terms, civil war does not appear to be likely. Yet. And the Iraqi conflict goes on.³

In a passionate, bloody series of events later in the seventh century, a split occurred in which the Moslem religion was divided into two main branches, the Shiite and the Sunni. Now Iran is ruled by the Shiites, and is religiously oriented; Iraq is ruled by the Sunnis, and is more secular and socialistic. Iranian leaders emphasize the religious aspects of the war, Iraq the ethnic. The rulers of each country have urged the citizens of the other to revolt against their leaders. There is much disillusionment in Iran over the excesses of the Shiite clergy. In Iran martyrdom is encouraged—at home, in the war, and in terroristic activity abroad. Iraq has been accused of using chemical warfare (courtesy of the Russians) against its enemy. The Moslem world, then, is hardly a monolithic entity; as within Iran itself, the myriad consciousnesses making up that whole framework are much too varied for that to be true.

At least partially because of their brutal history, Iranians—Persians—are strongly self-centered; preservation of the self is given an overriding impetus. The world is seen as being full of peril. Causality, the interrelation of cause and effect, is often ignored or misunderstood in the Iranian quest for immediate advantage. Influence counts for much more than obligation; the concept of long-term mutual trust is seen as basically adversarial; goodwill means little. Yet, such egocentric characteristics often are sublimated into the seemingly contradictory practice of martyrdom—the two are united within the Iranian interpretation of Moslem theology. In a land ruled by a body of theocratic law the needs of the country must ultimately prevail, as in the case of attack from without, say. There is no area in which Moslemic precepts do not apply.