Mansur Farhang and John Hosein Metavelli, in an article last August in The Progressive, manage to have their cake and eat it too. On the one hand, they wrote. Khomeini "began to build a vast network of coercion and patronage to secure his rule." On the other hand, they described anarchy in the streets and a failure of exported Islamic revolution abroad.

Meanwhile, opposition groups, most of them based in Paris, have contributed to the confusion. The Mojahedeen, an Islamic leftist organization blames everything from prison torture to military strategy on Khomeini himself (Actually, not to release him from all blame a strong argument could be made that much is done in Iran in the name of Khomeini, but without his knowledge.)

It is easy to blame everything on "the ayatollah" (another misleading appelation: there are actually a number of religious leaders of the rank of ayatollah.) It is easy to subsume the revolution in his person. Unfortunately it is also wrong.

Khomeini's actual role is much less easy to define, especially in a quick first reference at the top of a news story. With the technical title of "velayat-i faqih," or guardian of the faithful--written into the country's constitution after much debate in 1979--a position which allows him wide-ranging power to approve laws and dismiss presidents and such.

Khomeini has not taken advantage of these powers, delegating much to the parliament and a religious censureship board called the Guardian Council. He has, however, continued to make public statements, which are often taken by people on the streets as law.

Complicating matters is the existence of armed, para-governmental forces which pledge allegiance directly to Khomeini but don't always follows his lead. Khomeini has several times urged these groups to limit their anarchic activities--only to be virtually ignored.

Meanwhile, the various wings of the ruling Islamic Republican Party are maneuvering for precedence, while Khomeini seems wary of taking sides.

In other words, Khomeini's position in Iran is problematic. But because the truth is complicated and because the previous paragraphe are long-indeed, the media are likely to keep slapping back and forth between the two contradictory labels.