Yesterday I saw this interview with the Reza Pahlavi, son of the late Shah of Iran. He says he is working to topple the Islamist Government of Iran through massive labor demonstrations. He says he seeks to create a new Democratic state there.
Human Events Online : Reza Pahlavi, son of the late Shah of Iran, told the editors of HUMAN EVENTS last week that in the next two to three months he hopes to finalize the organization of a movement aimed at overthrowing the Islamic regime in Tehran and replacing it with a democratic government.
He believes the cause is urgent because of the prospect that Iran may soon develop a nuclear weapon or the U.S. may use military force to preempt that. He hopes to offer a way out of this dilemma: a revolution sparked by massive civil disobedience in which the masses in the streets are backed by elements of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.
Pahlavi, who lives in exile in the United States, said he has been in contact with elements of the Revolutionary Guard that would be willing to play such a role, and activists who could help spark the civil disobedience.
He also said that the U.S. and other governments can help by imposing “smart sanctions” on the leaders of Iranian regime, but he categorically opposes U.S. military intervention...
...You think you can exploit this to turn some elements of the Revolutionary Guards against the regime?
Yes, for a number of reasons. Because like in any totalitarian system, they know that at the end theyÂ’ll fall. The question is, how do they negotiate their exit strategy? No. 2 is because a lot of their families are not as wealthy as we think. There are some preferred ones, but many are still having to make ends meet. We have ranked officers who have to drive taxicabs at three oÂ’clock in the morning, as a major or colonel returning from base, because they donÂ’t have enough money to pay the rent. The disenchantment is there.
So what you see happening is a general strike, people going into the streets, refusing to work, calling for the overthrow of the regime, and then their being backed—?
Sustained. Sustained.
And then being sustained by significant elements of the Revolutionary Guards who say, “You’re gone”?
And IÂ’m talking about a blitzkrieg of media supporting, like the BBC did before the revolution, which was practically announcing the night before where there would be a demonstration the next day. This is not myth, it is fact.
Are you in contact with some of the commanders of these [elements]?
Absolutely. Absolutely. And in fact, they keep on saying that we are being under-utilized, we have a role to play, we know the time for it, but we cannot just take the initiative. They are in No ManÂ’s Land. You have to understand.
. I think itÂ’s an avenue worth supporting. Of course the problem is the
perception(might as well bring it up they will). But we can work from within. If this man is correct in that support for the Mullahs is as superficial as he claims. In fact get this man in and Iran can build all the reactors its wants because the threat of misuse is removed.
1
There can be no question that the IRGC would be the focus of staggering blows in the event of hostilities.
Our man has to be concerned about agents provocateur.
Hooking up with 'friends' in the IRGC is VERY dicy.
I'd say he's being played by the mullahs.
Posted by: blert at May 03, 2006 09:48 AM (QJXLf)
2
Regime change in your own eye ... then you can see clearly to regime change in your neighbor's eye ...
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 03, 2006 10:24 AM (FCC6c)
3
Ooh good one so we should trade a Democratic Republic for.....?
Posted by: Howie at May 03, 2006 10:37 AM (D3+20)
4
I have to wonder how much support the son of the Shah actually has in Iran.
Posted by: Ted at May 03, 2006 10:41 AM (blNMI)
5
I wondered that too but I've seen several reports that the polulation is not so pleased that the economic progress the Mullah's promised, never came. Especially in rural areas. So I think the question is how much support does the Theocracy there really have privately? I think this guy would be seen as an American Pawn but supporting the labor unrest there can't hurt. That's the rub how to support positive change from within without being seen as meddling. It has to come from the Iranian people if it is to succeed. One interview with an Iranian he asked cant the USA just come and topple the mullahs and the leave the next day? I think Iranians are open to progress they just can't seem to get there.
Posted by: Howie at May 03, 2006 10:52 AM (D3+20)
6
I can not believe it for a second. Do you mean the same IRGC who have been after his rear end for years?
I don't think he is that stupid. Hot air! Hot air
Posted by: Alex at May 03, 2006 10:59 AM (qD9xN)
7
I have to agree with blert. Things may not be as easy as Pahlavi thinks. The IRGC is powerful in Iran and they know it. Sure there may be elements that want the mullahs out, but once that happens (however it happens)there's nothing to stop the IRGC brass from taking over and forming a military government like Pakistan.
Posted by: Graeme at May 03, 2006 11:04 AM (OBS/s)
8
"In fact get this man in and Iran can build all the reactors it wants because the threat of misuse is removed."
C'mon, didn't you learn anything with Saddam? A friend today is an enemy tomorrow. Especially in the Middle East where loyalties change on a daily basis.
Anyone else find it ironic that the son of the Shah wants to bring in a democratic government?
Posted by: Venom at May 03, 2006 11:06 AM (dbxVM)
9
OK, so I guess we shoud start the bombing now? No sense fooling around considering other methods or groups we can help.
Posted by: Howie at May 03, 2006 11:15 AM (D3+20)
10
One generation overthrew the Shah, and no one has even attempted it on the Theocracy -- so I'm guessing not too much Ted.
Regime change is going to be our best hope however, It is doubtful a Military strike will occur whilst we have troops in Iraq, and seeing comments from Israel's new President, he comes across weak, and unlikely to initiate any type of Military attack first.
Iran is daring America, and Israel to knock the chip off it's shoulder, with threats of state sponsored terrorism against Israeli and American citizens, challenging history of the Holocaust, making genocidal threats of wiping out Israel, sending Military supplies into Iraq and making saber-rattling demands and/or statements daily. You have to wonder what they have to gain by inviting an attack.
Iran was often thought to be the "500lb Gorilla" of the Middle-east and I believe it is trying to toughen it's grip in the region by appearing to be a much tougher opponent that it is, think of it in the terms of the school bully, who is considered tough, and everyday another kid calls his Mom names, or pisses in his gym-bag, the longer the Bully doesn't retaliate the weaker he appears to be.
You do not have to be a genius to figure out that America is not looking to expand conflict in the arena, with the world opinion of the U.S and Israel both being taunt right now, and the medias constant running of negative stories in regards to Gas prices (note then Iran threatens to affect Gas prices) unfavorable polls of the President and the War, Iran feels in a position of power because it's gambling on inaction on the parts of both America and Israel due to the War, and world opinion and oil prices and the logistics involved in expanding the War to Iran.
Iran is taking quite a gamble, back to the school bully scenario, imagine that the other kid is emboldened by the threat of expulsion of the bully if he is involved in violence, what
if the bully thinks
f*ck it and knocks him out anyway?
wishful thinking maybe.
Posted by: davec at May 03, 2006 11:19 AM (CcXvt)
11
Nah, Howie. I'm just saying the son of the Shah shouldn't be the 1st choice the U.S. should look at.
Posted by: Venom at May 03, 2006 11:49 AM (dbxVM)
12
".. Because like in any totalitarian system, they know that at the end theyÂ’ll fall. The question is, how do they negotiate their exit strategy?" is he refering to 1979 exit strategy.
50% of Iranian are too young to remember Pahlavi and those who do, are not so thrilled with the come back of the old totalitarian system. Let them deal with existing one.
Posted by: rober T at May 03, 2006 11:50 AM (qD9xN)
13
Hey I'm all open for other options. And I do get excited/carried away. So maybe the reactor statement reflects that. But if Iran was a non-threatenting nation I don't have a problem with nuke power. The nuke question probably helps the mullahs say, "the US is holding us back" when really it's we don't trust they can use/or refrain from using it responsibly.
I don't think he is a good first choice but I'm not aware of many others.
Posted by: Howie at May 03, 2006 11:57 AM (D3+20)
14
Well, I'd do it but the commute would probably kill me.
Posted by: Venom at May 03, 2006 01:48 PM (dbxVM)
15
Time to turn on " The Wizard of Oz "
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 03, 2006 04:48 PM (FCC6c)
16
We do not have time for Iran. We must invade Mexico now. They have invaded us, so what's the problem.
They have oil, and ocean front views. We can make them the 51st state, and it will be a win, win for both sides. Why not? If we have reason to invade Iraq, we have more reason to invade Mexico.
Just think, in Mexico the majority of people there want to build schools, water treatment plants, roads, railroads, oil wells, and don't have a problem working. They pray to the same G-d most Americans pray to also.
Posted by: Leatherneck at May 03, 2006 06:58 PM (D2g/j)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
