| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 01/28/2005 9:34:25 AM PST by Admin Moderator, reason:
Locked at poster’s request. |
Posted on 01/22/2005 2:03:08 AM PST by F14 Pilot
"So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation… America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom."
Reza Pahlavi, the son of the last Shah of Iran, who was watching President George W Bush's speech on television at his hotel in London, noted the language. He was relieved that the phrase "regime change" was not used.
He believes that American military intervention in Iran would be wrong: "Iranians are not willing to buy freedom at any cost. They do not want the freedom of an American general marching in. It is a matter of national pride. We do not need an American soldier to save us."
Mr Pahlavi, 44, has been actively campaigning for secular democracy in Iran since September 11. He says that it is only the regime that stands between an educated, well-resourced country and the free world: "All the unemployment and poverty in Iran is a by-product of political asphyxia."
But Mr Pahlavi says that the rising against the regime must come from within. He looks to the Ukraine or Yugoslavia as a model and rejects comparisons with Iraq: "Iran has a different history, polity, totally different scenarios. Our society is more dynamic and capable. We don't need teachers from American universities to come and teach us about democracy."
What Mr Pahlavi wants from Europe and America is "support for the Iranian people. This means refusing to deal with the regime".
He is particularly opposed to any weapons for trade negotiations: "Other countries should take a principled position on the regime. They must not be seen to cut a deal, at the expense of the Iranian people." There has been little reporting of protests against the regime since the elections last year but Mr Pahlavi's adviser, who asked not to be named, claimed the frustration is at boiling point, particularly among students.
"President Khatami addressed a meeting recently and the students started chanting 'shame on you'. It was moving," he says.
The opposition in Iraq is fastening on the May presidential elections as the moment to force the collapse of the regime. Petitions are being compiled on the internet for a referendum. The opposition claims that the election will be hollow.
"Saddam had elections," says Mr Pahlavi. "Let's not be infatuated by elections." Will the Pentagon have the patience to wait for an internal uprising? A report this week by Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker revealed that special forces are already on the ground in Iran.
Mr Pahlavi responds that America must anticipate scenarios but he again rebuffs any sort of intervention. He will not accept, for instance, an American bombing of nuclear installations in Iran to pave the way for a popular uprising. He says that this would immediately strengthen the position of the Mullahs. "It has to be the right mechanism," he says.
He agrees that the stakes are high. Iraq has little chance of becoming a stable country while Iran is supporting insurgency there. "Iran doesn't need to invade Iraq," says Mr Pahlavi. "It is already in there."
He is also clear about the purpose of Iranian Mullahs acquiring nuclear weapons: "It is to blackmail the rest of the world." He says the regime is acutely aware that it is exposed by the toppled tyrannies on its borders and is ready to lash out.
Is he pushing for a restoration of the monarchy as part of a new Iran? "My political mission is over the day that Iranians have the freedom to go to the polls," he says.
He is getting a lot more exposure when he is out of the US
I didn't say he lives in L.A. I said he used to live in L.A.
Well, The Iranian Royal Family had many villas and houses in the states before 1979.
But their main villa is located in New Jersey and he has been living there since 1982
Oh, get over it! Just because you were born without a title (and the responsibility that goes with it) doesn't give you the right to disparage one who is. Your remark is in poor taste - take it back!
You have this one ALL WRONG!
As long as the US continues to deal with this regime, nothing will change. We are just too freakin' dependent on their oil - why don't you stop driving and quit being part of the problem. Or better yet, get on a plane and go over there to check it out for yourself. As I recall we needed help getting rid of the British......
And ignorance breeds bliss...
All cock and no bull!
How much oil do we buy from iran?
Only to a 'furrinner'. Americans have a long tradition of not bending the knee to anyone but Jesus Christ, our Lord.
I heard freedom costs a buck .05.
Hardly.
"It was a vocal minority who wanted him." speaking of the iranians
That lays it squarely on them.
There were plenty of Americans that didn't vote for carter. As for the ones that did, do you really believe that they were voting for this duplicitous self-serving deceitful creature history is showing him to be, or a media creation?
Not everyone likes the decisions a President may make. But
we live in free society where people can vote freely.
The President is our representative entrusted to make the decisions for the country, like them or not.
If you look at the original exchange, there was a question as to whether it was the will of the Iranian people or the will of the U.S. As Carter represented the U.S., it was the will of the U.S., not the Iranian people.
I'm not saying everyone agreed with what Carter did.
It was the will of iranians, also. I remember seeing the mobs in the streets.
Thanks for the tips. I'll stop driving tomorrow and the mullahs will collapse.
The people in Iran get to vote for people the government approves of. They have a council that "vets" anyone they don't like.
Their government, supreme leader and president are NOT representative of the people at all. So the decisions made are hardly the will of the people.
Yes, there were mobs in the streets. There were thousands of people. Among millions. But a vocal minority. Most of the people in the streets were paid participants. Same as the paid participants today when there are regime rallies.
This is how the media manipulated what was happening in Iran. They did a great job "selling" the story to the U.S. citizens and the entire world. Such a great job, that people still believe it today.
Thank you for making my point. People voting for a media illusion had fraud committed against them by groups more powerful than they and cannot be blamed for the consequences. The internet is finally waking people up to the huge fraud that has been perpetuated against them for a very long time.
Along those lines, ...the Iranian people never understood how they went from being friends and allies with the U.S. and its people one day, and enemies the next.
The media portrayed all Iranians as our enemies, but the Iranian people never knew that. All they knew was that the people in the U.S. suddenly hated all of them, not just their leader and a vocal minority.
A cruel manipulation by the media against millions of innocents.
But, you have to admit the media fraud made the Americans innocent, too. They were just as decieved. Today, with access to so much information, I could not make that case.
Not in mine!
It is impossible for royalty to be "passe," because monarchy is timeless and not confined to any particular era. There's a reason why there are no fairy tales or great literature about presidents: monarchy speaks to something deeply embedded in the human psyche that republicanism doesn't. The millions of British people who turned out to celebrate Queen Elizabeth II's Golden Jubilee in 2002, or the even more millions worldwide who were enthralled by The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King don't seem to be find royalty "passe" at all.
It probably escaped your attention that the popularity of the Swedish royal family, which handled the tsunami crisis much better than the elected government, has increased in recent weeks. Passe? Nothing could be further from the truth. The world's royal families continue to comfort and inspire millions of ordinary people, and Iranians would be lucky if the monarchy were to be restored.
What a pathetically ignorant statement. The Iranian monarchy was never a theocracy; it is the current Islamic Republic that is. Under the Shah, Reza Pahlavi's father, literacy increased and women were educated and played roles in government. There was nothing backward about it. What Iranians need is the restoration of the monarchy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.