| 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.
True...and now they are being killed by those who don't want voting to take place.
They are taking a real hit..
I much prefer internal change over tyrannical governments..but name one which was bloodless...
Our swearing in of a new President in the US with bitter losers on one side still goes on without mass uprising and bloodshed after 200 years of changing the President by voting.We allow the dissenters to protest, vent and fume.
Our Bill of Rughts and laws assure us of that. The losers have another chance in 4 years.
The United States President Carter is the reason for the whole miseries happened to my country...
He is American, isn't he?
Agreed. That's his legacy.
True and I am not saying that we shouldn't expect even one drop of blood to finish the job and free Iran. But I hoped we don't see bloodshed there!
He was a pathetic leader but it would seem the Iranian people revolted and installed an Islamic theocracy..I can't even blame Carter for that one.
Well, that's the right attitude, at least.
However, "The proof of the pudding is in the eating" ...
He and another A$$ Ho.. named khomeni are the major reasons for every misery happened to Iran.
They are responsible for 9/11.
They are responsible for me living in a dictatorship.
They are both responsible for the hatred toward the US throughout the world.
They are Ba$^ar% ;-)
I already told you what to do, You better Read # 356
A fact, and one which causes many of us a great deal of sorrow. Thanks to all for a pretty spirited discussion that did not deteriorate as they sometimes do. Many eyes are on Iran and I have hope for the Iranian people.
I hope for peace on earth, freedom for all people and that no person is brutalized or oppressed..I hope for liberty and justice for all.. I hope all children get an education and never feels hunger..I hope...but I am also realistic.
The Mullahs will also be gone sooner or later
Sooner if they keep pursuing nukes.
Remember the majority of Iranians wanted Khomeni...It isn't the just the leader..it's the form of government that makes a difference..It should be a government which protects the lives and rights of minority and majority.
Only partly.
You could also blame Eisenhower. He was the President in 1953 during the CIA backed coup that put the Shah in power. The 1979 Islamic Revolution was a response to the regime of the Shah.
Going further back, you could blame the British, who forced the shah Reza Khan to abdicate in 1941 in order to sieze Iran's oil and (ostensibly) keep it safe from the Germans. British control of the oil led Premier Mussadegh to eventually sieze power, causing the U.S. to back the Shah in the 1953 coup.
Or you could blame the Soviets. They were instrumental in putting Reza Khan on the throne in 1921, and instigated the spltting off of Azerbaijan in 1945.
The trail goes back and back. Ultimately, though it always return back to the Iranian people. Coup after coup, they either by action or inaction brought about the current Iranian state. Case in point: it wasn't just clerics who threw out the Shah in 1979.
Khomeini hijacked/stole the form of government.
He was responsible for a lot of misery here in the United States also.
In case you haven't already noticed, I am a free person (unlike some people here with chains in their heads). Therefore, you can't tell me to do anything.
So what are you going to do about it? Unless it's more than you are already doing to free Iran, I don't have anything to worry about. And even then, I'm hardly quaking in my slippers.
He couldn't have done it alone.
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.