We, the all of humanity, all over the world have invested interest
to do whatever we possibly can to prevent any military attack / action
against Iran / Persia. - Except a hand full of truly dim witted individuals
who are actively pursuing the mythical apocalypse to occur, none of
us the sane people wants to start - World War Three (WWIII) - and
annihilate the humanity to rapture and go to the none existent heaven.
Any military attack / action against Iran / Persia, even if by a remote
chance does not lead to the start of a World War, it will definitely
galvanize and unite the Iranian / Persian people against the people
of Europe and United States, in the support of Iran / Persia behind
the criminal ruling mullahs.
We, the people of the world, should all come together and get behind
Mr. Reza Pahlavi, - - read his interview below - -. Also read my proposed
Constitution For Future Iran / Persia - and the - Declaration
Of Independence -, I posted at the bottom of this article. Regardless
of what political philosophy and spiritual beliefs one may have we
must organize and mobilize an international movement to peacefully
remove the criminal mullahs, parasites of humanity from Tehran / Iran.
We must not forget that the only means of prolonging the life of mullahís
regime is - WAR -, therefore if we are serious about stopping mullahís
regime from becoming a nuclear power, we should follow the simple
and cost effective methods, suggested below, to peacefully remove
the mullahs from Iran.
the nation-less corporations owned by the Europeans and the
Americans are forced to stop helping murdering dictators like
that of the ruling regime in Iran.
the governmentís of Europe and United States block and confiscate
the mullahís assets, on behalf of the Iranian / Persian people,
all over Europe and United States.
the ruling mullahs and their cronies are denied access and entry
visas to travel in and out of Europe and United States.
the mass media in Europe and United States tell the truth and
help the Iranian people to take their country back, just like
the British Broadcasting Corporation, (BBC) helped the mullahs,
at the time when American and the European governments and their
nation-less corporations orchestrated and were implementing
the Islamic coup of 1979.
So you see, its absolutely doable, it is cost effective, and no European
and American soldier needs to go to war and die, and no need to annihilate
the humanity, a win, win situation for all. - And lastly the war on
terror will come to an end as well. -
the time of the Islamic coup in 1979, Reza Pahlavi was only 18 years
old. No law, or any society prosecutes the innocent son, for the sins
of the father. The ruling mullahs of Iran and their cronies have been
spreading baseless and divisive rumors about Reza Pahlavi, in order
to discredit and stop him. Mullahs are fully aware of the fact that
Reza Pahlavi is a creditable candidate, who could potentially rally
Iranians, stop the pending attack on Iran and peacefully remove mullahís
criminal terrorist regime. - Mullahs want war to prolong their heinous
existence. They are in pursuit of a bloody conflict with the Americans
and the Europeans. - Just like the rest of the Iranians / Persians,
Reza Pahlavi does not want Iran to be attacked for any reason. Iranians
will support him to liberate Iran. Iran / Persia would never become
Imperialist again; Reza Pahlavi knows that, he can function as a leading
figure to give voice to the voiceless Iranians who are suffering within
Iran and help to lead Iran to a bright democratic future.
Please consider helping in any manner possible for you. Thank you.
May 2006, Washington, D.C.
Pahlavi, son of the late Knig 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 - Iran and replacing it with a democratic government.
believes the cause is urgent because of the prospect that Tehran -
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
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.
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.
the revolution he envisions, Pahlavi said, he would be willing to
become a constitutional monarch in Iran if an Iranian constitutional
convention offered him that role. "I'm ready to serve in that capacity,"
he said. "If the people so choose, it would be my greatest honor."
following are excerpts from the interview with the editors of HUMAN
EVENTS in which Pahlavi explained why and how he thinks his country
can be transformed from an Islamist dictatorship into a free democracy.
any circumstances, would you support U.S. military action against
a matter of principle there's no way that I can support any kind of
military intervention regardless of the crisis because as a matter
of principle, and as a nationalist, I cannot even imagine the fact
that my country could be attacked, and today it's a very different
scenario from, let's say, the Second World War where you are occupied
by Nazi forces and there's a liberating force coming in. This is a
strike against Iranian installations that are part of our national
assets. That it's used wrongly by the wrong people is beside the point.
So there's no justification as far as I'm concerned.
if we had absolutely certain knowledge the regime in Iran was on the
threshold of actually building a nuclear weapon, you would oppose
U.S. military intervention to stop that from happening?
of all, whether the U.S. does it or not is its affair. I would still
be critical of it only because I think that if we come back to a position
in which we are today, there's time to remedy the situation and I
will get to other options later. But I can tell you one thing: The
best gift that you can give the current regime is, in fact, to attack
it. Why? Because, one, it will immediately consolidate the nation,
two, it will neutralize all elements of the military and paramilitary
forces who have a role to play in the options that I will present
later and they will be forced into a position of defense. So they
are out of the equation.
it will stir this entire regional emotion, once again, against the
West, while we are trying to get help from the very same West to promote
a democratic ideal.
if it's a race against time, as in the sense, "Will this regime become
nuclear first or will the Iranian people achieve democracy?" there's
no way you're going to win the race by doing so. You may prolong the
inevitable armament of Iran, but you will certainly push back the
democratic cause for many years, if not for good.
ultimately, I don't know if it's going to be effective. We're not
talking about Iraq. We're talking about a country with a multitude
of installations, some of which you happen to know about and many
of which we still don't know about. Many of these entities are hidden
under civilian areas, the actual stockpiling.
would be willing to renounce that idea that Iran could develop a nuclear
against developing any weapons of mass destruction. I work to see
the world develop a process of disarmament because otherwise it will
be madness. If we build it, tomorrow the Turks will build it, then
the Saudis want to build it, then the Egyptians want to build it.
Believe me, in that part of the world, there's some track record how
stable the world will feel having a whole bunch of nuclear warheads
in the hands of all these people. Forget it. I'd be the first one
proposing a plan to reverse the cycle of proliferation.
don't believe Iran needs a nuclear weapon to balance Israel's nuclear
would not demand that Israel disarm?
when has Israel been a threat to anyone? Israel just wants to be left
alone and live in peace side by side with its neighbors. As far as
I'm concerned, Israel never had any ambition to territorially go and
invade, I don't know, Spain or Morocco or anywhere else. And let me
tell something else about Iran: Unlike the rest of the Islamic or
Arab world, the relationship between Persia and the Jews goes back
to the days of Cyrus the Great. We take pride as Iranians of having
a history where Cyrus was the most quoted figure in the Torah, as
a liberator of Jewish slaves, who went to Babylon and gave them true
freedom for them to worship and in fact helped them build a temple.
We have a biblical relation with Jews, and we have no problem with
modern day Israel. As far as regional politics, I believe, I think
many Iranians believe so, that as much as Israel has a right to exist,
so should the Palestinians. They have to work the problem between
each other. And we have no business interfering, and we need to help
get as much stability in the region.
democratic regime in Iran would be doing that, but a clerical regime
in Tehran that sends money to Hamas and to Hizballah and to all the
terrorists around the globe obviously is not promoting stability and
peace, it is doing the reverse.
your argument for why you could not see supporting, under any circumstances,
the United States' using military action against Iran, you said this
would turn the Iranian people against Americans.
they're your best natural allies. What they see, rather than helping
us - because we are your best weapon against this regime. Why do you
want to bypass us? And you're attacking our resources.
year, Iran elected Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a viciously anti-American
president. He's threatening the destruction of Israel. He's threatening
the United States. Why is it that the same country that can elect
this guy has a pro-American population?
that's what the Iranian people are like. Iran is the only country
that has the most pro-Western people with the most anti-Western government
- unlike the rest of the countries in the region.
did that develop? In 2000 you had the reformer, President Khatami,
everyone said the parliament is for reform. Then suddenly, five years
later, you have someone else elected by an overwhelming margin who
is supposedly anti-West. And, of course, he defeated Rafsanjani.
you see the tree but you don't see the forest.
whole regime, in its entirety, is hostile and antagonistic to what
we understand in the free world as being our definition of human rights
and individual freedoms. This regime is dedicated to implement a viewpoint
which is the most extreme interpretation of religion and God's law
on Earth, anywhere around the globe, starting with itself, the region
and beyond. If tomorrow they can do it in Washington, they will do
it. Or anywhere else. They don't see eye to eye with you. This is
a regime that is dedicated to that.
you're not explaining the change from 2000, when they had reformers
in there, and people thought they had a chance.
to reform what? To sustain the regime or to change it? The reformers
were not committed to end the regime. They were committed to preserving
it. And so was Khatami. Don't get me wrong. That's part of the typical
mistake the West has been making, including the U.S. government.
still would have been a more moderate regime than the present one.
on, who are we kidding? You said the same thing about Andropov. You
said he drinks whiskey and listens to jazz, therefore he's more moderate.
He was Communist for God's sake.
would you change it now?
reason the regime was using Khatami as the smiling face talking about
a dialogue of civilizations was just to buy time. The same way that
in the nuclear race they played the game of buying time by saying
we're going to negotiate with Russians or we're not going to talk
to them - buying time. Three years of endless negotiations has produced
nothing. Why? The regime gained an extra three years. All I'm saying
is that now, when you look at the future, we have a delicate time
frame within which we can bring about change.
cannot give you an expert, scientific opinion about how close Iran
is to actual fissile material. . .
Ginrich told us in our interview with him that we had two to three
years to change the regime in Iran, or else he wanted to go to war.
I think is realistic. Plus or minus six months or so.
says if we can't get the regime changed in two to three years we have
to invade Iran. What's your answer to that?
answer is that I think that while the analysis that the options are
running out as time goes by is true, the most important option that
has been the least talked about has yet to be even considered, let
is, where I'm coming from. What I'm coming from is that, short of
military strikes, which I don't think is going to help at all with
the ultimate solution, the much better way is to find the best way
of enforcing the hand of the people of Iran. I need to explain that
because it's a complex issue.
you're directly advising Condoleezza Rice and George Bush. Bush is
going to be in office for two more years. How can they help you and
your people get rid of this regime in the next two years?
have to find a combination of internal elements working with exterior
elements within the Iranian opposition and a coordination of such
a movement with a number of key countries who in concert will act
on this plan to make it happen.
want to see a systematically organized general strike, people going
into the streets against the government in Tehran?
look, civil disobedience, we can find examples of it from Argentina
what you want. That's your tool.
one of the tools. The other thing is the military and paramilitary
power. Understand one thing: The basic powerbase of this regime is
the Revolutionary Guards, at the end of the day.
report to [Ayatollah] Khamenei, not to Ahmadinejad?
a mixed bag. Ultimately, Khamenei is the supreme leader. But let's
face it, Khamenei doesn't have single-handed control. In fact, Khamenei
went all the way to take the risk of alienating some of the Revolutionary
Guards by publicly referring to the talks between [U.S. Ambassador
to Iraq] Zalmay Khalilzad and Iranians over the Iraqi issue. What
was he trying to do there? He was much more concerned about the rising
disenchantment inside Iran. He wanted to just pour ice water on their
head, by saying, "Oh, we're talking to the Americans" - at the risk
of alienating his own militia.
explains the psychology of the regime. It also explains that the whole
militia is not under one core unit. It's a whole mafia. There are
various families of Revolutionary Guards. Each has its own portfolio
and agenda. Some are behind Al Qaeda. Some are involved in Syria.
Some are involved in Bekaa Valley. Some are involved in Iraq, etc.
And they have their own independent means of finances. They don't
have to report back to the government. They have their own bases of
income, free ports, what have you.
think you can exploit this to turn some elements of the Revolutionary
Guards against the regime?
for a number of reasons. Because like in any totalitarian system,
they know that at the end they'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 o'clock in the morning, as a major
or colonel returning from base, because they don't have enough money
to pay the rent. The disenchantment is there.
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.
then being sustained by significant elements of the Revolutionary
Guards who say, "You're gone"?
I'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.
you in contact with some of the commanders of these [elements]?
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 Man's Land. You have to understand.
you the person who puts together the master plan? Are you the commander-in-chief
of this counteraction?
I think I can be effective, and the reason I have stayed behind until
now was because I wanted to exhaust every avenue of possibility so
that the opposition can gather itself and collectively work on a common
agenda. Within the next two or three months, we'll know if the result
of two or three years of intense effort is going to pay off.
or three months?
or three months. This summer.
you going to have a unity council of sorts?
the goal was to have some kind of congress, or, we call it a forum,
where all these [exiled Iranian opposition] groups, albeit under their
own umbrellas and structure, could agree on a common agenda of action
under common points that we all agree, and act like that. That's the
best we can hope to make something out of the fabric of the known
opposition. But what I have told them, and what I am telling them
right now, as much as there's a deadline on anything, there should
be a deadline for that, too. And I've exhausted every avenue to act
as a catalyst to bring as many people together so they can work together.
But if, for any reason, this strategy does not work, then I would
be ready to step in and take any initiative that is necessary. But
I would do that only if the other option does not work.
what you'd like to do, if you can get this umbrella of these outside
groups together, is use their collective ability to communicate back
with all these atomized groups inside Iran to call for things like
a general strike.
orchestrate a massive campaign of resistance and civil disobedience
to bring as much pressure within domestically. Meanwhile, the international
community can play a much bigger role as well in pressuring the regime
even further. That's where I get to the smart sanction part. For instance,
why penalize the people that are already bleeding and hungry? Why
don't you, for instance, in terms of the UN sanctions, demand a complete
obstruction of travel for Iranian officials? Or denying them visas
or from entering other countries, things of that nature? Why don't
you talk to all these countries that have intelligence and data on
all those dummy corporations and bank accounts that the regime has
in different countries and freeze those accounts?
basically send a very strong message to the regime, you penalize their
officials, you don't necessarily declare war on Iran or economically
put more pressure.
it's also a challenge to Russia and China. You know Russia and China
might be able to legitimately argue why they would veto any Security
Council resolutions on sanctions. China, obviously, because it's dependent
on Iranian oil, and Russia because I think Putin and Peter the Great
are not that far apart, in terms of their being the big boys in the
region. But they will be hard pressed to object to any smart sanction,
because failure to do so basically means they are in cahoots with
the Islamic regime. I don't know if they want to take that public
position in the court of public opinion.
you're doing this, how concerned are you about your own security here
in the United States?
it's beyond concern. I put faith in the Almighty and I said whatever
it takes. You know, what can you do? You cannot live in a shell.
your Iran, Mahmoud Abdullah, the Afghan who converted to Christianity,
would have every right to do that and the state would protect him
from retaliation by radical clerics?
I hope so. I hope so. Because if we are basing our constitution on
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that's one of the most fundamental
rights that any human being should have. I'm sick and tired of hypocrisy
and all this dubious attitude that is so typical of our region. If
you believe in something you say it, you don't fool around. I mean,
that's where I'm coming from. I haven't lived 45 years of my life
to fool around with these things. If I'm willing to lose my life for
it, hell I'm going to fight for these rights, otherwise it's not worth
it. Frankly it's not worth it! I might as well forget about Iran and
become a citizen and live my life in this country. No. I want to have
the same rights you have over here over there. That's what I'm fighting
for! Otherwise why bother?
you think the Iranian population as a whole agrees with you today
or do you feel you have to convert them to your point of view?
doesn't take a rocket scientist to find out that the minute you criticize
any aspect of this regime you are going to be at the very least incarcerated,
possibly tortured, and at the very worst, executed. Last week, there
were six bodies of women found in South of Tehran, because of the
new edict by Ahmadinejad - and I'm not saying "edict" as a cleric
because he's not, but the new law - to further strengthen the strict
code of how you dress! People can be fined if they happen to have
a dog on a leash because dogs are supposed to be bad in Islam. You
cannot even walk your dog on the street and not be fined. Imagine
if you were to criticize the regime! Don't you think people get that?
you rather participate in a democratic parliamentary election like
Iraq or simply come back as a constitutional monarch?
appreciate the question. I know what my function is today, and my
function today is to be a catalyst that promotes unity as opposed
to being an element that brings polarity. My role today is not institutional,
it's political. My role today is not someone who will be a symbolic
leader under that institution, but a national leader that is fighting
for freedom... My job today is to be a liberator, as opposed to representing
an institution. However, as an option, certainly the Iranian people
should consider that beyond the content of the future, which I described
to you - secular, democratic, based on human rights - what should
the ultimate form be? Do we want to have a parliamentary monarchy
like we do Sweden, or Japan, or Holland,
or Belgium? Or do we want to have a republican system like you have
in this United States or France or elsewhere? That debate is not today's
debate. That is the debate that will be the responsibility of the
next constitutional assembly that will have to bring in a new constitution
and draft a new one.
that time, there probably will be a lot of debates between those who
are advocates of a monarchic system and those who are advocates of
a republican system.
you don't rule it out?
think it is, in my personal opinion, I think that that institution
will better serve the purpose of the institutionalization of the democracy
in Iran rather than the republican form. I can, case in point, use
the example, of a post-Franco [Spain] with King Juan Carlos.
not renouncing the throne, in other words? You'll take it, if -.
it's not a matter what I choose to do. I think that if monarchy has
to be decided it should be based on people wanting it, not me arguing
it. I have faith that this is an appropriate institution. It's not
a coincidence it survived more than 25 centuries. It is very much
imbedded in Iranian culture and tradition and identity. In modern
days, it can play just as effective a role. And I think that one of
the things that I often find, thinking of the way Americans look at
monarchy, which is immediately George III in your mind, is that you
should at least liberate yourself from that aspect and see that the
name "republic" doesn't mean anything. Most of your enemies are republics.
Saddam Hussein is one. Syria is one. "Republic" doesn't automatically
mean democratic. The Soviet Union was a republic. Most of your allies
in Europe and NATO, half of them were monarchies....
think it's not the form of the regime, it's the content that matters.
I think a monarchy is just as compatible to be committed to be democratic
as a republic is. In some countries, a monarchy works better than
a republic. Usually, history has shown us, in countries that are heterogeneous,
in other words that have a lot of different groups, ethnicities and
religion, the gelling factor, the unifying factor, has been the institutional
mind, with the difference that this institution has to remain above
the fray and not be engaged in the politics. That's the big difference.
Because the only time it can maintain neutrality and be for all is
by not being engaged. Because the minute you become political then
you have to take sides and that defeats the purpose, which is pretty
much the problem we had under the previous regime, because the person
of the king was directly involved in making policy, which is the last
thing you want to do.
said that, yes, I'm fully committed to that. I'm ready to serve in that
capacity. If the people so choose, it would be my greatest honor. But
at the end of the day, what I tell them is, first and foremost, I'm
an Iranian and I'd be just as happy to serve my country in whatever
capacity. But if you give me that choice, that opportunity, I think
I could do a good job for you.
2006 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.
long awaited political breakthrough and opportunity is now in reach,
a chance to unite, organize and build an Iranian national consensus
between the exiled Iranians / Persians, and our fellow compatriots
in Iran / Persia. The criminal ruling mullahs of Iran miserable failure,
in all aspects of social governing procedures, coupled with the mullah's
deceitful selection of their new puppet president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,
in the rigged election of June 2005, plus mullahs relentless quest
for nuclear development, at all costs and harm to the Iranian people,
in a deliberate pursuit and hope of a direct conflict with the rest
of the world, in order to prolong their heinous existence has become
a strong unifying factor for the Iranian / Persian people, to act
for a peaceful and evolutionary social and governing changes in Iran
we, the Iranian / Persian people, hereby - Declare Our Independence
-, and our rights to determine our future, thereby, we all agree that,
under no circumstances, religious ideology shall ever play a role
in Iranís national sovereignty, social, political and economic future.
Under the banner of national sovereignty, we, the Iranian / Persian
people have come together to take our country back. - To that conclusion,
we all agree that, only Iranian / Persian people reserve the right
to determine their social and political future, and that Iranians'
/ Persians' Well-Being must always come first.
all agree, to hold these truths to be self-evident, that all human
beings; consisting of, - the womankind, and the mankind -, are equals
in all aspects of human rights, under the superior power and wisdom
of common sense, based on ethical standards, endowed by Mother Nature
with certain unalienable Rights: - amongst which, are life, liberty,
pursuit of knowledge and happiness, right to property, human rights
and gender equality.
all agree that, to secure the rights of all Iranians / Persians, government
shall only be instituted by, and among the Iranian / Persian people.
all agree that, the democratically elected government shall always
derive its just powers from the consent of the Iranian / Persian people
all agree that, it is also the fundamental right of the Iranian people
to alter or abolish any government, whenever it becomes destructive
and abusive of the principles of Iranian / Persian people's life,
liberty, pursuit of knowledge, right to property, human rights and
all agree that, only the Iranian / Persian people shall reserve the
right to institute a new government, laying its foundation on the
inherent principles of life, liberty, pursuit of knowledge, right
to property, human rights and equality.
all agree that, this new grass-root political movement, shall be free
of any religion, and function only based on an innovative, liberating
and visionary platform, governed by the unmatched and superior power
of reasoning, common sense, ethical and honorable means of providing
for, and managing public safety and social equality.
salvation, pride and liberty,
Freedom in the horizon, emerging near,
Unity, promising endless possibilities,
Promising national sovereignty, this year.