Posted on 03/28/2006 11:41:02 AM PST by TexasCajun
Reza Pahlavi, the eldest son of the Shah of Iran, said he is "totally against” a U.S. military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities – and defended his nation’s right to have nuclear technology.
Appearing with John McLaughlin on his show "One on One,” the 45-year-old heir to the Peacock Throne was asked: "Under what circumstances would you permit direct military action against Iran's nuclear infrastructure?”
He told McLaughlin: "I'm totally against it for many reasons. As a nationalist, as a patriot, I could not even think of a scenario which would involve any kind of military strikes on my country. And if that's my sentiment, I guarantee that's the sentiment of many Iranians.”
Pahlavi also voiced opposition to a military strike at a National Press Club press conference earlier this month, saying an attack would generate nationalist fervor in the country and strengthen the clerical regime. Such a strike would be a "gift” to the Tehran regime, he said.
McLaughlin asked Pahlavi: "If you were monarch today, would you defend your country's right to procure the peaceful uses of nuclear power, for example, in electricity?
Pahlavi answered: "Absolutely ... It's not even a question of having the right. Iran had that right already before the revolution. Three countries - namely, the U.S. Britain and Germany - were competing with each other as to who would sell nuclear technology to Iran. And by now, had it not been for [the Islamic] revolution, Iran would have had over 30 nuclear power plants.”
McLaughlin asked if Pahlavi thought Tehran might use a nuclear weapon if it acquired one. Pahlavi said: "I’m not going to speculate as to whether or not the Islamic regime is going to use it or not use it.” But he added: "I think that the threat is real.”
And when asked if Iran would attempt a nuclear strike against Israel if it had the weapon, he responded: "The potential for this regime to use anything in its power to guarantee its mission of exporting the revolution may not stop at that. It may even include that.”
Pahlavi left Iran in 1978, the year before his father was deposed, and has lived in the U.S. continuously since 1984. The Shad died in 1980.
Pahlavi told McLaughlin that he would like to see Iran as a "secular democracy in which there is separation of church from state, which will be founded on the principles of human rights. And this is the only time that Iran can get back on track of progress, freedom and modernity.”
Give them the gift.
He'd probably like to return and have a shot at ruling if and when the current goons are gone. He's not interested in being in charge of a smoking ruin, which likely explains his reluctance.
Bingo.
He probably thinks it is 50/50 that it will collapse on its own.
He also thinks he could be the "unification" choice by having lived in the USA, being the Shah's kid (and descendant of Mohammed, the false prophet), yet against the attack.
Basically ride in on a white horse, saying "not my fault."
Looks like Grover from Sesame Street.
Finally someone without an agenda. Was Chalabi busy?
The "Crown Prince" so to speak, was a young child when the revolution happened and even the Khomeini-ists publicly announced they had no quarrel with him since he had never done anything bad to anyone. Much too young.
Timmerman has his good and bad moments and I'm not sure if you read incorrectly or he mis-spoke. As has been said by more than one pro-Khomeini supporter, the reign of the late Shah was paradise mutiplied by ten thousand compared to what's there under the Mullahs.
Carter made the Shah look really bad in the West as part of his personal agenda.
I speak from personal knowledge not the Media spin.
I am not specially recommending a return of the monarchy, other than perhaps the only practical catalyst and umbrella under which a democratic system could operate more smoothly after all the chaos of the last quarter century of the Mullahs.
The orchestrated attacks on the late Shah and his "repression" and "suppression"- so over intensified by the Media - was not only almost mythical compared to reality but even among Iranians evaporated rapidly compared to what they began to endure immediately after Khomeini took over.
Anymore than the Media presents anything good about Iraq, they were given the agenda of vilifying the late Shah because Carter wanted to glorify Khomeini as a new Iranian Pope.
You might want to read up about some of this on http://www.antimullah.com
Timmerman has some unique access and seems very well informed.
I hope Bush doesn't really think he's going to talk to the Mullahs about their nuclear ambitions.
Kings, religious clerics - all part of antiquated leadership structures. Iran's need - the whole world's need - is for sane democratic, non-religious governance. It's to George Bush's eternal credit that he tried for this in Afghanistan and Iraq, though it increasingly looks like the Islamic world may never be ready for it.
Timmerman has "unique" access? To whom? US Govt. sources? Yes. INtel sources? Yes. BUT Give me a break!
Did he go in and out of the palace? Did he hang out with any of the royals? Did he hang out with the TOP leaders of the country at their homes and offices? Did he hang out with all the top military? Was he there when the revolution happened? Was he involved in any of it?
I was and did.
I can feel your passion. It must have been really scary in those final days of the Shah, being as close as you say.
Have you written about your experinces?
What do you see as the alternative to the us and its allies bombing suspected nuclear facilities inside Iran?
Is there any question in your mind that Iran is responsible for most of the insurgency in Iraq today?
WOW what a surprise - from all this noise comes a voice of experience - first hand no less.
Tell us more please - I like your tone.
power to guarantee its mission of exporting the revolution may not stop at that. It may even include that.”
Pretty good basis for Israel to preempt
As I suggested, go to http://www.antimullah.com and read Alan Peters' articles. He was also there and knows what he's talking about. Listen to people who were there at the time and like Alan Peters sat in J2 counter intel three or four days a week trying to counteract Soviet activities to make the revolution a success. Not for Khomeini but for the Mojaheddin (MEK), the Fadayeen (both Marxist Islamist groups) and for the Tudeh (Communist) party.
The Mullahs stole the revolution out from under these pro-Soviet groups because once the government fell and its organizations went into disarray, the only remaining national network was the string of hundreds of mosques all over the country, which set up neighborhood groups etc., rather like Mojtaba Al-Sadr did in Iraq. And co-ordinated activities on a national basis by linking together the local "Committe" clerical "neighborhood watch" groups.
Again, I refer you to Alan Peters at http://www.antimullah.com who is even more able to comment first hand and even returned to England and organized anti-Khomeini demonstrations there. Started off with only some 25 people outside the Islamic embassy and ended - while he was still there - with about eight to 10,000 marching in protest to the Islamic regime in London. Including not only the royalists but also the pro-Bakhtiar contingents.
Incidentally Timmerman's claim to fame is possession of Islamic Revolutionary Guard documents, none of which would be favorable to the late Shah or his family. He has his place in the fight against the Mullahs but his analysis of the monarchy would appear flawed from what you mention. He seems to repeat what the MSM was saying at the time and eventually became "fact" even though it was wrong.
Again, both Alan Peters and myself went through it all first hand. He stayed behind to oppose the revolution, got stuck there after Khomeini returned and had to be "helped" out.
Just in case it was not clear in my reply, Alan actively tried to prevent the Soviets from helping the revolution happen. The sentence I wrote sounded pehaps that he was helping the MEK etc.
He met several times a week with military J2 counter intel and was part of the decision making process to obstruct the Soviet activity of a dozen of their urban guerilla warfare psychologists, flown in for just that purpose to the Soviet Tehran embassy. Iran had nobody with any experience in this field or in Information warfare.
The first person or group that "rides in" will have to spill so much Mullah blood that it will come back to bite them politically later on and the Monarchy cannot afford the taint.
Read Operation Sandblast on http://www.antimullah.com for a better feel of the two phase regime change that would make sense, though some revisions are equired as the article was written some months ago.
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.