Posted on 05/01/2006 10:43:03 PM PDT by FairOpinion
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.
After 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.”
The 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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under any circumstances, would you support U.S. military action against Iran?
As 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.
Even 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?
First 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.
Three, 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.
Fourth, 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.
And, 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.
You would be willing to renounce that idea that Iran could develop a nuclear weapon?
I’m 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.
You don’t believe Iran needs a nuclear weapon to balance Israel’s nuclear weapon?
No.
You would not demand that Israel disarm?
Since 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.
A 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.
In 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.
Yes, 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.
Last 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?
Because 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.
Why 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.
Again, you see the tree but you don’t see the forest.
Explain it.
The 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.
But you’re not explaining the change from 2000, when they had reformers in there, and people thought they had a chance— Reformers 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.
It still would have been a more moderate regime than the present one.
Come 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.
How would you change it now?
The 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.
How long?
I cannot give you an expert, scientific opinion about how close Iran is to actual fissile material. . .
Newt 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.
That I think is realistic. Plus or minus six months or so.
Gingrich 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?
My 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 alone tried.
Which is?
Which 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.
Assume 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?
We 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.
You want to see a systematically organized general strike, people going into the streets against the government in Tehran?
Well look, civil disobedience, we can find examples of it from Argentina to India.
That’s what you want. That’s your tool.
That’s 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.
They report to [Ayatollah] Khamenei, not to Ahmadinejad?
It’s 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.
That 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 Man’s Land. You have to understand.
Are you the person who puts together the master plan? Are you the commander-in-chief of this counteraction?
Look, 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.
Two or three months?
Two or three months. This summer.
Are you going to have a unity council of sorts?
Yes, 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.
Specifically, 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.
Then 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?
You 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.
Then 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.
While you’re doing this, how concerned are you about your own security here in the United States?
Look 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.
In 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?
God, 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?
Do 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?
It 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? They do.
Would you rather participate in a democratic parliamentary election like Iraq or simply come back as a constitutional monarch?
I 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.
At 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.
But you don’t rule it out?
I 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.
You’re not renouncing the throne, in other words? You’ll take it, if—
Look, 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. ... I 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.
Having 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.
This thread is about a man who loves Iran and wants to overthrow the regime. **Something that would be incredibly beneficial to us and the world.**
All you came here to do is insult him and his father, and along the way insult FReepers who admire him and his father, and pick fights.
That's what you've always done on these threads.
That's why you're a Troll.
No, I hope Reza Palavi can "pull this off" and be successful.
But why are they making thier plans public?
I mean if we are reading aboutn this on FR, aren't the regime now in Iran reading this?
They will be warned of an inpending attack by Reza Palavi and that's no good.
I notice that in all your hysterics you never refute my assertions that the CIA branded your hero as "pathologically afraid"......or that he ran to Italy and had to be coerced back...or that they had to use his sister to shame him into action....all of this is there in the de-classified CIA docs. Anyone who wants to google "ajax,1953,iran,cia" can read it for himself.
Must be hard when you can't argue the facts.
How the Shah became the Shah seems to be the only facts you're interested in. Besides your subjective name-calling.
But the Important Facts are: The Shah was anti-communist, anti-islamist (before we even knew what the heck that was), pro-education, pro-modernization, and PRO-AMERICAN.
You insult the father of a man who is trying to get rid of the most dangerous regime in the world right now.
Very smart....NOT!
About time.
Interesting though that you back-handedly acknowledge the facts about the shah's ascent to the throne and his character (or lack of it) by declaring them unimportant....facts are always unimportant to propogandists...they just get in the way...
You have a nice day.
Obviously, the facts that the Shah was Anti-communist, Anti-islamist, & Pro-American, get in the way of your anti-Shah propaganda.
And the fact that his son is trying to get rid of our most dangerous enemy at this time, also gets in the way of your anti-Shah propaganda.
Instead of routing for him to be successful in overthrowing the regime, you insult his father and his efforts.
Again, real smart.
"The Shah was no Boy-scout. In fact, he was an a**hole"
I'd love to know on what facts you base this? The MSM acting in concert with Jimmy the Idiot Carter to blacken the man because he refused to pay Carter blackmail/exortion?
How long did you live in Iran - if ever?
Did you watch it grow in less than a generation from a country with only 40 kilometers of paved highway into a prosperous, thriving state? Under the guidance of the late Shah and despite oppositon of the flea-ridden Mullahs, the Soviets and Western oil interests which wanted to monopolize Iran's oil?
Based on what personal knowledge and experience do you speak?
You have the right to spout nonsense but do try to base it on a tiny bit of fact not the MSM or young, idealistic but naive left wing opposition acquaintances you may have had or met at college that you ran into and took their word as gospel.
Or have the pro-Mullah lobbyists like AIC, who pretend to be trying to create friendship between Islamic Iran and America but in reality plug the Mullah line managed to spin you into orbit?
Good grief!
You might want to keep reading thru the thread and respond to wtc911 who thinks the Shah was a "punk"
"Why would they be discussing it publicly? It seems like strategically, they'd not want it known?"
If you read Alan Peters' article of Iran - Justified Final Solution posted on FR and also on http://www.antimullah.com you would realize that someone or something has to replace or provide administrative coherence in the event of a large scale bombing attack which destroys the elite military to a man (insofar as possible) and leaves the ruling Mullahs (and not so ruling ones) at the mercy of the populace.
One of the points is that a government in exile or an NGO has to be prepared to help contain and control the chaos that would follow and step in with aid and comfort as if it were a massive earthquake instead of bombing.
With the hate the populace feels toward the mullahs unleashed by the removal of their military forces "bodyguards", there will not be many Mullahs left alive, so the current regime in any form would no longer be operational.
Because the late-Shah in reality served his people well, but certainly by contrast, was paradise on earth compared to the rule of the Mullahs, it's a natural catalytic umbrella to use initially to restore some semblance of order in a situation where nothing remains as authority or guidance. At least the Monarchy has a multitude of eager followers inside Iran, who like a drowning man would clutch at the royal straw and receive direction till democratic systems could be set up and other decisions - whatever they may be - take place.
"I have no truck with tyrants"
What do you know about running a country? Anything?
Have you even tried running a large corporation? Most CEO's are more of a tyrant inside their organizations than the late Shah was with his country.
But then again, it takes knowledge to reach good analysis and opinions based on reality not emotion or philosophical "perfect world" mind sets. You appear to function on emotion rather than factual basis.
Again, that's your right of FREE expression but then you are getting, so to speak, what you pay for. :-))
"would welcome the scion of one dictator to replace another".
Are you really comparing the reign of the late Shah with the rule of the Mullahs in the same breath? Is that how you see the two?
That would be like comparing the Queen of England with Pol Pot of Cambodia!
I think I can encapsulate such comments with "the American Right gets it wrong and the Left doesn't get it at all!"
You're right about the Shah. The paradox is that it seems the Shah shouldn't have bothered to modernize Iran. Look what he got for his efforts.
Try to use facts instead of slogans in your comments. Accuracy does help keep a discussion on track.
Piers Anthony's sci-fi series, "Bio of a Space Tyrant" is an interesting story. I actually just got around to rereading it.
At times I think that all of Doctor Zin's work has fallen on deaf ears. Then my mother is sending me pro-freedom articles about Iran. :) The truth cannot be kept silent. As always, BTTT for your insights.
Your hero was no George Washington and came from no "royal" blood-line. He was a puppet who relied on a mini-gestapo to rule.
Prove those CIA documents wrong or accept them.
Come now former law enforcement. Carter refused to sell Iran rubber bullets and crowd control water gun engines. Try controlling a hostile crowd without them and without killing them.
He set up the Guadeloupe meeting to stymie any help for the Monarchy. Read Carter's Illegal demands on the Shah at http://www.antimullah.com and get a better picture of reality at the time.
Both Alan and I were there. Were you? Did you have a hands on role?
Or did you get your information locally from the Mass Media that was instigated to do a character assassination? Or were you influenced by the organized crowds in the USA which tried to prevent him getting medical treatment for his terminal cancer?
The late Shah was dethroned because the Soviets went all out to do so and their Tehran Embassy became the center of operations against the Shah and support base - including some dozen Soviet Urban Guerilla tactics psychologists who did all the tactical planning to put the Marxist-Islamists MEK and Fedayeen in power. The Mullahs stole the revolution from the Soviets and were not the intended recipients of it.
To know more about what you so readily comment, you would need to have seen in from inside the G2 of the Shah and been privy to all the daily tactics the Soviets were doing to depose him and through their Tudeh (Communist party) and MEK surrogates finally get access to warm waters via Iran.
The "people" to whom you refer as the major players were catspaws used to achieve an aim through these players.
Khomeini had to initially include a 10 Touman banknote (roughly a $10 equivalent in buying power) inside every sandwich his organizers provided to the rent a crowds to get them to come into the streets in any numbers. Later fervor took over when the Shah showed weakness in dealing with them.
Specially when Khomeini promised everyone who would follow and support him a free house, free color television, free refrigerator, free automobile and free utilities. PLUS a share in the country's oil revenues!!
Heck! With that as a reward and the lack of sophisitication to realize that this would exceed the annual world budget to produce, you still think people did it on principle? Or because they were fed up?
A very limited few did. The rest were inspired and whipped into frenzy by the Soviet tactics and the masses by the prospect of being paid to sit at home and pick their noses just for existing.
Do check your facts and get real. And remember some 60% of the population were under the age of 25 - idealistic but inexperience and politically actually ignorant. How hard is it to whip up a cross section like that? A tinder box in gunpowder, similar to any University campus let alone an unsophisticated people like those in Iran at the time and similar to what's there now.
You are one of those who knows next to nothing about Iran yet set yourself up as a pundit?? You misquote facts, slant your views and use adjectives about things you know very little about.
You represent a thug with a SAVAK to protect him. That's a far slant from reality. Again, were you there?
And as far as listening to the CIA (though in those days they were real operfatives not corporate career people), does not their slant against Bush, verging on treason and isubordination, and their behind the scenes Bush bashing because they do not like his policies indicate that this might have happened then, too? About a foreigner to whom they had no allegiance?
That they judged by American not Iranian givens and standards and their rules did not suit the locality of the people and operations?
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.