Prince Reza Pahlavi of Iran speaks at Georgetown University

An address by Reza Pahlavi of Iran : Georgetown University - January 30th, 2008




I am indeed very pleased to be back at Georgetown University, and to once again have the opportunity to spend some time with you and discuss important matters which, without a doubt, concern all of us in these troubled times.

Iran’s clerical regime’s continued support for terrorism and confrontational behaviour, both regionally and beyond, its lack of transparency on issues such as its nuclear program, its continued repression of its citizenry, and a host of other issues, has rightfully led the world to the conclusion that, as such, this regime cannot be trusted. The Iranian people continue to suffer while the world ponders where all this might lead to. There are numerous topics worthy of discussion. But in light of time, I have chosen to focus tonight on the most recent issues preoccupying the international community. Let me start by stating that, despite a brief respite owing to the hype created by the publication of the National Intelligence Estimate last December, my homeland Iran, has managed to once again reclaim – for all the wrong reasons – its coveted place as one of the leading headline grabbers in world affairs. Not even Pakistan’s tense situation following the assassination of my friend, former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, nor the chaotic presidential elections and its violent aftermath in Kenya, as well as the continuing crisis in Iraq and the Levant, have managed to keep Iran and its contentious rulers off the front pages.
At the same time, as the primary season peaks here, and people are increasingly consumed by the election fever sweeping America, Iranians are also being asked to go to the polls on March 14 – to elect a new Majlis (parliament). Interestingly, despite the fact that Iran keeps making headlines on a whole host of other issues, and unlike the constant emphasis being made about the “free and fair” nature of the forthcoming Parliamentary elections in Pakistan, or the degree of irregularities in Kenya’s much disputed presidential elections last month, very little effort is underway to accurately describe the hoax and circus that is being passed on as “elections” by the ruling clerics in Iran. While news is gradually surfacing that more than two thirds of the 7000 plus candidates, who have registered to contest 290 seats in the “Islamic Consultative Parliament,” are likely to be “disqualified” – for a variety of reasons, but primarily based on the extent of their commitments to the tenets of the autocratic constitution – there has been no attempt to try and apply the same standards that are being demanded of, say President Musharaf in Pakistan, to the ruling autocrats of Iran!What is worse is that the international media, eager in having an entrée into Iran, are so obsessed with the prospect of getting a “live interview” with any one of Iran’s controversial figures over such contentious issues as their calling for the “wiping of Israel from the face of the earth,” or other similarly preposterous statements, that they pay little to no attention to the fact that they are being hoodwinked into a trap that essentially helps the clerical authorities achieve their aim of passing off their classic Soviet-style elections as something genuine or likely to make a difference to the overwhelming majority of the people. Let me be clear: the upcoming Majles elections in Iran is nothing but a sham, and the Iranian people – whether they are compelled by a variety of reasons to take part, or whether they are able to withstand enormous pressure and boycott the elections – know full well that, no matter who gets into the next Majles, they are unlikely to truly represent their will, desire and vision for Iran. Consequently, the next Majles will continue to remain a mere pawn in the hands of the “Supreme Leader” and his cohorts.




Let me now turn to a different subject which must today be at the top of the mind of every student of Iranian affairs: The effect of the NIE, especially amongst Iranians.
From my perspective, the most positive aspect of the NIE has been the fact that in the ongoing dispute between Iran and the international community over the regime’s exposed nuclear program and ambitions, the worst option – namely the dreaded military option, against which I have continuously spoken – has been firmly placed in context. In the weeks prior to the release of the National Intelligence Estimate, despite the fact that it was clearly obvious that diplomatic efforts were by no means exhausted in pressuring the clerical regime to adhere to the will of the U.N. Security Council and the I.A.E.A. vis-à-vis it’s uranium enrichment program, there was, nonetheless, a crescendo of media-based hype and frenzy, giving the impression that the military option was likely to be exercised much sooner than anyone imagined. As a consequence of the NIE, there is no question that focus has once again been shifted to reliance on negotiations and diplomatic measures in attempting to resolve this matter. So, while the United States has maintained that its military option has not been removed from the table, there is now a much more sober atmosphere that is most conscious about not allowing matters to get out of hand.
While this development has been a source of relief to me and many Iranians who were dreading the prospect of a catastrophic war, it has at the same time served to lower morale amongst ordinary citizens looking for international moral support of their struggle for democracy and human rights, by creating the false impression that the U.S. and its allies were caving into the Islamist regime’s pressures in places like Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan.




This impression was fuelled, not only by the kind of misleading publicity the NIE generated within the international media, but also by the way in which the regime’s propaganda machine projected it as its ultimate vindication and victory over “the Great Satan and its European surrogates.” The level of misperception and deliberate misrepresentation regarding the actual meaning and content of the National Intelligence Estimate has been such that key figures of the clerical regime – believing their own propaganda – have actually demanded that Iran be exonerated of all suspicions, and that its nuclear case at the Security Council be terminated and handed back to the IAEA.It is a fact that – as a consequence of the NIE – the Islamic regime has been able to gain extra time in the “cat and mouse game” it has so masterfully played with the international community for the past several years.
However, it was also inevitable that they could not continue misrepresenting realities beyond a very limited period of time. Fortunately, as we speak, the implications of the NIE report can be viewed in much more sober terms as they pertain to Iran – as opposed to whatever connotation one might want to attach to it from the perspective of U.S. politics.
As far as Iran is concerned, the NIE confirms the fact that the clerical leadership had in fact concealed and mislead the world about their plans for acquiring and developing nuclear weapons, in the sense that according to the report, it was not until 2003 that they actually put a halt to their “nuclear weapons” program – meaning Iran’s nuclear weapon design and weaponization work.The remainder of the report, while making a number of other comments with varying “degrees of confidence,” entirely misses a critical point in that the underlying reason behind the regime’s troubles with the U.N. Security Council had little to do with its at-the-time covert weaponization work, but instead was due to the regime’s opacity and failure to cooperate with the IAEA on one hand, and its continuing production of fissile material and haste in the development of long range missiles on the other.
To be clear, there was never any question that, unless the Iranian authorities properly addressed the demands that were being put to them over these issues, nothing would be resolved. Hence, it is no surprise that after a delay of some 30 days or more, the “5+1” group are once again in the process of circulating a draft text that will be the basis of a third punitive U.N. Security Council resolution against Iran.




Within Iran, these past several weeks have been a period of extreme concern and anxiety. Although there is general relief over the lowered prospects of military conflict, there is today grave concern about the fact that the U.S. and the international community might be willing to forego the cause of democracy and human rights in Iran, should the Islamist clerical regime demand it as its price in exchange for halting its agitations in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.
Such a development, were it to occur, would not only serve to demoralize freedom loving people and democratic movements world wide, but it would more dangerously hand victory to murderers and terrorists throughout the Middle East.
I believe that the current thrust of U.S. policy in the Middle East which is centred on the resolution of the long standing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, is a positive development and one which I hope will be sustained by the next administration. Undoubtedly, the resolution of this 60 year old conflict will serve as the cornerstone of moderation and stability in the region as a whole. However, have no doubt that Tehran’s theocracy also has its plan, one which is not compatible with the regional and the international community’s vision of a two state
resolution. Through its surrogates and allies in Syria, Lebanon and Palestine, the clerical regime is guaranteed to do its utmost to derail and block the current initiative from ever taking off.
I believe President Bush’s public comments on Iran, during his recent trip to the Middle East, are partly reflective of his administration’s realization of the same. Of course, this feeds into a greater general unease about the clerical regime’s implicit and explicitly declared long term regional ambitions, threatening the Arab states of the Persian Gulf, rendering the clerical regime a problem State irrespective of who takes charge of the next U.S. Administration.

In closing, I must state the sobering fact that, in the course of the past three decades, since the arrival of Ayatollah Khomeini and the establishment of the world’s first modern-day theocracy, we have witnessed a pattern of escalating violence, war and conflict at unprecedented levels. A cursory review of some of the regional developments during this period in places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon and Israel, clearly illustrate the point I am making.

Uncertainty about the future, coupled with constant fear of violence and instability, has deprived the people of the Middle East from creating the kind of environment that is both peaceful and conducive for developing their full potential.

The question which begs attention is: what must be done to avoid a similar pattern in the next 30 years, or better yet, how best to put an end to it? Seen from that perspective, the choices are very clear. It is essential that forces of moderation, tolerance and enlightenment succeed in isolating and neutralizing the forces of darkness and violence which have no compunction whatsoever in resorting to mass terror in order to promote their hateful agenda. It is in this overall battle of ideas that the solid and unwavering moral support of the West and its liberal democratic values are so essential in determining the final outcome.I firmly believe that the people of Iran have a huge role to play in this great battle. As a nation, we have experienced and directly endured the consequences of an inept, corrupt and oppressive government that has failed to meet the daily needs of a robust population that is craving to play its rightful part, in line with the demands of the 21st century.I am convinced that with the establishment of secular democracy in Iran – something that is fully understood and compatible with the wishes of the overwhelming majority of Iranians – and the end of the regime’s sponsorship of terror, the region will get its chance to start anew. A democratic Iran will usher a new era that will, within a generation, positively transform the Middle East and beyond.Therefore, let me conclude by saying that my compatriots need your moral support today in their struggle for freedom and human rights. We need to be assured that the free world will never deviate over matters of principle.Help us help you in the greater battles that must be won, if we are to succeed with the positive visions we all share: putting an end to tension, violence and instability, and promoting peace, understanding and tranquillity in the Middle East.


From: saharmaluse : Prince Reza Pahlavi - Singer: Bannou Mahasti( RIP -Long live her memory )

A Frail Economy Raises Pressure on Iran’s Rulers : By MICHAEL SLACKMAN

latest news from the Islamic republic of idiots

TEHRAN — In one of the coldest winters Iranians have experienced in recent memory, the government is failing to provide natural gas to tens of thousands of people across the country, leaving some for days or even weeks with no heat at all. Here in the capital, rolling blackouts every night for a month have left people without electricity, and heat, for hours at a time.The heating crisis in this oil-exporting nation is adding to Iranians’ increasing awareness of the contrast between their growing influence abroad and frailty at home, according to government officials, diplomats and political analysts interviewed here. From fundamentalists to reformists, people here are talking more loudly about the need for a more pragmatic approach, one that tones down the anti-Western rhetoric, at least a bit, and focuses more on improving management of the country and restoring Iran’s economic health.The mounting domestic challenges, the most serious of which is a grinding period of stagflation, with inflation growing and the economy weakening, have apparently deepened tensions between President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the religious establishment he ultimately answers to. And they have helped spur a collective rethinking of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s stewardship as Iran prepares to celebrate the 29th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution this month and to hold parliamentary elections on March 14.“I think the Islamic Revolution is going through an identity crisis, and is trying to mature,” said Nader Talebzadeh, a filmmaker who supports Mr. Ahmadinejad. “We are maturing, gradually.”There are increasing signals, however, that the government is not interested in hearing other voices and is geared instead toward maintaining power by silencing critics. For the parliamentary elections, so far about 70 percent of all reform candidates have been disqualified. While the president’s supporters say the rejections were based on legal standards, like a lack of loyalty to the Islamic system or the idea of having a supreme leader, reformists say the rejections are an effort to keep them out of power. Last week, the government shut down Iran’s most important feminist magazine, which had been published for 16 years. The authorities also arrested a small group of students after a protest at Tehran University over poor conditions in their dormitory.
In the middle of a snowy, icy winter, women have been arrested for not wearing proper Islamic clothing. Hats over head scarves, boots over pants, can bring trouble. “Their harsh reaction to everything shows they feel very vulnerable,” said Morad Saghafi, a philosopher and writer in Tehran. “They arrest 10 students because they think if they don’t, 100 will come. Yes, they feel vulnerable.”In recent weeks, even Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme religious leader, changed his tone regarding the president, offering rare public criticism while reasserting his own standing as the steward of Iran’s foreign and nuclear policies.“The present government, similar to any other government, has certain shortcomings which should be mentioned sympathetically,” Ayatollah Khamenei said recently before warning critics not to go overboard. “But some individuals attempt to criticize and insult every move by the government. The majority of these individuals are, however, negligent, that they are acting in line with the enemies’ propaganda.”Sayeed Laylaz, an economist who was briefly a deputy minister in the former reform government, said: “The supreme leader realizes this economy, this country, doesn’t work anymore. He is trying to reconstruct it from within.” An adviser to the supreme leader, speaking on the condition of anonymity to avoid a dispute with the president, added that “there is a consensus” on the need for better management. Mr. Ahmadinejad’s office refused requests to discuss events in Iran with the president or his advisers. The president’s new chief security adviser, Saeed Jalili, refused to be interviewed unless the entire content of the interview was printed in a question-and-answer format in the newspaper. Posting it on the Internet would not suffice, his office said.But political analysts, politicians and supporters say that the president does not have to change as long as the mood for change stops with the political elite, and that the troubles so far have not undermined his support among the pious poor. He continues to be popular, they say, seen as a man of principle and good intention, though that may be wearing thin.South of Tehran, near the Imam Khomeini International Airport, in a neighborhood called Robat Karim, people were without gas for days last month, and they continue to suffer cuts in power at midday and at night, residents said. Iran’s natural gas shortage became a crisis when Turkmenistan, to the north, cut off supplies in December over a pricing dispute. Iran does not have the refining capacity to meet its own needs.Robat Karim is a conservative neighborhood, wary of foreigners, and supportive of the president. But with streets that have not been cleared of snow, and the cold nights, nerves have frayed. “I have a tenant in an apartment upstairs, and there was no gas for days,” said Nour Asadzade, 70, a shopkeeper in the neighborhood. “He asked me to help, but I said, What can I do, it’s in the hands of the government.”Outside, a 52-year-old woman stepped carefully around the ice, the potholed road and the puddles. “I want to say, ‘No, they don’t pay attention to us.’ ” She said her name was Akram, then grew frightened and slipped into her house.For years it seemed that Iran was evolving away from a state defined exclusively by revolutionary ideology. Former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, himself a father of the revolution, emphasized pragmatic economic ties. His successor, Mohammad Khatami, eased up on social restrictions and called for a “dialogue of civilizations.”Then came Mr. Ahmadinejad, who rose from a new generation, a class of men who fought in the eight-year war with Iraq, and who have since moved to roll back Iran to a time when revolutionary ideology defined the state. For example, Kaveh Bayat, a historian, said the desire to export the revolution was back.“The idea that you have to export the revolution or you will cease to exist is another deeply ingrained element — it was dormant during Rafsanjani and Khatami but it is awake again,” Mr. Bayat said. “We tried to forget it, but it is back.”President Ahmadinejad so changed the direction of the state that it has led many to assert that three decades after the revolution, Iran remains a place defined by individuals, not institutions. Nearly everyone seems to recognize that one of the biggest problems is the nature of the political system — divided as it is among multiple factions, each striving for access to power. It is not one devised to build compromise, and the internal fighting can send confused messages to the outside world. “It would make our job a lot easier, if only they could agree,” said a Western diplomat based in Tehran who spoke on the condition of anonymity, which is standard diplomatic protocol.Another diplomat said, “I am stunned by their emotion and antagonism they demonstrate in their fighting with each other.”At least two views exist about where this is leading. One view is that Mr. Ahmadinejad and his radical allies needed to come to power to see that ideology cannot be a successful guide to running a modern state like Iran. The economic hardships, according to this view, will ultimately moderate or marginalize them. “They come into the center of power and they realize running a country like Iran is difficult,” said a business consultant and political analyst in Tehran who asked to remain anonymous to avoid retribution.“This specific topic, the management of gas resources, hits every home,” the consultant said. “I think with this, the system as a whole has reached a climax.” Another view holds that Mr. Ahmadinejad and his ideologically driven allies will not give up power, and will not be driven from power. “From a social point of view, we have a social structure in place for the emergence of fascism,” Mr. Bayat, the historian, said. “Like Europe in the 1920s, we have a dissatisfied proletariat looking for radical and extreme solutions. Ahmadinejad is not imposed on us.”