[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great
Views expressed here are not necessarily the views & opinions of ActivistChat.com. Comments are unmoderated. Abusive remarks may be deleted. ActivistChat.com retains the rights to all content/IP info in in this forum and may re-post content elsewhere.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Exclusive: Shah of Iran's Heir Plans Overthrow of Regime
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> News Briefs & Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2006 1:32 am    Post subject: Exclusive: Shah of Iran's Heir Plans Overthrow of Regime Reply with quote

Exclusive: Shah of Iran's Heir Plans Overthrow of Regime
Posted May 01, 2006
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=14424


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 ďsmart sanctionsĒ 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. ďIím ready to serve in that capacity,Ē he said. ďIf the people so choose, it would be my greatest honor.Ē

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 thereís 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 itís a very different scenario from, letís say, the Second World War where you are occupied by Nazi forces and thereís a liberating force coming in. This is a strike against Iranian installations that are part of our national assets. That itís used wrongly by the wrong people is beside the point. So thereís no justification as far as Iím 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, thereís 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 itís a race against time, as in the sense, ďWill this regime become nuclear first or will the Iranian people achieve democracy?Ē thereís no way youíre 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 donít know if itís going to be effective. Weíre not talking about Iraq. Weíre talking about a country with a multitude of installations, some of which you happen to know about and many of which we still donít 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?

Iím 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, thereís 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. Iíd be the first one proposing a plan to reverse the cycle of proliferation.

You donít believe Iran needs a nuclear weapon to balance Israelís 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 Iím concerned, Israel never had any ambition to territorially go and invade, I donít 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 Statesí using military action against Iran, you said this would turn the Iranian people against Americans.

Yes, theyíre your best natural allies. What they see, rather than helping usóbecause we are your best weapon against this regime. Why do you want to bypass us? And youíre attacking our resources.

Last year, Iran elected Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a viciously anti-American president. Heís threatening the destruction of Israel. Heís threatening the United States. Why is it that the same country that can elect this guy has a pro-American population?

Because thatís what the Iranian people are like. Iran is the only country that has the most pro-Western people with the most anti-Western governmentóunlike 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 donít 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 Godís 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 donít see eye to eye with you. This is a regime that is dedicated to that.

But youíre not explaining the change from 2000, when they had reformers in there, and people thought they had a chanceó
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. Donít get me wrong. Thatís 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 heís more moderate. He was Communist for Godís 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 weíre going to negotiate with Russians or weíre not going to talk to themóbuying time. Three years of endless negotiations has produced nothing. Why? The regime gained an extra three years. All Iím 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 canít get the regime changed in two to three years we have to invade Iran. Whatís 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 Iím coming from. What Iím coming from is that, short of military strikes, which I donít 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 itís a complex issue.

Assume youíre 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.

Thatís what you want. Thatís your tool.

Thatís 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?

Itís a mixed bag. Ultimately, Khamenei is the supreme leader. But letís face it, Khamenei doesnít 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, ďOh, weíre talking to the AmericansĒóat 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. Itís 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 donít 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 theyíll 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 oíclock in the morning, as a major or colonel returning from base, because they donít 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 backedó

Sustained. Sustained.

And then being sustained by significant elements of the Revolutionary Guards who say, ďYouíre goneĒ?

And Iím 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 Manís 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, weíll 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. Thatís 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 thereís a deadline on anything, there should be a deadline for that, too. And Iíve 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 youíd 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. Thatís where I get to the smart sanction part. For instance, why penalize the people that are already bleeding and hungry? Why donít 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 donít 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 donít necessarily declare war on Iran or economically put more pressure.

Then itís 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 itís 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 donít know if they want to take that public position in the court of public opinion.

While youíre doing this, how concerned are you about your own security here in the United States?

Look itís 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 thatís one of the most fundamental rights that any human being should have. Iím 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 donít fool around. I mean, thatís where Iím coming from. I havenít lived 45 years of my life to fool around with these things. If Iím willing to lose my life for it, hell Iím going to fight for these rights, otherwise itís not worth it. Frankly itís 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. Thatís what Iím 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 doesnít 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 Ahmadinejadóand Iím not saying ďedictĒ as a cleric because heís not, but the new lawóto 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! Donít 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, itís 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 youósecular, democratic, based on human rightsówhat 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 todayís 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 donít 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.

Youíre not renouncing the throne, in other words? Youíll take it, ifó

Look, itís 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. Itís 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 ďrepublicĒ doesnít mean anything. Most of your enemies are republics. Saddam Hussein is one. Syria is one. ďRepublicĒ doesnít automatically mean democratic. The Soviet Union was a republic. Most of your allies in Europe and NATO, half of them were monarchies. ... I think itís not the form of the regime, itís 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. Thatís 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, Iím fully committed to that. Iím 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, Iím an Iranian and Iíd 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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eski



Joined: 20 Jun 2004
Posts: 157
Location: Washington State, U.S.A.

PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2006 2:04 am    Post subject: Re: Exclusive: Shah of Iran's Heir Plans Overthrow of Regime Reply with quote

cyrus wrote:


Under any circumstances, would you support U.S. military action against Iran?

As a matter of principle thereís 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 itís a very different scenario from, letís say, the Second World War where you are occupied by Nazi forces and thereís a liberating force coming in. This is a strike against Iranian installations that are part of our national assets. That itís used wrongly by the wrong people is beside the point. So thereís no justification as far as Iím concerned.



Ya best get doin' and stop talkin' about it then Chief Mad
_________________
Liberalism is NOT a political philosophy.
It IS a MENTAL DISORDER! (Michael Savage)
Those who forget their history are condemned to repeat it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2006 2:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
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.


In past 27 years we have not seen anything that shows the Revolutionary Guards are working for people.

Quote:
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.


How do we know these elements of the Revolutionary Guard are not working for Taazi regime. As long as we have not seen any positive actions to support freedom-loving people of Iran the Guard can not be trusted.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Peyman



Joined: 15 Oct 2005
Posts: 8

PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2006 10:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is our biggest problem. We iranians have an extremely hard time trusting our own people. Before we trust anyone that person has to do something we consider as being "good, otherwise the person cannot be trusted.

Cyrus said that we cannot trust the Guards,
my question is : how do the guards know if they can trust the people?

We need to start somehwere and I believe this is a good point to start at. We cannot just expect the Revolutionary Guards to give us our freedom, we need to work together. I believe this is a good chance and an very good opperunity for us to overthrow the regime and at least to unite and try to topple the regime.
_________________
Hungry for more information
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2006 11:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Peyman wrote:
This is our biggest problem. We iranians have an extremely hard time trusting our own people. Before we trust anyone that person has to do something we consider as being "good, otherwise the person cannot be trusted.

Cyrus said that we cannot trust the Guards,
my question is : how do the guards know if they can trust the people?

We need to start somehwere and I believe this is a good point to start at. We cannot just expect the Revolutionary Guards to give us our freedom, we need to work together. I believe this is a good chance and an very good opperunity for us to overthrow the regime and at least to unite and try to topple the regime.


Dear Peyman,
Due to the fact that the Revolutionary Guards have all the key positions, therefore their actions defines who they are whether they can be trusted or not. So far we have not seen anything good except we know percentage of Guards are supporting Ahamadinejad and they helped him to become president. The ball is in their court and they must show with their actions whether they are Taazi or Iranians.

To avoid War and nuclear war or another Chernobyl nuclear disaster 20 years ago , Security Forces (Police, Pasdaran and Military) must act now for regime change and replacing it with Free society and Secular Democracy. The Iranian people have already spoken by boycotting Elections. The Armed forces must choose between defending and serving the people or serving Mullahs. This is up to armed and security forces to choose between SHAME and HONOR, serving Mullahs or their Sisters, Brothers, Fathers & Mothers who pay their salary.

We should not forget the Security Forces are paid to protect freedom and people.
Good work and Actions provide trust.
Please provide me with the list of good and bad actions by the Revolutionary Guards in past 27 years then we will see whether the people should trust them or not.
Did they serve freedom , people of Iran or served Taazi Mullahs .....?

Thanks,
Cyrus
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
blank



Joined: 26 Feb 2004
Posts: 1672

PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2006 4:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The huge problem is the 20-25% of Hezbollah/Al-Qaeda/Afghanis/Palestinians/Tudehi/islamist/all the ones on the payroll enjoying good life.... these are the people that are dedicated to keep the regime in power and would go out of their way to to supress any kind of uprising. These are the ones that need to be eliminated first...
I believe because of the iri active recruitement of homocide bombers this number could be up to 35-40%
US and its real allies must start giving weapons to the different trusted opposition groups (not MKO's or Tudehis).

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=14424
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2006 6:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

blank wrote:
The huge problem is the 20-25% of Hezbollah/Al-Qaeda/Afghanis/Palestinians/Tudehi/islamist/all the ones on the payroll enjoying good life.... these are the people that are dedicated to keep the regime in power and would go out of their way to to supress any kind of uprising. These are the ones that need to be eliminated first...
I believe because of the iri active recruitement of homocide bombers this number could be up to 35-40%

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=14424


Excellent point. The Revolutionary Guards that support the following Qaeda/Afghanis/Palestinians/Tudehi/islamist ..... groups are called Taazi and can not be trusted at all. As I said before the ball is in the Revolutionary Guards court to decide with real actions to clean up their mess .....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eski



Joined: 20 Jun 2004
Posts: 157
Location: Washington State, U.S.A.

PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2006 12:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It would be great if some clear headed commanders and their trusted troops would turn on the president and the mullahs. That would be and ideal solution. Immediately afterward it would behoove the U.S. government to support these men on their sane revolution. The Islamists have been in power longer than they ever should have been.
_________________
Liberalism is NOT a political philosophy.
It IS a MENTAL DISORDER! (Michael Savage)
Those who forget their history are condemned to repeat it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2006 1:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

eski wrote:
It would be great if some clear headed commanders and their trusted troops would turn on the president and the mullahs. That would be and ideal solution. Immediately afterward it would behoove the U.S. government to support these men on their sane revolution. The Islamists have been in power longer than they ever should have been.



To avoid War and nuclear war or another Chernobyl nuclear disaster 20 years ago , ( Animation of Nuclear Bunker Buster: Destructive impact on civilian population in Iran and beyond )
Iranian people expectation from Security Forces (Police, Pasdaran and Military) must act now for regime change and replacing it with Free society and Secular Democracy. The Iranian people have already spoken by boycotting Elections. The Armed forces must choose between defending and serving the people or serving Taazi Mullahs. This is up to armed and security forces to choose between SHAME and HONOR, serving Mullahs or their Sisters, Brothers, Fathers & Mothers who pay their salary.

So far the revolutionry guards were tools of Taazi Mullahs for creating fear society and center for drug distribution among people.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2006 12:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

To All,

Points well noted, and I do believe RP is correct in his knowledge that the Rev. Guard is not a homogeneus tool keeping the mullahs in power.

Whether those elements can be trusted by the people, or whether they in the Rev. Guard can trust the people to act to sustain the removal of the regime is a matter of whether the will is there among all to see that happen, and as I've long said the catalyst is whether the regime's intent to drive the west to war with it is generally recognized as a dire threat to all...

So it is now most definately upon us, no if's, and's, or but's about it.

While a very steady, calculated, step by step aproach is taken in the UN Sec. Council to meet the threat diplomaticly, so must the step by step aproach to build trust among various opposition groups be realized as core to your success in the matter.

I've said as well that there are plenty of arms in Iran as it is, the key is to get them on the side of the people. This can only be done when the massive , by the numbers, strike and taking to streets is done and those with the guns realize time is at hand to make their individual choice (as individuals) for the future.

Glad to see the dialogue happening among you all....have some faith in each other....it's been a long time coming.

War will not be on the head of the west, but on the head of the regime, and this is a point I would hope RP understands quite well. If the people of Iran understand that one fact, that the regime will be to blame for any hostilities that may occur, then again I say the catalyst to act now becomes acute in mindset among the people of Iran.

Best,

Oppie


Last edited by Oppenheimer on Wed May 03, 2006 10:32 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AmirN



Joined: 23 Sep 2005
Posts: 297

PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2006 7:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
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.


Cyrus is absolutely correct in that judging by past experience, nothing good can be said of the Taazi Pastaran. So far they have proven to be the instrument of death and oppression in the hands of the Mullahs. I have nothing favorable to say about these traitors.

Nonetheless, history has also taught us that not always are the members of a group necessarily in line with the actions of the group as a whole. The many individual members of the Pastaran may just be going along the Taazi ride because of pressure from their superiors. This doesnít excuse their behavior, any more than the behavior of Nazi petty officers could be justified with the claim of ďsimply following orders.Ē However, it does open the possibility that when the catalyst arrives, the allegiance of some of the Pastaran may not be as solid as the Mullahs may think.

Also, this reminds me of an event a few months ago. If you all recall, there were a couple of aircraft crashes back then involving many high ranking officials of the military and/or Pastaran which occurred under suspect conditions. The suspect nature of those crashes raises the possibility of those individuals possibly being involved in anti-IR planning or activity. I certainly have no evidence to that claim and I donít assert it to be the case, but I would entertain the possibility, and it doesnít seem far fetched.

I wonder if anyone here has any more information to add regarding this possibility.

I wonderÖ.
_________________
I am Dariush the Great King, King of Kings, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage

Naqshe Rostam
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2006 10:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sometimes it is not as simple as one might wish, nor advantageous to discus publicly, plans in advance as RP has done. The regime has big ears.

As well, those who follow orders may indeed do so as not to have their families lined up and shot. Coersion and corruption is an insidious thing Amir...yet there are those biding their time for a day of reconing with the regime.

Why did the regime "purge" the ranks last summer? In so doing they only buried the moles within the regime's machine deeper and made them more cautious.

Yes, nothing ON THE SURFACE might suggest RP is correct, but then this is part of what I meant in the opposition having faith in each other....it's been a long time coming.

RP is refering to the Iranian version of "The Monkey Wrench Gang."

Read Kurt Vonnegut sometime....you'll get the idea....(chuckle).

Yeah, a little sugar in the gas works wonders, doesn't it?....LOL!

But as for your speculation, the "Falcon" was meeting the "snowman"...that crash of the Falcon in Kurdistan was to prevent the delivery of enriched U-238 into the hands of IRI ....right about the same time, a barrel full was siezed on the Iraqi side....

As for who done it...."inside job" comes to mind.....

As for the C130....that aircraft was an accident waiting to happen....nothing more.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2006 11:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
cyrus wrote:


Under any circumstances, would you support U.S. military action against Iran?

As a matter of principle thereís 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 itís a very different scenario from, letís say, the Second World War where you are occupied by Nazi forces and thereís a liberating force coming in. This is a strike against Iranian installations that are part of our national assets. That itís used wrongly by the wrong people is beside the point. So thereís no justification as far as Iím concerned.


Eski Wrote;

Ya best get doin' and stop talkin' about it then Chief


(Chuckle)....Eski, your keen insight does right by your Avatar....but let's examine where the thinking is coming from here...

"as a nationalist"....RP said..." on principal " Well, he can't exactly be "For" military intervention in his position now can he...what disturbs me a bit about his statement is that it is all too familiar when compared with Neville Chamberlain;s "Peace in our time" speech of 1938, Jack Straw's recent comments that military intervention was "unimaginable"...and a host of others that have wanted to wish away the threat to global peace and security without the stick or the balls to back diplomacy up with.

Well, on principal I'm all for peace and effective diplomacy too, and that third option he mentioned is not news to anyone in the opposition community, or with the G8.

Quote:
That itís used wrongly by the wrong people is beside the point.


No, in fact it is exactly the point, and must be dealt with regardless in time to prevent the intent of the regime becoming manifest....period, come what may.

Quote:
today itís a very different scenario from, letís say, the Second World War where you are occupied by Nazi forces and thereís a liberating force coming in.


Most in the opposition I think cringe at these words, as they for the most part consider the IRI to be "occupiers" of Persia, and feel incapable of liberating themselves without outside assistance of one form or another.

Quote:
This is a strike against Iranian installations that are part of our national assets.


Wrong...just flat wrong thinking....if we are going in (having exausted all other diplomatic options in the time left to the international community), it will be to take down the regime..totally....if assets are more important than liberty, then someone of Iranian birth please correct the man's malfunction of thought process. (If he won't listen to his own, who will he listen to?)

Quote:
So thereís no justification as far as Iím concerned.


When 200 million die because this God-forsaken regime started a war to justify its existance, then where will your principalled statement stand in historical context RP?

Can you assure me that this miserable excuse for a government does not already have the bomb after 18 years, black market smuggling, lots of help from nuclear weapon states (Russia, North Korea, Pakistan)????

Hell Man! Wake UP! Nappy time's over already! The US built the first one in 3.5 years from scratch with nothing but theory to go on, and we did it in secret 60 years ago right in the middle of the most costly war in history.

Someone please ask RP this one question, "If they ( the IRI) have the bomb today, would they use it on Iranians to play "the victim" to justify a war with the "Zionist entity" ????

Then inform him that the probability that they do today is now 99.9% and the perfect point in timing is right in the middle of UN Sec. Council deliberations on Iranian issues (to make it look like a suprise attack ...a la "Pearl Harbor" scenario.....)

So Eski...."best get doin'..." can also be put....."Batter Up!" 'cause the clean-up hitter's on deck....and that's US.

Now that folks globally in governments know this scenario to be a distinct possibility...they're likely to say...."Need a mop suit and a broom Antar?" rather than respond with the destruction of US credibility, division of allies, and political isolation envisioned by the regime in creating the situation and blaming it on US or Israel, and starting a "holy war" in the process.

As I said, ANY hostilities will be on the head of the regime. They've put themselves in a situation that tries the patience of mortal men, and that patience is growing nill by the day, regardless of the patient efforts of diplomacy.

A well... screw it, RP may not listen to this American, but I'll deliver the message myself anyway. Hopefully a few Iranian voices will join in chorus.

Regards,

Oppie
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
blank



Joined: 26 Feb 2004
Posts: 1672

PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2006 4:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

AmirN wrote:
Quote:
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.


Cyrus is absolutely correct in that judging by past experience, nothing good can be said of the Taazi Pastaran. So far they have proven to be the instrument of death and oppression in the hands of the Mullahs. I have nothing favorable to say about these traitors.

Nonetheless, history has also taught us that not always are the members of a group necessarily in line with the actions of the group as a whole. The many individual members of the Pastaran may just be going along the Taazi ride because of pressure from their superiors. This doesnít excuse their behavior, any more than the behavior of Nazi petty officers could be justified with the claim of ďsimply following orders.Ē However, it does open the possibility that when the catalyst arrives, the allegiance of some of the Pastaran may not be as solid as the Mullahs may think.

Also, this reminds me of an event a few months ago. If you all recall, there were a couple of aircraft crashes back then involving many high ranking officials of the military and/or Pastaran which occurred under suspect conditions. The suspect nature of those crashes raises the possibility of those individuals possibly being involved in anti-IR planning or activity. I certainly have no evidence to that claim and I donít assert it to be the case, but I would entertain the possibility, and it doesnít seem far fetched.

I wonder if anyone here has any more information to add regarding this possibility.

I wonderÖ.


My understanding is that, the last plane that crashed, was full of RG & Journalists that were on IRI "suspect list", even though they had not done anything. As we all know, these Taazi-rag heads are very Pro-active, that's how so far they have stayed in power.
If even one top guy goes against them it will be helpful. Like during the last bloody revolution, Shah's best friend & confident (General Fardoost) turned against him.-see my last post on the thread "What really happened to the Shah"?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
blank



Joined: 26 Feb 2004
Posts: 1672

PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2006 7:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This interview was done by James Rubin ( husband of Christian Amanpour)- b.

*************************************************************


Reza Pahlavi, in an interview with James Rubin, SKY TV : "... Iranians are the best remedy and army against the evil represented by the current regime and the best investment that the world could make, on one hand, to put an end to the problems associated with the continued existence of the current regime, and on the other hand strengthening the hopes of a nation that wants to inspire modernity, freedom and democracy, is to engage them and have a dialogue with them and help them achieve what could bring an end to this entire quagmire..."

To view the interview visit:

http://www.rezapahlavi.org/audiovideo/SkyTV-JamesRubin.html

Please forward this information to friends and family.

RP Secretariat
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> News Briefs & Discussion All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group