Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi is of the best-known Iranian personalities, standing in sharp distinction to the Islamic Republic’s bellicose president and ayatollah. Crown Prince Reza is son of the late Shah of Iran and has lived in the United States since the revolution in 1979. He’s known as an advocate of the principles of freedom, democracy and human rights.
The Media Line’s Felice Friedson first met the Crown Prince when they shared the podium for a session on the Middle East at the Blouin Global Creative Leadership Summit.
TML: The Iranian government says it has as much right as any other regime to have nuclear power—even nuclear weapons. How should the international community be responding to that statement?
PAHLAVI: The matter is quite complex, but let’s go back to the period before the revolution. At the time, Iran was a country that had already embarked on the pursuit of nuclear energy. Having signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, we had gained the ownership of ten percent of shares in a company called Eurodif, which was going to supply Iran with the rod to fuel our two initial nuclear reactors that had started construction—my point being that at the time, nobody questioned the sovereign right of the Iranian nation to have access to nuclear technology. What has changed is that since the revolution, we have had for 30 years and counting, a regime that has been at the top of the list of the world’s sponsors of terrorism, radicalism and extremism; constantly making violence in the Middle East and beyond, with very dubious intentions in terms of where it really wants to take the path of its nuclear research. From all indicators, there is very little question that if the regime was, from the very beginning, transparent and honest about its true intentions, it would not have been so much trying to conceal or hide its intentions. We have to understand why it is that such a regime would like to have access to nuclear weapons well beyond having the right to nuclear technology.
TML: Iran insists it only seeks domestic nuclear power. Does Iran intend to create nuclear weapons; and if so, how far away from being able to do so do you think the Iranian regime is?
PAHLAVI: Well, this is an expert analysis that is required in terms of how far up the ladder of getting closer to the imminent ability to actually manufacture nuclear weapons the regime is. Because it’s not just a matter of enrichment, as you know. It’s a matter of delivering mechanism; ballistic technology; trigger mechanism; and a whole bunch of other things that go into it. Experts vary in terms of the time line of how close the regime is to it. But irrespective of the time line, it is the intention that we have to be quite wary and concerned about. In that sense, clearly, if there was no sense of emergency and alarm, the whole world would not be talking about this constantly, the issue making the headlines in just about every newspaper around the planet.
TML: Is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a mad man?
PAHLAVI: I don’t think he’s a “mad man.” He’s an individual who is very committed to his view and ideology. There’s almost a sort of apocalyptic mentality that reigns here and he’s not alone in it. Unfortunately, there are a few people who may sign up for that kind of a point of view. The problem is that we have this kind of regime represented by such individuals who have taken, first-and-foremost, the Iranian people hostage for the past 30 years and who are completely uninterested about the state of our own citizens. They are only interested to use Iran as a base from which to launch what was from the very beginning the exploitation of a theocracy and Islamic ideology across the planet as a challenge to the rest of the world.
TML: How seriously should we be taking him (Ahmadinejad)?
PAHLAVI: I think you should take him very seriously. The last time the world was not quite sure about the final threat was at the time of Hitler in Nazi Germany and we know the rest of the story. If we look at these kind of regimes that have been completely merciless vis-à-vis their own population; who have been brutally shooting our youth on the streets simply because they ask for their freedom; and are willing to stop at nothing to intimidate the whole world to submit to their demand, I think we should take it very seriously.
TML: Your Excellency, here in the West, we hear about young Iranians rejecting the Khamenai—Ahmadinejad regime. Could another revolution be possible?
PAHLAVI: It’s already happening. If you look at the way society in Iran has reacted for years—and not just because of what happened last summer—but particularly as a result of what happened last summer during the election fiasco. Today, you see a generation of young Iranians who are committed to fight even if it means risking and losing their lives to ultimately get rid of this regime and achieve full freedom. This is no longer a debate over more moderation or for awhile being fooled by the idea that there is any reform possible by this regime—not only from the domestic perspective but from the international perspective. Today, the fight is led by people who are committed to a campaign of hidden resistance. The discipline of non-violence has been for the most part observed by the protestors and I think at the end of the day, this movement could culminate into something that could be a well-organized or orchestrated campaign of resistance: perhaps even labor strikes that could in fact bring the regime to its knees and ultimately cause its demise. This is the best way for Iran to not only achieve its goal of freedom, which would immediately have a positive impact and ramification not only in our area, but on the rest of the world. It is the ultimate guarantee by bringing in democracy and secularism as a means to preserve our cultural and religious identities and to guarantee self-determination and human rights. Iran is a country that has always and throughout its glorious history been contributing to world civilization as opposed to a clerical regime that is asking for its demise under a very utopian ideology that only a few at the top believe in, and not the rest of the population.
TML: Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, there are some who argue that sanctions could have a negative backlash. One example that is given is that students seeking to study abroad—including in the United States—won’t be able to do so. In the long run, do you think it’s a good idea for young Iranians to be exposed to the West?
PAHLAVI: I’m glad you asked this question. First of all, clearly, it’s a little bit like tuna fishing and when you want to do tuna fishing, you get some innocent dolphins that are caught in the net. The problem with sanctions is that it sometimes could have counter-effects. For example, not only the issue of restrictions on students coming abroad to study, but even to take an SAT or Kaplan exam, or be able to send money back home to help fellow Iranians: all of this is subject to restrictions because of the current policy of sanctions. Now, I’m not suggesting that sanctions are not effective to some extent. If they are targeted smartly, sanctions, yes, could end up hurting the regime somewhat, particularly in the short term. However, I do have an issue with the policy of sanctions as an end in itself. The only way that actual pressure could be levied against the regime is ultimately to bring the element of pressure from within Iran against the regime, mainly from the hands of the people themselves, as opposed to relying solely on external measures of pressure such as the current economic sanctions. Let us not forget one thing: empowerment at the end of the day will render society better-equipped to fight the regime from within. But reliance on sanctions only will render a weakened society which will find it much more difficult to resist because you are not also really weakening the regime at the very end. Each instrumental coercion will have an easier time facing a helpless society than it will facing a better organized, better structured and better supported population.
TML: I recollect that when we sat on a panel together at the Global Creative Leadership Conference, you talked about the fact that the young students were able to glean a lot of information and education by being educated abroad and many of these were those who were in the revolution. So having said that, by being counterproductive, won’t these sanctions boomerang?
PAHLAVI: Well, as I said, there is a whole wealth of assets and information that could be at better disposal of all those in the country who are struggling for their liberty and for their rights. People who have access to a variety of human or other resources abroad to connect with activists at home obviously reinforce the hand of the people. So if you restrict the people more than you restrict the regime, that will obviously be counterproductive. That’s why we have to be very careful when we implement sanctions to make sure they target the regime and the regime only, with minimal damage and cost to the nation itself. It has to be carefully reviewed and assessed; and not only “one glove fits all.” Every country has its own traditions and specifics, particularly a complex country like Iran.
More news and opinions than at a Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.