Reza Pahlavi Quotes

I don't doubt ever that this regime will end... There is no question about that. The question is when and at what cost and how can we help expedite the process to reduce the toll and the cost to our nation.

We know the country, its potential, its resources, where it was and where it could have been. We should be at the level of a Taiwan or a South Korea today, not ranked 150th in the world, even though we are an oil-producing country... We should not have our Iranian rap artists say the regime is promising us yellow cake when we don't even have bread to eat.

The choice of future government should be left to the Iranian people to decide in a free election... What form it ultimately takes is up to them. The essential point to me is that there is no way we can achieve our aspirations as a nation unless we have a secular regime, as opposed to this theocracy... Without a clear separation of the state and religion you cannot have the beginning of any form of democratic system.

I hope it will take less than five years to have a fundamental change if our movement is successful and I believe it has every potential to be successful. But as I said and I hate to be repetitive, the time is really now. Because as much as the Iranian people can be empowered, and therefore heartened and therefore optimistic toward their future -- and I'm specifically speaking about today's generation -- these are tomorrow's leaders in Iran. These are the kids, the daughters, the sons of a previous generation who are left there to fight and fend for themselves with no possible help so far available to them and yes, they are resilient in their struggle. This could turn quickly to cynicism and deception if they think the world has abandoned them. Remember what the slogans were on the streets of Tehran one year ago. There were signs in different languages -- in English, in French -- and this was not for some Iranians practicing their language skills among themselves. They were clearly aimed at the West. And among those slogans were “Obama, Obama, are you with us or with them?” That warrants a response. We have yet to hear that response. That means Iranians could turn more radical as a result of their deception; as a result of their cynicism; and that doesn't bode well, not only for Iran but for the world. And it will be a testimony to the fact that no real help is ever given to nations that want to struggle for liberty because perhaps there are some other interests that no one really wants to talk about. If that is not true, then we need to see a genuine attempt to help the society. We are not asking the world to determine our fate—that is the business of the Iranian people alone. All we are asking is that today it is time to engage with the people of Iran; with the freedom movements; with those who are struggling for their rights for self-determination and liberty. We are fighting against those who have denied us these rights and it's about time that we are heard and have our “day in court,” as the saying goes. This is an opportunity that we are facing right now as I speak to you. It's right in front of us. It's right under our noses literally, and I have yet to see a concrete policy -- whether it's the U.S. government or some of its other allies in the region or in Europe -- that will indicate that beyond attempting a few diplomatic negotiating tactics and besides posturing for the possibility of conflict, there is any real effort made to go beyond the regime and its representatives and try to connect and try to see how they can be of help to the Iranian people without having to attack our country and bomb our homeland.

… the [Obama] administration has spent, in my view, too much time, in maintaining its extended hand of engagement toward the regime without getting anything in return. Meanwhile, the clock has been ticking. Some countries in the area are becoming more antsy about the imminence of Iran's ability to be equipped with weapons of mass destruction. Obviously, the rhetoric and language from some key countries would be to mention the fact we are exploring this and this is an option on the table. I could not say otherwise. But that doesn't mean to me that there is a major change of policy. We need to think a little bit outside the box and perhaps look at other avenues. It's not limited to the character of this administration because successive, previous administrations have fallen systematically into the same “loophole” -- and I'm not even saying the same “trap.” Einstein said, if I'm not mistaken, that “thinking that doing more of the same will produce a different outcome is a sign of insanity.” When I look at the overall diplomacy of the free world, particularly of the U.S., I can only see a repeat pattern of the same attempts made while hoping to obtain a different result. Something's got to change.

I think [Israel attacking Iran] would be a very disastrous event if it were to occur. I have long stated that I think this would be a lose-lose proposition by and large, especially when there's a much better alternative in play, which will be much less costly and far more legitimate than trying to bring any change as a result of any kind of external measures, particularly of the violent and military kind. You have in place the best natural army in the world: namely, the Iranian people themselves, who have bravely fought this fight for years, without any help or support from anyone in the international community. Today, they are already committed to that struggle and I think this is a much better way to put pressure on the regime and abide by international rules. It's a much better way to help the Iranian people bring about whatever changes they want in Iran and nothing is being done about this while everybody contemplates striking the country just because they don’t have faith in diplomacy, which was doomed from the very beginning. I think there's still a chance for a lot of serious fundamental change that will bring an end to all the threats if Iran wants to change from this regime to a democratic nation. If it invests time and effort in helping the movement of the young people in Iran today and be supportive of their demands; be supportive of what they want; engage them after 30 years of limiting engagement to only members of the regime and its representatives. I don't think that's far too much to ask for those of us who are fighting for freedom. What I am saying is that in my opinion, not using this opportunity and going straight to conflict would be historically criminal. That option has to be given its chance but the time is limited and the window of opportunity is now. I hope that many key governments will decide to commit some of their policies to give a chance for this movement to succeed before jumping to conclusions that the only familiars we're left with are either capitulation or attacking Iran.

Despite the fact that the regime is trying to tighten its screws; and despite the fact that the regime is increasing its violence against its own people in an attempt to intimidate them into submission; and despite the fact that the regime is spending millions and millions of dollars financing its own war machine at the expense of hungry people or workers who haven't been paid their salaries for months, Iran continues to finance groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon and other places. And despite all of this, there's more disenchantment within the ranks in the regime. There are more indications of defections from within some of its coercive forces, all of which indicates a very delicate and fragile situation within the regime that has not been so vulnerable ever since its creation. That is, I think, an opportunity -- not only for the people, but I think in a way for the rest of the world. If we miss this opportunity and allow this regime to regroup and continue on its path, then we have with our own hands contributed to the regime’s survival and then we have to live with the consequences.

What has been clear all these years is that the regime from the get-go was antagonistic; was trying to and continues to try to foment instability -- ultimately to force the region to succumb to some kind of a modern-day Shiite caliphate under Iranian regional hegemony; all of it perhaps backed by the very deterrent we talked about at the beginning of the interview: forcing the world to submit to that as a fait accompli. I find it a little bit difficult for a lot of people to sort of agree to some kind of a fait accompli and say, “Well, there's no way we can change the course of events and Iran will undoubtedly under this regime demand to have its way.” The question is the regime that is in Iran – the regime that has now taken our country hostage and is willing to do anything for its own survival -- and not to be confused with Iran as a country.

Is the choice between forms of regimes -- democratic regimes that is, that we find often in the free world, particularly in the West -- a path through which Iran can find its salvation? Here I understand fundamentally that some of the values that are embedded in Western society -- liberty, equality, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, media, labor unions, human rights, a democratic establishment, a checks and balance system, a separation of religion from government -- are opposed to any system that is based on an ideology that is totalitarian or that is against fascist or discriminatory vis-à-vis a great portion of its own citizens. Obviously, if you give that choice to people, the choice is clear. I think that is the choice that the Iranian people today are faced with and it goes without saying that obviously they are up for the former rather than the latter if given the opportunity.

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.

I don't think [Ahmadinejad is] 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... 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.

Of course [the opposition] can be supported! I mean, for God’s sake, from Solidarity in Poland to the ANC in South Africa… there was a great degree of support. But they [the Poles and South Africans] did it. It was not some foreign country doing it.

The latest slogans in Iran say ‘Obama, Obama are you with them or with us.’ What does that really mean? It means we expect more solidarity and support... Why do you think the demonstrators on the streets, at the risk of their own lives and limbs, are holding signs in English. It’s not to practice their English, as one of our human rights activists here has been saying. This is obviously meant for outside world, particularly the United States.

Nothing bars the world from having a line of dialogue with the opposition and that, strangely, has been absent.

External sanctions against the regime do not suffice. You have to bring into your calculation … an element of pressure from within... And the only way [to] do that is by strengthening the hand of the people inside the country.