I say, listen to the Iranians. During twenty-two years, you forgot the Iranians, they are close to 70 millions today who hanker for liberty. I say to… - Reza Pahlavi

It is evident that a lot of mistakes and excesses have been committed before the revolution. I don't deny it, on the contrary - there was evidently a lack of political liberty. I don't deny either that the revolt was popular, but those that spearheaded the revolution didn't want this result, Iran has regressed for twenty-two years. I prefer to speak of the future, history will judge what happened in the past.

… 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.