Listen now | In 1979, Crown Prince of Iran Reza Pahlavi was attending fighter pilot school in Lubbock, Texas when the Islamic Revolution overthrew his father's reign. A radical theocracy seized power and began extinguishing freedoms, persecuting minorities, and taking a pro-Western Iran back to the Middle Ages. Since then, the Crown Prince has lived in exile as a leading voice for a secular and democratic Iran. What is his view of the Revolution? Why does he believe regime change is possible today? And how should the U.S. and the West deal with Iran?
$$$ always help for majority of Iranian population who are struggling to survive and turning internal revolution. No US involvement but funding to a well qualified person like Reza Pahlavi is the good start .
A million problems for us to solve and another “regime change fantasy” is not one of them. Americans shouldn’t touch anything like that with a ten foot pole
There is zero USG desire to do so. In fact, most progressive insiders (i.e., the vast majority of foreign policy insiders for the foreseeable future) are willing to overlook an incredible amount of conspicuous bad behavior and alienate close allies in the hopes of one day establishing normal, peaceful relations with a regime that has no intention of doing so, indeed, has at times openly and explicitly explained persuasively why they believe their hold on power depends on never doing so. Those naive optimists are in deep denial about this, preferring to get suckered and indulge in pleasant fantasies based on nothing more than wishful thinking than to face the gloomy intractability of this intransigence and of the broader present context.
The only real question is the atomic bomb. Iran is already at the very edge of getting one - it's just not that hard to follow the recipe and copy an 80 year old innovation developed without benefit of most modern tech. Dozens of countries could and would build their own bombs overnight if the major powers didn't insist on them not doing so. The US could continue to insist on preservation of the status quo in the case of Iran, which is a much, much lower bar than regime change and allows at least for the possibility that time and pressure could erode the regime's hold on power. Or the US could let Iran get nukes, after which their position gets cemented in place. The trend is in the direction of the latter, which is bad news even if you think there are no better options.
Prince Reza Pahlavi is the only solution for peace in the world.
$$$ always help for majority of Iranian population who are struggling to survive and turning internal revolution. No US involvement but funding to a well qualified person like Reza Pahlavi is the good start .
A million problems for us to solve and another “regime change fantasy” is not one of them. Americans shouldn’t touch anything like that with a ten foot pole
There is zero USG desire to do so. In fact, most progressive insiders (i.e., the vast majority of foreign policy insiders for the foreseeable future) are willing to overlook an incredible amount of conspicuous bad behavior and alienate close allies in the hopes of one day establishing normal, peaceful relations with a regime that has no intention of doing so, indeed, has at times openly and explicitly explained persuasively why they believe their hold on power depends on never doing so. Those naive optimists are in deep denial about this, preferring to get suckered and indulge in pleasant fantasies based on nothing more than wishful thinking than to face the gloomy intractability of this intransigence and of the broader present context.
The only real question is the atomic bomb. Iran is already at the very edge of getting one - it's just not that hard to follow the recipe and copy an 80 year old innovation developed without benefit of most modern tech. Dozens of countries could and would build their own bombs overnight if the major powers didn't insist on them not doing so. The US could continue to insist on preservation of the status quo in the case of Iran, which is a much, much lower bar than regime change and allows at least for the possibility that time and pressure could erode the regime's hold on power. Or the US could let Iran get nukes, after which their position gets cemented in place. The trend is in the direction of the latter, which is bad news even if you think there are no better options.