Prince Reva Pahlavi was named Crown Prince of Iran in 1967. He has long been the most visible face of the Iranian opposition to the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Audio:

02-09hhs-pahlavi

Transcript:

HH: We are on the cusp of big events. Whether it’s this week or this month or next month, it’s a very important time, and I’m honored to have with me Prince Reza Pahlavi. He’s the Crown Prince of Iran. He is also the voice and face of the Iranian opposition in exile. Prince Pahlavi, welcome. Thank you for joining me. I want to start with a very direct question. To your understanding, how many of your fellow countrymen were murdered by the regime on January 8-9? I’ve heard a lot of different numbers.

RP: First of all, thank you for having me on your program. The number vary between 36,500 to about 40,000. That’s the last estimate that we’ve had. It could be higher than that, because there’s still ongoing arrests happening. They are killing people in hospitals. They are finishing them off on their wounded beds. They are arresting doctors or anybody rendering assistance to the victims. Who knows how much the total numbers will be, but the most conservative figure so far has been over 36,000 people, unfortunately.

HH: I’m going to start using that number, Prince. Thank you. What do you hope to see President Trump order our military and America to do right now?

RP: Look, when you are fighting an occupying force that has taken a whole country hostage, and people are on the streets unarmed as civilians demanding liberation from this tyranny and hoping for freedom, and at the time they are being shots on the streets by military machine guns, and basically war instruments, this is no longer a fair fight. This is a genocide in the making. And the only thing that will equalize the playing field for these brave Iranians who are fighting for their own liberation is to have an assistance that is needed help at this time to neutralize elements that the regime has used against its own citizenry to brutalize them the way they have. And this means targeting the regime’s top apparatus of repression, which is, of course, the IRGC and many other elements that are associated with that repression. And only a military intervention at this point could level the playing field. This is the reason why the Iranian people have been anxiously awaiting the action that the President has promised he will do in support of the Iranian people, that help will arrive, just hang in there. And they have. And they hope that this president will stay true to his word as he has always demonstrated, and that he’s no Barack Obama. And he believes in what he says, and he’s a man of peace, and ultimately will help the Iranian people get rebuilt. This regime has been devastating not only to Iran and Iranians, but has been a source of chaos and instability since its inception, and most dramatically, the most hostile regime against America as opposed to a country that was always with America, and certainly not at all on the same wavelength as this regime.

HH: Prince, I saw over the weekend the regime ran an AI video demonstrating how they were going to destroy the Lincoln and other associated ships in the Abraham Lincoln carrier strike force. What risk do you think the United States runs to its forces and its allies in the region if it does strike in that way against the regime?

RP: Well, first of all, we saw how the Iranians attempted to respond to the Israeli attack by targeting Israel with missiles and drones. And I don’t think that was quite a successful campaign, if you look at the actual result of that. If this is the might of the Iranian forces, and if they hit before they have a chance to strike, I very much doubt that unless the AI-projected messages, they actually have the capacity to do that. And if so, there’s no other military in this world that can neutralize that than the American military, and with the help of some of its allies. So I think that’s just basically saber-rattling as a desperate regime that’s on its last leg and once again wants to create doubt as to whether or not they need to be intervened against. What’s in the balance right now is not just, as I said, the liberty for the Iranian people, but it’s to put a complete end to a regime that has only raised havoc in the region. And the best way to do that is to make sure that this time, you don’t just wound the beast, but go for the full kill. By that, you cannot leave it with a possibility of retaliation. Clearly, this deployment is not a simple target practice. It clearly is much more in depth and much more complex than everything we’ve seen before outside of a full world war-level type of deployment. This is serious.

HH: I agree with that. What do you say, Prince, to the so-called restrainers, they’re really neo-isolationists in the United States, who say there’s no upside for America in freeing the Iranian people and going to war with Iran?

RP: Well, look, if America had not gone to war in the Second World War, what would have been the outcome of the Nazis’ victory, of Hitler getting his hand on the atom bomb? Who knows what history would be looking like right now? And again, Americans have to realize that this is a regime that has been the root cause of instability in the region, has been the biggest enemy of America and its allies versus a nation that has proven time and again that it doesn’t have any hostility versus its neighbors. Most of them are allies of the United States, unlike this regime who calls for the disappearance of an entire nation from the face of the earth. I mean by that Israel, of course. But the Iranians have not only a friendly attitude towards our neighbors, but particularly with Israel, because I think the two nations on this planet that can claim that they have a Biblical relationship happen to be the people of Iran and the people of Israel. And that goes back to the time of Cyrus the Great 25 centuries ago, before America even existed as a country. But what does it mean to America? What it means to America is not only not having to yet again have to police the whole region, but to rely on partners that are on the same boat with you, that share the same values of freedom and democracy and human rights, that want to be partner in that future, and they will bring that element of stability. So you no longer have to have your troops deployed in faraway lands, or have American taxpayers fund the bill of having to sustain long-term campaigns. That’s what’s in the balance for America – a country that will be on your side as the best partners. It’s good for regional peace. It’s good for world peace. And it’s good for business and economic opportunities. Iran is a country that would represent in the first 15 years at least a trillion dollars’ worth of revenue to the U.S. economy by means of American investment in Iran. There are hundreds of entrepreneurs that are willing to invest in that…

HH: I agree with all that, Prince.

RP: And that’s, at the end of the day, that’s what the net benefit to America with a regime change in Iran, as opposed to the controversial regime that not only deprives you from that market, but has been a constant threat to America directly.

HH: Now I agree with all that, Prince. You are the most prominent voice and face for the Iranian opposition. In fact, you may be the only one of which I’m aware, and I’m pretty aware of the news. Right before I talked to you, I talked to Professor Dan Schueftan from Haifa University. He’s been basically the Kissinger of Israel for 40 years. And I said I’m going to talk to the Prince, what would you ask him. And the same thing I’m going to ask you. Who else would help you lead a transition? Are there other people in a position to step up in the aftermath of regime collapse in Iran to lead the country back to what it was prior to, a dawn of freedom again?

RP: All the Iranian democratic secular forces that believe in these four core principles have a place under this tent. The four core principles that is the basis of our coalition is number one, Iran’s territorial integrity. Number two is a clear separation of religion from government as a prerequisite to democracy. The importance of individual liberties and equality of all citizens under the law. And finally, the right for the Iranian people to determine their own future by means of free election at the ballot box, which is a process that the interim transitional government will have to play. They have called for me to lead his movement as witnessed within Iran and across the world. I am humbled by that trust and confidence they have in me. And I’ve always intended to play this role, except that today, there’s no question that they have chosen me to lead this movement, and that’s why I have stepped in. But I am not doing this alone. I’m doing it with the broadest possible coalition of democratically-minded Iranians who may vote differently at the very end for the final outcome, but they believe that this is the only process that will take us to where we need to be. And in that, we have the broadest coalition ever of Iranian democratic forces within Iran, and of course, within the international community and Iranian ex-pats.

HH: Do you think in the way that the Air Force generals met with Khomeini 47 years ago, do you think there are members of the regular Iranian armed forces who would help you establish, and your allies establish a monopoly of force in Iran so that there wasn’t a civil war?

RP: Well, look, when I started this campaign about a year ago, and we started a special process whereby people who want to defect from the regime have a secure means to communicate their intentions to us, we started this about six months ago. To this day, we had over 160,000 people who have applied. Many of them are members of the security forces, the military forces, the civilian bureaucracy that have reached out to us, that they’re willing to play a role in making sure that we can all share in that transition. In other words, they want to be part of the solution. And what I’d like to take this opportunity to stress, that unlike a scenario that wasn’t quite well-handled in terms of regime change, example, Iraq had the de-Baathification. Our position is very clear. For all those people who are not directly responsible for the massacre of their own citizenry or have the blood of the people on their hand, they can survive regime change and have a place in the future. The people who have rendered justice for their crimes will be judged like we had at the end of the Second World War in the Nuremberg Trials, for instance. But many of them have not been directly associated with that violence or criminally involved. And they can have a place in the future. When you’re part of the solution, you are an element that will in fact reduce the risks of instability or chaos. To the contrary, it will help facilitate a more smooth transition. So there’s a sense of national conciliation and amnesty at play as well, but those who will have to face justice, will face justice. There’s no question about that. The Iranian people need to have their day in court against these criminal people. But at the same time, they’ll understand that we need to make sure that we can have a successful transition. And every Iranian that I know that are believing in that freedom know the responsibility that we all bear together to push that agenda forward and minimize all the risk, minimize the casualties, maximize success by guaranteeing the most stable possible transition.

HH: Well, let me focus in on that, Prince, because I’ve been thinking since the massacre how in the world would you ever prevent a round of reprisals? After France was liberated, the resistance did quite a lot of blowback at those who cooperated with the Nazis. After you’ve murdered 35,000 people, how in the world would you keep the families of the victims from seeking rough justice or vigilante justice?

RP: Again, you know, but when people have faith in the fact that justice will be served, when people have faith that this time, the institutions that we are creating, or this time have faith in the leaders in their government or institutions, that changes the dynamics of whether or not you believe in your system or you don’t believe in your system. I think vigilantism usually occurs when there’s total lack of trust, and an abandonment of any hope for civility or, if you will, a more moderate approach as opposed to extreme measures. All of that is at play. I don’t know on the psychological level how one handles that. I think a lot of that has to do with hope for a better future, and the fact that we already paid too much of a price to continue building a nation on bloodshed and retaliation and retribution. I think that sense of national relief in terms of everybody’s now in an opportunity to mends the wounds and heal together is more important than seeking revenge, because an eye for an eye only makes the world go blind, eventually.

HH: 47 years ago, Prince, I watched the revolution on a couch in the old Western White House with Richard Nixon and Ray Price very night. And former President Nixon, I was a writer on his staff just out of college. He could not believe that Iran was falling, because it was so pro-American. And he was, of course, a great friend of your father. After 47 years of non-stop anti-U.S./Great Satan, anti-Israel/Little Satan rhetoric and propaganda, and after the devastation of the Iran-Iraq war, is there a returning of Iran to a pro-U.S. resting face, to being an ally?

RP: No doubt. Listen, remember 9/11 and how many people on your so-called allied countries in the Middle East were dancing in the streets in celebration after that attack? The only country where people held candlelight vigil in sympathy for the victims of 9/11 were no other than the Iranian people in Iran. In Iran. Not just outside of Iran, in Iran. That was then. And the same people who today march in rallies in protest against the regime, you will see that in all our demonstrations, from Australia to Canada to the U.S. to Europe, there is alongside the Iranian national flag either an Israeli flag or an American flag, or whatever the host country in which they live flying. That’s the Iran that we know. That’s the Iran that we are, not this regime that always calls for death to America or death to Israel. And I think many Americans know that. Many Americans know a fellow Iranians that was either a schoolmate of his or is a colleague of theirs or work in a company, vice-versa. They know that Iranians, unlike this regime, are a peace-loving people, are…that cultural and civilization want to be friends with whoever respects them and respect their sovereignty. And America has always been a great friend to Iran, and should be. That’s the way it should be. And I don’t think that it will be my miracle that this will occur. It’s just that this regime has been an aberration. This regime has been the product of two extreme forces that were clearly against the West – the Marxists and the Islamists that ganged together, brought this regime into power. And from the very beginning, we saw the hostility towards the West and the U.S. in particular. A liberated Iran that doesn’t buy into the extreme radical ideology of totalitarian Marxists or Islamists, unlike them, are committed to freedom, are committed to human rights. And guess what? America has been a beacon of hope and opportunities. Many Iranians came all the way to the United States to find refuge or find a better life. And most of them, once Iran is freed, would like to go back to their country to bring back these very same values that are taken for granted here in the United States by many Americans, but that the Iranians are starving and dying for having in our country. And what better partner can we have than America to help us not only liberate ourselves and bring about all the aspects of liberty that we deserve, but also what good partners we could be in the future in the rebuilding of Iran. As President Trump has said, MAGA, we say MIGA – Make Iran Great Again. And together, with America, we’ll make both countries great again.

HH: I have two final questions, Prince. Have you noticed from your various sources and information that there are fissures within the regime, maybe between the IRGC and the regular armed forces? Do you see that?

RP: Well, this is nothing new. Remember that the IRGC was created as a parallel military or militia to contain the military that the regime, the revolutionary regime of Khomeini could never trust. That started right in the early 80s. And as a result, it became more and more of a parasitic mafia to control many aspects of Iran’s economy. And basically, they’re in full control of most aspects of the nation. The military, on the other hand, considers itself much more a professional army and a national army. So the divide between the IRGC and the military was there from the very get-go. In fact, the IRGC doesn’t even have the name Iran in its title, which is kind of bizarre, to be a militia that doesn’t even have the name of a country in its name.

HH: It’s the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

RP: So that is an aberration. That will need to be disappearing from, as an organization. They can be reincorporated into the military or go to the private sector. We won’t have a parallel militia. So obviously, the military will be a professional army in charge of protecting our territories, and the rest of them could be distributed into various aspects of either private sector or other aspects of military institutions or like a national guard of some form. Anyway, there are plans for that as well. Now even within the IRGC, mind you, there are some who want to defect. There are some who want to abandon ship. There are some who are disillusioned. There are some who maybe thought at some point this was a sacred cause to fight for, but guess what? Many of them have their children on the streets that are being shot at. They also are paying the price for having been associated with this regime. And as I said, those who haven’t been criminally involved can abandon ship, can join with the people. This is their last chance to do so. And at some point, they will have to be accountable for having helped preserve this regime rather than to come to the rescue of their own citizenry. The choice is theirs to make. But I think this is the outcome that we hope to push for, and minimize the last pockets of resistance there is out there, and hopefully not through vigilantism, but through proper planning, and make sure they don’t even think that they have a chance of resisting and creating some distractions in the path. This won’t be easy, but it can be done.

HH: A last question, Prince. You mentioned Persia is very old. It’s 25 Centuries old. Cyrus the Great and others, it’s been an empire forever. And it defeated the Parthians. It goes way back. But Islam is very old in Iran as well, and there are these enormous centers of learning for Islam within Iran. After an iteration to democracy, what will be the position of those moderate, I mean, traditional Muslim studies and Islamic scholars and mullahs? Will they have their freedoms recognized and protected as well?

RP: Well, freedom of religion should be one of the guarantees of a constitution that is based on the universal declaration of human rights. And therefore, when we say we want to have a secular alternative, that doesn’t mean that we have anti-religious thoughts. But as much as religions have to have their right place in society, what about the right of atheists? What about the right of the LBTQ community? What about human rights in general? And I think a future constitution that will be guaranteeing those rights, among them includes freedom of religion. Now to this point, let me also remind your distinguished audience that is listening to this program that we have many clerics in Iran that never believed in this Wilayat al-Faqih, which was Khomeini’s version of establishing an ideologically-based regime that is so radical and treats everybody in an inferior way, and has been discriminating against other faiths and other religions. They have spoken against this regime and also believe in a secular alternative. In fact, one of the most prominent religious clerics that we have in Iran who is a Sunni cleric leader in Baluchestan, his name is Mowlavi Abdolhamid. He has been calling for a secular government in the future, because he recognizes among many other clerics that it is in the best interests of the faith itself not to be in any shape or form directly involved in politics. In fact, being directly involved in politics has weakened the faith and has weakened our religious establishment. They’ll be the first one to tell you that. So therefore, they realize that they’ll have their place in society like in any other free secular country where nobody is questioning the fact that people have a right to practice their faith as long as we have a separation of church from state, as a prerequisite to democracy, which is another thing that has been proven in almost every democracy we see around the planet today.

HH: Prince, you’ve been very generous with your time. Thank you for it, and good luck and prayers for the success of your movement so that there is an iteration and an evolution of the regime there. Thank you very much.

End of interview.