The Iranian regime is a
«a source of destabilization»
For Reza Pahlavi, the son of the Shah of Iran :
Tehran is indirectly responsible for the emergence of I.S.I.L. (aka Daesh) (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant)
INTERVIEW by
Hélène SALLON
Le Monde
Tuesday 7 October 2014
The Iranian regime is a
« a source of destabilization »
For Reza Pahlavi, the son of the Shah of Iran:
Tehran is indirectly responsible for the emergence of I.S.I.L. (aka Daesh) (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant)
In exile since 1979, Reza [Cyrus] Pahlavi, 53, the [elder] son of the Shah of Iran, is the president of the I.N.C. (Iran National Council for Free Elections), an opposition coalition founded in April 2013 which encompasses eighteen political organizations, ranging from Monarchists to Republicans, including Social Democrats and representatives of the "Green Movement".
[De jure King Cyrus Reza] Pahlavi goes back for Le Monde over the Islamic State (I.S.I.L.), the Iranian nuclear issue and the presidency of Hassan Rohani.
Interview by
Helen SALLON
The I.S.I.L. threatens Iraq and Syria as well as neighboring countries like Iran. Does the strategy of the international coalition seem appropriate to you?
One has to seek the source of current crises. Political Islam, radicalization, destabilization of the region were triggered off by the advent of the Islamic regime in Iran.
Before the [Islamic] Revolution in 1979, the Middle East was a stable area. The issue of Sunni-Shia confrontation did not exist. The Shia radicalism of the [ayatollahs-led] Iranian regime, which has always sought to impose its regional hegemony, has generated a reaction within the Sunni block which is expressed in the worst way with Sunni groups radicalism.
If you look at it through the wrong end of the telescope, never will this crisis be settled. It's a bit like making war on mosquitoes without draining the swamp. It takes a deeper solution based on two factors: the democratic liberalization of the countries in the region and secularism.
Hasn’t Iran through its influence in Syria and Iraq a role to play in resolving these crises?
The Islamic Republic has clearly supported Bashar al-Assad’s regime in the repression of its citizens. Billions of dollars were funnelled, not to mention ammunition and weapons, to support it against the Syrian opposition. The same in Iraq.
The mullahs' regime claims to be in the capacity of helping while they themselves are the source of this destabilization! They are part of the problem and not part of the solution. There is no possible dialogue whatsoever.
The survival of the Islamic Republic depends on the DESTRUCTION of its enemy: the West with all its values - Human Rights, democratic liberties, secularism - which are a poison to it.und in the peoples of this region who are victims of these regimes. They are your best natural allies, but they are not integrated in the dialogue.
The negotiations on the Iranian nuclear program must be completed by 24 November. Do you think a final agreement to be reachable?
Do you think that a regime that is developing a solely civilian nuclear program would lead its country to the brink of military conflict and would impose on its people the consequences of the resulting economic sanctions? There is a lack of transparency about its intentions. I.A.E.A. (International Atomic Energy Agency)’s latest report shows that experts do not have access to the necessary information.
Recently Mr. Khamenei [the supreme leader] has ordered an increase in the number of centrifuges. The regime maintains its facilities in Qom, Natanz and Arak. That contradicts its statements on developing only civil nuclear.
The regime is as usual trying to buy time, so as to make its military nuclear capability a fait accompli. The only way to prevent nuclear proliferation in the region is to support the Iranian people's democratic aspirations. It is in the vital interest of the West, as well as that of Russia and China.
Do you think that sanctions are the solution as a means to put pressure on Iran?
The strategy is wrong. If sanctions are enforced in the hope of a change in the behaviour of the regime, it means that one has not yet understood that this regime cannot change.
A policy of sanctions is only efficient provided the goal is to help people achieve democracy. Because ultimately the regime holds on and who is suffering? People say : "We are ready to tighten our belts, but only if it helps us get rid of the regime."»
What is your assessment of the presidency of Hassan Rohani, a year and a half after his election?
In the first year of Rohani’s presidency there were more political imprisonments and executions than during Ahmadinejad’s last year of presidency. It was the same under Mohammad Khatami [Iran's President between 1997 and 2005], who likewise stated there were no political prisoners. That’s why whoever represents the Islamic regime –be he smiling a bit more in the United Nations or be he more antipathic – does not matter. ALL serve the same theocratical dictatorship.
The intentions of the Islamic Republic are by nature evil. In Shia Islam, taqiya [or ketman] ("concealing") gives you the right you to hide your intentions. The West falls into this trap every time.
What alternative do you suggest for Iran?
The Iranian people should be the master of their own destiny. The only way to achieve that is to hold free elections.
In [the Islamic Republic of] Iran there is no room for political freedom that would enable to measure the will of the people. We have to help the society to get free through a civil disobedience movement, not by use of military force or (military) coup scenarios. The regime, undermined by inner dissents, could not resist the uprising of a nation.
The establishment of democracy in Iran would lead Sunni powers in the region to the conclusion that they would no longer need counterbalancing the Iranian theocracy. This would bring to an end the Shia-Sunni conflict and ethnic discrimination ; the nuclear threat would disappear and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process could finally succeed.
To achieve this goal, the dialogue with democratic nations is primordial. This investment has not been made. Don’t you find it odd that in thirty five years there has been no formal dialogue with the Iranian democratic opposition, whether inside or outside the country?
Whenever the peoples of the Middle East seek help, they are ignored, then in the face of the catastrophic consequences, the response is too late and too weak. The example of the crisis and emergence of I.S.I.L. speaks for itself. Alas, democratic states have no real strategic vision on these issues.
