Let's Find Common Ground - Democracy in the Middle East: A Conversation with His Royal Highness Reza Pahlavi, The Crown Prince of Iran

Episode Date: October 28, 2024

CPF Director Bob Shrum joins His Royal Highness Reza Pahlavi, Exiled Crown Prince of Iran, for a discussion on democracy, peace, and prosperity in the Middle East at a critical moment in the region’s history.   Featuring: - Reza Pahlavi: Crown Prince of Iran; USC Alum (‘85) - Bob Shrum: Director, Center for the Political Future; Warschaw Chair in Practical Politics, USC Dornsife - Moh El-Naggar: USC Dornsife Interim Dean

Welcome to the Bully Pulpit from the University of Southern California Center for the Political Future. Our podcast brings together America's top politicians, journalists, academics, and strategists from across the political spectrum for discussions on hot button issues where we respect each other and respect the truth. We hope you enjoy these conversations. So good afternoon everyone. I'm Moan Najjar. I'm the interim dean of the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences. So it is my pleasure to welcome you to this important conversation

and to celebrate the homecoming of one of our distinguished Dornsife Trojan alumni. USC is always privileged to bring guests to campus who are influential on the national and global stage. We are a place that encourages substantive, even provocative, conversations that are built on a foundation of civility and that are rooted in facts. And we believe that progress is always made by exploring problems from many different points of view. This is where a great research university shines by offering our community an opportunity

to respectfully discuss sensitive topics in a way that is increasingly rare in the world right now. Our USC Dornsife Center for the Political Future is out in front on these efforts. It's led by co-directors Bob Shrum and Mike Murphy, as well as managing director Kami Achavan. The center has quickly positioned USC as a world leader in practical politics. If you haven't joined us for a CPF conversation in the past, welcome, and I'm sure that today's

event will not be your last. This event could not be more timely. The war between Israel and Hamas has dramatically raised the temperature in the Middle East. Non-state proxies escalated the conflict, and what has been a decades-long shadow war between Iran and Israel now threatens to wide into a full-scale regional war. And in the meantime, people suffer and human toll continues to rise. Of course, there's so much history and complexity

underpinning these issues that often get lost in the headlines, but we desperately need to find new ways forward. This afternoon, we are fortunate to hear from someone who has been deeply involved in promoting stability in the Middle East. It's our honor to welcome Exiled Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, along with his wife Princess Yasmin Pahlavi, to USC.

Mr. Pahlavi is a proud Trojan alum who earned his degree in political science from USC. The son of the late Shah of Iran, his life was forever changed by the events of the Iranian Revolution in 1979, which replaced the monarchy with the Islamic Republic. His family was forced into exile, and he has not been able to return to his homeland since. But that has not stopped him from using his voice to advocate for the Iranian people. Drawing on the nonviolent philosophies of Martin Luther

King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi, Mr. Pahlavi calls for a secular democratic government and institutions in Iran. As the most prominent leader of the opposition to the Islamic Republic for the past 45 years, he has advocated tirelessly for supporting the Iranian people in their quest for freedom and self-determination. And in 2019, he launched the Phoenix Project of Iran Initiative to harness the expertise of the Iranian diaspora, scientists and intellectuals to empower civil society within Iran.

While his efforts are focused on the Middle East, his vision resonates around the world. He recently quoted on social media that peace is neither a relic of history nor a distant dream. It is a promise we owe to ourselves and our children, and together we can make it a reality. In fact, just two days ago, he was the recipient of Richard Nixon's Foundation's Architect of Peace Award. We are honored to hear this afternoon about Mr. Pahlavi's personal journey

and his perspective on the challenges and opportunities in the Middle East. His remarks will be followed by a one-on-one conversation with Bob Shrum. Thanks to all of you for being here with us this afternoon. Please join me in welcoming Mr. Reza Pahlavi. Thank you so much. Before I start formally my remarks, let me just say that in the past 40 years, I have often traveled to California. And every time that the plane begins its descent to land either at LAX or John Wayne Airport, I feel so much better because the light here is different than anywhere else. The endorphin

kicks in. I'm in a good mood. Today I'm particularly excited as a Trojan to be here among you. So frankly, I don't have any reason to underperform and I hope not to disappoint you on that. Of course, 40 years ago I didn't need reading glasses. Now I do unfortunately. So distinguished faculty, students, and honored guests, good afternoon. In the past several decades, I have addressed universities across the globe about the plight of my nation and the fight of my people. But it is a particular pleasure to address

for the first time my fellow Trojans and to return to the University of Southern California. I'd like to thank Dr. Purmand and Dr. Ahavan for facilitating today's event, and Dean Al Najjar and the Dornsife School and the Center for the Political Future for hosting us. My fellow Trojans, I am here today to speak to you about our collective commitment

to the values that define this institution, a dedication to truth, liberty, and the advancement of human dignity. I am also here to discuss the role that the academy and that you yourselves can play in advancing those values on the most important battlefront for it today. The fight for these values is not merely academic, it is real, and nowhere is it more urgent than in Iran, my homeland. When totalitarian regimes rise to power, their first and most ferocious attacks are often

against institutions that protect the truth, the media, the judiciary, and most insidiously, the academy. In 1980, soon after consolidating its power, the Islamic Republic launched a so-called Cultural Revolution, an effort to cleanse the country's universities of independent thought. The regime closed academic institutions for over one year. They forced thousands of professors into retirement. They castigated women in academia, introduced gender segregation, forbade women in choosing their field of study, and of course expelled any dissenting students. Ideological indoctrination replaced the pursuit of knowledge.

The regime believed that if it could control the minds of the next generation, it could secure its grip on power. This is a lesson that we too must understand. The academy is not merely a space for intellectual discourse, it is a battleground for the future. The Islamic Republic, through various means, has sought to infiltrate and influence academic institutions, both in Iran and abroad, disguising its propaganda as intellectualism. It presents itself as progressive or anti-imperialist, all while repressing its own people.

The global academic community must remain vigilant against this, ensuring that the pursuit of truth remains untarnished by political agendas or authoritarian narratives. But despite the regime's relentless attempts to dominate Iran's intellectual and cultural life, the people of Iran, particularly its students, have resisted in yet another testament to the indomitable nature of the Iranian spirit. Like their predecessors in different times and places, the youth of Iran are at the forefront of the struggle for freedom. These are not just protests. There are expressions of a profound desire for dignity, justice, and freedom.

Iranian students have been beaten, imprisoned, tortured, and too often killed for standing up to tyranny. So I am here today in part to speak to USC students, not only as future leaders, but as concerned citizens. not only as future leaders, but as concerned citizens. I am asking you to take note of your peers in Iran, and in particular, their courageous fight for their rights and their dignity. You must not look away as these young men and women, your peers in age and aspiration, sacrifice their lives

for the same fundamental rights that you enjoy here. The books you have read on Dispochian despots from 1984 to The Handmaid's Tale are not subject of theoretical discussions or Socratic seminars for Iranian students. They are the reality of their everyday lives. George Orwell found his inspiration in mid-20th century dictatorships. they are the reality of their everyday lives. George Orwell found his inspiration in mid 20th century dictatorships. Margaret Atwood in the totalitarian regime in Iran.

It's easy to see why. Women are legally barred from dozens of courses of study. The Bahá'í religious minority is banned from getting a higher education altogether. Students from both genders and all faiths are beaten, thrown from the windows of their dormitories and kidnapped. They are lashed, tortured and killed. This is the life of a student in Iran.

If he or she doesn't toe the party line. I know you carry on your shoulders the burden of the questions of your future, your academic studies, your career path. I know my youngest daughter is in your shoes as a junior in Michigan, but I have other daughters, the daughters of Iran at the University of Tehran, the University of Tabriz, the University of Mashhad, and I am asking you to take a new burden on your shoulders, the burden of the knowledge you now have of the plight of your fellow students in Iran.

And I am asking you to be their voice for them. I say this not only to students, but also to faculty. Professors, your colleagues too, face the lash of the whip, the piercing of the bullet, and languish behind bars in the jails of the Islamic regime in Iran. It is on their behalf that I call today on each of you to do what you can to be their voice. You can be ambassadors and emissaries not only for the people of Iran, but for truth.

The resilience of the Iranian people, particularly its students, has always been a source of strength for me. Despite decades of repression, they have never given up their right to dream of a better future. They are the future of Iran and are showing the world what it means to fight for one's freedom with dignity and determination. This is not just their fight. It is the fight for anyone who believes in justice, in human rights, and in the sanctity of individual liberties.

As Trojans, you can appreciate this because from the day you stepped on campus, whether as a student or an educator, we were all taught to fight on. But there is no one who better encapsulates this spirit so vigorously than the people of Iran. This spirit of perseverance as resilience is exactly what the Iranian people have demonstrated for more than four decades. There will remain unbroken. It is strengthened by each new generation, refusing to bend under the yoke of a usurping despot.

The people of Iran do not ask for pity or charity. They ask for solidarity. They ask for the world to recognize their struggle and to lend their voice in support. The role of the academy is critical in this regard. Universities, including this one, must be places where truth is pursued without fear and where freedom of thought is protected from those who seek to stifle it. Academic institutions must be champions of human rights, not passive bystanders. Having returned to campus today, I not only hope for, I believe in a day when Iranian universities can once again be places of free inquiry, where students and professors alike

are able to pursue knowledge without fear of retribution, where disagreements are transacted through arguments, not prison terms. I look forward to an Iran where the academies serve its true purpose, the advancement of thought, creativity, and the betterment of society. In a free Iran, I envisage universities that are open to all, where ideas can be exchanged freely, and where intellectual diversity is celebrated rather than suppressed. I hope that one day my nation's universities will be able to invite and host you, the scholars and leaders of your generation. I hope you will be able to visit and study in Iran

and meet and collaborate and learn with my young compatriots, the scholars and leaders of their generation. I not only hope this, I believe it will happen. So to my fellow Trojans, I say this, you too have a role to play. The freedoms you enjoy here are precious, but they are not guaranteed. Stand in solidarity with those who are denied those very same rights, whether in Iran or anywhere in the world. As the people of Iran fight for freedom,

I hope you will fight on alongside them. Thank you. Thank you very much. So let me begin by going back almost 40 years or more than 40 years. You fled Iran in 1979 when your father, Bashar, was driven from office during the Islamic Revolution. Can you share your views on that revolution, its impact on you and on the prospects for democracy in the Middle East?

Well, I left Iran in the summer of 1978, approximately six months before my father and mother had to do. I had just graduated from high school. I was literally on the next day on a flight to come to Reese Air Force Base in Lubbock, Texas, to undergo pilot training formally at that base. And it was during that time and in the midst of which where the revolution occurred

and my father came out and obviously under the circumstances, I never had the chance to go back to my country. When you say what impact it had on me, I guess, you know, I have so many tales and stories of so many like me, certainly my generation, who I think we feel to be the first burnt generation as we say in Farsi, Naseh Sukhteh. And as many of you, I'm sure, have discovered through all this time, what a brain drain and immediate exodus started to happen in Iran. First and foremost, minorities who were persecuted by Ha'i's Jews had to flee.

People who were involved in previous governments had to hide, also flee. Many Iranians who were here abroad studying didn't go back to Iran. And that's how it all started. A country that was on the verge of getting so much more advanced into participating in the free world was thrown to medieval times under a very obvious ideological religious dictatorship. So I think the way we were impacted, and especially now when you look at the situation

retrospectively, where Iran could have been today as opposed to where it is now. Iran should have been by now, if not the Japan of the Middle East, at least the South Korea of the Middle East. Instead, it has become the North Korea of the Middle East. It's not because we lack resources or human talent. It's the nature of the regime that has created this situation. So when you look at the impact, it's more that we all feel that we have been common victims and the first hostages of this theocracy.

But that prompted us to do everything we could to try to help our country because I always believe it has been my main focus. Iranians deserve better than what they have. And it's a pity that a country that was once the cradle of civilization and as descendant of Cyrus, we take pride in the fact that the first declaration of human rights was pronounced 25 centuries ago, that today we have to be known to the world as a nation harboring terrorism and radicalism. But it's not the people of Iran.

It's the regime that does that. And its impact has been really more of an opportunity to see more deeply as to, instead of sitting back and lamenting and feeling sorry for ourselves, to in fact find whatever it takes to fight against that and to see where Iranians can truly have self-determination, where they can then decide freely how they want their country to be governed, in which direction they want to go. And so that was more,

not so much feeling as highly packed to me negatively. In fact, it was something that created the necessity to take action and do something and make it a lifetime mission to try to save the day. I want to come back to that mission in a moment. So in 2008, you had massive pro-democracy movements that spread across the Middle East, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, some people thought they might reach Iran, Syria,

Bahrain, and other nations. In the end, all those pro-democracy movements were stymied and then reversed. Was that inevitable? And why didn't the Islamic Republic of Iran fall during that period? First of all, in general sense, I would like to say that you cannot paint everything with the same brush. Each of these movements had its own peculiar nature. Some of them were not necessarily democratic or were in some way hijacked. The desire of the people in all these countries were of course liberty and freedom. But let's say in the case of Syria, we saw how the Islamic regime in Iran and the IRGC suppressed the protesters in

that country. The best example I can use for you is what happened in Egypt where Mubarak was ill perceived, but then the Muslim Brotherhood pretty much took over and Egyptians soon found out that this is certainly not the way to go and they had to go to General Sisi to protect themselves from the consequences of the Muslim Brotherhood reigning. So what's the lesson in all this is that I think perhaps sometimes it's a matter of how the stars are aligned. When you go back to Iran and what happened in 2009, which was the Green Movement, now you would know what people then didn't quite think of was that Mousavi, who was of course

the candidate that ran against Ahmadinejad at the time, and as you know, the whole Green Movement was protesting to tampering with the elections in Iran, where's my vote and all that. But the difference was that the young people on the streets took it as an opportunity to make a statement. Whereas, Mousavi was still in the mind frame of preserving the regime and operate within the existing order and constitution, which is why the reform movement pretty much came to a stop. He realized that people are going far more of something he can control.

He panicked, backed off, and the movement started going down. In short, what I say is learning from all his experiences and saying that Iran in 2024 is very different than what it was in 2009. It's because the most important change in paradigm that I can share with you is that if there was at some point, still some hope of reforming somehow the regime. And they tried it three times. They had Khatami at first, then they tried it with Rouhani, and ultimately they ended up with what Ra'isi, which was obviously not the direction they wanted to take.

When slogans in Iran started saying, es lahtalab usulgara digge tamam e majara, which in English means whether you are more radical or more moderate, this story is over, meaning now people are saying the solution is we have to go beyond the regime. We have noticed more formal reform is now trying to connect with us, converge with secular democratic forces who always advocated that Iran shouldn't be a religious dictatorship, but a secular democratic issue. That's the way I can see the stars aligning. So just because you tried once and you fail doesn't mean that every movement are successful the first time you try. God knows how many movements have failed and they finally succeeded. Maybe the fourth time, the fifth time, or the tenth time. It doesn't matter how many time it takes, the process that you keep fighting until you finally win. And once you win, that's

where everything changes. And I think that's the spirit you see in Iran today. And if you look at what inspired those movements, it was at the end of the day, the ask of the citizenry of each of these nations, liberty, freedom, and participation. That is why, and of course, when it comes to Iran, I keep pressing on countries in terms of their foreign policy, particularly Western democracies, the United States and its allies in Europe, that for four decades, especially as it relates to how do we deal with this phenomenon of Islamism, political Islam or radical Islam, the first, in my opinion, biggest flaw in analysis and assessment was it has been always

based on the pursuit of behavior change by this regime. And I think that simply means that they couldn't recognize that the nature of the regime, its DNA, is simply not one that can coexist in the world as we know it. The value systems that we believe in and cherish is totally alien to that regime. We celebrate life. they celebrate martyrdom. That's a huge difference. You cannot come to terms with them, you cannot negotiate a true deal with them,

you cannot trust them, and in the meantime, you have millions of disenfranchised Iranians who are telling you, why don't you come and invest on us? We are the alternative. And it is time that instead of talking about behavior change within the status quo, we start thinking that the solution ultimately is regime change.

Not because you say so, but because the Iranian people ask for it. So it becomes a shift of policy of not focusing on the regime, but focusing on the people. And then if we stay true to the principles of, and that has been my philosophy of how to conduct this campaign based on nonviolence and civil disobedience, is to create a scenario where people are empowered. If diplomacy has failed and nobody wants conflict and war, you're left with only one solution.

It's to strengthen that alternative. And I think today you see that especially recent months when we see an escalation in conflict and potential retaliation, it can only get worse if something doesn't give at the end. It is true that the proxies had to be weakened or eliminated, but the eye of the octopus is still there. And as long as it's still there, the financing continues, the funding continues, the intervention continues, and I don't think we can breathe freely.

So this has to be, I think, the conclusion of where I hope the world starts looking at the potential solution to all the problems. Let me follow up on that. Your stated mission for decades, and you've referred to that in your first answer and your second answer, has been to remove the fundamentalist regime in Tehran from power. When could that happen?

Are we talking decades, years? And if it does happen, how can we ensure that we don't end up with another power vacuum in the Middle East? I think that's a very good question. And the first thing I would say is it can happen much sooner than you think. Number one, look at how ready society in Iran is today. People are ready for change.

They are asking for change. They are dying for change. And assuming that what I'm hoping will ultimately be a shift of policy, meaning that this time a dual track approach, one of maximum pressure, which means additional sanction, including on the IRGC, putting it and listing it as a terrorist organization in Europe and elsewhere, going much more directly to the whole nomenclature that enjoy a benefit from the existence of this mafia-like regime and showing the people that you're serious about putting more pressure on them.

And parallel to that, a policy of maximum support in various forms. For instance, as many of you may have heard through social media, that the most important element right now is having access to information, not to be cut off from the rest of the world, internet access for example. And also a possibility of seeing in what way we can fund these strike funds to help Iranian workers who will ultimately strike to have a chance and hope that they get compensated. And I think a lot of the frozen assets can be repurposed for that.

So it's not taxpayers' money that funds that. It's Iranians' own money that belongs to them in the first place. That could be repurposed for that. It's a matter of legislation. It's also a matter of modifying some of the current rules within the sanctions, for instance, OFAC, which limits and makes it impossible. Let's say you're in your Iranian family, you want to send some money to a family in Iran to support them.

You can't do that right now. There's only cryptocurrency that you have as an option. So some of that may have to be changed. These are all ways to facilitate in the interest of empowering the Iranian people what could be done in terms of actual measures that can be taken. So obviously if all of that happened, it directly expedites the process of change. It's also something else at the end that to me has always been very important,

especially in order to avoid a scenario of not having anarchy post collapse in a vacuum. Rather, we would like to have a controlled implosion. That includes a process where, as Iranians fighting for the regime, we are not only focused on how to bring it down, but how to manage the transition, how to bring in many people into the fray so they can feel the void.

I believe as I speak, there are thousands of Iranians, managers, technocrats, bureaucrats, that can run the apparatus of state temporarily. I believe that part of our message is one of national reconciliation and amnesty, rather than revenge and retribution. I believe we have seen different models of addressing the questions

that deals with how people seek justice, the truth and reconciliation process, to name an example. So we have a host of lawyers and legal specialists working on all these issues, constitutional projects. We have economists planning for the first hundred days after the collapse and how we sustain ourselves during that period, as an example of a short-term, mid-term strategy of how to in fact address how we can not only be successful in eliminating the regime, but to avoid a scenario that would lead to some kind of a chaos or collapse. And that again, in contrast to what happened

after Saddam Hussein's fall in Iraq and pretty much the deb-Bathification process, which was really a disaster, come to think of it. And in fact, I think regime change got a bad name because of that, but just because you poorly executed it somewhere else doesn't make it a bad concept. And I think the solution in Iran still remains regime change, but in a different way,

without even involving foreign intervention, particularly of a military kind. So if we do all of the above, I think we can certainly have a solution that will free the world from any anxiety and concerns about what this regime represents as a threat, but also know that there is behind that a strategy of transition. And I've offered to step in at the ask of my competitors to help lead this transition, work with them, people inside and outside. And of course, we hope that we find good partners in the free world to back us up and be with us. So

naturally, you know, I always said the last thing that I've always said to my competitors was we cannot rely on anybody else but ourselves. But of course, we will have an easier time dealing with it if we were not alone in this fight. And that's my message to the outside world. Stand of course, we will have an easier time dealing with it if we were not alone in this fight. And that's my message to the outside world. Stand with us, not against us. In 2022, Masa Amini was killed in Iran by the morality police for not covering her hair. This murder sparked massive protests across the country and the world. It also led to many more women in Iran being, as you suggested earlier, beaten, jailed, and even killed for committing the same crime, quote unquote, that she did. How has the pro-woman movement in Iran influenced your thinking about the future of the country and Middle

East democracy? And is there any prospect or international support for women's rights in Iran and the Middle East? I think one thing that sets Iran apart from many other countries in that region is that if you go back 50 years ago, if you go back to the time where Iranian women gained suffrage four years before the Swiss women had in terms of the right to vote, if you talk about the presence of women at high levels of government as ministers, as judges, even in the military and forces, where they stood then and where they are now, the contrast

is right there. So if you think of someone like Massa or Nika or all those young, brave Iranian women fighting the fight, they know what their mothers can tell how Iran used to be, how it is now. So it's not a new thing. It's not like a few years ago, Saudi women couldn't even drive.

In Iran, they were doing that in the 50s and 60s already. So it is not for the first time that we can see how Iranian women were engaged as equals in Iranian society and how much more they could have in a secular democratic future in Iran. And that is something that puts Iran way ahead of the curve because they are the first nation in the region to understand the consequences of religious governance. You know, we often see the age of Renaissance post-Inquisition in the Christian world in Europe. Well, I think

Iranians are today in an age of Renaissance post-Islamic Inquisition this time, where it's not religion that is a problem, but we all agree that secularism and separation of church from state is a problem, but we all agree that secularism and separation of church from state is a prerequisite to democracy. And your real question is, are Iranians today, this generation, aware and understand the principles of secularism in the sense of separation of religions from government? I tell you the answer is a loud yes. And they say every day.

And this is why I think that we can manage this process based on these values. Because not only we desire it, we understand it, but we have seen the negative aspect of not having it. And this is what I think is the strength of today's generations that you see in Iran. And this is what I think is the strength of today's generations that you see in Iran. And that's a gift. It's a gift for the free world that you have now a well equipped generation. Whereas their parents 45 years ago didn't quite understand what it was really the consequences of having Khomeini be the leader.

Marxist forces and Islamic forces, none of them truly democratic, did not usher in an era of democracy in Iran. If anything, if Iran was not totally politically liberated, but every other liberties existed, we lost everything and gained nothing. So we want to regain everything we had, but also address the issue of complete liberalization, which I think today is easier because we no longer live in the Cold War era and we are better equipped for it. We've been vaccinated for it. And that's really making sure that history doesn't repeat itself. making sure that history doesn't repeat itself, and therefore we can rebuild the country based on these principles and find the right partnership,

not just for ourselves, but working together with allies in the region, Arabs, Israelis, and others, and that's the future that we could have, unlike what we have right now with Hamas and Hezbollah, terrorism and nuclear threat and what you have, but a different one. Let me follow up on that. As you described it in your remarks, the regime in Tehran has a long history of brutal human rights violations and not just against women and religious minorities. This is unfortunately not unique among Middle Eastern countries.

What role could the kind of secular Iran you describe play in advancing human rights in the region? Well, secularism is an important principle, but I also think that if you don't have a separation, a checks and balance system as you have it under the US Constitution. If we do not promote the kind of entities or institutions that are guarantors that you don't deviate for a democratic process, that you don't have the concentration of power that goes unchecked and unremovable, you have to strengthen those institutions. I've always believed that as much as leadership is important, sometimes people focus too much on the tree and forget about the forest.

I think that the most important thing, especially in the Middle East, that are much more individual-centric, we need to shift to a system-centric approach. And that has been my philosophy. How can we move from a traditional expectation of having a leader at the top of the pyramid push the agenda forward? How can we strengthen the institution? So reliance on individual leadership becomes less and less important.

We need to address that transition. I think that's the ultimate key to full democratization. And if Iran could be a good model for others to follow, it will be a reason why we need to make sure that we help what I think is an anchor state in the region lead by example. And so that's part of our, at least my vision as to how we can address that and make sure that we can strengthen the institution beyond government, civil society, and all the watchdogs that we need, media, labor unions, what have you, because all of that are part and parcels of making sure that at the end of the day

we have the rule of law. And there's nothing more important than the rule of law. And I think this is what Iran really needs to ultimately achieve. So it's a big task. It's a huge challenge. I think the understanding is there already, but we simply need to get to implementation phase and strengthen these institutions. We hear about violence all the time in the news, Yet we rarely hear stories about peace. There are so

many people who are working hard to promote solutions to violence, toxic polarization, and authoritarianism, often at great personal risk. We never hear about these stories, but at what cost? On Making Peace Visible, we speak with journalists, storytellers, and peace builders who are on the front lines of both peace and conflict. You can find Making Peace Visible wherever you listen to podcasts. We can't talk about the region without talking about Israel. How would you describe the relationship between Israel and Iran during your father's time as the

Shah. It's changed drastically since then and again since October 7th, 2022, when the Hamas terrorists killed more than 1,200 Israelis and captured hundreds of hostages, sparking a war, by the way, that has inflicted very high casualty rates. The fundamentalist regime in Iran has been unapologetically supportive of Hamas and Hezbollah. Is escalation between Iran and Israel inevitable? You know, this regime with this ideology of exporting this revolution, creating a modern day Shiite caliphate to dominate the region and beyond, ultimately even raise that flag over the White House. This is really what they are shooting for. At the expense of the Iranian people, they don't care about

people dying, whether they are Iranians or Arabs or Israelis or Palestinians, they are basically using every tool in their power to attain that objective. That's their viewpoint. If they have to eradicate Israel from the map, they have often stated that. That's a degree of well beyond anti-Semitism. It's just the way they think. Meanwhile, the Iranian people, many Arabs, including Israelis, think differently. They feel differently about themselves and the relationship that they could have. In fact, when I visited Israel about a year and a half ago together with my wife, we were really taken aback by the amount of sympathy and understanding and support that Israeli citizens,

not just Iranian Jews living in Israel, but Israeli citizens said and how they reacted to Iranians in Iran who dared demonstrate the Israeli flag during soccer matches in support of Israel particularly after October 7th and we have witnessed these demonstrations everywhere in the world. The image of the potential of two countries that could be regional strategic partners that could have an impact on change in the Middle East. It all is based on making sure that if the Iranian people had a say, they have no hatred against Jews or Arabs or Muslims or anyone. We need to live in our region in peace and in solidarity and in friendship. That's our national interest.

So why should we be antagonistic to our neighbors? I think that we can all benefit from a world where Iranians, Saudis, Egyptians, Israelis, we can all work together. We can have the kind of union that the Europeans have for themselves. Why should we spend billions of dollars on armaments rather than education and healthcare? But as long as this regime is there, we won't be able to have that shift. Imagine the potential for commerce and industry that depends on that change. So I think that what we need to be able to translate at the same time to the world is that while we are all witnessing the consequences of this regime bringing us in the direction of confrontation and escalation

of conflict, there are people in the region waiting and holding their breath for this change to happen. But it also does take beyond regional players or citizens of those countries an added element that has lacked. And I think the biggest element that has lacked was the indecision and lack of audacity encouraged by Western leaders to step in and draw the line and make key decisions as to how to deal with the problems rather than cowering and allowing for this situation to go unchecked. Instead of punishing a regime for repressing its people and supporting its proxies, they

get rewarded by giving even more money that they shouldn't have had in the first place. Under the current administration, almost $150 billion was given to the regime, but the old sanctions were really not implemented. You paid about a billion dollar per hostage to get them free, so ransom is not the name of the day. It pays for them to take hostages every time they are under pressure. All of that appeasement tactic has led to where we are here.

So we cannot do everything on our own. We need to have some level of understanding and coordination partnership. I think that's the final element that is lacking in the formula for Iran's liberation sooner rather than later. So it will all come back to a major shift of policy. Washington is still key in terms of its impact,

together with hopefully some leaders in Europe that will wake up and toe along the lines. And as the two examples that I can see in history, I can point to two that I know were the game changer, at least insofar as the free world or the Western world, when we talk about an era. The first time Iran was during the Second World War. And in fact, it was because of appeasement that Hitler decided to start the war. But if it wasn't for Roosevelt in Washington and Churchill in London,

I wonder what would have been the outcome of the Second World War. The second time around, we saw strong leadership emanating from again Washington and London. This time it was Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. And ultimately, glass laws and perestroika would not have happened so easily. And Gorbachev would not have sort of given up on that confrontation had he not been challenged by that strong, determined idea that was projected then. Today, when I look at China under Xi and when I look at Moscow under Putin, I wonder what's the equivalent balancing force in the Western world?

I don't see any. Should we be surprised of the consequences of that? So I think that's the part that needs to be changed. And this is something for citizens in America, in Europe, to ask their respective governments, where do we stand on this? What are you waiting for? The solution is right in front of your eyes. It's time to invest on the alternative

rather than insist persistently on maintaining the status quo with hope of change of behavior and all that. If that is today, the conclusion, we can much sooner than you think have that change. Let me talk about one place where you might agree with the current administration in Washington. Do you think there's a viable path to peace and a two-state solution involving both Israel and the Palestinians? Well, as long as the Islamic regime in Iran is still there, funding its proxies, antagonizing

Israel, the climate for that possibility would be nonexistent. If you give Israel the certainty that they will not be immediately targeted or be threatened all the time in terms of their existential threat, if we can eliminate everything that is funding the proxies. And I believe that the majority of the Palestinians know and don't believe that they are represented by Hamas. A lot of things can change. But if you eliminate that antagonism, then I think the climate will be conducive to an

actual possibility for a real dual state solution. I believe in that. I profess that as well myself, but I don't think it will happen as long as we have a continuation of antagonism. You have to understand the position that Israel has felt, but you also have to understand what is a legitimate right and demand of the Palestinians. Ultimately, today's generation of young Israelis and Palestinians want to have peace as well, but they have to understand that sometimes we are deprived of the circumstances conducive to that. There are victims of it.

So we need to make sure that those who have victimized them in the first place are no longer there to continue victimizing them. And then again, I think that it all starts from Tehran, because as you pointed to, what was the relationship of Iran before the revolution with Israel, with Arab countries in the Persian Gulf? And what happened as soon as this regime took over? I think it's so obvious the contrast, but this is even more profound understanding today

that we can look at each other regionally and the reason why we can in fact achieve that because everybody knows how costly it is to have war and conflict as opposed to peace and prosperity which only is possible if you eliminate that sort of climate. So it's a collective effort really and my vision is that you know when when And my vision is that, you know, when Sadat understood that it's better to find a solution for peace when he went to Jerusalem and met with Golda Meir. And I know a lot of work was done behind the scene, and my father played some part in facilitating that approach. Because in his vision, he knew that this senseless to have regional conflict or we can achieve peace. And in fact, it happened. Why could it not happen tomorrow? And I think today the desire for it is even more pronounced, because things were not so clear back

in the seventies, especially post the first conflict, the 67 war and what have you. But I think we have to all be very pragmatic about it and make sure that the components are in place, that the stars are aligned. And I think Iran's change in Iran will have absolutely the most important impact on that prospect. Forty years ago, Iran, a predominantly Muslim country, had, as you pointed out, a very different relationship with Israel than other Muslim-dominated countries in the region. Why? Well, you know, first of all, if you look at Iran as long before America even came to

existence, an actual melting pot of some form. Iran was a country composed of a mosaic of ethnicities, religions that for centuries lived together side by side under the same roof. I remember my days in Iran as growing up, where we were, you know, seeing society as it was. Christians, Baha'is, Muslims, Sunnis, Shias, even atheists were living there. Nobody was bothering the next person on the street or asking whether you're a Jew or a Muslim or what is your persuasions. I had the privilege, sometimes being the current president of certain privileges, and my privilege was to be able to play with our national soccer team.

And when I looked at my soccer team, there were Iranians of different ethnicities from Huzestan, from Azerbaijan, from the north, different religions all playing together under the same flag. We were Iranians. We didn't think of each other as a dissected society. This regime has created that element of predominance of one religion or ideology crushing the others. It's as simple as that. Which is why religion or ideology crushing the others. It's as simple as that. Which is why when we had in our own country, you know, all these persuasions or faiths,

we had it at home. It was not a question of how do we deal with our neighbors. We already had that diversity among ourselves as a society. So if the natural Iran is composed of these diverse groups, then they can deal with their counterparts, or the citizens of another country. So whether they're Armenians or if they're Christians or if they're Jews or if they're Muslims, and we have all of it in our own country, we don't see any issue of having to be dealing with all of that.

And Iran will go back to its natural state. And the reason I tell you this is because for those of you who may have followed the last four or five years of a resurrection of Iranians sense of national identity, that's been put it this way. When people started converging to Cyrus the Great in Passargaud on the Iranian New Year, standing together, different ethnicities, different religions, chanting the same slogan, and looking back at the glory of Iran and its past civilization, that tells you something. That tells you that problem is solved in Iran proper. They just did the opportunity to show how different they are than this regime.

And so I think we already have solved the problem domestically in terms of our mindset. It's a matter now to be able to actually give them a chance to show not to themselves, but to the whole world how we look at ourselves as Iranians, but how as Iranians we'd like to deal with everybody that would like to be able to work in peace so long as there's mutual respect and respect for our sovereignty, which is all we ask. deal with everybody that would like to be able to work in peace so long as there's mutual respect and respect for our sovereignty, which is all we ask. So millions of Iranians live outside the country, most of them having fled during or after the 1979 revolution.

What role do they have to play in bringing about the kind of Iran you envision? Well, this is where it gets exciting for me because I think in the vision of talking beyond motherhood and apple pie and human rights and democracy and actually have a roadmap to Iran reconstruction and recovery, here's where the talent lies. Yes, the first exodus cost a lot to Iran because a lot of these brains had to flee.

But guess what? They ended up being successful entrepreneurs, leading industry, becoming heads of medical centers. Half of the people in Silicon Valley are probably Iranians. Many CEOs of major companies from eBay to Uber are Iranians. And imagine what these kind of people with their counterparts like the Elon Musk of this world could do in terms of, okay, do we have an opportunity to contribute? Whether it is academically, intellectually, financially, our business skills, or whatever it is that we present that Iran will need in its reconstruction. And I've talked to many of these people all these years, and the second generation

of Iranians who were born either in America or Canada or France or wherever they are and they know that things eventually changing there's so much in which way they can contribute to the country. Does that mean necessarily a physical migration back to Iran? Not necessarily. In this era of the internet a lot of people conduct their business virtually, In this era of the internet, a lot of people conduct their business virtually. Zoom, Google Meet, whatever. So you can convey and share something that we didn't have 40 years ago. We didn't have Instagram or, I don't know, all these various social media means of communication. There are so many different ways that they can contribute to Iran. And I think the diaspora will understand where and when to step in. And a lot of it, and the pause or the halt, I think, is because nobody is placing their

bets on this regime that is becoming weaker and weaker every day, but they know that once the regime is not there, many obstacles will be removed. And then they can, in fact, seriously in a meaningful way contribute. So in that light, I've initiated parallel to the campaign for liberating Iran, also engaging with the diaspora in terms of exactly their expertise or field of representations at captain of industries, entrepreneurs, specialist fields, because I think when you look at what Iran needs to do, we need to have these kind of resources available and ready to step in to help kickstart the Iran's economic revival. And I think that's also an approach that will galvanize the Iranians because, for instance, let me give an example. If tomorrow Tesla could have a plant in Baluchistan, imagine what kind of immediate impact it could have economically for the disaffected regions in Iran.

Money will come in, they could be employed, schools can be built, education can be provided, academic institutions could certainly share that knowledge. All of this is absolutely doable and feasible, but I don't think that most people believe that anything serious could be done as long as this regime is in place. And hopefully what we're trying to do is to, as soon as possible, get to a point we no longer have to worry about this corrupt mafia that is ruling Iran so we can actually give an opportunity for Iranians to stand up. For young Iranian entrepreneurs, very talented, very gifted, to actually have a chance to

conduct business, to have an opportunity of telling people that you can finally raise your head in dignity and not to worry how you're going to feed your children at night and put food on the table. And give these opportunities, not by false promises. Khomeini said, you're going to have free electricity and free water. Other imagine it, bad imagine it. Some of you may remember, but none of that happened. We're not promising anything just for the sake of slogans or rhetoric. I believe all these components are actually there and we need to give people

a tangible sense that once Iran is liberated, we can immediately roll up the sleeves and actually start rebuilding that nation. And the diaspora, again, has a huge role to play. And I think once the limitation of communications with their peers inside is totally removed, when those inside cannot openly advocate what they're capable of, then that communication is going to exponentially and very rapidly augment. So that dialogue would be a constant element of bringing in those resources, those capabilities, investments or what have you. And I can see that like the light of day, but I know that this obstacle has to first be removed.

That's why we need to focus on how do we get rid of this region first and then immediately after what can be done. Let me conclude with a slightly different question. You graduated from high school, you said, and headed for Texas for pilot training. Did you ever learn to fly a plane? Well, I started when I was 12. I first soloed when I was almost 13 on a single-engine beachcraft bonanza, which was one of the training planes for Iranian pilots back in Iran. I also flew you know, small jets, a couple of Boeing's, flew the F5 in Iran two years before I left. I soloed when I was about 16 years old. Yeah, I think I can fly. Well, we can do a lot of things on Zoom and a lot of this is, all of this is on Zoom today.

Let me thank you for your presence and your perspective as we welcome you back to your alma mater. Let me thank our audience, whether they're with us in this room or whether remotely. And it was a very enlightening discussion and in some ways a very hopeful one. Well, thank you for the opportunity. I think it's very important to have these kind of exchanges more frequently if possible because I think if you don't engage everyone who wonders in what way can they possibly contribute, the more they have an understanding of the roadmap, the more they can find their place at their line in which they can be contributors in different forms.

So beyond what yours truly can do in terms of facilitating or proposing various issues that we can have a discussion around, but I think we need a lot of surrogates for this movement. And I think that academic institutions are very important in playing that role. And I think if students, whether they're Iranian students or foreign students,

regardless of where they are, and as I pointed in my initial remarks, I think many movements in the world have always been championed by students. So I hope that we can expand this conversation and this dialogue and this exchange, relying heavily on students their communication with our peers, and especially the use of social media as the most important tool of exchange of views and understanding what's really happening on the grounds that is not often not covered by media. So I encourage you to really put more time in finding the right channels of social media

where Iranian opinion is broadcasted or explained because that's certainly a good source of information that you will not necessarily find in conventional media outlets covering Iran and what you have. Thank you very much. Thank you again. Thank you all. Thank you for joining us on the Bully Pulpit. It helps us a lot when you subscribe and rate the show five stars wherever you get your podcast. Follow us on Twitter at USCPOLfuture. That's USCPOLfuture. Follow us on Facebook and YouTube and visit our website for upcoming programs. This podcast is part of the Democracy Group.