Prospects for Change Inside Iran: UCLA Conference

Burkle Center for International Relations

ucla.edu (May 13, 2011): Iran Conference sponsored by the UCLA Burkle Center for International Relations and the UCLA International Institute. Much of the fear and concern about contemporary Iran relate to the current regime, and in particular the actions and rhetoric of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. How likely is internal change in Iran, and what sort of change is most likely? Participants include Burkle Center Senior Fellow Gen. Wesley K. Clark (ret.); Carnegie Endowment scholar Karim Sadjadpour; Jon Alterman, director of the Center for Strategic & International Studies’ Middle East Program, former CIA analyst Paul Pillar, RAND Middle East analyst Dalia Dassa Kaye, National Iranian American Council founder and president Trita Parsi, and Abbas Milani, director of Iranian Studies at Stanford >>

08-Jun-2011
Share/Save/Bookmark

Recently by mehrdadmCommentsDate
Omid Djalili: The Baha'i Faith in Words and Images
11
Dec 05, 2012
Dimmed Lanterns
1
Dec 05, 2012
Iranian TV shows off 'captured US ScanEagle drone'
5
Dec 04, 2012
more from mehrdadm
 
Darius Kadivar

The "Military Dicatorship" Rhetoric is another overused cliché

by Darius Kadivar on

aimed at prolonging the survival of the regime in the same way the so called "Islamic Democracy" rhetoric was Smoke for the eyes.

I feel that this term "Military Dictatorship" is again being used as a recurrent argument fed to or by academics  to a foreign audience so as to neutralize any attempt towards regime change.

That the regime is a dictatorship is a fact for the past 32 years but that should not mean that it is standing on such a solid foundation.

Academics like Ali Alfone, or former diplomats like Mansour Farhand or Jon Limpton are also using this term recurrently.

It is something of a Scare Crow to say "look how powerful this regime is. We are bound to see a take over by a Napoleon Wannabe and Blah, Blah, Blah ... "

 

Don't fall for it, particularly when it comes out of the mouth of an Iran "expert" ... 

 

Repeat a BS over and Over again and it ends up becoming a truth ! 


iamfine

Iran could be much better if

by iamfine on

Iran could be a better place if we didn't have outside interference. It is obvious that some countries don't want to see a democratic Iran. At the end of day, it is us (Iranians) that could make our country free from Mullahs as well as foreign powers.


vildemose

the article was published in 2006

by vildemose on

 

According to Shahvar, the most dangerous possible scenario in Iran would be a military coup, in which Ahmadinejad would capture the role of supreme leader.

"The Islamist revolution is at a crossroads. Since 1979, the ideals of the revolution have been diluted, and (the president) believes that he came along to save the revolution and the people. This belief should frighten us," he concluded.

//www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3324216,00.html


afshinazad

milani chrandiat

by afshinazad on

Trita Parsi was Lobbying on different panel with bunch of washed off group. he can not face the Iranian, who are against the regime.

man where do we stand as a Iranian?


shushtari

amirparviz...

by shushtari on

you're right on the money!!!

this is absolutely the summary of the disaster of the past 32 years

 

In fact, I think it's a disgrace that a moron like JIMMY CARTER, receives a nobel peace prize, and the shah is still demonized by a bunch of no good cyber basijis.

 

the wonderful thing though is that with all the mullahs' desperate attempts to brainwash iran's youth, the youth of iran is way ahead of them, and are completely against their backwards ideology... 


amirparvizforsecularmonarchy

Well said Darius

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

Regarding the Green movement, it is really a representation of the discontent of Iranians, that wanted change within IRI originally and now from IRI due to the crimes. 

West did not expect there to be a regime change movement, it helped via the media and NGO's and cash the greens, but had no idea it would lead to a regime change movement.  West did not want regime change, just its own thugs in power.

The lack of leadership and organization today after the 2009 crackdown is due to USA/UK/FRANCE/GERMANY making sure no viable opposition to IRI exists outside Iran.

In 1979, you had the cia and mi6, with khomeini and his P.L.O. trained basiji's

A world media against Irans progress, regurgitating stories about the
Shah, i.e. repression, dictator, tyrant, despot, corruption, crook. 24/7
like a propaganda symphony

and then Khomeini is Ghandi.

Basically West wants Islam for Iran ie Regression, to corrupt the society and steal its wealth, like the UK did to India ad the west did to Africa.

and is opposed to the change that they created in 1979, with the participation of deceived people.

PITY PEOPLE CAN NOT SEE THE NEOCOLONALISM THEY ARE GOING THROUGH... IF THEY COULD SEE IT, BY HAVING THE INFORMATION, IT WOULD NOT WORK.

Read the Secrets of the States, by the president of France,

USA/UK/Germany/France all agreed to remove Shah and replace him with
Khomeini and fundamentalist Islam.  To control Iran and Retard it's
development.  Situation is still the same, they are holding on to their
creation with all the resources they have and everyone else, including
the Shah, cannot speak or organize in any way without risking getting
killed by their secret services. If today Shah pursued organizing he would first be told to stop and if not, put to death without a trace, like his brother.

So until the USA gets clear on policy shift for IRAN, nothing will happen, no matter what people do.  It will take time, but hopefully ot too long.

These clowns are basically employed by Neocolonialist interests, and discuss policy in favor of agendas of US policy, they interpret in a way to promote concepts which then the USA uses to dominate other countries... absolutely nothing in it for Iranians.


Darius Kadivar

By the way How come Trita Chickened out of the Debate ?

by Darius Kadivar on

He was announced but I did not see him in this panel ? ... He was here however on this other panel:

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MifrvQ6DWM&feature=relmfu

 


Darius Kadivar

Milani clearly never Read Edmund Burke's take on Modernity & Rev

by Darius Kadivar on

Milani clearly never Read Edmund Burke's take on Modernity & Revolution 

 

I would highly recommend the panalists to study the historical evolution of constitutionalist ideas in Europe notably the critical Outlook of Edmund Burke  which addresses precisely what Milani criticizes as the Perfectionist mindset that often leads to totalitarian thought:

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhnyTo4oJv8

 

Burke was the first to actually predict the French Reign of Terror and as much as he admired the American Revolution, he loathed the French One for it’s violence and intolerance and rejection of tradition.



I also agree with amirparvizforsecularmonarchy  that Ali Alfone comparing Khamenei or anyone in that regime to a modernizer like Reza Shah

is Pure Rubbish ! 

 

Recommended Blogs:

 

RESTORATION:Shapour Bakhtiar advocates Restoring the Monarchy


Shah to Nixon on "Revolutions" vs "Evolutions" in Middle East (1969)


Mashallah Ajoudani on Intellectuals and the '79 Revolution




Darius Kadivar

Funny that Milani advocates what he is denouncing: PERFECTIONISM

by Darius Kadivar on


Funny that Milani's Republicanism prompts him to actually suggest what he is actually denouncing: Perfectionism aka the establishment of a Republic ( aka Jomhury) in the Land of Kings ...    

 

ROYAL RHINOPLASTY: Stephen Fry On The Imperfections of the Monarchy and Why It Should Be Preserved

 

 

Also I fundamentally disagree with him on his recurrent argument that the notion of kingship  failed or lost it's legitimacy because all Kings since (and except) Muzzaferedin Shah (who signed the first draft of the Constitution) died in Exile.  

Reza Shah was not forced into exile by a Popular uprising as in the case of his son but by foreign powers who

forced him to abdicate in favor of his son.   As for Ahmad Shah he was forced out by Reza Shah who took over as all

Persian Kings who founded their dynasties by force.

So that already weakens his argument that Popular Will ousted the Kings in question..  

 

Implementing a Constitutional Monarchy in Iran failed mainly because of Iran's strategic exposure to Foreign meddling in Iranian affaires at different levels of it's contemporary history and less because of Iranians aversion for the Royal Institution which on thecontrary has always been a source of pride when not a source of fear.

 

Particularly given our strong nationalistic fiber ( to which Karim Sadjadpour correctly refers to) which ironically very much like for the British has always expressed itself be it in our poetry or oral history:


Words For Eternity ...


 

 

What made Britain achieve it’s Constitutional transition and particularly it’s democratic transition was actually it’s geographic particularity : Being an Isle.

 

Protected by Sea, the Insular nature of the British Isles largely helped Britain in achieving it’s democratic model not through Copy and Pasting foreign models of government but by developing it’s own originally genuine model.


How Truly Democratic And Stable Is The British Monarchy?


Which actually proves to evolve with it's time and modern requirements:


British Monarchy To Remove Sexist Rules Regarding Royal Succession

 

Iran on the otherhand had to struggle basically throughout the 20th century against Instability.

 

Ironically it is precisely when it was on the verg of achieving that geo strategic stability protecting it from foreign invasion and meddling that it was faced by the enemy within :Iranians themselves who got their priorities wrong !



 

Carter Toast Shah calls Iran : « An Island of Stability »

Reagan on Shah as being« Our Best Ally »



In the same way we got our Priorities Wrong in 1953:


THE PAST IS A FOREIGN COUNTRY: How Would You Evaluate Iran's Democracy Index in 1953 ?

 

 

 

For Milani’s information, the British Monarchy including the current Dynasty is not a direct line of inheritance as one may expect. The British actually went further than we Iranians ever did in radical anti monarchist upheavels since they committed what we Iranians never did : REGICIDE.

 

Yet they chose to Restore Charles II the son of the beheaded king Charles Ist.

 

 

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2kyNbZc7oc

 

Yet even Charles Successor ( his Brother James II) was toppled by a foreign invasion which installed the German Honover Branch of the Monarchy who were distant cousins of Charles II who could not have a direct heir. That Invasion ironically was called a « Glorious Revolution » and led to the famous BILL OF RIGHTs which subsequently wasto be copied and pasted into the American Constitution.


RESTORATION: Britain's 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688 and the 'Bill of Rights'


 

Hence it is interesting to note that the current dynasty reigning in Britain is far less ancient than what the British claim and is not directly linked to it’s ancient lineage often deemed being King Henry VIII but rather indirectly linked to the original English Kings.

Proving if needed that contrary to us Iranians, the British we tend to hate so much are far more flexible and less

perfectionist than meets the eye.

Not only they Restored their system of government but imposed their language on the entire planet.

Milani alas once again falls short to his own Idealistic and distorted view that Modernity and Monarchy are incompatible. He is not alone, this mindset is deeply rooted amognst many intellectuals eversince the French Revolution of 1789.


HISTORY FORUM: Bahram Moshiri's Take on The French Revolution and Why He Misses The Point ;0)
 

A distorted Mindset which precisely led most of 20th Century Revolutions to go wrong because in their eagerness to reproduce or copy and paste the French Revolutionary Model they actually helped establish some of the worst totalitarian systems in their country: Russia,China, Cuba, or Iran to name a few, even Nazism was largely inspired byRobespierre's reign of Terror's Puritanical Crusade.

   

Historian Simon Schama slams  Slavoj Zizek admiration for Robespierre's Controversial Revolutionary Zeal:

 

 

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=eerWFfKlOSc



My Humble Opinion,   DK 


vildemose

Miltary dictatorship is not

by vildemose on

Miltary dictatorship is not only the ultimate goal of the hardliners and reactionaries like Pendar Nik, but also the zionists and the Western countries...This was predicted also almost 8 years ago by the zionist experts.


amirparvizforsecularmonarchy

hirre, RP says let the people ultimately decide

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

He has no reason to run as a political leader, he wants to be a king if he has enough supporters after he helps bring democracy to Iran and not to function in national politics, but like monarchies in the uk, japan, sweden, holland or spain as function as arbitrors/figure head.


hirre

RP

by hirre on

People at the top who will one day change the fate of Iran (directly or indirectly) are not considering RP or monarchy as an alternative since it represents the past...

In politics you have to be clear of your own background or atleast establish one background which you will promote. RP is not considered an interesting choice, especially by the older ("ruling") generation since he both represents monarchy and at the same time is considering democracy.

The majority of the intellectual opposition is not taking him seriously because he is not willing to address certain issues about his background (and the people who support him). E.g. all opposition leaders consider the shah as one form of dictatorship. Now, how can they reason with RP if he doesn't consider his father as a dictator? They fear that even though he is saying the right stuff, he lacks the political and academic analysis of Iran's past... Basically they want him to acknowledge the same information that all opposition "leaders" are acknowledging about Iran's past, and if he does this, they will probably welcome him to the discussions...

Except for this RP has (and I would argue that this is his major problem) no intention of becoming a leader of the opposition movement or creating a democratic party with him as the leader. All RP is talking about is creating a democratic platform, but imho this can only be done if you at the same time run as a democratic candidate. If you don't show the people a democratic alternative (a specific party and leader), then the democratic platform can never be created. A democracy without democratic parties is useless. This is of course one of the problems with the green movement aswell.

There is big difference of becoming a symbol for democracy, which I think RP is somehow aiming at (a sort of a symbol where a monarch protects democracy), and actually campaigning with a party for democratical change. In RP's case, people get very suspecious when they see that RP is not actively working as a democratical candidate, but instead as a promoter of democracy. They fear that he one day wants to become the king of Iran and therefore they are careful with him.

If you read RP's Q&A on his homepage, when he is called "your majesty" or when people say "I hope the Pahlavi dynasty will be restored in Iran" he does not complain or comment. Obviously he is leaving the possibility of becoming a future monarch in Iran very open. This of course doesn't sound well in the other opposition leaders ears.

UPDATE:

FROM RP'S Q&A MAY 2011:

"

Reza Pahlavi: Dear Parviz, As stated in question 6 of January Q & A,
I have explained my vision of tomorrow's Iran, and I have written three
books on this which may be found on my website. I encourage you to read
my books as I have answered all these questions. However, I am not
seeing myself as a political leader in the sense of offering you a
political program
- that will be the job of whomever will end up being
in charge of the government of Iran in the future, either the prime
minister or president. What defines the limitations of power will be the
constitution and I do not see any role for myself as an elected
official to play a role in the governance of the country.




My
only vision right now is the unity of all secular minded people who
seek a secular parliamentary democracy for Iran as the opposition to
this regime, and the overall premise of the campaign being based on
non-violence civil resistance with international cooperation.


"

This is his own words. He doesn't want to engage in politics in Iran as a candidate (which is sad). So what is left is if people want monarchy in Iran, then he will probably run for becoming the king.

I don't know why he insists of not becoming a candidate because the opposition could use his caliber. He would be more accepted by the youth than any other candidate. Unfortunately I believe that if he would become a candidate then that would erase his chances of ever becoming a future monarch in Iran, which would anger his royalistic supporters... So you see, there are a lot of problems regarding RP's "background" and therefore others (better or worse) will take the role of opposition leaders...


amirparvizforsecularmonarchy

At 53.33 regarding what do Irans Democrats want?

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

How about engage irans democrats and meet with their democratic leaders instead of saying they are not present?  Start by Asking to meet with www.rezapahlavi.com , ask and you shall receive.  He not only has access to someof Irans most popular democratic leaders, he is popular by virtue of standing for Iranian Culture, Freedom and Democracy.

Moving to a military solution with the Hezbollahi Regime of Iran with out meeting with Irans Democratic Leaders and giving them a chance would show historic negligence on the prt of the USA.

Mr Milani of course there are people to talk to when It comes to Iranians democratic aspirations, who do you really work for?, how deceitful and manipulative of you, I would recommend you Mr Milani go to www.rezapahlavi.com

Mr Alfone lost all credibility at the 106.30 when he called the regressive khomeini and Khameneii Modernizers, what a big dirty lie, the only modernizer and creator of an educated middle class was the late Shah, he was the only progressive of Irans leaders. IRI were never modernizers.  They specialized in stealing freedom not providing it like the shah.

As for slow decay Mr Sadpour, for IRI, I think that if your definition of slow is next 5 to 10 years I agree or else another 50 years would work against democracy for Iran as none of the good the Shah accomplished will remain by then. 


Ari Siletz

33:10 to 44:25

by Ari Siletz on

Interesting and fact based analysis by Ali Alfoneh on Iran's march towards a military dictatorship. The analysis is only as thorough as 10 minutes allows, but Alfoneh manages to present enough data and evaluation to outline a convincing argument.


Demo

Problem(s) Sharing + +

by Demo on

the Audience + the Location + the Speakers!!!


پندارنیک

This is my problem with this panel

by پندارنیک on

Its audience.


Mehrban

An hour and eleven minutes well spent

by Mehrban on

Make sure you listen to this program in its entirety if you care about Iran's current politics.

Probably the best I have seen/heard so far of its type. 

Ali Alfone (?) whom I did not know prior to this presentation is impressive in clarity and depth of analysis within this format so are Karim Sajaadpour and Abas Milani.    Thank you Mehdadm for posting.