Abbas Amanat: Iran Protests, Mahsa Amini, History, CIA & Nuclear Weapons | Lex Fridman Podcast #334
abbas amanat agi ai ai podcast artificial intelligence artificial intelligence podcast hijab protests iran khamenei khomeini lex ai lex fridman lex jre lex mit lex podcast mahsa amini mit ai theocracy yale
Abbas Amanat is a historian at Yale specializing in the modern history of Iran. Please support this podcast by checking out our sponsors:
- Henson Shaving: https://hensonshaving.com/lex and use code LEX to get 100 free blades with your razor
- InsideTracker: https://insidetracker.com/lex to get 20% off
- Onnit: https://lexfridman.com/onnit to get up to 10% off
- ExpressVPN: https://expressvpn.com/lexpod to get 3 months free

EPISODE LINKS:
Abbas's Website: https://history.yale.edu/people/abbas-amanat
Abbas's Books:
1. Iran: https://amzn.to/3zzLWVA
2. Apocalyptic Islam and Iranian Shi'ism: https://amzn.to/3h66fU0

PODCAST INFO:
Podcast website: https://lexfridman.com/podcast
Apple Podcasts: https://apple.co/2lwqZIr
Spotify: https://spoti.fi/2nEwCF8
RSS: https://lexfridman.com/feed/podcast/
Full episodes playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrAXtmErZgOdP_8GztsuKi9nrraNbKKp4
Clips playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrAXtmErZgOeciFP3CBCIEElOJeitOr41

OUTLINE:
0:00 - Introduction
0:58 - Mahsa Amini protests in Iran
19:15 - Propaganda
36:54 - Iranian culture
53:43 - Violent suppression of protests
1:15:11 - Islamic Revolution
1:32:54 - CIA in Iran
1:49:10 - Supreme Leader Ruhollah Khomeini
2:20:07 - Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei
2:28:02 - Nuclear weapons
2:36:18 - Israel
2:50:58 - Putin
2:58:31 - Future of Iran

SOCIAL:
- Twitter: https://twitter.com/lexfridman
- LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lexfridman
- Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/lexfridman
- Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lexfridman
- Medium: https://medium.com/@lexfridman
- Reddit: https://reddit.com/r/lexfridman
- Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/lexfridman
 This is not a nice Islamic fatherly regime. Clear signs of fascism, clear signs of the state control and pay any price to stay in power. So even violence. Extreme violence. The following is a conversation with Abbas Aminah, a historian at Yale University, specializing in the modern history of Iran. My love and my heart goes out to the Iranian people in their current struggle for freedom. I hope that this conversation helps folks who listen understand the nature and the importance of this struggle. This is the Lex Freedman Podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here's Abbas Aminah. Let's start with the current situation in Iran. On September 16th, protests broke out in Tehran and quickly spread over the death of a 22-year-old Maqsa Aminah. Eyewitnesses saw her beaten to death by the morality police. This is a heavy topic, but it's a really important topic. Can you explain what happened? The protests are now in their sixth week. The death of that young woman, a Kurd, who was visiting Tehran as a tourist, sparked something very deep that particularly concerned the younger generations. That is what you would call the equivalent of the Z generation in this country. They call themselves the Haish Tadi in Persian because Iran follows the solar calendar of its own. It's an ancient solar calendar. And the time that they were born, they were in the 1380s. That's what they call themselves, Haish Tadi. 80s, Haish Tadi for the 80s. And well, the circumstances that surrounds the unfortunate death of this young, beautiful Kurdish woman is really tragic. She was arrested by what is referred to as the morality police, morality patrol called the Gashdeh Ershad, guidance police, that is. Presumably there were two women fully clad that is officers serving on that force and two men. And nobody exactly knows what had happened. She had been beaten up and apparently there was no sign of any wrongdoing on her side. She was fully covered. It seems that there was some altercation in the process. And the outcome was that she was unconscious, not necessarily when she was arrested, but in the course of the detention, when they take them to a center, presumably to re-educate them. And she apparently collapsed. And maybe my sense is that she must have had some kind of a problem because of the skull being broken or something had happened. And she died in the hospital the next day. And that through the social media was widely spread throughout Iran. And almost the next day, surprisingly, you could see this outburst of sympathy for her. People are in the streets weeping because she was seen as such an innocent young woman, 22 years old, and the family, the mother and the father, also mourning for her. And being a Kurd visiting Tehran, this all added up to really turn her into some kind of a martyr of this cause. And that's what it is. And her picture, graphics that were artistically produced based on her portrait has now dominates basically as the symbol of this protest movement. And the protest movement goes on. Everybody was thinking, or at least the authorities were thinking that is going to die out in a matter of a few days. But it became more intense, first in the streets of Tehran by young women, mostly probably between, I would say, 17, 18 teenagers to 22, 23 or thereabouts, and then to university campuses all around the country. And then even to high schools. And that also made it a very remarkable protest movement because first of all, it involves the youth and not necessarily the older generations. You see them around, but not as many. Also, you see men and women together, young girls and boys. And they are adamant, they are desperate in the sense of the tone of their protest. And they are extremely courageous because they stand against the security forces that were immediately were sent off to the streets. So, and in full gear, that is. So what are the currents of pain, emotion? What is this turmoil that rose to the surface that resulted in these big protests? What are the different feelings, ideas that came to the surface here that resulted in such quick scaling of this protest? Well, if you listen to the main slogan, which is the message of this movement, it's called women, life, freedom. Zan, zendeghi, azadi, which is a translation of actually the Kurdish equivalent, which is close to Persian being in the European language. And it's apparently initiated first in the Syrian Kurdistan, where they were fighting against the Islamic Daesh forces because they were attacking the Yazidis there and the women being enslaved. But the message as it moved, or historians are interested in this kind of trends. So it has moved to Kurdistan and from Kurdistan, now being the message of this movement, reflects pretty much sums up what this movement is all about. Women in the forefront, because of all the, one might say, discriminations, the treatment, the humiliation that this younger generation feels, well, not only the younger generations, but most of the Iranian secular middle classes since 1979, basically, for the past 43 years. And they would think that these all basically symbolized or represented by the wearing the mandatory varying of the hijab, which is at the core of this protest. You see the young women, if you look at many of these clips that comes through in the past six weeks, women in streets take off their mandatory scarves, which is a young shawl, or some kind of a head covering the soul. And they throw it into the bonfire in the middle of the street, and they dance around it and slogans. So there is a sense of complete rejection of what this regime for 43 years have been imposing on women. It's not as it sometimes been portrayed, a movement against hijab through and through, but it's basically says, there has to be a choice for those who want to wear hijab and those who want to remain without hijab. Yeah, the hijab is a symbol of something much deeper. Much deeper. And actually, before we get into that, it's interesting to note that in many of these demonstrations, you see in the university campuses or in the streets, you see women with hijab, young women with hijab, are next to those who have to remove their hijab and they're together basically protesting. That's the most interesting feature of these demonstrations. And then men and women together against the segregation that the regime has imposed upon them all these years. Now, in terms of what it represents, as I pointed out, one is the question of the whole series of one might say civil and legal discriminations against women. You are considered as a kind of a second-class citizen. You depend on your men. There's a kind of a patriarchy that has been institutionalized in the Islamic Republic in a very profound fashion. And that means that probably in matters of divorce, marriage and divorce, in matters of custody of your children, in matter of inheritance, in matter of freedom of movement, you depend on your husband, your father, your brother, a male member of your family, your child, your son, could be the case. And because of that, obviously a younger generation who is so well informed through social media knows about the world as much as an American does, American kid does, probably sometimes more. They're very, very curious. It's from what I hear or sometimes that I met a few of them outside Iran. You'll see that how this new generation is completely different from what the Islamic Republic wanted to create in its social engineering. It's basically the failure of 43 years of the Islamic Republic's act of imposition of a certain so-called Islamic values on women. Then it's a matter of education. You would see that there is segregation in the schools. One of the issues that now, right now, is at the heart of this demonstration is that self-services in many of the campuses of Iranian universities are segregated, male and female to different rooms, to different halls. Now they are breaking through the walls virtually everywhere and sit together in order to basically resist the authorities who wants to impose segregation. In matters of appearance in the public, of course it may seem to us as kind of trivial and secondary, but appearance is important. Clothing is important. How you would imagine yourself is important. They don't want to be seen in the way that the authorities would like to impose upon them as this kind of an idea of a chaste Islamic woman who is fully covered and is fully protected, the idea of a male member of the family protects the female. That is what you would see at the heart of this rebellion. And of course that goes with everything else. The second part of this message, the idea of life, basically means if you like to use the American equivalent of this pursuit of the happiness, that's what they want. They want fun. They want music. They want dancing. They want to be free in the street. They want to have girlfriends and live freely. And don't be constantly looked by the big brother to tell them what to do and not to do or not to do. So that they share virtually with the entire Iranian society as a whole. Although the older generations, that's a big puzzle, but you would see that the older generation don't, so far at least, don't take part as extensively as one might imagine. And this is a variety of reasons. Perhaps we can get to that later on if you like. But as far as this younger generation, they don't care. They don't listen even as much to their parents as the older generations did. So, or one might say even the nature of the relationship between the parents and the youth has changed. It's not the concept of, again, a patriarchy that a father or even a mother would tell the daughter or son what to do. That's basically they have to negotiate. It's fundamentally a rejection of the power of authority. Parents, government, it's that every person can decide their own fate and there's no lessening of value of the wisdom of old age and old institutions. Precisely, that's what it is. And they are surprisingly aware that where they are as a generation, so it's a sense of pride as we are different from the older generation. From your parents who compromised and lived with the restrictions that the Islamic regime put on you. Your grandfather, your grandparents was the generation that actually involved in the revolution of 79. The parents, which were the middle generation, and these are the third generation after the revolution of 1979. And therefore they differentiate themselves in terms of their identity from the older generation. So that's the life part of it. I think one can go more and more they want to access. And they see on social media what happens in the rest of the world. They're well aware. They're much better digitally skilled than my generation, for instance. And they know about all the personalities. They know about all the celebrities. They know about all the trends that goes outside Iran. So that's a second part of this message. And then of course the third part is the word Azadi, meaning freedom or liberty, which is this long standing demand of the Iranians, I would say for the whole century, ever since the constitutional revolution of 1906. Iran has witnessed this problem of authorities that usually emerged at the end of a revolution to basically impose its own image on the population, on the youth, and create authoritarian regimes of which over the course of time, I would say that the Islamic Republic is the worst. The sense that its intrusion is not only in the political sense, for instance, banning the freedom of speech, meddling with the elections, banning political parties, all kinds of that things, which are the political or civil freedoms, but its intrusion into the personal life of the individual, which is the worst kind in a sense, as you would see that there is always an authority that basically dominates their life or monitors their life. So, and they do it in a kind of a very consistent fashion, which makes this idea of freedom so important as part of the message of this new movement. You would see that in today's Iran, there are no independent political parties. There is very little probably freedom of the press. I wouldn't say that it's entirely gone, but it's fairly limited. There's enormous amount of propaganda machine which dominates the entire radio and TV system in Iran. It's completely in the hands of the government. And of course, you would see this variety of other tools for trying to indoctrinate Iranian population across the board. So that's another sign of this kind of a sense of being totally left out. You're not belonging to what's going on in terms of power, empowerment and disempowerment. So that's the situation as far as the idea of a freedom of this concept. And this three somewhat miraculously and perhaps unintentionally, the three parts of this message compliments each other because perhaps for the first time, we see that women are in the forefront of a movement. I hesitate to say revolution because I'm not particularly happy with revolutions. Revolutions worldwide in Iran have always been so miserable in terms of their outcome that we have to be careful not to use the word revolution again. So that's where it stands now. And the regime was thinking that, well, these are kids, they're going to go away. And then of course, they're completely conspiratorial in their thinking. They constantly think that these are all the instigations and provocations of foreign powers. These are the great Satan in the United States, this is Israel, or these are the, it's actually the Supreme Leader says in so many words, his only response so far that he had in past six weeks with regard to these demonstrations is that these are the children of the Savak, Savak being the security forces of the Shah's time. That's 43 years later, he claims that the children, 16, 17 years, 20 years old kids in the street are the grandchildren or children of some imaginary survival of the Shah's security forces. So there's the idea is that these protests are internal, and external saboteurs, so people trying to sabotage the government. Yes, and they are misled as far as they can go. And then there's the great Satan in the United States and other places are controlling, sort of either controlling the narrative, feeding propaganda, or literally sending people to instigate. I don't think that they have, I don't think even they have that kind of imagination, precise to say what you have said, that they would say that they're controlling the narrative. They basically say, no, these are agents of the foreign powers and their families are all sold out and they are basically lost their loyalties to the great Islamic Republic. And therefore they can be treated so brutally, they can be suppressed so brutally, which I haven't actually said what they're doing because I thought perhaps first we should talk about who these kids are in the street before we move on about the response of the government. But one major factor which seems to add to the anxiety of, well, the regime is extremely anxious now because they're in a position, this shows that they don't have the lack of confidence in a sense, that they would see them reacting in a very forceful way because basically they don't seem to have that kind of a confidence to allow this message or the movement to be aired. But the one element which corresponds to that is that there is a expatriate population of Iranians worldwide. They are probably now, according to some estimates, close to 4 million, even more, Iranians abroad, and they're all over the world from Australia and New Zealand, Japan, Western Europe, Turkey and United States and Canada. So just to give you one example, last Saturday, there was a mass demonstrations in Berlin by the Iranians from Germany and all over Europe, Western Europe. And it was at least, I think probably the conservative estimate was about 100,000. So 100,000 Iranians showed up in Berlin demonstrating against the treatment of the women in Iran or the movement in Iran. The government thinks obviously this must have been some instigation by foreign powers and they want to destroy the Islamic Republic. And not only that, but their propaganda is kind of ridiculous because I listened actually to how they portrayed it in the newspapers. I listened to the Iranian news that is officially controlled, government-controlled news. And in the papers, there's much of the papers that are in the control of the government. One of them or actually the major news program portrayed the demonstrations that 10,000 people showed up in Berlin and protested against the rising prices or rising rates for gas and oil in Germany. So that's how they mislead in a very rather stupid fashion because probably 95%, if not 100% of the Iranians are listening to Persian-speaking media outside Iran. So it's a BBC Persian, there is Iran International, there are at least five or six of them. That's probably really important to highlight that Iran is a very modern and tech savvy nation, not just the young people. Probably more than I feel sometimes when I compare myself to what they are doing. It's 1979, the earlier years, for a decade or two, they tried in a very crude fashion to restrict access to media outside Iran because it's all through dishes. And satellite dishes are everywhere. If you look at the buildings, it's small towns and villages in Iran. There's always a dish. And they watch all kinds of things through this. And particularly because of what's happening now, they listen to all the news broadcasts from all this media and they're extremely active. There are probably some of them even 24 hours or close, very extensive coverage of every clip that comes through. So what the government is doing now, the Islamic Republic, is that they restrict the entire internet. They shut down the internet. They shut down the internet, but they cannot afford shutting down the internet because much of the business, much of the everyday life, much of the government affairs depends on the internet like everywhere else. And Iran is extremely, if I hear from many of the colleagues and friends, it's like in certain respects, it's like Sweden. Where you go there, there's no more currency. And for a very good reason, because there's so much inflation that the banknotes are worthless in a sense. So everything is through sweeping your card. And that entire system is in standstill because people cannot buy food. You go to the supermarket, that's how you would do it. You order food to come to your house, which Iranians, at least the middle classes, more prosperous middle classes doing all the time. So they deliver everything. And because of the COVID, it became even more. And they have to pay all through this system. So what happens is that now they're estimating that every day $50 million, the Iranian government or the Iranian economy is losing because of slowing the internet. Plus the frustration is growing because you can't order food. Among other things. I mean, they are in touch with, I mean, WhatsApp, every Iranian, virtually every Iranian that has education. And education in the sense that has gone through the high schools and universities knows how to use the WhatsApp. So there's a big middle class, like you said, secular middle class in Iran. And there's a lot of at least capacity for, if not revolution, then political, ideological turmoil. And a huge amount of hatred. So the hatred is growing. Yes, hatred of the policies, of the regime, of isolation. That's a huge point that you hear a great deal about. That we don't want to be isolated. We don't want to be humiliated. Iran is not about this miserable regime that is ruling over us. We have a great culture. So there's a sense of a pride in their own culture. Some of it, Islamic, some of it pre-Islamic. So there's a huge sense of a pride in that. And they see that they cannot communicate with the outside world. They want to travel abroad, which they do. I mean, for one thing, the Iranian regime never actually, for majority of the population, never put restrictions. It's not like, what is it, Soviet Union, where you have to have a, you used to have a permission to move from one place to another. And then of course, the Islamic regime since 1979, basically chased away or destroyed the old middle class. It was my generation, basically. My parents here, they say, these are the secular middle class of the Pahlavi era in the hope that they can do this social engineering and create this Islamic society of their own. The bad news for them was that that didn't happen. And that memory persisted. And the middle class that was created since past 40 years is much larger in size than what it was because there was, of course, the demographic revolution. That's a very foundation of it, is the demographic revolution. Population in Iran, I've written an article about it, actually. Population in Iran since the turn of the century, last century, that's 20th century. Population of Iran was about 9 million or so. It's now 83 million. And that is since 1979, the population was 35 million. Between the past 40 years, it's basically doubled. So it's 83 million. Although one of the great successes, I don't want to bore you with the details about the demography, but it's important. These demographics is not boring. This is what, you can see that the birth rate was very high. Otherwise, you wouldn't have doubled your population in a matter of four decades. But Iranians, because of the urban shift to an urban population, because of the growth of the middle class, because of the education, they basically, the pattern of the, of growth, population growth changed. Iran used to be 2.8 or 3% birth rate in around 1980s, I would say, 1970s, 1980s. Now, it is 1.1. And it's probably the most successful country in the Middle East in terms of the population control. Despite the government, a consistent attempt to try to encourage people to have more kids. Middle class refuses to do that. And this is middle class, not only anymore in the capital, but this is very smaller towns and cities, places that used to be villages. Now you look at them, they have a decent population, 50,000, 100,000, and they live urban life and they don't want to be subjected to that old pattern of agrarian society when you had 10 children or eight children. And of course, it's a much more advanced in terms of health and medicine. So you don't lose children as they used to. The antibiotics, there's always kids to survive. And therefore, if you have 10 kids, you stick with 10 kids. You don't end up with four as it used to be in the past. Six of them would have died up to the age of five, actually. But now because of that, you see that this urban population in the cities have completely different demands. And of course, the education is important. That's another area of how the social engineering of the Islamic Republic went array because they were thinking that the growth of the population, the growth of the educated, higher educated middle classes in their benefit, or they could not even control it in a sense. Now Iran in my time probably had in the 1970s, probably by the time of the revolution, had 10, 12 universities. Now it has 56 universities all across the country. And there is something referred to as the free university, Azzad, which has campuses all over the country. It has 321 campuses all around Iran. What does that mean? In many respects, this youth that are brought up in these families, even in a small towns in very traditional families, in families that belong to that kind of a more religious, loyal to the clergy or to the clerical classes, their children can now move on, particularly women. Because in my times, it would have been unheard of that you would have a young woman of 18 or 17, 18, 19 from a traditional city such as for instance, Yazd or in Southeast Iran to move on elsewhere for education as you do in this country. Now it's completely accepted that a woman wears a job because he's forced to wear a job, to go to a university completely on the other side of the country. And this movement of the population, not only because of the universities, but in general, if you now visit Iran, you hear accents, local accents, provincial accents all over the country. That is a Azerbaijani Turkish accent from the north west of the country. You can hear it in the first province in the south and vice versa. So, and Kurdish for instance, or even more marginal regions such as Sistan province in the Southeast of Iran, which has been the subject of this recent massacre when they actually attacked the population when demonstrating and killed a fair number at least 60 people. So this movement of the population, this creation of a larger middle class, the better educated middle class, much better educated. Iran has 86% literacy, which I think probably, I haven't checked that, but probably is better than Turkey even, is probably better than anywhere else in the Middle East. And it sounds like that's quickly increasing. So because of the movement, because of the growth of the education system, that's not- Precisely. Iran has 1 million school teachers, which may not seem as much if you're in the United States, but it's a fairly big number actually. Can you linger on the massacre? What happened there? Well, the Sistan province is a Baluch ethnicity of Baluch ethnicity. Baluch is a particular ethnic group in southern Iran, which is stronger than Shi, majority. And we should say that most of Iran- Is Shi. Is Shi, and that's a branch of Islam. Shiism, yes. Let's maybe just briefly linger Shiism and Sunni. What? What? Just, let's not get into it. Yeah, I don't want to. Let's do a one sentence summary and that maybe which is what most of Iran is. Majority of the population of the Muslim world are Sunnis. That are, these are mainstream if you like to call it. Actually, Sunna means that kind of a mainstream. Can you actually linger on the Sunni, Sunna, Shi, Shia? Shia means party, means those that belongs to a party of Ali, which was, goes back to the early Islamic history of seventh century. I mean, I'm almost lingering to the silly notion of pronunciation and stuff like that. So, ah, ah means part, like what, what does the extra ah at the end do? Shi-i means belonging to the Shi community. Shi-a means a person of a Shia. That belongs to that community. If you say, are you a Shia? Yes, I'm a Shia. Yeah, and Shi-i is the community. And in English, when it was Anglicized, it becomes Shiite. So if you say Shiite in today, it's perfectly acceptable. And of course, I myself in my writings, I always switch between one and the other. One of my books is always Shiite, the other book's always Shi. And that hasn't been settled. But the Shi population is the smaller compared to the Sunni population in the world. In the world. In the world. But in Iran, it's the opposite. The Iran and Iraq, and possibly not Lebanon, are the three countries who barely, Iraq and Lebanon have barely majority Shi population. Whereas Iran is a large Shi population due to its history of conversion to Shi's and that by itself is another story. But in the sense that the way that historically it evolved, the center became more Shi, and the peripheries remained Sunni. So you have communities of the Baluch in the Southeast, you have the Kurds, a large portion of the Kurds are Sunnis. They have Shi's as well. Then they have the indigenous religion of their own, it was called Ahl Haq, which is the religion of indigenous to Kurdistan. There are Turkomans in the northeast of Iran who are also Sunnis. There are other communities, the Khorasan region, in the peripheries of Afghanistan. They are also Sunnis. And you have some Arab population, Arab speaking population in the Khuzestan province, in the southwest of Iran, which is also, or across the Persian Gulf. Is there a lot of conflict between these regions? And also, if I blindfolded you and dropped you off in one of the regions, would you quickly recognize the region? By the food, by the music, by the accents, by so on? Yeah, the answer to your lovely question, which I think, I hope it would have happened to me, is that yes, you would see different cultures. Yes, but different food, most important, different accents or different languages, since they have dialects. Baluch is a different language altogether. But, or so for that matter, Kurdish, which is closer to Persian because they are all Indo-European languages. But Turkish, Azeri Turkish, which is probably closer to the Turkish of Turkey, Republic of Turkey, or to the Republic of Azerbaijan in the north, they are the same, basically. Actually, if you would have looked, that's a fascinating picture. If you have looked at the, let's say even 19th century, early 20th century, linguistic map of Iran, you would have been amazed in the number of dialects, in the number of languages that have survived. This is an ancient country, it's an ancient land. And it's a lot of mountains all around it or big deserts. So there's a sense of isolation. So you would say here and there, you see a different community that speaks differently. All ancient traditions and languages. Yeah, and because of the great number of invasions that Iran witnessed over more than two and a half millennia, of course, there are all kinds of cultures that were introduced into Iran. There are all ethnicities were introduced to Iran, mostly coming from the northeast of Iran, from the lowlands of Central Asia and beyond and continued into Iran proper. So, but now what has happened, that's my point that I wanted to make, century of modernity or modernization has produced a national culture of great strength in a sense. I would say I ended my book, the book on Iran, Iran and Modern History, basically saying that despite everything else that has created so much trouble for today's Iran, there is a sense of a cultural identity that is very strong. And I think I can say with some confidence that despite this regional identities that are still there and they're great and they should be celebrated, today, if you go to Kurdistan or if you go to Sistan, they all can speak Persian. They all have an education in Persian. So they all basically are becoming part of whether they like the regime in power or not. They have a sense of belonging to a culture and an identity with the center. And of course, the idea of a center versus periphery in Iran is very old. It goes back to ancient times because even the name of the country was the guarded domains of Iran. This is the official name of Ma'malek Mahrusi, Iran. Namely that it was recognized that this is not just one entity, but it's a collection of entities. Like the United States of America. Exactly, exactly. But the United States of America, in a sense you can say that it was a very successful, well, it remains to be seen how successful. To be continued. To be, that was basically invented, created that you would have this sense of it. In the case of an old nation, which has been on the map of the world for 3,000 years, 2,500 years, this is not an exaggeration. I'm not a nationalist per se, but I mean, if you look Persian, the map of the world in ancient times is still there as it is today. Very few countries in the world are like that. That they would have that kind of a continuity over a course of time. And that's not without a reason, because there was this sense of a center versus periphery that had found some, there's a huge amount of tension, but there is also a sense of belonging to something. And state is very much at the center of it. I mean, that's why the concept of a state matters for the creation, for the shaping of this culture. What happened is therefore, you can see that today in answer to your point about traveling blindfolded, is that you would be surprised to see how much people share in terms of, I just give you one anecdote. In 1968, I believe, must have been, I traveled to Azerbaijan. I used to travel and actually photograph. Not blindfolded. No. Mostly. Well, yeah, not blindfolded. No, not blindfolded. So I went to a bazaar in the city of Khoi, which is in the northwestern Iran, on the border with what is today the Republic of Turkey. And I went to the bazaar and I was interested in the kind of a leather work that they produce. So I tried to buy some stuff and I was surprised to see how few people knew Persian. So they could not communicate in Persian with you. Either they have to ask somebody from some other store to come and translate for you. This is 1968. 1968. So even though it's the official language for Persian, of the country, they're still, yeah, so what are they teaching in school? So it doesn't matter. It was Persian. But this guy, he hasn't been to the school or he was not fully exposed to it. And bazaars usually are very conservative places. So it stuck in my mind. Now, recently in 2004, I was traveling to the same area, not to the same city, but to the same area. And I was amazed to see how the youth, as soon as they would know that you're coming from somewhere, opening conversation with you, talking about the latest movies that was produced in the west, and it's not only Hollywood. Of course, there's a huge amount of fascination with Hollywood and western cinema. Cinema is a major thing. Filmmaking is a major thing. So these kids in the city of Ahar were asking me if we're having lunch. They're asking me, okay, then what do you think about this producer, not producer, this director or that actor? American. American, European as well, but mostly American. Were they speaking Persian? It was a complete Persian that I would converse with them Do they speak English too? Interesting. Yes. Actually, you would be surprised to see what percentage of the Iranian youth, at least in big cities, are fascinated with learning language. And for a reason, because they think that's the way to get access either on social media or eventually leave Iran, unfortunately. And because they don't see a future for themselves in the country, either you have to be part of this regime, or if you hate them and you don't like the way of their life, you look up outside. I was having drivers to drive me around the country in the cities around Iran. And the guy was young, extremely well-educated, well-dressed, and we would have looked at him, we could have found him in any street, in any country in the Western world. And his major concern, knowing that I'm from outside, major concern is, well, tell me which would be a better place for me to go. What's wrong with the place that you're in right now? You are in your own country, you speak your own language, now this is no good. I have to have a better future. This has no future for me. Well, it's really interesting because the thing I feel about the protests right now is there's a large number of people that instead of giving into cynicism about this government is no good, they're actually getting this energy, this desire for revolution in a sort of non-violence, in the democratic sense of that. Let's actually find the ideas, let's build a great nation here. This is a great nation, this is my nation, let's build something great here. Well, that's my hope. That's what I'm hoping for. I share your aspiration, but I'm fearing that I hope it's not a wishful thinking. Certainly that's what they want. Certainly that's what they want to create. But the historian always tells you from where they start to where they finish, there is going to be a huge kind of a change. And in this particular case, I would very much hope that it's not going to be a revolution like the 1979 Islamic revolution. And I have my hopes in that. For one thing, this is a revolution that doesn't have a leader, okay? And it seems that they're comfortable with that, at least so far, because we are the sixth week of this movement. And I hope it's not going to be actually a revolution, as I pointed out before. I hope it's going to be more of a sense of trying to come to some compromise and gradually move toward change rather than a collapse of this regime and replacement with what? So the anxiety of the regime, you hope, will turn into a kind of realization that you have to modernize, you have to make progress, you actually have to make certain compromises or constitutional changes, all this kind of stuff. So the basic process of government and lawmaking. The problem is that they say we have it all. We have our parliament, we have our constitution, we have our elections, which has all been, of course, fake. But they claim they have all of that. But the problem for them is that they try to superimpose a certain ideology, like all other ideological autocracies or autarkies, as in this case, that tend to dominate all these institution buildings that they have. They constantly claim we have this, we have that. And of course, it's a generational thing. The upper echelons of this regime are mostly older people, turbaned, they are the clergy, that are afraid of the fact that they may lose their control over their whole system, that it was a sophisticated, huge system of government. And they rely on certain tools of control, which is the Revolutionary Guards and other institutions that are loyal to the regime. And they spend enormous amount of funds that is available to them at least before the sanctions. But even during the sanctions, they still have enough funds to do so. And in order to remain in power, and they're extremely ruthless in that regard. This is not a nice Islamic fatherly, very religious, very religious thing. This is not a nice Islamic fatherly regime. This is a regime that I would see easily in it. Clear signs of fascism, clear signs of the state control and pay any price to stay in power. So even violence. Extreme violence. To return to the massacre, what were the uses of violence to suppress protests? Well, yes, it was actually quite remarkable to see that from the first or the second day of the protest, you see out in the streets this riot police, okay? Which comes out in large numbers, fully geared up. Their appearance are rather terrifying, like any other riot police, probably more than any other riot police. They are violent. They stand in the streets when the students are demonstrating, even in smaller number. Because before I go to that, I should point this point, this out to you as well, that these demonstrations are not large ones in one place. You don't see 100,000 people in one place. But you see in every neighborhood, a couple of thousand of kids are demonstrating. All over Iran? All over Iran. Now all over the world in different parts? Yes, yes, yes. Actually, during the demonstrations three weeks ago, as I said, they had people in Sydney, Australia, New Zealand, Tokyo, all over the world. All protesting high gas prices, it's funny. Everywhere. To the extent that they could be ignored, nothing but if they could not be ignored. And it's actually quite remarkable that this is very embarrassing to them. But somehow they think that this propaganda machine of them is working. I'll say you think they don't have a good even sense. I mean, so there's an incompetence within the propaganda machine. Yes, it is. There's an incompetence across the board. I mean, despite all of this massive government administration or whatever you would call it, all these various components of it, there is a sense of inefficiency and incompetence that is associated within every action that you see, even in their suppression of this street movement. But in answer to that question, you would see that this riot police, it's quite obvious that they were trained for the purpose. So their appearance, everything, these are not just regular army forces or soldiers, conscripts, they are professional forces. And they come not only on foot number, but they come on motorbikes. So there are, you would see any of these demonstrations, there are 10, 12, 15, 20 motorbikes with two passengers, one in front riding, the one in the back, fully equipped with the baton, with paint guns, with pellet guns and with bullets. So they are very fully equipped and they are terrifying. They go through the demonstrations and hit and beat people. And then the arrests. And then you see behind the first line of these riot police, you would see all this latest models of these special armor trucks for moving to the demonstrations and arresting people, throwing them into this. And then behind that, water cannons, you see. And I was looking at that and I said, okay, this is Tehran probably, they have this. But then you look at the smallest cities, they still have the same thing. So all over the country, one thing that they had managed to produce extensively, irrespective of the fact that whether they are effective or not, but you see them everywhere. So it shows that how afraid this regime is. But that also shows that there's an infrastructure that can implement violence at scale. Yes, very much so. And it's probably part and parcel of this regime. From day one, the number of prisons that they have, according to perhaps an exaggerated version, they said that about 12,000 or so arrested that are in jails today, since past six weeks. They were 230 or 40 people were killed, including children. Under 18, they beat up women in the street, which is extremely actually disturbing when you see these scenes. So there's a lot of this is on video too, right? Everything is on video. Everybody has a camera and everybody sends to major news outlets outside Iran. And they immediately showed every night, if you look at BBC Persia or Iran International, or if you are, I think there's six of them actually. All over the earth, in England, they are in Deutsche Welle in Germany, which has a particular interest in the Iranian. BBC World Service and so forth in London and Voice of America Persia here in this country. There is another one Radio Fado, which is also funded by the American government, also fully covers all of these events. So there is no way that these people can, that the Iraq can miss what's going on in the streets of these demonstrations and the scenes of beating up women, which in Iranian culture, as I presume in most cultures in the world, there is a certain sanctity that you don't attack women, but they do. And this is an Islamic regime that supposedly have to have a certain sense of concern and protection. Well, like a protection, like a deep respect for women grounded in a tradition of protecting them, but instead this kind of idea that was instilled in law has turned into a deep disrespect of women. Exactly, or fear that these women are not any longer the girls that we thought we are bringing up in this society. The source of you losing your power will be these women. That's the fear. Yes, yeah. And you see, of course, this government do have a support base. I mean, it would be totally wrong to think that the Islamic Republic has not created its own power base. It does, but it's probably, if there's no way, there are no statistics that you can, or I'm not aware of any statistics that can give you numbers, what's the percentage of support for the regime in Iran. But quite frankly, I don't think it's more than probably 10% of the population. Be very generous. I would be surprised if it's that low. I would say, so if my understanding, because I've been very deeply paying attention to the war in Ukraine, to Ukraine, to Russia, and to support in Russia for Putin, I think without knowing the details, without even considering the effects of propaganda and stuff like that, is there's probably a large number of people in Iran that don't see this as a battle of human rights, but see it as a battle of conservatism, like tradition versus modernization, and they value tradition. That what they fear from the throwing away of the hijab is not the loss of power and the women getting human rights. What they fear is the same stuff you fear when you're sitting on a porch and saying, kids these days have no respect. Basically, there's a large number of Iranians that probably value tradition and the beauty of the culture. And they fear that kids with their internet and their videos and their revolution will throw away everything that made this country hold together for millennia, right? Yes, I know. I would agree with you in the sense that probably like everywhere else in the world, this is a generational thing. Every generation thinks differently about the younger generation, no doubt. And in Iran is the same. But there is another factor here is involved. Those that we would consider them as traditional no longer seem to have their loyalties to this regime. That's powerful. Meaning that they consider it as a brutal regime that is prepared to kill children in the streets and does a lot of things wrong. Of course, it tries to take care of its own power base. There's a very strong sense of, if we start here, there's a very strong sense in this regime that there are people that is theirs and there are others which are not theirs. There's a word for it, even in Persian. They call it Khodi, one of us, okay? Oh, so it's a, well, that's very fascistic. It's like- Yes, yes. All for that matter, I suppose Soviet Union, if you were a member of the party and your children would have received a special kind of treatment yourself as well. This sense of us versus them, for a while worked because the younger people coming from the countryside to the cities, certain fact, certain sector of them would have found protection and support from the government. They wanted to belong to something and the mosques and the morning associations in the neighborhoods and so forth would have given them. There's actually a term for it. It's called Basij. Those have been recruited by the state. And this is the youth kind of vigilante, if you like, that you can see them also in these demonstrations. Sometimes thugs, they're called the civil cloth. So the people that comes to these demonstrations that start beating up these young people and they are not in security police uniforms, but they are just regular cloth. And these people, yes, they still support and they still benefit because they get jobs, they get privileges, and these are very important for a state that basically monopolizes most of the resources. You see, even during the revolution, even during the sanction, let alone before the sanction, the oil revenue of Iran, which is the major source of the state government, was the monopoly of the state. It was monopoly of the state during the Pahlavi era from the start, basically. So what does that mean? That means that the regime in power is no longer particularly accountable to the majority population because it extracts wealth from underground, and it uses it for its own purposes in order to make it more powerful, in order to make it more repressive than what it is the regime today. So it feeds a small, or I wouldn't say, but a fair number of its own supporters. I mean, the revolutionary guard in Iran is probably about 350,000 or something like that. It's a very big force. And this is not the regular army. The revolutionary guards are independent from the army. Revolutionary guard is armed forces controlled by the state. Yes, the same as the army, but these are more ideologically tied up with the state. And they're also in-facing, internal-facing? What's their purpose? What's the stated purpose of the revolutionary guard? Well, from day one, when the revolution succeeded, the Islamic regime in power was vulnerable to all kinds of forces of opposition within Iran itself. Prevent further revolution. Yeah, that's the revolutionary guards, and their job was to try to make sure that the regime stays in power. And of course, over the course of 40 years, they became more powerful, more organized, better funded, better trained. Well, at least we think they're better trained, but we don't know because the level of incompetence perhaps can be seen through the rank and file as well. But they developed their own military industry. I mean, those drones that you see now, Putin's regime are throwing on Ukrainians, poor Ukrainians. Those are all built by the revolutionary guards, by the military industry under the control of the revolutionary guards. And like similar regimes in the Middle East, at least, these are military industrial complexes. You can find them in Egypt, of course, which is very powerful, very traditionally, has been in power and still is in power. You find them in Pakistan, which is extremely powerful, and they can change the prime ministers as they did in the case of the last one. You can find them probably in Myanmar, is the same phenomenon. And if you look around, you can find quite a number of them. And the revolutionary guards is equivalent of that. This is a powerful establishment force, which militarily is powerful, industrially is powerful. And since the start of the revolution, they have been given projects. So you want to build dams, which they did a major disaster, environmental disaster. They built 100 and something dams all across the country. This is the revolutionary guard who does it. So they have all kinds of tentacles all around the country, controlling various things. And because it's their job and they have power, they have prestige, there's a huge incentive to- Join them. To join them into state. So like they, when they're having dinner at home with their families, there's not an incentive to join the protests, sort of. Well, that is the point. I think, and revolutionary guys may be an extreme, but many of the people who depend on this state for their support, now the younger generation are telling their parents, you are wrong. You don't provide for us this society, this state does not provide what we want. So there is a dissent within the family. It seems to me, I hope it's not a wishful thinking. You know, there is a kind of a joke going around. You see this, a terrible guy is the clergy bearded and traditional clerical appearance. When you see them talking about women, they are very, of course, politically incorrect. They are very looking down towards women. As I said, you know, they have to be inside. They have to be protected. They have not to be seen and so forth. But if they have a young person, a young daughter in their family, you see that their discourse changes. They no longer seem to be referring to women as second class citizens. Yeah. So that's very important. That's precisely that point. That when you have this younger generation, no matter how privileged they are, and many of them are privileged, you know. And there is also, the regime has created its own privileged class that are not necessarily directly paid by the regime, but they benefit from contractors, certain professions that benefit from what the state provides for them. And Iran is, I mean, the past 40 years, you can see Iran has developed in terms of material culture remarkably. Iran has good communication, has roads all over the place. It's not like, it's more like, I don't know whether you have ever visited Turkey, for instance. In certain respects, even more advanced than Turkey, but it's closer to that, rather than if you travel. I don't want to bring particular names. In North Africa or parts of the Middle East or other parts of the Islamic world, it's much, much different. So in this respect, you would see certain contrast or paradoxes here. On the certain respect, there's the growth, there is urbanization, there is modern economy. On the other hand, you see this superimposed ideological, doctrinal aspect that has driven the regime over all these years. And they cannot get rid of it. They cannot, in this respect, they cannot modernize themselves. They think that they are already perfect in ideological sense. This is the best solution for the world, not only for Iran, but for the Muslim world and for the world as a whole. We are anti-imperialist. We have managed to survive either under sanctions. This is all part of the rhetoric. But of course, at a huge expense, the huge expense for their own population. And the point that you have raised is the fact that we now witness there is not only a generation gap between the youth and their parents, but there is a break in a sense from the older generations. And they are very distinctly the youth that has a different view of the world and does not want to compromise. Whether they would be able to succeed or not remains to be seen. Whether this regime is going to suppress it, maybe. But it actually brought to surface many of aspects of the weaknesses of this regime in power. Well, I hear from a lot of people that are in these protests now. And so my love goes to them and stay strong because it's inspiring to see people fighting for those things. The women, life, and freedom, especially freedom. Because that can only lead to a good thing in the long term, at least. And if possible, to avoid a violent revolution. Of course, that is something that we all want to see. Before we return to the present, let's jump around. Let's go to the past. We mentioned 1979. What happened in 1979 in Iran? Well, in 1979, there was a revolution that eventually came to be known as the Islamic Revolution. Even up to this day, many of the observers or those who have strong views that would not like to refer to it as an Islamic Revolution or even a revolution. Because the nature of it in the earlier stages of it started really probably around 1977, it took two years. Was much more all embracing. It was not Islamic in a particular fashion or at all, in a sense. It started with a kind of a very liberal, Democrat agenda, which required, which demanded mostly by people who were the veterans of the older generations of Iranian liberal nationalists that were left out in the Pahlavi period. It's a period of the Shah became increasingly authoritarian, increasingly suppressive, and therefore basically leaving no space or no political space open for any kind of a give and take, any kind of a conversation or participation. That was in the 70s. 70s, 70s, particularly in the 70s. Can we actually even like just do a world wind review from 1906 to 1910? From 1906 to 1979. Okay, sure. In 1906, there was a period, actually as you might know, the first decade or so of the 20th century witnessed numerous, what we refer to as constitutional revolutions, including Russia 1905, the first revolution, including the Chinese revolution in 19, constitutional revolution in 1910, the Young Turks revolution in 1908, and the Iranian revolution in 1906. Do you understand why the synchronicity of all of it, why in so many different places, very different cultures, very different government? Very different cultures, but all of them in a sense were coming out of regimes that became progressively powerful without having any kind of a legal system that would protect the individual vis-a-vis the state. So the idea of law and the constitution according to which there should be a certain protection, a certain civil society became very common. Yeah, but I wonder where that, because that's been that way for a very, very long time. And so I wonder, you know, it's funny, certain ideas, just their time comes. Exactly, it's like 1848, when you would see that there's a whole range of revolutions across Europe. Yeah. Or you would see, for instance, the Arab Spring, you see all these revolutions in the Arab world, which unfortunately nearly all of them failed. So yes, these are very contagious ideas that moves across frontiers from one culture to another. And I presume we can add to that there are two elements which one can say there was a greater communication, there is a greater sense of a world economy. And the 10th of the century witnessed the first decade of the century witnessed a period of volatility, particularly in currency. So many of the countries of the world, particularly non-West, suffered in, and particularly the businesses suffered. And not surprisingly, the business class were in the forefront of many of these constitutional movements requiring the state to give the kind of a, create the right kind of institutions to listen to their voices, to their concerns, and the creation of a democratic system, parliamentary and system in which there would be representation, popular representation, proper elections and so forth, and constitutions. And this very much is a kind of a French idea of the constitution going back all the way perhaps to 1789 revolution, Montesquieu, all this kind of philosophy were greatly appreciated, particularly the French system. So what were the ideas in the 1906 Iranian constitution? They precisely the same. They were demanding a creation of a legal system with division of power between the three executive, legislative, and the judiciary, not unlike the American system. And they requested basically a certain public space to be created between the two sources of power. The state, which had this kind of a control over the, if you like, the secular aspect of life in the society, and the religious establishment that had a full control over the religious aspects. And both of them from the perspective of the constitution is considered as repressive. And therefore there has to be a new space open between these two. And that was the idea of a constitutional revolution. By its very nature, it was an idea of modernity. They wanted the modern society. They wanted a better material life. They wanted more representation and so forth. The constitutional revolution, as I always would say, is much more of an institutional revolution but much more of an innocent revolution. It's a revolution that did not particularly have much violence in it, contrary to many other revolutions. It did not have a centralized leadership per se. That's why actually I'm getting, I mean, besides the practices, I'm getting a lot of requests for interviews to compare what's happening now with the revolution of 1906, 1909. Are there any echoes? Yes, yes, there are. Because that was a movement that started without a centralized leadership. But actually various voices that emerged in various, among the merchants or the businessmen in the economic community, among the representatives who came to the first parliament, the press, the new generation of the privileged aristocracy who were educated and believed in the constitutional values, all of these voices emerged at the same time. And somehow they managed to coexist in the first and the second parliaments that were created between 1906 and 1910 or 1911. But they all faced huge problems in the sense that Iran was in a dire economic situation. This is before the days of the discovery of oil, which actually coincides in the discovery. There are two important coincidences. One is that the oil was discovered in the South in 1909. During the course of the constitutional revolution. The second is that in 1907, the two great powers of the time, the Russian Empire and the British Empire, who always honored Iran as being a buffer state between them, because they didn't want to get too close to one another, basically came to an agreement facing the fear of the rise of the German Empire. So this is the period of Entente, as you might know in European history, whereby the French, the British and the Russians all create an alliance that ultimately leads to the first world war against Germany. And at the same time, the discovery of oil, that the oil industry being a very powerful defining factor of the 20th century for Iraq. Exactly. A source of a lot of money. A lot of money, but not all of it in the hands of the Iranians. Only one fifth of it, by way of royalties, came to Iran. Much of it went to the Anglo-Persian oil company, which they actually discovered the oil in the province, Khozestan province in the southwest of Iran, where the major oil industry is today right now. And this was an extremely profitable enterprise for that company and for the British government. It was actually purchased by the British government. Churchill purchased Anglo-Iranian oil company for the British government. So it was not anymore a private company. It was a British interest, as a matter of fact. And in the course of the 20th century, although it helped the modernization in Iran, but it also helped the creation of a more authoritarian, more strong state, if you like to call it. That 19th century Iran never had that kind of a power, never had that kind of resources. In the 20th century, even that one fifth of the income that reached the Iranian state gave it a greater power. That's another coincidence. So yes, yes, you could say the oil was one of the catalysts for absolute power. But the 20th century saw quite a few countries have dictators with power unlike anything else in human history. That's weird too. Precisely. And you know, you can name them from the beginning of the century with people like, I don't know, Lenin, Stalin, of course, Hitler. Mao. Mao, of course, you can name them. And probably, as I would say, the last of them is Khomeini in that century that you would see this strong man with a sense of either artificial or real, or a sense of so-called charisma. And with this total power over the regime that they create. In the, some of them do, Nasser, he didn't have much of an oil resources in Egypt, but he was also one of these strong men, okay, in the 20th century, loved by some, hated by others. So it necessarily does not tie up to economic resources underground. But in the Iranian case, unfortunately, it did. And it was a, it was more than, it created more than one issue for Iran. It's created a strong state, which is the Pahlavi state, from 1921 onward. Because in 1921, at the end of the First World War, Iran was in almost a state of total bankruptcy. And the British had a desire to try to bring Iran to the system that they created in the Middle East in the post-war era, the mandate system, Palestine, Iraq, and then, of course, French mandate of Lebanon and Syria, all of this. And Iran was separate because Iran was an independent country. It wasn't part of the Ottoman Empire that collapsed. So they had to somehow handle it. And what they tried to do didn't work. As a result, partly domestic, partly international issues brought about a regime which is headed by the founder of the Pahlavi dynasty, Reza Shah. Okay, first, a military officer called Reza Khan, actually a military officer of the Cossack forces. And the Cossack forces was the force that was created in the 19th century model of the Russian Cossacks. When the ruler in the 19th century visited Russia in a royal tour, and the Tsar showed the great Cossack forces and said, I like this. And he created one for himself with Russian officers, actually. So the Russian officers served in Iran from around 1880s up to the revolution of 1917, the collapse of the Tsarist regime. So many revolutions. So many revolutions. And Reza Shah was an officer in that, Reza Khan was an officer in that force. And he created a new monarchy for reasons that we need not to go into. And it's called the Pahlavi regime. The Pahlavi regime was a modernizing regime, okay, that brought a complete, in effect, fulfilled many of the ambitions of the Constitution, many of the aspirations of the constitutional revolution. Better communication, better secular education, centralized states, centralized army, better contact with the outside world, greater urbanization. That's what a modern state is all about. And in that regard, in a sense, for the first 20 years up to the Second World War was successful. Despite, and more significant of all, it managed to keep the European powers, which was always interfering in the local affairs of Iran, in an arm length. So they were there in an arm length, but they were also respecting the power of the state, power of the Pahlavi state. During the Second World War, the same phenomenon as earlier interference led to the occupation of Iran by the allied forces, the British from the south, the Russians from the north, the Red Army. They took over Iran, and of course they said... The Second World War. Yes, from 1941 up to 1945. And of course, when the Red Army refused to withdraw from Iranian Azerbaijan and with some thought of possible annexation of that province, there was a big issue in the postwar Iran. So after 1945... Yes, 1945 to 1946, there was a big... Soviet Union getting greedy. Yes, but eventually they agreed. Eventually Stalin agreed to leave the Azerbaijan province in the hope that it would get some concessions from Iran, which in the oil of the Caspian era, area, which didn't work, and it's a different story altogether. But what happened is that in the postwar era, between 1944, 1945 and 1953 is a period of greater democratization. It was that Reza Shah's dictatorship basically disappeared. And this is where you would see political parties, free press, a lot of chaotic really, as democracies often are. So something like, was it officially a democracy? Yes, it was a democracy. Was there elections? There were elections, yes, of course. And there were very diverse political tendencies came to the picture, including the two-party of Iran, which is Communist Party of Iran. This Communist Party of Iran is probably the biggest Communist Party of the whole of the Middle East, and one of the biggest in the world actually at that time. Did the Soviet Union have a significant influence on the... Of course. They were basically following orders from the Soviets. Although they deny it, but in reality that's the case. But what happened, they were seen by the Americans during the Cold War as a threat. And Iran was going through a period of demanding nationalization of its oil resources. That's a very important episode with Mosaddegh, whom you might have heard about his name. Dr. Mohammad Mosaddegh was the prime minister and the national charismatic leader from 1951 to 1953. Prior to that, he was a famous parliamentarian. But this period, he was the prime minister of Iran. And he nationalized the Iranian oil industry, and the British didn't like it at all. And eventually resulted in a famous coup, which at least partly was supported by the funding and by the moral support of the British and the Americans, particularly by the Americans. It was always seen as one of the earliest and the most successful CIA operations during the Cold War. So CIA had something to do with it? Yes, of course. That's one of the earliest operations of the CIA. Wait a minute. What was... Yes, of course. What was the CIA doing? CIA, this is the time at the post-war era. In the 50s. In the 50s, 40s and the 50s. The British Empire, which was really the major superpower of the region after the collapse of the Tzariist Empire, gradually took the second seat to the Americans who were the newcomers and the great powers and the victors of the Second World War. And the Americans viewed Iran as an important country since it has the largest common borders with the Soviet Union. And it was... I did the South, was the Persian Gulf, which at the time was the greatest supplier of oil to the outside world. And therefore the Americans had a particular interest in Iran. And in the earlier stages, their interest was in the interest of the Iranian government, because they wanted to get rid of both the Soviet Union, which made a return in the post-war era, and of course the British that were gradually withdrawing from Iran. But they had full control over the Anglo-Iranian oil company. They changed the name to Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. When the name of the country officially changed from Persia to Iran, in the West, the name of the company changed. And they got into a huge dispute with the Mazardek government that eventually led to the coup of 1953, which eventually created a very distressful memory in the minds of many of the Iranian nationalists, that this was the betrayal of the great powers, the British and Americans. Yes, CIA played a part, because CIA feared, contrary to the British, that they were afraid of their own oil in Iran, the CIA was afraid of the Soviet penetration in the South, and particularly because there was a very powerful Communist Party in Iran, the two-day party of Iran. So they gradually shifted between the Truman administration and Eisenhower administration. These are early days of the CIA. And then they actually did participate to send their agents. There's a long story to that. And it eventually resulted in a successful coup that removed Mazardek from power. What's the United States' interest here? Why are they using CIA? Are they trying to make sure there's not too much centralization of power in this region? They were afraid of the Soviet Union and during the Cold War. That was their concern. They actually almost want to protect Iran and its own sovereign processes from the influence of the Soviets. Yes, because they were afraid of the fact if Iran, or at least this is part of the, I'm simplifying a very complex picture, but the Americans basically were thinking that if Iran is going to be lost to Soviet influence, then eventually basically all the oil resources in the Persian Gulf are going to be threatened. And this basically is the national security of the United States and all of the Western allies, European allies. So in a sense, this was the long arm of the CIA to try to make sure that that's not going to happen. And then of course they were persuaded by the British. The British were the old hand, which were in Iran since the beginning of the 19th century. They always had relations with Iran and so forth. So they gradually replaced. And of course I don't want to give them this kind of a satanic view that the Americans was a bad influence because they had also some very good influences in Iraq. But this particular episode somehow shed a dark light on the American presence and was used at abused time and again, particularly the revolution in 1979, was this great satan idea that Khomeini created. Basically it was based on the fact that in 1953 you were responsible for the downfall of a national government in Iran, which as a matter of fact, he had no respect for it. Khomeini had no respect for the secular national liberals, including Mohammed Mossad. But he was using it as a rhetorical tool for his own purposes. But what happened is that after 1953, we see again the rise of authoritarian Mohammed Reza Shah's power. And that he is, that's the Shah? That's the Shah, that we know as Shah. This is the son of Reza Shah. And technically what is Shah? Shah is an old term in Persian that comes from a pre-Islamic Persian of ancient times. So in the context of democracy, should it be seen as like a supreme leader, king? Is the head of the executive power, according to the Constitution of 1906. Oh, that's in the Constitution, the actual term Shah. Of course, he has a place in the Constitution. But the actual term Shah, okay, interesting. But the Shah is a very old term. Yeah, it's almost like a monarchic term, like a king. Yeah, it is actually is a term peculiar to Iran. I've written about it somewhere. But because the term that the Western world in the ancient times has been Rex for royalty and the king. In the Eastern world in India is Raj, is the same origin, the same root. Iran never shared that. They had the idea of, because Rex and Raj, I don't want to get into too much of etymology, but this is an interesting one. Rex and Raj both means the one that opens the road for basically enforcer of religion. Okay. Enforcer of the right religion. Because Rex and Raj both have the etymological origin of right. You see, and right means the right religion, basically. By the way, there's so much beautiful language here. I'm just looking at the Persian Constitution in 1906, and it says it's the constitution of the sublime state of Persia, Qajar, Iran. I mean, just the extra adjectives on top of this stuff is beautiful. Yeah, because that was actually the change that came about. I don't want to go too much into it. But it was called, as I pointed out before, the guarded domains of Iran. They changed that to the sublime state of Iran during the Qasutian Revolution, because they wanted to give a greater sense of centrality of the state. And sublime was the term. But also, what permeates all of this is a poetic... I mean, there is a history of poetry to the culture, which is fascinating. So, I mean, of course I don't speak the language, but in Russian there's also a music to the soul of the people that represents itself in the form of poetry and literature in the way that it doesn't in the English-speaking world. I don't know what that is. There's a romantic side to it. Romantic side, that's right. Yeah, I agree with you. In Iran, of course, there's a time of the constitutional revolution, there's a time of great poetry. There's kind of a patriotic sentiment that comes through poetry, which plays a very important part. Of course, these days poetry has kind of declined. And instead you see the visual image that is at the center. That's why cinema is so important. Kids these days with their TikTok. Yeah, let me finish this about the period of Muhammad Reza Shah. He built up because he received a greater income from the oil revenue, and he built up a very strong state with a strong security force, a strong security apparatus, which is the SAVAK, which is an acronym for the security force, security organization. And he, of course, unfortunately, in the 1960s and 70s, particularly 1970s, basically suppressed the voices of or possibility of any kind of mass participation in the political process. It became very much an authoritarian regime with its own technocrats, very much a modernist vision of Iran's future, and almost kind of messianic that he was hoping that Iran in a decade would become the fifth most powerful state in the world, and the riches, as he would have said, the gates of the great civilization, very much in the mind had this image of ancient Iran of the Achaemenid Empire. And we want to go back to that greatness of the Achaemenid Empire, somewhat rather naive and very nationalistic in a crude fashion. And what happened is that as a result, there was built up some kind of a resistance from the intellectuals, from the left, eventually resulting in a kind of a protest movement, as I said, by 1977, 1978. Then, of course, the question that comes to mind, and they probably, you would like to know about, is the fact that why it becomes religious, why it becomes Islamic, if it's the popular nationalist liberal tendency of opening up the political space and allowing greater participation, going back to the Constitution of 1906, 1907, why it's all of a sudden, it becomes Khomeini, where does he come from? The reason for that, at least in a concise fashion, is the fact that on one area that after the greater suppression of all the other voices remained open was religion. Mosques, the mullahs on the pulpit, and the message that gradually shifted from the old traditional message of the Sharia of Islam, I mean all the rules and regulations of how one has to live, into something very political, and not only political, but also radical political. So, in the whole period from the Constitutional Revolution to the Revolution of 1979, basically the religious establishment gradually was pushed to the opposition. They were not originally very conservative supporters of the state, as the Catholic Church, for instance, was supportive of the majority of the authoritarian governments around the world. But the politicization was the result of isolation, because they were left out of the system. And while in isolation, they were not successful in trying to reform themselves, to try to become, to try to find answers to many of the questions of modern times. What happens to women? What happens to civil rights? What happens to civil society? How modern law and individual freedoms have to be defined in Islamic terms? How to separate religion and state? Or how to separate religion and state. These issues were never addressed. What happened is that there was this bypass through political Islam, and revolutionary Islam, as gradually they learned, you know, that this is the bypass. Bypass to power, basically. To become again a voice in the society, and eventually a prominent voice, and eventually a monolithic voice in the society. That's the process that led into the revolution of 1979, basically. This period, greater attention was paid to religion, even among the secular middle classes, who were alienated for a very long time because of this extensive modernization of the Pahlavi period. They didn't have a sense of that old mullahs with their turbans. But they became, they had a kind of aura in this period. Yes, they are those who remained not corrupted. They are the people who basically went against the suppression of the Pahlavi regime. And Khomeini became a leader, a symbol of that. Nobody ever thought in the earlier stages. And among these very excited multitudes that came to the streets of the Iranian cities in 1979, or 1978 actually, thought that this old mullah in the 70s, that all of a sudden has appeared from Najaf, through Paris to Tehran, is going to take over and create a religious autocracy. We have to back up for just a second. Who is Khomeini? You just mentioned a few disparate facts about the man. He was the person that took power in 1979, the supreme leader of Iran. You mentioned something about Paris, something about being in the 70s. What should we know about the guy? Ayatollah Khomeini, who eventually was known as Imam Khomeini, he was kind of promoted to an even more sublime position. Okay, can we, just a million tangents. Ayatollah, Imam, what do these terms mean? Well, Ayatollah means the sign of God. In the course of the 19th century or early 20th century, as the religious establishment gradually lost its greater presence in the society and its prominent places in society, they had some kind of inflation in titles. So they gave themselves more grand titles. Yeah, more adjectives. More adjectives, more grand titles, such as Ayatollah, that became a kind of a highest rank of the religious hierarchy, which incidentally was in unofficial hierarchy. It's not like Catholic church that you have bishops and so on. It was a very unofficial model. And he was an Ayatollah, was eventually recognized as an Ayatollah. He wasn't the first Ayatollah? No, no, no, not at all. The Ayatollahs were before him ever since the beginning of the century. But he was eventually recognized as an Ayatollah. And if I want to start it this way, Ayatollah Khomeini was born in 1900. And in a sense, all this tremendous change that Iran witnessed in the course of the 20th century was in a sense materializing this person. He became a mullah of a lower rank, went to the traditional madrasas, to the traditional centers for the education of the seminarians, never had a secular education, had a very complex Islamic education on this one hand jurisprudence, on the other hand probably a little bit of Islamic philosophy and mysticism which is unusual for the jurists, for the faqih as they call them, these religious scholars or legal scholars of Islam. And then he in the 1960s when he was residing in Tehran and gradually becoming more important, he became a voice of opposition against the Shah. And the reason for opposition in the early 1960s was the fact that the Shah carried through a series of extensive modernization policies of which the most important was the land reform. So in effect the land distribution that took place in the early 60s removed or weakened greatly that class of landowners from the 19th century. And Khomeini saw himself as a voice of that old class that felt that actually declared that this land redistribution is un-Islamic. According to the Islamic law property is honored and you cannot just no matter how much and how large are these estates that the landowning class has, the government has no right to redistribute it even among the peasants, among the people who are tilling the land. So that was a major issue. The Shah also gave the right of vote to women. And that also he objected, he said women should not have a right. Can we just linger on the Islamic law? How firm and clear is the Islamic law that he was representing and embodying? Is this… Codified? Yes, it's a good term. That's another issue. Not only the hierarchy was unofficial and informal but also Islamic law, particularly Shia law, did not have any codified system because these religious authorities always resisted becoming under an umbrella of a more codified system of Islamic law because they were outside the state in a sense. Civil law was in the hand of the religious establishment. They had their own courts independent of the state. But other matters, legal matters, was in the hand of the government. There was a kind of de facto division between these two institutions, the state versus the religious establishment. Therefore, it was not codified. So he could declare that this is unofficial, I'm sorry, illegal according to the Islamic law, that you would distribute land to the peasants. And another mujtahid or another religious authority would say, no, no, it's perfectly fine because he would have a different reading of the law. So that being in mind, that adds to the complexity of the picture. In the 1963, there was a period of uprising of the supporters of Ayatollah Khomeini. That was a turning point in a sense to try to politicize the religious supporters of Ayatollah who were loyal to Ayatollah Khomeini. And in a sense, all the community of more religiously orientated against the secular policies of the Shah and against, of course, the dictatorship of the Shah. So that's where the religious movement became a political party. In 1963 is the first moment, it's a huge uprising, and the government suppressed it. But then suppression would start to build. Of course. And he was sent to exile. He went to Najaf, which is this great center in southern. So he became a martyr on top of this. A martyr, he was probably even forgotten to some extent. But not, it was forgotten for the secular middle class, but not to those supporters of his who were paying him their dues. Because in Islam, you would pay dues to religious leaders. There's religious dues and alms that you put paid to the clerical authorities, and they redistribute them among their own students and so forth. So they built actually a network of loyalty based on these donations. And these donations that received by Ayatollah Khomeini was very effectively through his network, was distributed, even if he was in exile at Sa'di Ra. So in 1977, 1978, when the situation changed and there was a little bit of opening in the political climate, then you saw that Ayatollah Khomeini started sending cassette messages. That was his mean of communication. He was sending cassettes and cassettes were sent through the country by his network. So all declarations and saying first that we would like to see a greater democratization and the Shah has to abide by the Constitution of 1907. This is a constitution, this is a democratic system and so forth. Was he charismatic? Well, it depends who would call, what do you call charismatic? He had a long beard. He was kind of a man in turban and the gown, which was a very unusual leadership for people who were much more accustomed to the civilian clothing or to the equipments of the Shah's military uniforms that he used to wear. But I also mean like he is a man who was able to take power to become popular, sufficiently popular. So like I would like, is it the ideas, is it an accident or is it the man himself, the charisma or something about the man that led to this particular person basically changing the tide of history in this part of the world in a way that was unexpected? All the above that you mentioned. Or was it just the beard? No, I think it's beyond the appearance. The appearance greatly helps, as you know. In the 20th century, appearance is helpful. Pictures for propaganda, for messaging. That's an important factor. And he was a kind of adamant and very severe in his own positions. He could appear very uncompromising. And he had a sense of confidence, self-confidence that virtually everybody else lacked. And he was a man of opportunity. As soon as he would see that a chance and opportunity would open up, he would jump on it. And that's what he did basically. As more the political space opened, the weaknesses of the Shah's government became more evident. His indecision became more evident. His lack of confidence became more evident. Khomeini managed to move further into the center of the movement because he was the only authority that had this network of support through the mosques, through the people who paid homage to him, who followed him. Because there's a sense of following of the religious leader in Shiazat. You are a follower of this authority or a follower of that authority. And he's basically created an environment in which people looked upon him as a kind of a messianic figure that came to save Iran from what they considered at the time the problems of dictatorship under the Shah. So there's not a suspicion about Islamic law being the primary law of the land. Not at all. People had very little sense that what Islamic law is all about because the secular education has left that into the old religious schools. This is not something that ordinary educated Iranian who goes to the universities is going to learn. Therefore, there is a sense of idealization that there is something great there. And there were quite a number of intellectuals who also viewed this kind of an idea of they would refer to as West toxication, that is this civilization of the West that has brought with it all the modernity that we see around ourselves has enormous sinister features into it. And it has taken away from us our authenticity. That was the thing that there is something authentic that should be protected. And therefore, a man in that kind of a garb and appearance seemed as a source for return to this originality of their own culture, authenticity of their own culture. And he perfectly took advantage of that. That is Khomeini. Took advantage of it and the circle around him at the expense of everybody else, which he managed in the course of 1979 to 1989, which he passed away. He died in the ten years during this period, managed to basically transform the Iranian society to create institutions of the Islamic Republic and to acquire himself the position of the guardian jurist. That was something completely new. It didn't ever existed before. As a matter of fact, as you might know, the model of government that a religious establishment takes over the state is unprecedented throughout the course of Iranian history, throughout the course of the Islamic history, I would say. This is the first example and probably the only example of a regime that the religious establishment that has always in the course of Iranian history ever since I would say probably at this 16th century, if not earlier, has been always separate from the state and always kind of collaborating with the state with certain tensions in between the two of them. There were two basically, as they would call themselves, the two pillars of stability in the society. That situation changed for the first time the religious establishment took over the power of the state. And that's at the core of what we see today as a major issue for Iranian society. Because these are basically that old balance between the religion and the state, which was kind of a de facto separation of the authorities of the two, has been violated. And now you have in power a theocracy in effect, which of course only in its appearance is theocracy. Deep down, in my opinion, it's a brutal fascist regime that stays in power. But it has the appearance of religion into it. So this is really the story of the revolution. And as a result of that, the Iranian middle classes greatly suffered. It's not without reason that you see four million Iranians abroad. Because basically the emergence of this new power gradually isolated or marginalized the secular middle class who could not survive under that regime and gradually moved out in the course of perhaps 30, 40 years. Up to now, Iran has the largest, I think I'm right to say so, has the largest brain drain in any country in the world. So. In proportion to its population. So fascinating that how much of a weird quirk of history is it that that religion would take hold in a country? Like, does it have to do with the individual? It seems like if we re ran the 20th century a thousand times, we would get the 79 revolution resulting in Islamic law like less than, you know, one percent of the time, it feels like. Or no. Which percentage would you put? Well, I think it has something to do with the very complex nature of how Iran evolved over a long period of time since the 16th century. That's why if I would for a moment talk about what I have written, I've written a book that's called Iran and Modern History. And it does not start in the 20th century. It starts in the 16th century. Because that's what I've argued that this complex process that at the end of the day resulted in what we see around us today is something that was in making for a very long time. And religion was a big part of it. She and the the Messiah complex. Exactly. The longing for this great vision of a great nation that somehow is the sublime nation that can only be fully sublime through through religion. Or at the time it was thought that is true religion ever since then. It's disillusionment with that image. Or at least a process of disillusionment. The outcome of it is what we see today. Basically, that process of 40 years is a process of readjusting to the realities of the world. That that great moment of romantic success of a revolution, like most revolutions, of course, that is going to change Iran and bring this kind of a moment of greatness led into this great disappointment. It's a movement of the great disappointment in a sense. Like most messianic movements, by the way, the general movements are always leading into great disappointments. But what I have here that perhaps should be added to it, that yes, it was a peculiarity of Iran as a society that had to experience this eventual encounter between religion and state. That's something to do with the nature of Shiaism. That's just one point that should be pointed out. Most of Sunni Islam don't have that kind of, I say most because there is something there. But Sunni Islam in general does not have that kind of an aspiration for the coming of a messianic leader. Shiaism does. Shiaism is very shaping, particularly the way that it was set up in Iran, was a religion that has always this element of expectation to it for the coming of this messianic leader. Of course, I mean, between practices, all societies look for messianic leaders. I mean, just look around us. But some societies more than others. There's certain culture. It might have to do with the romantic poetry that we mentioned earlier. I mean, surely, I mean, not to draw to me in parallels, but the Soviet Union, there is romanticism too. And I mean, I don't know. It does maybe idealism. A sense of a savior who would bring you out of the misery that you're in. And always looking for a third party to solve your issues. That's why probably this movement has a particular significance because it probably doesn't look for a messiah. Although I was talking to my brother, who is a historian also, and he was saying perhaps the messiah of this movement is that Mahsa Amini, the 22-year-old girl that was killed. The seven martyred messiah who is now leading a movement which no longer has that charismatic leadership with it. But yes, I would say that Iran has been the birthplace, if I might say that, of messianic aspirations. Going back to the ancient Zoroastrianism, which is really the whole system that you see in major religions, at least so-called Western religions, Abrahamic religions, is parallel or perhaps influenced by Zoroastrianism, in which there is an idea of this world and the other world is hereafter. There is an idea of a judgment at the end of the time. And there is a concept that there is a moment of justice that is going to come with the rise of a religious or a charismatic figure. So it's a very old phenomenon in Iran, very old. And it's time and again repeated itself in the course of its history, but never as powerfully as it happened in 1979. And never in the form of authority from within the religious establishment. It was always the dissent movements that were kind of antinomian. They were against the authority of the religious establishment. That changed in the 20th century. But the revolution in 1979, that change is still with us today. Can we just linger on, are there some practical games of power that occurred in the way that Stalin took power and held power in the early days? Is there something like this in terms of the establishment of the Revolutionary Guard and all those kinds of stuff? So the messianic figure has some support from the people, but does he have to crush his enemies in competition? It certainly did. Probably not, certainly not as brutal in terms of the victims as you would see in Soviet Union under Stalin, who the bloodshed or the destruction of the population was far greater than what you would find in Iran of the Islamic Republic. It's uncomfortable. Perhaps I would find a greater parallel with Mao Zedong, particularly because China has a very strong messianic tradition since the ancient times. So they have something, and Mao appeared as a kind of a messianic figure. There I can see there is a parallel, but also you can see with any other authoritarian regime with a messianic figure at the head of it that it destroys all the other forces. So during the course of the first 10 years of the Islamic Revolution, it destroyed the liberal nationalist secular. It destroyed the guerrilla movements, some of them Islamic, some of them Marxist, who turned into political parties or tendencies in the course of the post-revolution in 1979. They were completely destroyed and in a very brutal fashion. And their opposition even within the religious establishment, because it wasn't a uniform, there were many different tendencies. Those that were opposed to the authority of Ayatollah Khomeini or now Imam Khomeini, meaning almost a sacred religious figure above the level of a religious authority. He's a saint kind of a figure. Shiaism has this idea of imams. There were 11 of them. The 12th is hidden and would come back at the end of the time. This is a messianic figure. So the title that was always used for them only in Shiaism, never used for any other person. He is the first person in the revolution of 1979, first referred to as deputy of Imam. But the term deputy gradually disappeared and he became Imam Khomeini. That's his official title. I love human beings so much. It's so beautiful. These titles that we give each other. It's marvelous to observe. You love it because you haven't been under that system. No, I love it in a very dark kind of way. It caricatures itself. It's almost funny in its absurdity, if not for the evil that it has led to in human history. But also the fact that it's a man, it's in fact fulfillment in a kind of completely unintended fashion. It's a fulfillment of that idea of a messiah that they've been fighting for. This Imam, which is in a heath for a thousand years, is here and not here. And therefore Khomeini would have in effect fulfilled those anticipations. But beyond that, I'll just give you one example I know that you may have other concerns. But when I say elimination, at the end of the Iran-Iraq war, by the direct order of Ayatollah Khomeini, a fatwa that he wrote, a group of prisoners who belonged to a variety of political parties, the left, religious left, majority of them, the left and the Marxist left and the religious left. In a matter of a few weeks, or perhaps a few months, I'm not actually quite sure about the time span, in a series of these were people who have already been tried and they were given sentences. They were brought back before the summary trials of three judges or more, three or four of them. One of them is now the new president of the Islamic Republic, Raisi. And they were given a quick summary sentences which meant execution. So something between probably six to eight thousand were executed in a matter of a month or two months, something like that. Mostly in Tehran but also in provinces. And that remained an extraordinary trauma for the families, for those who had these kids. They're all young, all young. So this remains very much a kind of original sin of the Islamic Republic that cannot get rid of. And it's in people's memories. They didn't allow them, even the families, to go and mourn their dead in an unofficial symmetry which they created for them. Now the latest thing is that they put a huge concrete wall around it so nobody would be able to get into it. So this is all part of this extraordinary level of atrocity, brutality. That you see that the regime claimed that it comes with the morality of religion and Islam to bring back the justice and be more, in a sense, kind to people ended up with what it is in the memory of many of the people in Iran. So developing these fascistic tendencies. Very much so. Destroying minorities. Bahá'ís one of them. Hundreds of Bahá'ís were without any reason, without any involvement, were picked up and executed. The properties were taken over. Their rights were taken away from them, even up to this day. This is the largest, by the way, religious minority in Iran. So you would see that in many areas this acts very much as beyond authoritarian. It's kind of really a fascistic regime. So Hominid held power for 10 years and then took power the next supreme leader who is still the leader today for over 30 years. Who is he? Well, he was one of the, this is Ali Khamenei. Ayatollah. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Imam one day perhaps? No, well they hesitated to use the term imam for him. But in any other respect he was given all of that adulation that they did to Khamenei. He is the guardian jurist. That's what's important. Because the guardian jurist in the constitution of the Islamic Republic is an authority that is above the state. He is not elected quote unquote because this is a divine authority. Although he has been designated by the group of deterrent mullahs like himself. And he has the full power over all institutions of the state. The army, the media, the economy, every aspect of it. He acts like a shah. He acts like this authoritarian authority. Did that gradually develop or was that very early on? Well that's part of the constitution of the Islamic Republic. The first constitution, the first draft of the constitution did not have the authority of the guardian jurist. But then it was added by Khamenei and his supporters. Are there actual in the constitution any limits to his power? Yes, there is a council of the experts so to say that would remove him from power. I think theoretically. But there is so much restrictions to that that I don't think it would have ever happened in reality in his case at least. But in terms of executive to make decisions and all that kind of stuff, does he need to check with anybody? No. He does check with his own advisors, but he doesn't have any constitutional obligation to check on the decisions that he's making. So that's the supreme leader, but there's been presidents. Yes. And what's the role of the president? The president in a sense is the executive power under the Islamic Republic. There are three heads of powers. There is the president that presumably has the executive power. There is the head of the judiciary and there is the head of the speaker of the parliament, Majlis, Islamic Majlis, which is the legislative. So there's a legislative, judiciary and executive. The EC was not a president is the head of the executive above them is the supreme leader or the guardian jurist. Can you give me some insight? Because I especially I'm not exactly sure why, but the president Ahmadinejad is somebody I'm as an American really familiar with. Why is that exactly? But why was why was a president the public facing person to the world versus the supreme leader? Is that just an accident of a particular humans involved or is this by design? No, because the supreme leader tries to keep himself out of issues of everyday politics supposedly. But therefore he is not coming to the United Nations to give a speech during the session. But Mr. Ahmadinejad, who at the time was the president, would come and make outrageous statements. That's why you probably know something about it. So all of them make public statements, but he had a proclivity for outrageous statements. He does all kinds of things, he makes all kinds of statements, but he is somewhat above the everyday politics in theory. But of course, he's pulling all the strings without doubt in every respect. And it seems that you were asked, I thought you were going to ask me this question almost without an exception since the inception of the Islamic Republic in 1979, up to the last of the presidents of the Islamic Republic, Rouhani, before the guy that is last year or a year and a half ago was in a phony election. Got into the position of the president. All of them, and it's a long list, all of them eventually fell out with the regime. So there is no president, except perhaps to some extent Rouhani, but we'll wait and see what's going to happen to him. But prior to him, all of them, including Ahmadinejad, fell out with the regime, with the current regime in Iraq. Who's Rouhani? He was officially president for eight years. Yeah, prior to Raisi. Ibrahim Raisi, the 221, what you're saying is a phony election. Yes, it's a phony election. What happened? What's interesting about what happened? Because the process of actually candidacy for presidency is completely controlled by a council that is under the control of the supreme leader. So they have to approve who is going to be the candidate. So not everybody can enter and say, I would like to be a candidate. So did Rouhani fall out of favor? You're saying there's some... Well, he is kind of out of favor now because he was more moderate than this most recent regime. But the point is that if you look, this is something almost institutional to the regime. This is a regime that rejects all of the executive powers because the division between the supreme authority, as a place of a supreme authority versus the presidency has problematic. It is as if there would be a supreme leader in the United States above all the three sources of power. That's the kind of view that you can see in today's Iran. And of course, he is at the focus of all the criticism that he receives from the demonstrators in today's Iran. So on top of all this, recently and throughout the last several years, U.S. and Iran are in the midst of nuclear deal negotiations. This is another part of the story of Iran is the development of nuclear weapons, the nuclear program. They're looking to restore the nuclear deal known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, JCPOA. What is the history, the present and the future of these negotiations over nuclear weapons? What is interesting to you in this full context from the 16th century of the messianic journey? What's interesting to you here? You can argue that for a long time, even under the Shah, but much more expressively and decisively under the Islamic Republic, there was a determination to have a nuclear power or nuclear weapon in a sense. I think the bottom line of all the negotiations, everything else, is that Iran of the Islamic Republic had the tendency of having its own nuclear weapon. The reason for that is that Iran was subject of nearly nine years, eight and a half years of Iran-Iraq war, when not only Iran faced an aggressor, Iraq, that actually attacked Iran at a very critical time at the very beginning of the Iranian Revolution, but the fact that Iran felt kind of helpless in the course of this war and has to make great sacrifices actually, which supported the Islamic regime and consolidated the Islamic regime because of this war. And most of the time, the support of the United States was behind Iraq vis-a-vis Iran. And Iran felt that it's been isolated and has to protect itself. So there is some argument for having nuclear capabilities. But in reality, this has resulted in a completely mindless, crazy, wasteful attempt on the side of the Iranian regime to try to develop a nuclear power. And therefore, the rest of the world, particularly in this region, were very worried that if Iran would get access to a nuclear weapon, then the entire region of the Persian Gulf might, particularly Saudi Arabia, possibly Turkey, possibly Egypt, all of them may require, may demand to have also nuclear weapons, given the fact that Pakistan and India has already had it. So there was a determined attempt, as you might know, on the side of the Western communities or now gradually world communities to try to, as much as possible, to control Iran from getting access to a nuclear capability or actually limit Iran's nuclear capabilities to what was defined usually in a euphemism as a peaceful fashion. That being said, there was also Israel, which viewed the Islamic Republic as an arch enemy. And some of it might be due to the Israelis' own exaggeration of Iran's threat. And some of it is because Iran has developed a fairly strong military, as we see today. And as such, this attempt to try to prevent Iran from ever getting access to a nuclear weapon, which resulted, as you might know, in these massive sanctions that were imposed upon Iran ever since the beginning of the revolution in 1979 and, of course, more intensively since 2015, 2016, even prior to that, probably a little bit earlier. This agreement, the nuclear agreement, was supposed to control or monitor Iranian nuclear industry or nuclear setup in exchange for removing the sanctions. But this never worked, in a matter of fact, in a very successful, satisfactory way for the Iranians or for the Americans, particularly under Trump administration, which I think foolishly decided to scrap the agreement that was reached under President Obama, like many other policies that was implemented under Trump administration. This created a major problem, that is how to, under Biden, how to try to come up with a new nuclear agreement with Iran. In this process, since 2016, where the United States withdrew from the agreement, Iran felt comfortable to try to go and do whatever they want without any kind of monitor, being monitored by the international community. And that's the situation now. We don't know whether Iran is really sincere under the present regime to negotiate a deal. We don't know that the United States is willing to do so. And it seems that now what is happening in terms of the protests in the Iranian streets makes it even harder in public eye to try to negotiate a deal with Iran. Because that means in the minds of many, and with some justification, that if the nuclear agreement would result in the removal of many of these sanctions, millions, billions, as a result of the removal of the sanctions and Iran's ability to sell its oil in the international market without any restrictions, means that the Iranian government is going to become even more powerful, more financially secure in order to suppress its own people. So that's the agreement that goes against coming to terms with Iran. But the problem is that there is no clear alternative, even I'm not particularly personally favorable, for this agreement to be ratified. But the alternative is very difficult. There is no way to try to see what can be done. Geopolitics where every alternative is terrible. Let me ask you about one of the most complex geopolitical situations in history. One aspect of it is the Cold War between Iran and Israel. The bigger picture of it is sometimes referred to as Israel-Palestine conflict. What are all the parties, nations involved? What are the interests that are involved? What's the rhetoric? Can you understand, make the case for each side of this conflict? You're opening a new can of worms that takes another three hours of conversation. Just three hours? What I can tell you is this. Iran prior to 1979 viewed itself under the Shah as a kind of a, if not supporter of Israel, was in very good terms with Israel. They had an embassy in Iran or unofficial embassy in Iran. They had certain projects that helping with the agriculture and so forth in Iran. But since 1979, that completely reversed. Part of it is that the issue of the Palestinian plight remained very much at the heart of the revolutionary Iranians. You would see that part of the United States guilt, sin, is to support Israel vis-a-vis. It's very suppressive, very oppressive treatment of the Palestinians. Completely illegal taking over of the territories which is not theirs since 1967. And therefore it is upon the Iranian regime, Iranian Islamic Republic, to support the cause of the Palestinians. This came about at the time when the rest of the support for the Palestinians, including Arab nationalism, basically reached a stage of bankruptcy. I mean, much of the regimes of the Arab world either are now coming to terms with Israel or in one way or another because of their own contingencies, because of their own concerns and interests, are really nearly accepting Israel in the region. Now, that old task of rhetorically supporting the Palestinians falls upon the Islamic Republic that sees itself as a champion of the Palestinians now. Without, as a matter of fact, having either the support of the Iranian people behind them. If you ask if tomorrow there would be a poll or a referendum, I would doubt that 80% of the Iranian people would approve of the policies of the Islamic Republic vis-a-vis the issue of Palestine. Nor the Palestinians themselves because the Islamic Republic is only supporting those factions within the Palestinian movement which are Islamic, quote unquote. And even within that, there is problems with Hamas, for instance. But nevertheless, it's for the Islamic Republic some kind of a propaganda tool to be able to use it for its own sake and claim that we are the champions of the Palestinian people. Whether they have a solution, if you look at the rhetoric, if you listen to the rhetoric, it's the destruction of the state of Israel. And that, it seems to me, creates a certain anxiety in the minds of the Israelis, Israeli population, and Israeli government. Particularly those who are now in power, Netanyahu, the Likud, and more kind of a right-wing politics of, policy of today's Israel. That being said, I think also the Israelis try to get an extra mileage out of threat of Iran, quote unquote. In order to present themselves a rightful for terms of security and whatever else. The way that they are treating the Palestinians, which I think is extremely unjust, I think is extremely unwise for Israel to carry on with these policies as they did since 1967 at least, and not to try to come to terms with it. Of course, there's a huge amount of, I'm not denying that at all, a huge amount of failures, mistakes, and stupidity on the side of the Palestinian leadership in various stages, not to try to make a deal or try to come to terms in some fashion. But it's a very complex picture, and it's rather unfair to the Palestinians to accuse them for not coming to terms with Israel under a very uneven circumstances when they are not in a position to try to make a fair deal in terms of the territories or in terms of their security in future vis-a-vis Israel. So I think there is, as you probably know, quite a lot of people that would have a different perspective than you just stated in terms of taking the perspective of Israel in characterizing the situation. Can you steelman their side? Can you steelman Israel's side that they're trying to be a sovereign nation, trying to protect themselves against threats, ultimately wanting to create a place of safety, a place where people can pursue all the things that you want to pursue in life, including foremost happiness? I tend to agree with you, and I have all the respect for the fact that Israel would like to create security and happiness for its own people. But there are two arguments. One is a moral argument. To my mind as a historian, Jews around the world all through their history suffered. And this is a history of suffering. It's a memory of suffering. And I find it enormously difficult to believe that a nation that's the product of so much sacrifice, suffering, loss of life, and a variety of holocausts above all, would find itself in a position not to give the proper justice to a people who could be their neighbors. And that is a moral argument which I cannot believe under any circumstances can be accepted. Second, in real terms, what do you want? Do you want to commit a genocide? Do you have a population there that you have to come to terms with it? And you cannot just postpone as they did. Since 1967, they're postponing and hoping that it goes away somehow. I don't think it's going to go away. And it's going to get worse rather than better. It's a long, nuanced discussion and I look forward to having it. So we'll just leave it there for the moment. But it is a stressful place in the world where the rhetoric is existential, where Iran makes claims that it wants to wipe a country off the face of the earth. It's just the level of intensity of rhetoric is unlike anywhere else in the world. And extremely dangerous. In both directions. So one, the real danger of the rhetoric actually being acted upon. And then the extreme political parties using the rhetoric to justify even a greater escalation. So if Iran is saying that they want to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, that justifies any response. On the other side. On the other side. Of course, I tend to agree with you fully. And unfortunately, this is a very critical situation that this region is facing, Iran in particular. I would say that I hope that in the minds of the people of Israel, there is enough or common sense to realize that probably escalation on the Israeli side is not in the favor of anybody. And try to let the Iranians to go on with their empty rhetoric as they do so far. But at the same time, I cannot deny the fact that there is a danger on the side of this regime and what it says. It cannot be denied. Nobody can justify that. Particularly because the Iranian population is not behind this regime. Certainly in the case of the Palestinians. Or for that matter, it's not Palestine. It's the Islamic Republic's involvement in Lebanon with Hezbollah. It's the Islamic Republic's involvement in Syria with Bashar Assad. It's involvement in other parts of the world, perhaps even Yemen. That all of them creates extraterritorial responsibilities or interventions, unnecessary interventions, that ultimately is not in favor of the best interests of the Iranian people or Iran as a country. Iran has never been involved in this kind of politics before of the Islamic Republic. So in a sense, the Iranian regime, it seems to me, by going to the extreme, tried to create for itself a space that it did not have or did not deserve to have within the politics of the region. In other words, that has become part of the tool, kind of an instrument for, if you like to call it, some kind of an expansionism of the regime. In parts of the world where it can see there is a possibility for its presence, for its expansion. Of course, historically speaking, Iran, ever since the 15th century, I think that's the earliest example I can see, in early modern times, has always a tendency of moving in the direction of not only what is today the state of Iraq, but further into the eastern coast of Mediterranean. So that's a long-term ambition that has been in the cards as far as Iran as a strategic unit is concerned. But by no means justified and by no means could be a reasonable, could be a sane policy of a nation state as today's Iran. But the second point is that also regimes are always victims of their own rhetoric. So once you keep repeating something, then you become more and more committed to it. And it cannot remain anymore in the level of a rhetoric. You have to do something about it. So it's some compelling pressure to try to materialize what you've been saying in your rhetoric. And that is even extremely more dangerous as far as Iran is concerned. And it brings it to some unholy alliances that today we are witnessing Iran is getting involved. Even more dangerous than this rhetoric in terms of the vis-a-vis Israel is its involvement with Russia and to some extent with China, which we can talk about. What do you think about the meeting between Harmony and Vladimir Putin in July? What's that alliance? What's that partnership? Is it surface-level geopolitics? Is there a deep growing connection? I cannot see the difference between geopolitics and these deep connections. I see this one and the same. Why? Because I think the experience of 40 years of distancing from the West in terms of the Islamic Republic and the fact that there is a shelf life to imperial presence for any empire anywhere in the world. So after the terrible experience of the United States in Iraq and in Afghanistan, pretty much like the British Empire that after the Suez experience in 1956 decided to withdraw from east of Suez. Maybe there is a moment here that we are witnessing or it may come that a great power like the United States sees in its benefit not to get too much involved into nitty-gritty things in other parts of the world that it's not its immediate concern. And I think that is part of the reason, not the entire reason, part of the reason why we see the emergence of a new geopolitical environment in this part of the world of which China, Russia, possibly Iran, possibly Turkey, possibly both of them are going to be part. Perhaps Saudis also, but I doubt that the Saudis under the present circumstances, although we have witnessed some remarkable issue in the course of the past few weeks where the Saudis giving assurances to American administration and then shifting and getting along with Putin in terms of the oil production, I think it's more than that even. And it's not only them, but also the Emirates are doing the same thing. So what does that tell us? And that's another many hour conversation about the oil industry in Iran and the whole region. In emerging this kind of a world which was perhaps even 10 years ago unimaginable. That you see now a great power, China, that it's going to remain from what we see around us as a great power. And Russia, adventurous, foolish, but nevertheless would remain criminal, I would say, as far as its behavior in Ukraine. But actually it's a rogue nation that attracts another rogue nation. So Iran finds itself now in a greater place of security in alliance with Russia in the hope that this would give Iran a greater security in this part of the world. Whether this is realistic or illusion, I think remains to be seen. I think Iran-China relation makes more sense. Although if you ask ordinary Iranians, they don't like it. They would tell why should we be tied up with China as the only trade party with America because of the foolish isolations that you have created for us, because of all the sanctions that you have created for us, the Islamic Republic. So in a sense it's a very difficult question to answer. Probably Iranians also like to be more on the other camp. But what happens is that in the real term, what surprises me most is not this alliance with China, but it's kind of becoming a lackey or subservient to Putin's regime in Russia. Since if you look at it, Iran ever since at least the 19th century, not going further back, the beginning of the 19th century always viewed Russia as the greatest threat strategically because it was sitting right at the top of Iran. It was infinitely more powerful than Iran has ever been. And Iran fought two rounds of war at the beginning of the century, lost the entire Caucasus to Russia and learned its lesson that you have to be mindful of Russia and you have to keep it as an arm's leg. And that's what was the Iran's policy throughout the course of the 20th century, 19th and 20th century up to what we see now around us, which is a very strange situation. Whether the balance has changed in terms of if Russia is purchasing weapons from Iran, which was unheard of, and means that there is a new balance is emerging, a new relationship is emerging, perhaps remains to be seen. But if you look at the historical precedence, it would have been enormously unwise to be an ally of Russia given its long history of aggression in Iran. See, part of the reason why it's actually Iran allied itself with the British Empire was the fact that it was so much afraid of the Russian expansion. And as such, I don't know what's going to be the future of this relationship. There is a big disconnect between governments and the people. And I think ultimately, I have faith that there's a love across the different cultures, across the different religions, amongst the people. And the governments are the source of the division and the conflict and the wars and all the geopolitics that is in part grounded in the battle for resources and all that kind of stuff. Nevertheless, this is the world we live in. So you looked at the modern history of Iran the past few centuries. If you look into the future of this region, now you kind of implied that a historian has a bit of a cynical view of protests and things like this that are fueled, at least in the minds of young people, with hope. If you were to just for a while have a bit of hope in your heart and your mind, what is a hopeful future for the next 10, 20, 30 years of Iran? I'm not cynical. I'm trying to be realistic. And I actually may be critical, but I have great hopes in Iran's future for a variety of reasons. I actually did write an article, only the last version of it is going to go out today, in which the title of it is The Time of Fear and Women of Hope, which in a sense is this whole coverage about what this movement means that we see today. It may fizzle in a few weeks' time, or it may just go on and create new dynamics in Iranian society that would hopefully result in a peaceful process of greater accommodation and greater tolerance within the Iranian society and with the outside world. And I think the majority of the Iranian people don't want tension, don't want confrontation, don't want crisis. If 40 years they have suffered from a regime that has dictated an ideology that is regressive and impractical, they want to go back to a life in which they don't really create trouble for their neighbors or for the world. And therefore, I would see a better future for Iran. That's for one reason. Strategically or geopolitically, it may be in Iran's advantage in a peaceful fashion to negotiate, as it's the fate of all the nations, rather than commit itself or sworn to a particular course of policy. So, it's give and take as the nature of politics is art of possible, as it's been said. So, probably Iran is going to be hopefully moving in that direction. I think there is a generational thing. That's the third reason. No matter how much the Islamic Republic tried to Islamicize the Iranian society in its own image of kind of radical ideological indoctrination, it has failed. It has failed up to what we see today in the Iranian streets. And the Iranian population said no to it. And I think if there would have been, and I very much hope there will be, a possibility for a more open environment, more open space where they would be able to speak their views out. Iranians are not on the side of moving in the extreme directions. They are on the side of greater accommodation and greater interest in the outside world. And if you look at every aspect of today's, beside the government, every aspect of life in today's Iran, you can see that from the way that people dress to the way that they try to live their lives, to the way that they're educating themselves or being educated in the institutions, do you see a desire and intention to move forward? And I'm optimistic. Well, in that struggle for freedom, like I told you offline, one of my close childhood friends is Iranian. Just a beautiful person, his family is a wonderful family. On a personal level, it is one of the deeper windows into the Iranian spirit and soul that I've gotten a chance to witness. So I really appreciate it. But in the recent times, I've gotten to hear from a lot of people that are currently living in Iran, that are currently have that burning hope for the future of the country. And so my love goes out to them in the struggle for freedom. That's so nice of you to say so. And I very much hope so. There are moments of despair and there are moments that you would think that there is no hope. But then again, something triggers and you see 100,000 people in the streets of Berlin that are hoping for a better future for Iran. And I very much hope it eventually emerges, even I'm hoping at the same time there's not going to be a very strong leadership as it was the case in the past. We started with hope. We ended with hope. This was a real honor. This is an incredible conversation. Thank you for giving such a deep and wide story of this great nation, one of the great nations in history. Well, that's kind of it to say so. Thank you for sitting down today. This was amazing. A history that, as I've said in the start of my book, I say it's the history of a nation which has learned a huge amount from the outside world by force of its geography. It was always located somewhere that people would invade or come for trade or something happened to it that this diffused culture continued to, and they were not afraid of learning or adopting as they do right now today. This is a very different society. Never a boring moment in its history as you write about. Thank you so much. This was awesome. Thank you. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Abba Samana. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now let me leave you with a few words from Martin Luther King Jr. From every mountainside, let freedom ring. Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.
 This is not a nice Islamic fatherly regime.
 Clear signs of fascism, clear signs of the state control
 and pay any price to stay in power.
 So even violence.
 Extreme violence.
 The following is a conversation with Abbas Aminah,
 a historian at Yale University,
 specializing in the modern history of Iran.
 My love and my heart goes out to the Iranian people
 in their current struggle for freedom.
 I hope that this conversation helps folks who listen
 understand the nature and the importance of this struggle.
 This is the Lex Freedman Podcast.
 To support it, please check out our sponsors
 in the description.
 And now, dear friends, here's Abbas Aminah.
 Let's start with the current situation in Iran.
 On September 16th, protests broke out in Tehran
 and quickly spread over the death
 of a 22-year-old Maqsa Aminah.
 Eyewitnesses saw her beaten to death by the morality police.
 This is a heavy topic, but it's a really important topic.
 Can you explain what happened?
 The protests are now in their sixth week.
 The death of that young woman, a Kurd,
 who was visiting Tehran as a tourist,
 sparked something very deep
 that particularly concerned the younger generations.
 That is what you would call the equivalent
 of the Z generation in this country.
 They call themselves the Haish Tadi in Persian
 because Iran follows the solar calendar of its own.
 It's an ancient solar calendar.
 And the time that they were born,
 they were in the 1380s.
 That's what they call themselves, Haish Tadi.
 80s, Haish Tadi for the 80s.
 And well, the circumstances that surrounds
 the unfortunate death of this young,
 beautiful Kurdish woman is really tragic.
 She was arrested by what is referred to
 as the morality police, morality patrol
 called the Gashdeh Ershad, guidance police, that is.
 Presumably there were two women fully clad
 that is officers serving on that force and two men.
 And nobody exactly knows what had happened.
 She had been beaten up and apparently there was no
 sign of any wrongdoing on her side.
 She was fully covered.
 It seems that there was some altercation in the process.
 And the outcome was that she was unconscious,
 not necessarily when she was arrested,
 but in the course of the detention,
 when they take them to a center,
 presumably to re-educate them.
 And she apparently collapsed.
 And maybe my sense is that she must have had
 some kind of a problem because of the skull being broken
 or something had happened.
 And she died in the hospital the next day.
 And that through the social media
 was widely spread throughout Iran.
 And almost the next day, surprisingly,
 you could see this outburst of sympathy for her.
 People are in the streets weeping
 because she was seen as such an innocent young woman,
 22 years old, and the family, the mother and the father,
 also mourning for her.
 And being a Kurd visiting Tehran,
 this all added up to really turn her into
 some kind of a martyr of this cause.
 And that's what it is.
 And her picture, graphics that were artistically produced
 based on her portrait has now dominates basically
 as the symbol of this protest movement.
 And the protest movement goes on.
 Everybody was thinking, or at least the authorities
 were thinking that is going to die out
 in a matter of a few days.
 But it became more intense,
 first in the streets of Tehran by young women,
 mostly probably between, I would say, 17, 18 teenagers
 to 22, 23 or thereabouts,
 and then to university campuses all around the country.
 And then even to high schools.
 And that also made it a very remarkable protest movement
 because first of all, it involves the youth
 and not necessarily the older generations.
 You see them around, but not as many.
 Also, you see men and women together, young girls and boys.
 And they are adamant, they are desperate
 in the sense of the tone of their protest.
 And they are extremely courageous
 because they stand against the security forces
 that were immediately were sent off to the streets.
 So, and in full gear, that is.
 So what are the currents of pain, emotion?
 What is this turmoil that rose to the surface
 that resulted in these big protests?
 What are the different feelings, ideas
 that came to the surface here
 that resulted in such quick scaling of this protest?
 Well, if you listen to the main slogan,
 which is the message of this movement,
 it's called women, life, freedom.
 Zan, zendeghi, azadi, which is a translation
 of actually the Kurdish equivalent,
 which is close to Persian being in the European language.
 And it's apparently initiated first
 in the Syrian Kurdistan,
 where they were fighting against the Islamic Daesh forces
 because they were attacking the Yazidis there
 and the women being enslaved.
 But the message as it moved,
 or historians are interested in this kind of trends.
 So it has moved to Kurdistan and from Kurdistan,
 now being the message of this movement,
 reflects pretty much sums up
 what this movement is all about.
 Women in the forefront,
 because of all the, one might say, discriminations,
 the treatment, the humiliation
 that this younger generation feels,
 well, not only the younger generations,
 but most of the Iranian secular middle classes
 since 1979, basically, for the past 43 years.
 And they would think that these all basically symbolized
 or represented by the wearing the mandatory
 varying of the hijab,
 which is at the core of this protest.
 You see the young women,
 if you look at many of these clips
 that comes through in the past six weeks,
 women in streets take off their mandatory scarves,
 which is a young shawl,
 or some kind of a head covering the soul.
 And they throw it into the bonfire
 in the middle of the street,
 and they dance around it and slogans.
 So there is a sense of complete rejection
 of what this regime for 43 years
 have been imposing on women.
 It's not as it sometimes been portrayed,
 a movement against hijab through and through,
 but it's basically says,
 there has to be a choice for those who want to wear hijab
 and those who want to remain without hijab.
 Yeah, the hijab is a symbol of something much deeper.
 Much deeper.
 And actually, before we get into that,
 it's interesting to note that in many of these demonstrations,
 you see in the university campuses or in the streets,
 you see women with hijab, young women with hijab,
 are next to those who have to remove their hijab
 and they're together basically protesting.
 That's the most interesting feature of these demonstrations.
 And then men and women together against the segregation
 that the regime has imposed upon them all these years.
 Now, in terms of what it represents,
 as I pointed out, one is the question of the whole series
 of one might say civil and legal
 discriminations against women.
 You are considered as a kind of a second-class citizen.
 You depend on your men.
 There's a kind of a patriarchy
 that has been institutionalized in the Islamic Republic
 in a very profound fashion.
 And that means that probably in matters of divorce,
 marriage and divorce,
 in matters of custody of your children,
 in matter of inheritance,
 in matter of freedom of movement,
 you depend on your husband, your father, your brother,
 a male member of your family, your child, your son,
 could be the case.
 And because of that, obviously a younger generation
 who is so well informed through social media
 knows about the world as much as an American does,
 American kid does, probably sometimes more.
 They're very, very curious.
 It's from what I hear or sometimes that I met
 a few of them outside Iran.
 You'll see that how this new generation
 is completely different from what the Islamic Republic
 wanted to create in its social engineering.
 It's basically the failure of 43 years
 of the Islamic Republic's act of imposition
 of a certain so-called Islamic values on women.
 Then it's a matter of education.
 You would see that there is segregation in the schools.
 One of the issues that now, right now,
 is at the heart of this demonstration
 is that self-services in many of the campuses
 of Iranian universities are segregated,
 male and female to different rooms, to different halls.
 Now they are breaking through the walls virtually everywhere
 and sit together in order to basically resist
 the authorities who wants to impose segregation.
 In matters of appearance in the public,
 of course it may seem to us as kind of trivial and secondary,
 but appearance is important.
 Clothing is important.
 How you would imagine yourself is important.
 They don't want to be seen in the way
 that the authorities would like to impose upon them
 as this kind of an idea of a chaste Islamic woman
 who is fully covered and is fully protected,
 the idea of a male member of the family protects the female.
 That is what you would see at the heart of this rebellion.
 And of course that goes with everything else.
 The second part of this message, the idea of life,
 basically means if you like to use the American equivalent
 of this pursuit of the happiness, that's what they want.
 They want fun.
 They want music.
 They want dancing.
 They want to be free in the street.
 They want to have girlfriends and live freely.
 And don't be constantly looked by the big brother
 to tell them what to do and not to do or not to do.
 So that they share virtually
 with the entire Iranian society as a whole.
 Although the older generations, that's a big puzzle,
 but you would see that the older generation don't,
 so far at least, don't take part as extensively
 as one might imagine.
 And this is a variety of reasons.
 Perhaps we can get to that later on if you like.
 But as far as this younger generation, they don't care.
 They don't listen even as much to their parents
 as the older generations did.
 So, or one might say even the nature of the relationship
 between the parents and the youth has changed.
 It's not the concept of, again, a patriarchy
 that a father or even a mother would tell the daughter
 or son what to do.
 That's basically they have to negotiate.
 It's fundamentally a rejection of the power of authority.
 Parents, government, it's that every person
 can decide their own fate and there's no lessening
 of value of the wisdom of old age and old institutions.
 Precisely, that's what it is.
 And they are surprisingly aware
 that where they are as a generation,
 so it's a sense of pride as we are different
 from the older generation.
 From your parents who compromised and lived
 with the restrictions that the Islamic regime put on you.
 Your grandfather, your grandparents was the generation
 that actually involved in the revolution of 79.
 The parents, which were the middle generation,
 and these are the third generation
 after the revolution of 1979.
 And therefore they differentiate themselves
 in terms of their identity from the older generation.
 So that's the life part of it.
 I think one can go more and more they want to access.
 And they see on social media what happens
 in the rest of the world.
 They're well aware.
 They're much better digitally skilled
 than my generation, for instance.
 And they know about all the personalities.
 They know about all the celebrities.
 They know about all the trends that goes outside Iran.
 So that's a second part of this message.
 And then of course the third part is the word Azadi,
 meaning freedom or liberty,
 which is this long standing demand of the Iranians,
 I would say for the whole century,
 ever since the constitutional revolution of 1906.
 Iran has witnessed this problem of authorities
 that usually emerged at the end of a revolution
 to basically impose its own image
 on the population, on the youth,
 and create authoritarian regimes
 of which over the course of time,
 I would say that the Islamic Republic is the worst.
 The sense that its intrusion is not only
 in the political sense, for instance,
 banning the freedom of speech,
 meddling with the elections, banning political parties,
 all kinds of that things,
 which are the political or civil freedoms,
 but its intrusion into the personal life of the individual,
 which is the worst kind in a sense,
 as you would see that there is always an authority
 that basically dominates their life or monitors their life.
 So, and they do it in a kind of a very consistent fashion,
 which makes this idea of freedom so important
 as part of the message of this new movement.
 You would see that in today's Iran,
 there are no independent political parties.
 There is very little probably freedom of the press.
 I wouldn't say that it's entirely gone,
 but it's fairly limited.
 There's enormous amount of propaganda machine
 which dominates the entire radio and TV system in Iran.
 It's completely in the hands of the government.
 And of course, you would see this variety
 of other tools for trying to indoctrinate
 Iranian population across the board.
 So that's another sign of this kind of a sense of
 being totally left out.
 You're not belonging to what's going on
 in terms of power, empowerment and disempowerment.
 So that's the situation as far as the idea
 of a freedom of this concept.
 And this three somewhat miraculously
 and perhaps unintentionally,
 the three parts of this message compliments each other
 because perhaps for the first time,
 we see that women are in the forefront of a movement.
 I hesitate to say revolution
 because I'm not particularly happy with revolutions.
 Revolutions worldwide in Iran have always been so miserable
 in terms of their outcome that we have to be careful
 not to use the word revolution again.
 So that's where it stands now.
 And the regime was thinking that, well, these are kids,
 they're going to go away.
 And then of course, they're completely conspiratorial
 in their thinking.
 They constantly think that these are all the instigations
 and provocations of foreign powers.
 These are the great Satan in the United States,
 this is Israel, or these are the,
 it's actually the Supreme Leader says in so many words,
 his only response so far that he had in past six weeks
 with regard to these demonstrations is that
 these are the children of the Savak,
 Savak being the security forces of the Shah's time.
 That's 43 years later, he claims that the children,
 16, 17 years, 20 years old kids in the street
 are the grandchildren or children of some imaginary survival
 of the Shah's security forces.
 So there's the idea is that these protests are internal,
 and external saboteurs,
 so people trying to sabotage the government.
 Yes, and they are misled as far as they can go.
 And then there's the great Satan in the United States
 and other places are controlling,
 sort of either controlling the narrative,
 feeding propaganda, or literally sending people to instigate.
 I don't think that they have,
 I don't think even they have that kind of imagination,
 precise to say what you have said,
 that they would say that they're controlling the narrative.
 They basically say, no, these are agents
 of the foreign powers and their families are all sold out
 and they are basically lost their loyalties
 to the great Islamic Republic.
 And therefore they can be treated so brutally,
 they can be suppressed so brutally,
 which I haven't actually said what they're doing
 because I thought perhaps first we should talk about
 who these kids are in the street
 before we move on about the response of the government.
 But one major factor which seems to add to the anxiety
 of, well, the regime is extremely anxious now
 because they're in a position,
 this shows that they don't have the lack of confidence
 in a sense, that they would see them reacting
 in a very forceful way because basically they don't seem
 to have that kind of a confidence to allow this message
 or the movement to be aired.
 But the one element which corresponds to that
 is that there is a expatriate population
 of Iranians worldwide.
 They are probably now, according to some estimates,
 close to 4 million, even more, Iranians abroad,
 and they're all over the world from Australia
 and New Zealand, Japan, Western Europe, Turkey
 and United States and Canada.
 So just to give you one example, last Saturday,
 there was a mass demonstrations in Berlin
 by the Iranians from Germany and all over Europe,
 Western Europe.
 And it was at least, I think probably
 the conservative estimate was about 100,000.
 So 100,000 Iranians showed up in Berlin
 demonstrating against the treatment of the women in Iran
 or the movement in Iran.
 The government thinks obviously this must have been
 some instigation by foreign powers
 and they want to destroy the Islamic Republic.
 And not only that, but their propaganda
 is kind of ridiculous because I listened actually
 to how they portrayed it in the newspapers.
 I listened to the Iranian news
 that is officially controlled, government-controlled news.
 And in the papers, there's much of the papers
 that are in the control of the government.
 One of them or actually the major news program
 portrayed the demonstrations that 10,000 people
 showed up in Berlin and protested against the rising prices
 or rising rates for gas and oil in Germany.
 So that's how they mislead in a very rather stupid fashion
 because probably 95%, if not 100% of the Iranians
 are listening to Persian-speaking media outside Iran.
 So it's a BBC Persian, there is Iran International,
 there are at least five or six of them.
 That's probably really important to highlight
 that Iran is a very modern and tech savvy nation,
 not just the young people.
 Probably more than I feel sometimes
 when I compare myself to what they are doing.
 It's 1979, the earlier years, for a decade or two,
 they tried in a very crude fashion
 to restrict access to media outside Iran
 because it's all through dishes.
 And satellite dishes are everywhere.
 If you look at the buildings,
 it's small towns and villages in Iran.
 There's always a dish.
 And they watch all kinds of things through this.
 And particularly because of what's happening now,
 they listen to all the news broadcasts
 from all this media and they're extremely active.
 There are probably some of them even 24 hours or close,
 very extensive coverage of every clip that comes through.
 So what the government is doing now, the Islamic Republic,
 is that they restrict the entire internet.
 They shut down the internet.
 They shut down the internet,
 but they cannot afford shutting down the internet
 because much of the business, much of the everyday life,
 much of the government affairs depends on the internet
 like everywhere else.
 And Iran is extremely,
 if I hear from many of the colleagues and friends,
 it's like in certain respects, it's like Sweden.
 Where you go there, there's no more currency.
 And for a very good reason,
 because there's so much inflation
 that the banknotes are worthless in a sense.
 So everything is through sweeping your card.
 And that entire system is in standstill
 because people cannot buy food.
 You go to the supermarket, that's how you would do it.
 You order food to come to your house,
 which Iranians, at least the middle classes,
 more prosperous middle classes doing all the time.
 So they deliver everything.
 And because of the COVID, it became even more.
 And they have to pay all through this system.
 So what happens is that now they're estimating
 that every day $50 million, the Iranian government
 or the Iranian economy is losing
 because of slowing the internet.
 Plus the frustration is growing
 because you can't order food.
 Among other things.
 I mean, they are in touch with,
 I mean, WhatsApp, every Iranian,
 virtually every Iranian that has education.
 And education in the sense that has gone through
 the high schools and universities
 knows how to use the WhatsApp.
 So there's a big middle class,
 like you said, secular middle class in Iran.
 And there's a lot of at least capacity for,
 if not revolution, then political, ideological turmoil.
 And a huge amount of hatred.
 So the hatred is growing.
 Yes, hatred of the policies, of the regime, of isolation.
 That's a huge point that you hear a great deal about.
 That we don't want to be isolated.
 We don't want to be humiliated.
 Iran is not about this miserable regime
 that is ruling over us.
 We have a great culture.
 So there's a sense of a pride in their own culture.
 Some of it, Islamic, some of it pre-Islamic.
 So there's a huge sense of a pride in that.
 And they see that they cannot communicate
 with the outside world.
 They want to travel abroad, which they do.
 I mean, for one thing, the Iranian regime never actually,
 for majority of the population, never put restrictions.
 It's not like, what is it, Soviet Union,
 where you have to have a,
 you used to have a permission to move
 from one place to another.
 And then of course, the Islamic regime since 1979,
 basically chased away or destroyed the old middle class.
 It was my generation, basically.
 My parents here, they say,
 these are the secular middle class of the Pahlavi era
 in the hope that they can do this social engineering
 and create this Islamic society of their own.
 The bad news for them was that that didn't happen.
 And that memory persisted.
 And the middle class that was created since past 40 years
 is much larger in size than what it was
 because there was, of course, the demographic revolution.
 That's a very foundation of it,
 is the demographic revolution.
 Population in Iran, I've written an article about it,
 actually.
 Population in Iran since the turn of the century,
 last century, that's 20th century.
 Population of Iran was about 9 million or so.
 It's now 83 million.
 And that is since 1979, the population was 35 million.
 Between the past 40 years, it's basically doubled.
 So it's 83 million.
 Although one of the great successes,
 I don't want to bore you with the details
 about the demography, but it's important.
 These demographics is not boring.
 This is what, you can see that the birth rate was very high.
 Otherwise, you wouldn't have doubled your population
 in a matter of four decades.
 But Iranians, because of the urban shift
 to an urban population,
 because of the growth of the middle class,
 because of the education, they basically,
 the pattern of the, of growth, population growth changed.
 Iran used to be 2.8 or 3% birth rate
 in around 1980s, I would say, 1970s, 1980s.
 Now, it is 1.1.
 And it's probably the most successful country
 in the Middle East in terms of the population control.
 Despite the government, a consistent attempt
 to try to encourage people to have more kids.
 Middle class refuses to do that.
 And this is middle class, not only anymore in the capital,
 but this is very smaller towns and cities,
 places that used to be villages.
 Now you look at them, they have a decent population,
 50,000, 100,000, and they live
 urban life and they don't want to be subjected
 to that old pattern of agrarian society
 when you had 10 children or eight children.
 And of course, it's a much more advanced
 in terms of health and medicine.
 So you don't lose children as they used to.
 The antibiotics, there's always kids to survive.
 And therefore, if you have 10 kids,
 you stick with 10 kids.
 You don't end up with four as it used to be in the past.
 Six of them would have died
 up to the age of five, actually.
 But now because of that, you see that this urban population
 in the cities have completely different demands.
 And of course, the education is important.
 That's another area of how the social engineering
 of the Islamic Republic went array
 because they were thinking that the growth of the population,
 the growth of the educated, higher educated middle classes
 in their benefit, or they could not even control it
 in a sense.
 Now Iran in my time probably had in the 1970s,
 probably by the time of the revolution,
 had 10, 12 universities.
 Now it has 56 universities all across the country.
 And there is something referred to as the free university,
 Azzad, which has campuses all over the country.
 It has 321 campuses all around Iran.
 What does that mean?
 In many respects, this youth that are brought up
 in these families, even in a small towns
 in very traditional families,
 in families that belong to that kind of a more religious,
 loyal to the clergy or to the clerical classes,
 their children can now move on, particularly women.
 Because in my times, it would have been unheard of
 that you would have a young woman of 18 or 17, 18, 19
 from a traditional city such as for instance, Yazd
 or in Southeast Iran to move on elsewhere for education
 as you do in this country.
 Now it's completely accepted that a woman wears a job
 because he's forced to wear a job,
 to go to a university completely on the other side
 of the country.
 And this movement of the population,
 not only because of the universities, but in general,
 if you now visit Iran, you hear accents,
 local accents, provincial accents all over the country.
 That is a Azerbaijani Turkish accent
 from the north west of the country.
 You can hear it in the first province in the south
 and vice versa.
 So, and Kurdish for instance, or even more marginal regions
 such as Sistan province in the Southeast of Iran,
 which has been the subject of this recent massacre
 when they actually attacked the population
 when demonstrating and killed a fair number
 at least 60 people.
 So this movement of the population,
 this creation of a larger middle class,
 the better educated middle class, much better educated.
 Iran has 86% literacy, which I think probably,
 I haven't checked that,
 but probably is better than Turkey even,
 is probably better than anywhere else in the Middle East.
 And it sounds like that's quickly increasing.
 So because of the movement,
 because of the growth of the education system,
 that's not-
 Precisely.
 Iran has 1 million school teachers,
 which may not seem as much if you're in the United States,
 but it's a fairly big number actually.
 Can you linger on the massacre?
 What happened there?
 Well, the Sistan province is a Baluch ethnicity
 of Baluch ethnicity.
 Baluch is a particular ethnic group in southern Iran,
 which is stronger than Shi, majority.
 And we should say that most of Iran-
 Is Shi.
 Is Shi, and that's a branch of Islam.
 Shiism, yes.
 Let's maybe just briefly linger Shiism and Sunni.
 What?
 What?
 Just, let's not get into it.
 Yeah, I don't want to.
 Let's do a one sentence summary
 and that maybe which is what most of Iran is.
 Majority of the population of the Muslim world are Sunnis.
 That are, these are mainstream if you like to call it.
 Actually, Sunna means that kind of a mainstream.
 Can you actually linger on the Sunni, Sunna, Shi, Shia?
 Shia means party,
 means those that belongs to a party of Ali,
 which was, goes back to the early Islamic history
 of seventh century.
 I mean, I'm almost lingering to the silly notion
 of pronunciation and stuff like that.
 So, ah, ah means part, like what,
 what does the extra ah at the end do?
 Shi-i means belonging to the Shi community.
 Shi-a means a person of a Shia.
 That belongs to that community.
 If you say, are you a Shia?
 Yes, I'm a Shia.
 Yeah, and Shi-i is the community.
 And in English, when it was Anglicized, it becomes Shiite.
 So if you say Shiite in today, it's perfectly acceptable.
 And of course, I myself in my writings,
 I always switch between one and the other.
 One of my books is always Shiite,
 the other book's always Shi.
 And that hasn't been settled.
 But the Shi population is the smaller
 compared to the Sunni population in the world.
 In the world.
 In the world.
 But in Iran, it's the opposite.
 The Iran and Iraq, and possibly not Lebanon,
 are the three countries who barely,
 Iraq and Lebanon have barely majority Shi population.
 Whereas Iran is a large Shi population
 due to its history of conversion to Shi's
 and that by itself is another story.
 But in the sense that the way that historically it evolved,
 the center became more Shi,
 and the peripheries remained Sunni.
 So you have communities of the Baluch in the Southeast,
 you have the Kurds, a large portion of the Kurds are Sunnis.
 They have Shi's as well.
 Then they have the indigenous religion
 of their own, it was called Ahl Haq,
 which is the religion of indigenous to Kurdistan.
 There are Turkomans in the northeast of Iran
 who are also Sunnis.
 There are other communities, the Khorasan region,
 in the peripheries of Afghanistan.
 They are also Sunnis.
 And you have some Arab population,
 Arab speaking population in the Khuzestan province,
 in the southwest of Iran,
 which is also, or across the Persian Gulf.
 Is there a lot of conflict between these regions?
 And also, if I blindfolded you
 and dropped you off in one of the regions,
 would you quickly recognize the region?
 By the food, by the music, by the accents, by so on?
 Yeah, the answer to your lovely question,
 which I think, I hope it would have happened to me,
 is that yes, you would see different cultures.
 Yes, but different food, most important, different accents
 or different languages, since they have dialects.
 Baluch is a different language altogether.
 But, or so for that matter, Kurdish,
 which is closer to Persian
 because they are all Indo-European languages.
 But Turkish, Azeri Turkish,
 which is probably closer to the Turkish of Turkey,
 Republic of Turkey, or to the Republic of Azerbaijan
 in the north, they are the same, basically.
 Actually, if you would have looked,
 that's a fascinating picture.
 If you have looked at the, let's say even 19th century,
 early 20th century, linguistic map of Iran,
 you would have been amazed in the number of dialects,
 in the number of languages that have survived.
 This is an ancient country, it's an ancient land.
 And it's a lot of mountains all around it or big deserts.
 So there's a sense of isolation.
 So you would say here and there,
 you see a different community that speaks differently.
 All ancient traditions and languages.
 Yeah, and because of the great number of invasions
 that Iran witnessed over more than two and a half millennia,
 of course, there are all kinds of cultures
 that were introduced into Iran.
 There are all ethnicities were introduced to Iran,
 mostly coming from the northeast of Iran,
 from the lowlands of Central Asia and beyond
 and continued into Iran proper.
 So, but now what has happened,
 that's my point that I wanted to make,
 century of modernity or modernization
 has produced a national culture
 of great strength in a sense.
 I would say I ended my book,
 the book on Iran, Iran and Modern History,
 basically saying that despite everything else
 that has created so much trouble for today's Iran,
 there is a sense of a cultural identity
 that is very strong.
 And I think I can say with some confidence
 that despite this regional identities
 that are still there and they're great
 and they should be celebrated,
 today, if you go to Kurdistan or if you go to Sistan,
 they all can speak Persian.
 They all have an education in Persian.
 So they all basically are becoming part of
 whether they like the regime in power or not.
 They have a sense of belonging to a culture
 and an identity with the center.
 And of course, the idea of a center versus periphery
 in Iran is very old.
 It goes back to ancient times
 because even the name of the country
 was the guarded domains of Iran.
 This is the official name of Ma'malek Mahrusi, Iran.
 Namely that it was recognized
 that this is not just one entity,
 but it's a collection of entities.
 Like the United States of America.
 Exactly, exactly.
 But the United States of America,
 in a sense you can say that it was a very successful,
 well, it remains to be seen how successful.
 To be continued.
 To be, that was basically invented, created
 that you would have this sense of it.
 In the case of an old nation,
 which has been on the map of the world for 3,000 years,
 2,500 years, this is not an exaggeration.
 I'm not a nationalist per se,
 but I mean, if you look Persian,
 the map of the world in ancient times
 is still there as it is today.
 Very few countries in the world are like that.
 That they would have that kind of a continuity
 over a course of time.
 And that's not without a reason,
 because there was this sense of a center versus periphery
 that had found some, there's a huge amount of tension,
 but there is also a sense of belonging to something.
 And state is very much at the center of it.
 I mean, that's why the concept of a state matters
 for the creation, for the shaping of this culture.
 What happened is therefore, you can see that today
 in answer to your point about traveling blindfolded,
 is that you would be surprised to see how much
 people share in terms of, I just give you one anecdote.
 In 1968, I believe, must have been,
 I traveled to Azerbaijan.
 I used to travel and actually photograph.
 Not blindfolded.
 No.
 Mostly.
 Well, yeah, not blindfolded.
 No, not blindfolded.
 So I went to a bazaar in the city of Khoi,
 which is in the northwestern Iran,
 on the border with what is today the Republic of Turkey.
 And I went to the bazaar and I was interested
 in the kind of a leather work that they produce.
 So I tried to buy some stuff and I was surprised to see
 how few people knew Persian.
 So they could not communicate in Persian with you.
 Either they have to ask somebody from some other store
 to come and translate for you.
 This is 1968.
 1968.
 So even though it's the official language
 for Persian, of the country, they're still,
 yeah, so what are they teaching in school?
 So it doesn't matter.
 It was Persian.
 But this guy, he hasn't been to the school
 or he was not fully exposed to it.
 And bazaars usually are very conservative places.
 So it stuck in my mind.
 Now, recently in 2004, I was traveling to the same area,
 not to the same city, but to the same area.
 And I was amazed to see how the youth,
 as soon as they would know that you're coming from somewhere,
 opening conversation with you,
 talking about the latest movies
 that was produced in the west,
 and it's not only Hollywood.
 Of course, there's a huge amount of fascination
 with Hollywood and western cinema.
 Cinema is a major thing.
 Filmmaking is a major thing.
 So these kids in the city of Ahar
 were asking me if we're having lunch.
 They're asking me, okay, then what do you think
 about this producer, not producer,
 this director or that actor?
 American.
 American, European as well, but mostly American.
 Were they speaking Persian?
 It was a complete Persian that I would converse with them
 Do they speak English too?
 Interesting. Yes.
 Actually, you would be surprised to see
 what percentage of the Iranian youth,
 at least in big cities,
 are fascinated with learning language.
 And for a reason, because they think that's the way
 to get access either on social media
 or eventually leave Iran, unfortunately.
 And because they don't see a future
 for themselves in the country,
 either you have to be part of this regime,
 or if you hate them and you don't like the way of their life,
 you look up outside.
 I was having drivers to drive me around the country
 in the cities around Iran.
 And the guy was young, extremely well-educated,
 well-dressed, and we would have looked at him,
 we could have found him in any street,
 in any country in the Western world.
 And his major concern, knowing that I'm from outside,
 major concern is, well, tell me
 which would be a better place for me to go.
 What's wrong with the place that you're in right now?
 You are in your own country, you speak your own language,
 now this is no good.
 I have to have a better future.
 This has no future for me.
 Well, it's really interesting because
 the thing I feel about the protests right now
 is there's a large number of people
 that instead of giving into cynicism
 about this government is no good,
 they're actually getting this energy,
 this desire for revolution
 in a sort of non-violence,
 in the democratic sense of that.
 Let's actually find the ideas,
 let's build a great nation here.
 This is a great nation, this is my nation,
 let's build something great here.
 Well, that's my hope.
 That's what I'm hoping for.
 I share your aspiration,
 but I'm fearing that I hope it's not a wishful thinking.
 Certainly that's what they want.
 Certainly that's what they want to create.
 But the historian always tells you
 from where they start to where they finish,
 there is going to be a huge kind of a change.
 And in this particular case,
 I would very much hope that it's not going to be
 a revolution like the 1979 Islamic revolution.
 And I have my hopes in that.
 For one thing, this is a revolution
 that doesn't have a leader, okay?
 And it seems that they're comfortable with that,
 at least so far, because we are the sixth week
 of this movement.
 And I hope it's not going to be actually a revolution,
 as I pointed out before.
 I hope it's going to be more of a sense of trying to come
 to some compromise and gradually move toward change
 rather than a collapse of this regime
 and replacement with what?
 So the anxiety of the regime, you hope,
 will turn into a kind of realization
 that you have to modernize, you have to make progress,
 you actually have to make certain compromises
 or constitutional changes, all this kind of stuff.
 So the basic process of government and lawmaking.
 The problem is that they say we have it all.
 We have our parliament, we have our constitution,
 we have our elections, which has all been, of course, fake.
 But they claim they have all of that.
 But the problem for them is that they try to superimpose
 a certain ideology, like all other ideological autocracies
 or autarkies, as in this case, that tend to dominate
 all these institution buildings that they have.
 They constantly claim we have this, we have that.
 And of course, it's a generational thing.
 The upper echelons of this regime
 are mostly older people, turbaned,
 they are the clergy, that are afraid of the fact
 that they may lose their control over their whole system,
 that it was a sophisticated, huge system of government.
 And they rely on certain tools of control,
 which is the Revolutionary Guards
 and other institutions that are loyal to the regime.
 And they spend enormous amount of funds
 that is available to them at least before the sanctions.
 But even during the sanctions,
 they still have enough funds to do so.
 And in order to remain in power,
 and they're extremely ruthless in that regard.
 This is not a nice Islamic fatherly,
 very religious, very religious thing.
 This is not a nice Islamic fatherly regime.
 This is a regime that I would see easily in it.
 Clear signs of fascism, clear signs of the state control
 and pay any price to stay in power.
 So even violence.
 Extreme violence.
 To return to the massacre,
 what were the uses of violence to suppress protests?
 Well, yes, it was actually quite remarkable
 to see that from the first or the second day of the protest,
 you see out in the streets this riot police, okay?
 Which comes out in large numbers,
 fully geared up.
 Their appearance are rather terrifying,
 like any other riot police,
 probably more than any other riot police.
 They are violent.
 They stand in the streets
 when the students are demonstrating,
 even in smaller number.
 Because before I go to that, I should point this point,
 this out to you as well,
 that these demonstrations are not large ones in one place.
 You don't see 100,000 people in one place.
 But you see in every neighborhood,
 a couple of thousand of kids are demonstrating.
 All over Iran?
 All over Iran.
 Now all over the world in different parts?
 Yes, yes, yes.
 Actually, during the demonstrations three weeks ago,
 as I said, they had people in Sydney, Australia,
 New Zealand, Tokyo, all over the world.
 All protesting high gas prices, it's funny.
 Everywhere.
 To the extent that they could be ignored,
 nothing but if they could not be ignored.
 And it's actually quite remarkable
 that this is very embarrassing to them.
 But somehow they think that this propaganda machine
 of them is working.
 I'll say you think they don't have a good even sense.
 I mean, so there's an incompetence
 within the propaganda machine.
 Yes, it is.
 There's an incompetence across the board.
 I mean, despite all of this massive government
 administration or whatever you would call it,
 all these various components of it,
 there is a sense of inefficiency and incompetence
 that is associated within every action that you see,
 even in their suppression of this street movement.
 But in answer to that question,
 you would see that this riot police,
 it's quite obvious that they were trained for the purpose.
 So their appearance, everything,
 these are not just regular army forces or soldiers,
 conscripts, they are professional forces.
 And they come not only on foot number,
 but they come on motorbikes.
 So there are, you would see any of these demonstrations,
 there are 10, 12, 15, 20 motorbikes with two passengers,
 one in front riding, the one in the back,
 fully equipped with the baton, with paint guns,
 with pellet guns and with bullets.
 So they are very fully equipped and they are terrifying.
 They go through the demonstrations
 and hit and beat people.
 And then the arrests.
 And then you see behind the first line
 of these riot police, you would see all this latest models
 of these special armor trucks for moving
 to the demonstrations and arresting people,
 throwing them into this.
 And then behind that, water cannons, you see.
 And I was looking at that and I said,
 okay, this is Tehran probably, they have this.
 But then you look at the smallest cities,
 they still have the same thing.
 So all over the country, one thing that they had managed
 to produce extensively, irrespective of the fact
 that whether they are effective or not,
 but you see them everywhere.
 So it shows that how afraid this regime is.
 But that also shows that there's an infrastructure
 that can implement violence at scale.
 Yes, very much so.
 And it's probably part and parcel of this regime.
 From day one, the number of prisons that they have,
 according to perhaps an exaggerated version,
 they said that about 12,000 or so arrested
 that are in jails today, since past six weeks.
 They were 230 or 40 people were killed, including children.
 Under 18, they beat up women in the street,
 which is extremely actually disturbing
 when you see these scenes.
 So there's a lot of this is on video too, right?
 Everything is on video.
 Everybody has a camera and everybody sends
 to major news outlets outside Iran.
 And they immediately showed every night,
 if you look at BBC Persia or Iran International,
 or if you are, I think there's six of them actually.
 All over the earth, in England,
 they are in Deutsche Welle in Germany,
 which has a particular interest in the Iranian.
 BBC World Service and so forth in London
 and Voice of America Persia here in this country.
 There is another one Radio Fado,
 which is also funded by the American government,
 also fully covers all of these events.
 So there is no way that these people can,
 that the Iraq can miss what's going on in the streets
 of these demonstrations and the scenes of beating up women,
 which in Iranian culture,
 as I presume in most cultures in the world,
 there is a certain sanctity that you don't attack women,
 but they do.
 And this is an Islamic regime that supposedly
 have to have a certain sense of concern and protection.
 Well, like a protection,
 like a deep respect for women
 grounded in a tradition of protecting them,
 but instead this kind of idea that was instilled in law
 has turned into a deep disrespect of women.
 Exactly, or fear that these women are not any longer
 the girls that we thought we are bringing up in this society.
 The source of you losing your power will be these women.
 That's the fear.
 Yes, yeah.
 And you see, of course,
 this government do have a support base.
 I mean, it would be totally wrong to think
 that the Islamic Republic has not created
 its own power base.
 It does, but it's probably,
 if there's no way, there are no statistics that you can,
 or I'm not aware of any statistics
 that can give you numbers,
 what's the percentage of support for the regime in Iran.
 But quite frankly, I don't think it's more than probably
 10% of the population.
 Be very generous.
 I would be surprised if it's that low.
 I would say, so if my understanding,
 because I've been very deeply paying attention
 to the war in Ukraine, to Ukraine, to Russia,
 and to support in Russia for Putin,
 I think without knowing the details,
 without even considering the effects of propaganda
 and stuff like that,
 is there's probably a large number of people in Iran
 that don't see this as a battle of human rights,
 but see it as a battle of conservatism,
 like tradition versus modernization,
 and they value tradition.
 That what they fear from the throwing away of the hijab
 is not the loss of power
 and the women getting human rights.
 What they fear is the same stuff you fear
 when you're sitting on a porch and saying,
 kids these days have no respect.
 Basically, there's a large number of Iranians
 that probably value tradition
 and the beauty of the culture.
 And they fear that kids with their internet
 and their videos and their revolution
 will throw away everything that made this country
 hold together for millennia, right?
 Yes, I know.
 I would agree with you in the sense
 that probably like everywhere else in the world,
 this is a generational thing.
 Every generation thinks differently
 about the younger generation, no doubt.
 And in Iran is the same.
 But there is another factor here is involved.
 Those that we would consider them as traditional
 no longer seem to have their loyalties to this regime.
 That's powerful.
 Meaning that they consider it as a brutal regime
 that is prepared to kill children in the streets
 and does a lot of things wrong.
 Of course, it tries to take care of its own power base.
 There's a very strong sense of, if we start here,
 there's a very strong sense in this regime
 that there are people that is theirs
 and there are others which are not theirs.
 There's a word for it, even in Persian.
 They call it Khodi, one of us, okay?
 Oh, so it's a, well, that's very fascistic.
 It's like- Yes, yes.
 All for that matter, I suppose Soviet Union,
 if you were a member of the party
 and your children would have received
 a special kind of treatment yourself as well.
 This sense of us versus them,
 for a while worked because the younger people
 coming from the countryside to the cities,
 certain fact, certain sector of them
 would have found protection and support from the government.
 They wanted to belong to something
 and the mosques and the morning associations
 in the neighborhoods and so forth would have given them.
 There's actually a term for it.
 It's called Basij.
 Those have been recruited by the state.
 And this is the youth kind of vigilante, if you like,
 that you can see them also in these demonstrations.
 Sometimes thugs, they're called the civil cloth.
 So the people that comes to these demonstrations
 that start beating up these young people
 and they are not in security police uniforms,
 but they are just regular cloth.
 And these people, yes, they still support
 and they still benefit because they get jobs,
 they get privileges, and these are very important
 for a state that basically monopolizes
 most of the resources.
 You see, even during the revolution,
 even during the sanction, let alone before the sanction,
 the oil revenue of Iran, which is the major source
 of the state government, was the monopoly of the state.
 It was monopoly of the state during the Pahlavi era
 from the start, basically.
 So what does that mean?
 That means that the regime in power
 is no longer particularly accountable
 to the majority population
 because it extracts wealth from underground,
 and it uses it for its own purposes
 in order to make it more powerful,
 in order to make it more repressive
 than what it is the regime today.
 So it feeds a small, or I wouldn't say,
 but a fair number of its own supporters.
 I mean, the revolutionary guard in Iran
 is probably about 350,000 or something like that.
 It's a very big force.
 And this is not the regular army.
 The revolutionary guards are independent from the army.
 Revolutionary guard is armed forces controlled by the state.
 Yes, the same as the army,
 but these are more ideologically tied up with the state.
 And they're also in-facing, internal-facing?
 What's their purpose?
 What's the stated purpose of the revolutionary guard?
 Well, from day one, when the revolution succeeded,
 the Islamic regime in power was vulnerable
 to all kinds of forces of opposition within Iran itself.
 Prevent further revolution.
 Yeah, that's the revolutionary guards,
 and their job was to try to make sure
 that the regime stays in power.
 And of course, over the course of 40 years,
 they became more powerful, more organized,
 better funded, better trained.
 Well, at least we think they're better trained,
 but we don't know because the level of incompetence
 perhaps can be seen through the rank and file as well.
 But they developed their own military industry.
 I mean, those drones that you see now,
 Putin's regime are throwing on Ukrainians,
 poor Ukrainians.
 Those are all built by the revolutionary guards,
 by the military industry under the control
 of the revolutionary guards.
 And like similar regimes in the Middle East, at least,
 these are military industrial complexes.
 You can find them in Egypt, of course,
 which is very powerful, very traditionally,
 has been in power and still is in power.
 You find them in Pakistan, which is extremely powerful,
 and they can change the prime ministers
 as they did in the case of the last one.
 You can find them probably in Myanmar,
 is the same phenomenon.
 And if you look around, you can find quite a number of them.
 And the revolutionary guards is equivalent of that.
 This is a powerful establishment force,
 which militarily is powerful, industrially is powerful.
 And since the start of the revolution,
 they have been given projects.
 So you want to build dams,
 which they did a major disaster, environmental disaster.
 They built 100 and something dams all across the country.
 This is the revolutionary guard who does it.
 So they have all kinds of tentacles
 all around the country, controlling various things.
 And because it's their job and they have power,
 they have prestige, there's a huge incentive to-
 Join them.
 To join them into state.
 So like they, when they're having dinner at home
 with their families, there's not an incentive
 to join the protests, sort of.
 Well, that is the point.
 I think, and revolutionary guys may be an extreme,
 but many of the people who depend on this state
 for their support, now the younger generation
 are telling their parents, you are wrong.
 You don't provide for us this society,
 this state does not provide what we want.
 So there is a dissent within the family.
 It seems to me, I hope it's not a wishful thinking.
 You know, there is a kind of a joke going around.
 You see this, a terrible guy is the clergy bearded
 and traditional clerical appearance.
 When you see them talking about women,
 they are very, of course, politically incorrect.
 They are very looking down towards women.
 As I said, you know, they have to be inside.
 They have to be protected.
 They have not to be seen and so forth.
 But if they have a young person,
 a young daughter in their family,
 you see that their discourse changes.
 They no longer seem to be referring
 to women as second class citizens.
 Yeah.
 So that's very important.
 That's precisely that point.
 That when you have this younger generation,
 no matter how privileged they are,
 and many of them are privileged, you know.
 And there is also, the regime has created
 its own privileged class
 that are not necessarily directly paid by the regime,
 but they benefit from contractors, certain professions
 that benefit from what the state provides for them.
 And Iran is, I mean, the past 40 years,
 you can see Iran has developed
 in terms of material culture remarkably.
 Iran has good communication, has roads all over the place.
 It's not like, it's more like,
 I don't know whether you have ever visited Turkey,
 for instance.
 In certain respects, even more advanced than Turkey,
 but it's closer to that, rather than if you travel.
 I don't want to bring particular names.
 In North Africa or parts of the Middle East
 or other parts of the Islamic world, it's much, much different.
 So in this respect, you would see certain contrast
 or paradoxes here.
 On the certain respect, there's the growth,
 there is urbanization, there is modern economy.
 On the other hand, you see this superimposed
 ideological, doctrinal aspect that has driven the regime
 over all these years.
 And they cannot get rid of it.
 They cannot, in this respect,
 they cannot modernize themselves.
 They think that they are already perfect
 in ideological sense.
 This is the best solution for the world,
 not only for Iran, but for the Muslim world
 and for the world as a whole.
 We are anti-imperialist.
 We have managed to survive either under sanctions.
 This is all part of the rhetoric.
 But of course, at a huge expense,
 the huge expense for their own population.
 And the point that you have raised is the fact that
 we now witness there is not only a generation gap
 between the youth and their parents,
 but there is a break in a sense from the older generations.
 And they are very distinctly the youth
 that has a different view of the world
 and does not want to compromise.
 Whether they would be able to succeed or not
 remains to be seen.
 Whether this regime is going to suppress it, maybe.
 But it actually brought to surface many of aspects
 of the weaknesses of this regime in power.
 Well, I hear from a lot of people
 that are in these protests now.
 And so my love goes to them and stay strong
 because it's inspiring to see people
 fighting for those things.
 The women, life, and freedom, especially freedom.
 Because that can only lead to a good thing
 in the long term, at least.
 And if possible, to avoid a violent revolution.
 Of course, that is something that we all want to see.
 Before we return to the present, let's jump around.
 Let's go to the past.
 We mentioned 1979.
 What happened in 1979 in Iran?
 Well, in 1979, there was a revolution
 that eventually came to be known as the Islamic Revolution.
 Even up to this day, many of the observers
 or those who have strong views
 that would not like to refer to it
 as an Islamic Revolution or even a revolution.
 Because the nature of it in the earlier stages of it
 started really probably around 1977, it took two years.
 Was much more all embracing.
 It was not Islamic in a particular fashion
 or at all, in a sense.
 It started with a kind of a very liberal,
 Democrat agenda,
 which required, which demanded mostly by people
 who were the veterans of the older generations
 of Iranian liberal nationalists that were left out
 in the Pahlavi period.
 It's a period of the Shah became increasingly authoritarian,
 increasingly suppressive,
 and therefore basically leaving no space
 or no political space open for any kind of a give and take,
 any kind of a conversation or participation.
 That was in the 70s.
 70s, 70s, particularly in the 70s.
 Can we actually even like just do a world wind review
 from 1906 to 1910?
 From 1906 to 1979.
 Okay, sure.
 In 1906, there was a period, actually as you might know,
 the first decade or so of the 20th century
 witnessed numerous, what we refer to as
 constitutional revolutions, including Russia 1905,
 the first revolution,
 including the Chinese revolution in 19,
 constitutional revolution in 1910,
 the Young Turks revolution in 1908,
 and the Iranian revolution in 1906.
 Do you understand why the synchronicity of all of it,
 why in so many different places,
 very different cultures, very different government?
 Very different cultures, but all of them in a sense
 were coming out of regimes that became
 progressively powerful without having any kind
 of a legal system that would protect the individual
 vis-a-vis the state.
 So the idea of law and the constitution according to which
 there should be a certain protection,
 a certain civil society became very common.
 Yeah, but I wonder where that,
 because that's been that way for a very, very long time.
 And so I wonder, you know, it's funny,
 certain ideas, just their time comes.
 Exactly, it's like 1848, when you would see
 that there's a whole range of revolutions across Europe.
 Yeah.
 Or you would see, for instance, the Arab Spring,
 you see all these revolutions in the Arab world,
 which unfortunately nearly all of them failed.
 So yes, these are very contagious ideas that moves across
 frontiers from one culture to another.
 And I presume we can add to that there are two elements
 which one can say there was a greater communication,
 there is a greater sense of a world economy.
 And the 10th of the century witnessed the first decade
 of the century witnessed a period of volatility,
 particularly in currency.
 So many of the countries of the world,
 particularly non-West, suffered in,
 and particularly the businesses suffered.
 And not surprisingly, the business class
 were in the forefront of many of these constitutional
 movements requiring the state to give the kind of a,
 create the right kind of institutions to listen
 to their voices, to their concerns,
 and the creation of a democratic system,
 parliamentary and system in which there would be
 representation, popular representation,
 proper elections and so forth, and constitutions.
 And this very much is a kind of a French idea
 of the constitution going back all the way perhaps
 to 1789 revolution, Montesquieu, all this kind of philosophy
 were greatly appreciated, particularly the French system.
 So what were the ideas in the 1906 Iranian constitution?
 They precisely the same.
 They were demanding a creation of a legal system
 with division of power between the three executive,
 legislative, and the judiciary,
 not unlike the American system.
 And they requested basically a certain public space
 to be created between the two sources of power.
 The state, which had this kind of a control over the,
 if you like, the secular aspect of life in the society,
 and the religious establishment that had a full control
 over the religious aspects.
 And both of them from the perspective of the constitution
 is considered as repressive.
 And therefore there has to be a new space open between
 these two.
 And that was the idea of a constitutional revolution.
 By its very nature, it was an idea of modernity.
 They wanted the modern society.
 They wanted a better material life.
 They wanted more representation and so forth.
 The constitutional revolution, as I always would say,
 is much more of an institutional revolution
 but much more of an innocent revolution.
 It's a revolution that did not particularly
 have much violence in it,
 contrary to many other revolutions.
 It did not have a centralized leadership per se.
 That's why actually I'm getting,
 I mean, besides the practices,
 I'm getting a lot of requests for interviews to compare
 what's happening now with the revolution of 1906, 1909.
 Are there any echoes?
 Yes, yes, there are.
 Because that was a movement that started
 without a centralized leadership.
 But actually various voices that emerged in various,
 among the merchants or the businessmen
 in the economic community,
 among the representatives who came to the first parliament,
 the press, the new generation of the privileged
 aristocracy who were educated
 and believed in the constitutional values,
 all of these voices emerged at the same time.
 And somehow they managed to coexist
 in the first and the second parliaments
 that were created between 1906 and 1910 or 1911.
 But they all faced huge problems
 in the sense that Iran was in a dire economic situation.
 This is before the days of the discovery of oil,
 which actually coincides in the discovery.
 There are two important coincidences.
 One is that the oil was discovered in the South in 1909.
 During the course of the constitutional revolution.
 The second is that in 1907,
 the two great powers of the time,
 the Russian Empire and the British Empire,
 who always honored Iran as being a buffer state between them,
 because they didn't want to get too close to one another,
 basically came to an agreement facing the fear
 of the rise of the German Empire.
 So this is the period of Entente,
 as you might know in European history,
 whereby the French, the British and the Russians
 all create an alliance that ultimately leads
 to the first world war against Germany.
 And at the same time, the discovery of oil,
 that the oil industry being a very powerful defining factor
 of the 20th century for Iraq.
 Exactly.
 A source of a lot of money.
 A lot of money, but not all of it in the hands of the Iranians.
 Only one fifth of it, by way of royalties, came to Iran.
 Much of it went to the Anglo-Persian oil company,
 which they actually discovered the oil in the province,
 Khozestan province in the southwest of Iran,
 where the major oil industry is today right now.
 And this was an extremely profitable enterprise
 for that company and for the British government.
 It was actually purchased by the British government.
 Churchill purchased Anglo-Iranian oil company
 for the British government.
 So it was not anymore a private company.
 It was a British interest, as a matter of fact.
 And in the course of the 20th century,
 although it helped the modernization in Iran,
 but it also helped the creation of a more authoritarian,
 more strong state, if you like to call it.
 That 19th century Iran never had that kind of a power,
 never had that kind of resources.
 In the 20th century, even that one fifth of the income
 that reached the Iranian state gave it a greater power.
 That's another coincidence.
 So yes, yes, you could say the oil was one of the catalysts
 for absolute power.
 But the 20th century saw quite a few countries
 have dictators with power unlike anything else in human history.
 That's weird too.
 Precisely.
 And you know, you can name them from the beginning of the century
 with people like, I don't know, Lenin, Stalin, of course, Hitler.
 Mao.
 Mao, of course, you can name them.
 And probably, as I would say, the last of them is Khomeini
 in that century that you would see this strong man
 with a sense of either artificial or real,
 or a sense of so-called charisma.
 And with this total power over the regime that they create.
 In the, some of them do, Nasser,
 he didn't have much of an oil resources in Egypt,
 but he was also one of these strong men, okay, in the 20th century,
 loved by some, hated by others.
 So it necessarily does not tie up to economic resources underground.
 But in the Iranian case, unfortunately, it did.
 And it was a, it was more than, it created more than one issue for Iran.
 It's created a strong state, which is the Pahlavi state, from 1921 onward.
 Because in 1921, at the end of the First World War,
 Iran was in almost a state of total bankruptcy.
 And the British had a desire to try to bring Iran to the system
 that they created in the Middle East in the post-war era,
 the mandate system, Palestine, Iraq,
 and then, of course, French mandate of Lebanon and Syria, all of this.
 And Iran was separate because Iran was an independent country.
 It wasn't part of the Ottoman Empire that collapsed.
 So they had to somehow handle it.
 And what they tried to do didn't work.
 As a result, partly domestic, partly international issues
 brought about a regime which is headed by the founder of the Pahlavi dynasty, Reza Shah.
 Okay, first, a military officer called Reza Khan,
 actually a military officer of the Cossack forces.
 And the Cossack forces was the force that was created
 in the 19th century model of the Russian Cossacks.
 When the ruler in the 19th century visited Russia in a royal tour,
 and the Tsar showed the great Cossack forces and said, I like this.
 And he created one for himself with Russian officers, actually.
 So the Russian officers served in Iran from around 1880s up to the revolution of 1917,
 the collapse of the Tsarist regime.
 So many revolutions.
 So many revolutions.
 And Reza Shah was an officer in that, Reza Khan was an officer in that force.
 And he created a new monarchy for reasons that we need not to go into.
 And it's called the Pahlavi regime.
 The Pahlavi regime was a modernizing regime, okay,
 that brought a complete, in effect, fulfilled many of the ambitions of the Constitution,
 many of the aspirations of the constitutional revolution.
 Better communication, better secular education, centralized states, centralized army,
 better contact with the outside world, greater urbanization.
 That's what a modern state is all about.
 And in that regard, in a sense, for the first 20 years up to the Second World War was successful.
 Despite, and more significant of all, it managed to keep the European powers,
 which was always interfering in the local affairs of Iran, in an arm length.
 So they were there in an arm length,
 but they were also respecting the power of the state,
 power of the Pahlavi state.
 During the Second World War, the same phenomenon as earlier interference
 led to the occupation of Iran by the allied forces,
 the British from the south, the Russians from the north, the Red Army.
 They took over Iran, and of course they said...
 The Second World War.
 Yes, from 1941 up to 1945.
 And of course, when the Red Army refused to withdraw from Iranian Azerbaijan
 and with some thought of possible annexation of that province,
 there was a big issue in the postwar Iran.
 So after 1945...
 Yes, 1945 to 1946, there was a big...
 Soviet Union getting greedy.
 Yes, but eventually they agreed.
 Eventually Stalin agreed to leave the Azerbaijan province
 in the hope that it would get some concessions from Iran,
 which in the oil of the Caspian era, area, which didn't work,
 and it's a different story altogether.
 But what happened is that in the postwar era,
 between 1944, 1945 and 1953 is a period of greater democratization.
 It was that Reza Shah's dictatorship basically disappeared.
 And this is where you would see political parties, free press,
 a lot of chaotic really, as democracies often are.
 So something like, was it officially a democracy?
 Yes, it was a democracy.
 Was there elections?
 There were elections, yes, of course.
 And there were very diverse political tendencies
 came to the picture, including the two-party of Iran,
 which is Communist Party of Iran.
 This Communist Party of Iran is probably the biggest
 Communist Party of the whole of the Middle East,
 and one of the biggest in the world actually at that time.
 Did the Soviet Union have a significant influence on the...
 Of course.
 They were basically following orders from the Soviets.
 Although they deny it, but in reality that's the case.
 But what happened, they were seen by the Americans
 during the Cold War as a threat.
 And Iran was going through a period of demanding nationalization
 of its oil resources.
 That's a very important episode with Mosaddegh,
 whom you might have heard about his name.
 Dr. Mohammad Mosaddegh was the prime minister
 and the national charismatic leader from 1951 to 1953.
 Prior to that, he was a famous parliamentarian.
 But this period, he was the prime minister of Iran.
 And he nationalized the Iranian oil industry,
 and the British didn't like it at all.
 And eventually resulted in a famous coup,
 which at least partly was supported by the funding
 and by the moral support of the British and the Americans,
 particularly by the Americans.
 It was always seen as one of the earliest
 and the most successful CIA operations during the Cold War.
 So CIA had something to do with it?
 Yes, of course.
 That's one of the earliest operations of the CIA.
 Wait a minute.
 What was...
 Yes, of course.
 What was the CIA doing?
 CIA, this is the time at the post-war era.
 In the 50s.
 In the 50s, 40s and the 50s.
 The British Empire, which was really the major superpower
 of the region after the collapse of the Tzariist Empire,
 gradually took the second seat to the Americans
 who were the newcomers and the great powers
 and the victors of the Second World War.
 And the Americans viewed Iran as an important country
 since it has the largest common borders with the Soviet Union.
 And it was...
 I did the South, was the Persian Gulf,
 which at the time was the greatest supplier of oil
 to the outside world.
 And therefore the Americans had a particular interest in Iran.
 And in the earlier stages, their interest was in the interest
 of the Iranian government, because they wanted to get rid of
 both the Soviet Union, which made a return in the post-war era,
 and of course the British that were gradually withdrawing from Iran.
 But they had full control over the Anglo-Iranian oil company.
 They changed the name to Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.
 When the name of the country officially changed from Persia to Iran,
 in the West, the name of the company changed.
 And they got into a huge dispute with the Mazardek government
 that eventually led to the coup of 1953,
 which eventually created a very distressful memory
 in the minds of many of the Iranian nationalists,
 that this was the betrayal of the great powers,
 the British and Americans.
 Yes, CIA played a part, because CIA feared, contrary to the British,
 that they were afraid of their own oil in Iran,
 the CIA was afraid of the Soviet penetration in the South,
 and particularly because there was a very powerful Communist Party in Iran,
 the two-day party of Iran.
 So they gradually shifted between the Truman administration
 and Eisenhower administration.
 These are early days of the CIA.
 And then they actually did participate to send their agents.
 There's a long story to that.
 And it eventually resulted in a successful coup that removed Mazardek from power.
 What's the United States' interest here?
 Why are they using CIA?
 Are they trying to make sure there's not too much centralization of power in this region?
 They were afraid of the Soviet Union and during the Cold War.
 That was their concern.
 They actually almost want to protect Iran and its own sovereign processes
 from the influence of the Soviets.
 Yes, because they were afraid of the fact if Iran,
 or at least this is part of the, I'm simplifying a very complex picture,
 but the Americans basically were thinking that if Iran is going to be lost
 to Soviet influence, then eventually basically all the oil resources
 in the Persian Gulf are going to be threatened.
 And this basically is the national security of the United States
 and all of the Western allies, European allies.
 So in a sense, this was the long arm of the CIA to try to make sure
 that that's not going to happen.
 And then of course they were persuaded by the British.
 The British were the old hand, which were in Iran since the beginning of the 19th century.
 They always had relations with Iran and so forth.
 So they gradually replaced.
 And of course I don't want to give them this kind of a satanic view
 that the Americans was a bad influence because they had also some very good influences in Iraq.
 But this particular episode somehow shed a dark light on the American presence
 and was used at abused time and again, particularly the revolution in 1979,
 was this great satan idea that Khomeini created.
 Basically it was based on the fact that in 1953 you were responsible
 for the downfall of a national government in Iran,
 which as a matter of fact, he had no respect for it.
 Khomeini had no respect for the secular national liberals, including Mohammed Mossad.
 But he was using it as a rhetorical tool for his own purposes.
 But what happened is that after 1953,
 we see again the rise of authoritarian Mohammed Reza Shah's power.
 And that he is, that's the Shah?
 That's the Shah, that we know as Shah.
 This is the son of Reza Shah.
 And technically what is Shah?
 Shah is an old term in Persian
 that comes from a pre-Islamic Persian of ancient times.
 So in the context of democracy, should it be seen as like a supreme leader, king?
 Is the head of the executive power, according to the Constitution of 1906.
 Oh, that's in the Constitution, the actual term Shah.
 Of course, he has a place in the Constitution.
 But the actual term Shah, okay, interesting.
 But the Shah is a very old term.
 Yeah, it's almost like a monarchic term, like a king.
 Yeah, it is actually is a term peculiar to Iran.
 I've written about it somewhere.
 But because the term that the Western world in the ancient times
 has been Rex for royalty and the king.
 In the Eastern world in India is Raj, is the same origin, the same root.
 Iran never shared that.
 They had the idea of, because Rex and Raj,
 I don't want to get into too much of etymology,
 but this is an interesting one.
 Rex and Raj both means the one that opens the road for basically enforcer of religion.
 Okay.
 Enforcer of the right religion.
 Because Rex and Raj both have the etymological origin of right.
 You see, and right means the right religion, basically.
 By the way, there's so much beautiful language here.
 I'm just looking at the Persian Constitution in 1906,
 and it says it's the constitution of the sublime state of Persia, Qajar, Iran.
 I mean, just the extra adjectives on top of this stuff is beautiful.
 Yeah, because that was actually the change that came about.
 I don't want to go too much into it.
 But it was called, as I pointed out before, the guarded domains of Iran.
 They changed that to the sublime state of Iran during the Qasutian Revolution,
 because they wanted to give a greater sense of centrality of the state.
 And sublime was the term.
 But also, what permeates all of this is a poetic...
 I mean, there is a history of poetry to the culture, which is fascinating.
 So, I mean, of course I don't speak the language,
 but in Russian there's also a music to the soul of the people
 that represents itself in the form of poetry and literature
 in the way that it doesn't in the English-speaking world.
 I don't know what that is.
 There's a romantic side to it.
 Romantic side, that's right.
 Yeah, I agree with you.
 In Iran, of course, there's a time of the constitutional revolution,
 there's a time of great poetry.
 There's kind of a patriotic sentiment that comes through poetry,
 which plays a very important part.
 Of course, these days poetry has kind of declined.
 And instead you see the visual image that is at the center.
 That's why cinema is so important.
 Kids these days with their TikTok.
 Yeah, let me finish this about the period of Muhammad Reza Shah.
 He built up because he received a greater income from the oil revenue,
 and he built up a very strong state with a strong security force,
 a strong security apparatus, which is the SAVAK,
 which is an acronym for the security force, security organization.
 And he, of course, unfortunately, in the 1960s and 70s, particularly 1970s,
 basically suppressed the voices of or possibility of any kind of
 mass participation in the political process.
 It became very much an authoritarian regime with its own technocrats,
 very much a modernist vision of Iran's future,
 and almost kind of messianic that he was hoping that Iran in a decade
 would become the fifth most powerful state in the world,
 and the riches, as he would have said, the gates of the great civilization,
 very much in the mind had this image of ancient Iran of the Achaemenid Empire.
 And we want to go back to that greatness of the Achaemenid Empire,
 somewhat rather naive and very nationalistic in a crude fashion.
 And what happened is that as a result, there was built up some kind of a resistance
 from the intellectuals, from the left, eventually resulting in a kind of a protest movement,
 as I said, by 1977, 1978.
 Then, of course, the question that comes to mind, and they probably,
 you would like to know about, is the fact that why it becomes religious,
 why it becomes Islamic, if it's the popular nationalist liberal tendency
 of opening up the political space and allowing greater participation,
 going back to the Constitution of 1906, 1907, why it's all of a sudden,
 it becomes Khomeini, where does he come from?
 The reason for that, at least in a concise fashion, is the fact that on one area
 that after the greater suppression of all the other voices remained open was religion.
 Mosques, the mullahs on the pulpit, and the message that gradually shifted
 from the old traditional message of the Sharia of Islam,
 I mean all the rules and regulations of how one has to live,
 into something very political, and not only political, but also radical political.
 So, in the whole period from the Constitutional Revolution to the Revolution of 1979,
 basically the religious establishment gradually was pushed to the opposition.
 They were not originally very conservative supporters of the state,
 as the Catholic Church, for instance, was supportive of the majority
 of the authoritarian governments around the world.
 But the politicization was the result of isolation, because they were left out of the system.
 And while in isolation, they were not successful in trying to reform themselves,
 to try to become, to try to find answers to many of the questions of modern times.
 What happens to women? What happens to civil rights? What happens to civil society?
 How modern law and individual freedoms have to be defined in Islamic terms?
 How to separate religion and state?
 Or how to separate religion and state. These issues were never addressed.
 What happened is that there was this bypass through political Islam,
 and revolutionary Islam, as gradually they learned, you know, that this is the bypass.
 Bypass to power, basically. To become again a voice in the society,
 and eventually a prominent voice, and eventually a monolithic voice in the society.
 That's the process that led into the revolution of 1979, basically.
 This period, greater attention was paid to religion, even among the secular middle classes,
 who were alienated for a very long time because of this extensive modernization of the Pahlavi period.
 They didn't have a sense of that old mullahs with their turbans.
 But they became, they had a kind of aura in this period.
 Yes, they are those who remained not corrupted.
 They are the people who basically went against the suppression of the Pahlavi regime.
 And Khomeini became a leader, a symbol of that.
 Nobody ever thought in the earlier stages.
 And among these very excited multitudes that came to the streets of the Iranian cities in 1979, or 1978 actually,
 thought that this old mullah in the 70s, that all of a sudden has appeared from Najaf,
 through Paris to Tehran, is going to take over and create a religious autocracy.
 We have to back up for just a second. Who is Khomeini?
 You just mentioned a few disparate facts about the man.
 He was the person that took power in 1979, the supreme leader of Iran.
 You mentioned something about Paris, something about being in the 70s.
 What should we know about the guy?
 Ayatollah Khomeini, who eventually was known as Imam Khomeini,
 he was kind of promoted to an even more sublime position.
 Okay, can we, just a million tangents.
 Ayatollah, Imam, what do these terms mean?
 Well, Ayatollah means the sign of God.
 In the course of the 19th century or early 20th century,
 as the religious establishment gradually lost its greater presence in the society
 and its prominent places in society, they had some kind of inflation in titles.
 So they gave themselves more grand titles.
 Yeah, more adjectives.
 More adjectives, more grand titles, such as Ayatollah,
 that became a kind of a highest rank of the religious hierarchy,
 which incidentally was in unofficial hierarchy.
 It's not like Catholic church that you have bishops and so on.
 It was a very unofficial model.
 And he was an Ayatollah, was eventually recognized as an Ayatollah.
 He wasn't the first Ayatollah?
 No, no, no, not at all.
 The Ayatollahs were before him ever since the beginning of the century.
 But he was eventually recognized as an Ayatollah.
 And if I want to start it this way, Ayatollah Khomeini was born in 1900.
 And in a sense, all this tremendous change that Iran witnessed in the course of the 20th century
 was in a sense materializing this person.
 He became a mullah of a lower rank, went to the traditional madrasas,
 to the traditional centers for the education of the seminarians,
 never had a secular education, had a very complex Islamic education
 on this one hand jurisprudence, on the other hand probably a little bit of Islamic philosophy
 and mysticism which is unusual for the jurists, for the faqih as they call them,
 these religious scholars or legal scholars of Islam.
 And then he in the 1960s when he was residing in Tehran and gradually becoming more important,
 he became a voice of opposition against the Shah.
 And the reason for opposition in the early 1960s was the fact that the Shah
 carried through a series of extensive modernization policies
 of which the most important was the land reform.
 So in effect the land distribution that took place in the early 60s
 removed or weakened greatly that class of landowners from the 19th century.
 And Khomeini saw himself as a voice of that old class
 that felt that actually declared that this land redistribution is un-Islamic.
 According to the Islamic law property is honored
 and you cannot just no matter how much and how large are these estates
 that the landowning class has, the government has no right to redistribute it
 even among the peasants, among the people who are tilling the land.
 So that was a major issue.
 The Shah also gave the right of vote to women.
 And that also he objected, he said women should not have a right.
 Can we just linger on the Islamic law?
 How firm and clear is the Islamic law that he was representing and embodying?
 Is this…
 Codified?
 Yes, it's a good term.
 That's another issue.
 Not only the hierarchy was unofficial and informal
 but also Islamic law, particularly Shia law,
 did not have any codified system
 because these religious authorities always resisted
 becoming under an umbrella of a more codified system of Islamic law
 because they were outside the state in a sense.
 Civil law was in the hand of the religious establishment.
 They had their own courts independent of the state.
 But other matters, legal matters, was in the hand of the government.
 There was a kind of de facto division between these two institutions,
 the state versus the religious establishment.
 Therefore, it was not codified.
 So he could declare that this is unofficial,
 I'm sorry, illegal according to the Islamic law,
 that you would distribute land to the peasants.
 And another mujtahid or another religious authority would say,
 no, no, it's perfectly fine because he would have a different reading of the law.
 So that being in mind, that adds to the complexity of the picture.
 In the 1963, there was a period of uprising of the supporters of Ayatollah Khomeini.
 That was a turning point in a sense to try to politicize the religious supporters
 of Ayatollah who were loyal to Ayatollah Khomeini.
 And in a sense, all the community of more religiously orientated
 against the secular policies of the Shah and against, of course, the dictatorship of the Shah.
 So that's where the religious movement became a political party.
 In 1963 is the first moment, it's a huge uprising, and the government suppressed it.
 But then suppression would start to build.
 Of course. And he was sent to exile.
 He went to Najaf, which is this great center in southern.
 So he became a martyr on top of this.
 A martyr, he was probably even forgotten to some extent.
 But not, it was forgotten for the secular middle class,
 but not to those supporters of his who were paying him their dues.
 Because in Islam, you would pay dues to religious leaders.
 There's religious dues and alms that you put paid to the clerical authorities,
 and they redistribute them among their own students and so forth.
 So they built actually a network of loyalty based on these donations.
 And these donations that received by Ayatollah Khomeini was very effectively through his network,
 was distributed, even if he was in exile at Sa'di Ra.
 So in 1977, 1978, when the situation changed
 and there was a little bit of opening in the political climate,
 then you saw that Ayatollah Khomeini started sending cassette messages.
 That was his mean of communication.
 He was sending cassettes and cassettes were sent through the country by his network.
 So all declarations and saying first that we would like to see a greater democratization
 and the Shah has to abide by the Constitution of 1907.
 This is a constitution, this is a democratic system and so forth.
 Was he charismatic?
 Well, it depends who would call, what do you call charismatic?
 He had a long beard.
 He was kind of a man in turban and the gown,
 which was a very unusual leadership for people who were much more accustomed to the civilian clothing
 or to the equipments of the Shah's military uniforms that he used to wear.
 But I also mean like he is a man who was able to take power to become popular, sufficiently popular.
 So like I would like, is it the ideas, is it an accident or is it the man himself, the charisma
 or something about the man that led to this particular person
 basically changing the tide of history in this part of the world in a way that was unexpected?
 All the above that you mentioned.
 Or was it just the beard?
 No, I think it's beyond the appearance.
 The appearance greatly helps, as you know.
 In the 20th century, appearance is helpful.
 Pictures for propaganda, for messaging.
 That's an important factor.
 And he was a kind of adamant and very severe in his own positions.
 He could appear very uncompromising.
 And he had a sense of confidence, self-confidence that virtually everybody else lacked.
 And he was a man of opportunity.
 As soon as he would see that a chance and opportunity would open up, he would jump on it.
 And that's what he did basically.
 As more the political space opened, the weaknesses of the Shah's government became more evident.
 His indecision became more evident.
 His lack of confidence became more evident.
 Khomeini managed to move further into the center of the movement
 because he was the only authority that had this network of support through the mosques,
 through the people who paid homage to him, who followed him.
 Because there's a sense of following of the religious leader in Shiazat.
 You are a follower of this authority or a follower of that authority.
 And he's basically created an environment in which people looked upon him as a kind of a messianic figure
 that came to save Iran from what they considered at the time the problems of dictatorship under the Shah.
 So there's not a suspicion about Islamic law being the primary law of the land.
 Not at all. People had very little sense that what Islamic law is all about
 because the secular education has left that into the old religious schools.
 This is not something that ordinary educated Iranian who goes to the universities is going to learn.
 Therefore, there is a sense of idealization that there is something great there.
 And there were quite a number of intellectuals who also viewed this kind of an idea of
 they would refer to as West toxication, that is this civilization of the West that has brought with it
 all the modernity that we see around ourselves has enormous sinister features into it.
 And it has taken away from us our authenticity.
 That was the thing that there is something authentic that should be protected.
 And therefore, a man in that kind of a garb and appearance seemed as a source
 for return to this originality of their own culture, authenticity of their own culture.
 And he perfectly took advantage of that. That is Khomeini.
 Took advantage of it and the circle around him at the expense of everybody else,
 which he managed in the course of 1979 to 1989, which he passed away.
 He died in the ten years during this period, managed to basically transform the Iranian society
 to create institutions of the Islamic Republic and to acquire himself the position of the guardian jurist.
 That was something completely new. It didn't ever existed before.
 As a matter of fact, as you might know, the model of government that a religious establishment takes over the state
 is unprecedented throughout the course of Iranian history, throughout the course of the Islamic history, I would say.
 This is the first example and probably the only example of a regime that the religious establishment
 that has always in the course of Iranian history ever since I would say probably at this 16th century, if not earlier,
 has been always separate from the state and always kind of collaborating with the state
 with certain tensions in between the two of them.
 There were two basically, as they would call themselves, the two pillars of stability in the society.
 That situation changed for the first time the religious establishment took over the power of the state.
 And that's at the core of what we see today as a major issue for Iranian society.
 Because these are basically that old balance between the religion and the state,
 which was kind of a de facto separation of the authorities of the two, has been violated.
 And now you have in power a theocracy in effect, which of course only in its appearance is theocracy.
 Deep down, in my opinion, it's a brutal fascist regime that stays in power.
 But it has the appearance of religion into it.
 So this is really the story of the revolution.
 And as a result of that, the Iranian middle classes greatly suffered.
 It's not without reason that you see four million Iranians abroad.
 Because basically the emergence of this new power gradually isolated or marginalized the secular middle class
 who could not survive under that regime and gradually moved out in the course of perhaps 30, 40 years.
 Up to now, Iran has the largest, I think I'm right to say so, has the largest brain drain in any country in the world.
 So.
 In proportion to its population.
 So fascinating that how much of a weird quirk of history is it that that religion would take hold in a country?
 Like, does it have to do with the individual?
 It seems like if we re ran the 20th century a thousand times,
 we would get the 79 revolution resulting in Islamic law like less than, you know, one percent of the time, it feels like.
 Or no. Which percentage would you put?
 Well, I think it has something to do with the very complex nature of how Iran evolved over a long period of time since the 16th century.
 That's why if I would for a moment talk about what I have written, I've written a book that's called Iran and Modern History.
 And it does not start in the 20th century.
 It starts in the 16th century.
 Because that's what I've argued that this complex process that at the end of the day resulted in what we see around us today is something that was in making for a very long time.
 And religion was a big part of it.
 She and the the Messiah complex.
 Exactly.
 The longing for this great vision of a great nation that somehow is the sublime nation that can only be fully sublime through through religion.
 Or at the time it was thought that is true religion ever since then.
 It's disillusionment with that image.
 Or at least a process of disillusionment.
 The outcome of it is what we see today.
 Basically, that process of 40 years is a process of readjusting to the realities of the world.
 That that great moment of romantic success of a revolution, like most revolutions, of course, that is going to change Iran and bring this kind of a moment of greatness led into this great disappointment.
 It's a movement of the great disappointment in a sense.
 Like most messianic movements, by the way, the general movements are always leading into great disappointments.
 But what I have here that perhaps should be added to it, that yes, it was a peculiarity of Iran as a society that had to experience this eventual encounter between religion and state.
 That's something to do with the nature of Shiaism.
 That's just one point that should be pointed out.
 Most of Sunni Islam don't have that kind of, I say most because there is something there.
 But Sunni Islam in general does not have that kind of an aspiration for the coming of a messianic leader.
 Shiaism does.
 Shiaism is very shaping, particularly the way that it was set up in Iran, was a religion that has always this element of expectation to it for the coming of this messianic leader.
 Of course, I mean, between practices, all societies look for messianic leaders.
 I mean, just look around us.
 But some societies more than others.
 There's certain culture.
 It might have to do with the romantic poetry that we mentioned earlier.
 I mean, surely, I mean, not to draw to me in parallels, but the Soviet Union, there is romanticism too.
 And I mean, I don't know.
 It does maybe idealism.
 A sense of a savior who would bring you out of the misery that you're in.
 And always looking for a third party to solve your issues.
 That's why probably this movement has a particular significance because it probably doesn't look for a messiah.
 Although I was talking to my brother, who is a historian also, and he was saying perhaps the messiah of this movement is that Mahsa Amini, the 22-year-old girl that was killed.
 The seven martyred messiah who is now leading a movement which no longer has that charismatic leadership with it.
 But yes, I would say that Iran has been the birthplace, if I might say that, of messianic aspirations.
 Going back to the ancient Zoroastrianism, which is really the whole system that you see in major religions, at least so-called Western religions,
 Abrahamic religions, is parallel or perhaps influenced by Zoroastrianism, in which there is an idea of this world and the other world is hereafter.
 There is an idea of a judgment at the end of the time.
 And there is a concept that there is a moment of justice that is going to come with the rise of a religious or a charismatic figure.
 So it's a very old phenomenon in Iran, very old.
 And it's time and again repeated itself in the course of its history, but never as powerfully as it happened in 1979.
 And never in the form of authority from within the religious establishment.
 It was always the dissent movements that were kind of antinomian.
 They were against the authority of the religious establishment.
 That changed in the 20th century.
 But the revolution in 1979, that change is still with us today.
 Can we just linger on, are there some practical games of power that occurred in the way that Stalin took power and held power in the early days?
 Is there something like this in terms of the establishment of the Revolutionary Guard and all those kinds of stuff?
 So the messianic figure has some support from the people, but does he have to crush his enemies in competition?
 It certainly did.
 Probably not, certainly not as brutal in terms of the victims as you would see in Soviet Union under Stalin, who the bloodshed or the destruction of the population was far greater than what you would find in Iran of the Islamic Republic.
 It's uncomfortable.
 Perhaps I would find a greater parallel with Mao Zedong, particularly because China has a very strong messianic tradition since the ancient times.
 So they have something, and Mao appeared as a kind of a messianic figure.
 There I can see there is a parallel, but also you can see with any other authoritarian regime with a messianic figure at the head of it that it destroys all the other forces.
 So during the course of the first 10 years of the Islamic Revolution, it destroyed the liberal nationalist secular.
 It destroyed the guerrilla movements, some of them Islamic, some of them Marxist, who turned into political parties or tendencies in the course of the post-revolution in 1979.
 They were completely destroyed and in a very brutal fashion.
 And their opposition even within the religious establishment, because it wasn't a uniform, there were many different tendencies.
 Those that were opposed to the authority of Ayatollah Khomeini or now Imam Khomeini, meaning almost a sacred religious figure above the level of a religious authority.
 He's a saint kind of a figure. Shiaism has this idea of imams.
 There were 11 of them. The 12th is hidden and would come back at the end of the time.
 This is a messianic figure. So the title that was always used for them only in Shiaism, never used for any other person.
 He is the first person in the revolution of 1979, first referred to as deputy of Imam.
 But the term deputy gradually disappeared and he became Imam Khomeini.
 That's his official title.
 I love human beings so much. It's so beautiful. These titles that we give each other. It's marvelous to observe.
 You love it because you haven't been under that system.
 No, I love it in a very dark kind of way. It caricatures itself.
 It's almost funny in its absurdity, if not for the evil that it has led to in human history.
 But also the fact that it's a man, it's in fact fulfillment in a kind of completely unintended fashion. It's a fulfillment of that idea of a messiah that they've been fighting for.
 This Imam, which is in a heath for a thousand years, is here and not here.
 And therefore Khomeini would have in effect fulfilled those anticipations.
 But beyond that, I'll just give you one example I know that you may have other concerns.
 But when I say elimination, at the end of the Iran-Iraq war, by the direct order of Ayatollah Khomeini, a fatwa that he wrote,
 a group of prisoners who belonged to a variety of political parties, the left, religious left, majority of them, the left and the Marxist left and the religious left.
 In a matter of a few weeks, or perhaps a few months, I'm not actually quite sure about the time span, in a series of these were people who have already been tried and they were given sentences.
 They were brought back before the summary trials of three judges or more, three or four of them.
 One of them is now the new president of the Islamic Republic, Raisi.
 And they were given a quick summary sentences which meant execution.
 So something between probably six to eight thousand were executed in a matter of a month or two months, something like that.
 Mostly in Tehran but also in provinces.
 And that remained an extraordinary trauma for the families, for those who had these kids. They're all young, all young.
 So this remains very much a kind of original sin of the Islamic Republic that cannot get rid of.
 And it's in people's memories. They didn't allow them, even the families, to go and mourn their dead in an unofficial symmetry which they created for them.
 Now the latest thing is that they put a huge concrete wall around it so nobody would be able to get into it.
 So this is all part of this extraordinary level of atrocity, brutality.
 That you see that the regime claimed that it comes with the morality of religion and Islam to bring back the justice
 and be more, in a sense, kind to people ended up with what it is in the memory of many of the people in Iran.
 So developing these fascistic tendencies.
 Very much so. Destroying minorities. Bahá'ís one of them.
 Hundreds of Bahá'ís were without any reason, without any involvement, were picked up and executed.
 The properties were taken over. Their rights were taken away from them, even up to this day.
 This is the largest, by the way, religious minority in Iran.
 So you would see that in many areas this acts very much as beyond authoritarian. It's kind of really a fascistic regime.
 So Hominid held power for 10 years and then took power the next supreme leader who is still the leader today for over 30 years. Who is he?
 Well, he was one of the, this is Ali Khamenei.
 Ayatollah.
 Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
 Imam one day perhaps?
 No, well they hesitated to use the term imam for him. But in any other respect he was given all of that adulation that they did to Khamenei.
 He is the guardian jurist. That's what's important.
 Because the guardian jurist in the constitution of the Islamic Republic is an authority that is above the state.
 He is not elected quote unquote because this is a divine authority.
 Although he has been designated by the group of deterrent mullahs like himself.
 And he has the full power over all institutions of the state.
 The army, the media, the economy, every aspect of it. He acts like a shah.
 He acts like this authoritarian authority.
 Did that gradually develop or was that very early on?
 Well that's part of the constitution of the Islamic Republic.
 The first constitution, the first draft of the constitution did not have the authority of the guardian jurist.
 But then it was added by Khamenei and his supporters.
 Are there actual in the constitution any limits to his power?
 Yes, there is a council of the experts so to say that would remove him from power.
 I think theoretically.
 But there is so much restrictions to that that I don't think it would have ever happened in reality in his case at least.
 But in terms of executive to make decisions and all that kind of stuff, does he need to check with anybody?
 No.
 He does check with his own advisors, but he doesn't have any constitutional obligation to check on the decisions that he's making.
 So that's the supreme leader, but there's been presidents.
 Yes.
 And what's the role of the president?
 The president in a sense is the executive power under the Islamic Republic.
 There are three heads of powers.
 There is the president that presumably has the executive power.
 There is the head of the judiciary and there is the head of the speaker of the parliament, Majlis, Islamic Majlis, which is the legislative.
 So there's a legislative, judiciary and executive.
 The EC was not a president is the head of the executive above them is the supreme leader or the guardian jurist.
 Can you give me some insight?
 Because I especially I'm not exactly sure why, but the president Ahmadinejad is somebody I'm as an American really familiar with. Why is that exactly?
 But why was why was a president the public facing person to the world versus the supreme leader?
 Is that just an accident of a particular humans involved or is this by design?
 No, because the supreme leader tries to keep himself out of issues of everyday politics supposedly.
 But therefore he is not coming to the United Nations to give a speech during the session.
 But Mr. Ahmadinejad, who at the time was the president, would come and make outrageous statements.
 That's why you probably know something about it.
 So all of them make public statements, but he had a proclivity for outrageous statements.
 He does all kinds of things, he makes all kinds of statements, but he is somewhat above the everyday politics in theory.
 But of course, he's pulling all the strings without doubt in every respect.
 And it seems that you were asked, I thought you were going to ask me this question almost without an exception since the inception of the Islamic Republic in 1979,
 up to the last of the presidents of the Islamic Republic, Rouhani, before the guy that is last year or a year and a half ago was in a phony election.
 Got into the position of the president.
 All of them, and it's a long list, all of them eventually fell out with the regime.
 So there is no president, except perhaps to some extent Rouhani, but we'll wait and see what's going to happen to him.
 But prior to him, all of them, including Ahmadinejad, fell out with the regime, with the current regime in Iraq.
 Who's Rouhani? He was officially president for eight years.
 Yeah, prior to Raisi.
 Ibrahim Raisi, the 221, what you're saying is a phony election.
 Yes, it's a phony election.
 What happened? What's interesting about what happened?
 Because the process of actually candidacy for presidency is completely controlled by a council that is under the control of the supreme leader.
 So they have to approve who is going to be the candidate.
 So not everybody can enter and say, I would like to be a candidate.
 So did Rouhani fall out of favor? You're saying there's some...
 Well, he is kind of out of favor now because he was more moderate than this most recent regime.
 But the point is that if you look, this is something almost institutional to the regime.
 This is a regime that rejects all of the executive powers because the division between the supreme authority,
 as a place of a supreme authority versus the presidency has problematic.
 It is as if there would be a supreme leader in the United States above all the three sources of power.
 That's the kind of view that you can see in today's Iran.
 And of course, he is at the focus of all the criticism that he receives from the demonstrators in today's Iran.
 So on top of all this, recently and throughout the last several years, U.S. and Iran are in the midst of nuclear deal negotiations.
 This is another part of the story of Iran is the development of nuclear weapons, the nuclear program.
 They're looking to restore the nuclear deal known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, JCPOA.
 What is the history, the present and the future of these negotiations over nuclear weapons?
 What is interesting to you in this full context from the 16th century of the messianic journey?
 What's interesting to you here?
 You can argue that for a long time, even under the Shah, but much more expressively and decisively under the Islamic Republic,
 there was a determination to have a nuclear power or nuclear weapon in a sense.
 I think the bottom line of all the negotiations, everything else, is that Iran of the Islamic Republic had the tendency of having its own nuclear weapon.
 The reason for that is that Iran was subject of nearly nine years, eight and a half years of Iran-Iraq war,
 when not only Iran faced an aggressor, Iraq, that actually attacked Iran at a very critical time at the very beginning of the Iranian Revolution,
 but the fact that Iran felt kind of helpless in the course of this war and has to make great sacrifices actually,
 which supported the Islamic regime and consolidated the Islamic regime because of this war.
 And most of the time, the support of the United States was behind Iraq vis-a-vis Iran.
 And Iran felt that it's been isolated and has to protect itself.
 So there is some argument for having nuclear capabilities.
 But in reality, this has resulted in a completely mindless, crazy, wasteful attempt on the side of the Iranian regime to try to develop a nuclear power.
 And therefore, the rest of the world, particularly in this region, were very worried that if Iran would get access to a nuclear weapon,
 then the entire region of the Persian Gulf might, particularly Saudi Arabia, possibly Turkey, possibly Egypt,
 all of them may require, may demand to have also nuclear weapons, given the fact that Pakistan and India has already had it.
 So there was a determined attempt, as you might know, on the side of the Western communities or now gradually world communities
 to try to, as much as possible, to control Iran from getting access to a nuclear capability
 or actually limit Iran's nuclear capabilities to what was defined usually in a euphemism as a peaceful fashion.
 That being said, there was also Israel, which viewed the Islamic Republic as an arch enemy.
 And some of it might be due to the Israelis' own exaggeration of Iran's threat.
 And some of it is because Iran has developed a fairly strong military, as we see today.
 And as such, this attempt to try to prevent Iran from ever getting access to a nuclear weapon,
 which resulted, as you might know, in these massive sanctions that were imposed upon Iran ever since the beginning of the revolution in 1979
 and, of course, more intensively since 2015, 2016, even prior to that, probably a little bit earlier.
 This agreement, the nuclear agreement, was supposed to control or monitor Iranian nuclear industry or nuclear setup
 in exchange for removing the sanctions.
 But this never worked, in a matter of fact, in a very successful, satisfactory way for the Iranians or for the Americans,
 particularly under Trump administration, which I think foolishly decided to scrap the agreement that was reached under President Obama,
 like many other policies that was implemented under Trump administration.
 This created a major problem, that is how to, under Biden, how to try to come up with a new nuclear agreement with Iran.
 In this process, since 2016, where the United States withdrew from the agreement, Iran felt comfortable to try to go and do whatever they want
 without any kind of monitor, being monitored by the international community.
 And that's the situation now. We don't know whether Iran is really sincere under the present regime to negotiate a deal.
 We don't know that the United States is willing to do so.
 And it seems that now what is happening in terms of the protests in the Iranian streets makes it even harder in public eye to try to negotiate a deal with Iran.
 Because that means in the minds of many, and with some justification, that if the nuclear agreement would result in the removal of many of these sanctions,
 millions, billions, as a result of the removal of the sanctions and Iran's ability to sell its oil in the international market without any restrictions,
 means that the Iranian government is going to become even more powerful, more financially secure in order to suppress its own people.
 So that's the agreement that goes against coming to terms with Iran.
 But the problem is that there is no clear alternative, even I'm not particularly personally favorable, for this agreement to be ratified.
 But the alternative is very difficult. There is no way to try to see what can be done.
 Geopolitics where every alternative is terrible.
 Let me ask you about one of the most complex geopolitical situations in history.
 One aspect of it is the Cold War between Iran and Israel.
 The bigger picture of it is sometimes referred to as Israel-Palestine conflict.
 What are all the parties, nations involved? What are the interests that are involved? What's the rhetoric?
 Can you understand, make the case for each side of this conflict?
 You're opening a new can of worms that takes another three hours of conversation.
 Just three hours?
 What I can tell you is this.
 Iran prior to 1979 viewed itself under the Shah as a kind of a, if not supporter of Israel, was in very good terms with Israel.
 They had an embassy in Iran or unofficial embassy in Iran.
 They had certain projects that helping with the agriculture and so forth in Iran.
 But since 1979, that completely reversed.
 Part of it is that the issue of the Palestinian plight remained very much at the heart of the revolutionary Iranians.
 You would see that part of the United States guilt, sin, is to support Israel vis-a-vis.
 It's very suppressive, very oppressive treatment of the Palestinians.
 Completely illegal taking over of the territories which is not theirs since 1967.
 And therefore it is upon the Iranian regime, Iranian Islamic Republic, to support the cause of the Palestinians.
 This came about at the time when the rest of the support for the Palestinians, including Arab nationalism,
 basically reached a stage of bankruptcy.
 I mean, much of the regimes of the Arab world either are now coming to terms with Israel or in one way or another
 because of their own contingencies, because of their own concerns and interests, are really nearly accepting Israel in the region.
 Now, that old task of rhetorically supporting the Palestinians falls upon the Islamic Republic
 that sees itself as a champion of the Palestinians now.
 Without, as a matter of fact, having either the support of the Iranian people behind them.
 If you ask if tomorrow there would be a poll or a referendum,
 I would doubt that 80% of the Iranian people would approve of the policies of the Islamic Republic vis-a-vis the issue of Palestine.
 Nor the Palestinians themselves because the Islamic Republic is only supporting those factions within the Palestinian movement which are Islamic, quote unquote.
 And even within that, there is problems with Hamas, for instance.
 But nevertheless, it's for the Islamic Republic some kind of a propaganda tool to be able to use it for its own sake
 and claim that we are the champions of the Palestinian people.
 Whether they have a solution, if you look at the rhetoric, if you listen to the rhetoric, it's the destruction of the state of Israel.
 And that, it seems to me, creates a certain anxiety in the minds of the Israelis, Israeli population, and Israeli government.
 Particularly those who are now in power, Netanyahu, the Likud, and more kind of a right-wing politics of, policy of today's Israel.
 That being said, I think also the Israelis try to get an extra mileage out of threat of Iran, quote unquote.
 In order to present themselves a rightful for terms of security and whatever else.
 The way that they are treating the Palestinians, which I think is extremely unjust, I think is extremely unwise for Israel to carry on with these policies
 as they did since 1967 at least, and not to try to come to terms with it.
 Of course, there's a huge amount of, I'm not denying that at all, a huge amount of failures, mistakes, and stupidity on the side of the Palestinian leadership
 in various stages, not to try to make a deal or try to come to terms in some fashion.
 But it's a very complex picture, and it's rather unfair to the Palestinians to accuse them for not coming to terms with Israel under a very uneven circumstances
 when they are not in a position to try to make a fair deal in terms of the territories or in terms of their security in future vis-a-vis Israel.
 So I think there is, as you probably know, quite a lot of people that would have a different perspective than you just stated in terms of taking the perspective of Israel
 in characterizing the situation. Can you steelman their side? Can you steelman Israel's side that they're trying to be a sovereign nation,
 trying to protect themselves against threats, ultimately wanting to create a place of safety, a place where people can pursue all the things that you want to pursue in life,
 including foremost happiness?
 I tend to agree with you, and I have all the respect for the fact that Israel would like to create security and happiness for its own people.
 But there are two arguments. One is a moral argument. To my mind as a historian, Jews around the world all through their history suffered.
 And this is a history of suffering. It's a memory of suffering. And I find it enormously difficult to believe that a nation
 that's the product of so much sacrifice, suffering, loss of life, and a variety of holocausts above all, would find itself in a position not to give the proper justice
 to a people who could be their neighbors. And that is a moral argument which I cannot believe under any circumstances can be accepted.
 Second, in real terms, what do you want? Do you want to commit a genocide? Do you have a population there that you have to come to terms with it?
 And you cannot just postpone as they did. Since 1967, they're postponing and hoping that it goes away somehow.
 I don't think it's going to go away. And it's going to get worse rather than better.
 It's a long, nuanced discussion and I look forward to having it. So we'll just leave it there for the moment.
 But it is a stressful place in the world where the rhetoric is existential, where Iran makes claims that it wants to wipe a country off the face of the earth.
 It's just the level of intensity of rhetoric is unlike anywhere else in the world.
 And extremely dangerous.
 In both directions. So one, the real danger of the rhetoric actually being acted upon.
 And then the extreme political parties using the rhetoric to justify even a greater escalation.
 So if Iran is saying that they want to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, that justifies any response.
 On the other side.
 On the other side.
 Of course, I tend to agree with you fully. And unfortunately, this is a very critical situation that this region is facing, Iran in particular.
 I would say that I hope that in the minds of the people of Israel, there is enough or common sense to realize that probably escalation on the Israeli side is not in the favor of anybody.
 And try to let the Iranians to go on with their empty rhetoric as they do so far.
 But at the same time, I cannot deny the fact that there is a danger on the side of this regime and what it says.
 It cannot be denied. Nobody can justify that.
 Particularly because the Iranian population is not behind this regime.
 Certainly in the case of the Palestinians. Or for that matter, it's not Palestine.
 It's the Islamic Republic's involvement in Lebanon with Hezbollah.
 It's the Islamic Republic's involvement in Syria with Bashar Assad.
 It's involvement in other parts of the world, perhaps even Yemen.
 That all of them creates extraterritorial responsibilities or interventions, unnecessary interventions,
 that ultimately is not in favor of the best interests of the Iranian people or Iran as a country.
 Iran has never been involved in this kind of politics before of the Islamic Republic.
 So in a sense, the Iranian regime, it seems to me, by going to the extreme,
 tried to create for itself a space that it did not have or did not deserve to have within the politics of the region.
 In other words, that has become part of the tool, kind of an instrument for, if you like to call it,
 some kind of an expansionism of the regime.
 In parts of the world where it can see there is a possibility for its presence, for its expansion.
 Of course, historically speaking, Iran, ever since the 15th century, I think that's the earliest example I can see,
 in early modern times, has always a tendency of moving in the direction of not only what is today the state of Iraq,
 but further into the eastern coast of Mediterranean.
 So that's a long-term ambition that has been in the cards as far as Iran as a strategic unit is concerned.
 But by no means justified and by no means could be a reasonable, could be a sane policy of a nation state as today's Iran.
 But the second point is that also regimes are always victims of their own rhetoric.
 So once you keep repeating something, then you become more and more committed to it.
 And it cannot remain anymore in the level of a rhetoric. You have to do something about it.
 So it's some compelling pressure to try to materialize what you've been saying in your rhetoric.
 And that is even extremely more dangerous as far as Iran is concerned.
 And it brings it to some unholy alliances that today we are witnessing Iran is getting involved.
 Even more dangerous than this rhetoric in terms of the vis-a-vis Israel is its involvement with Russia and to some extent with China, which we can talk about.
 What do you think about the meeting between Harmony and Vladimir Putin in July?
 What's that alliance? What's that partnership? Is it surface-level geopolitics?
 Is there a deep growing connection?
 I cannot see the difference between geopolitics and these deep connections. I see this one and the same.
 Why? Because I think the experience of 40 years of distancing from the West in terms of the Islamic Republic
 and the fact that there is a shelf life to imperial presence for any empire anywhere in the world.
 So after the terrible experience of the United States in Iraq and in Afghanistan,
 pretty much like the British Empire that after the Suez experience in 1956 decided to withdraw from east of Suez.
 Maybe there is a moment here that we are witnessing or it may come that a great power like the United States sees in its benefit
 not to get too much involved into nitty-gritty things in other parts of the world that it's not its immediate concern.
 And I think that is part of the reason, not the entire reason, part of the reason why we see the emergence of a new geopolitical environment
 in this part of the world of which China, Russia, possibly Iran, possibly Turkey, possibly both of them are going to be part.
 Perhaps Saudis also, but I doubt that the Saudis under the present circumstances,
 although we have witnessed some remarkable issue in the course of the past few weeks
 where the Saudis giving assurances to American administration and then shifting and getting along with Putin
 in terms of the oil production, I think it's more than that even.
 And it's not only them, but also the Emirates are doing the same thing. So what does that tell us?
 And that's another many hour conversation about the oil industry in Iran and the whole region.
 In emerging this kind of a world which was perhaps even 10 years ago unimaginable.
 That you see now a great power, China, that it's going to remain from what we see around us as a great power.
 And Russia, adventurous, foolish, but nevertheless would remain criminal, I would say, as far as its behavior in Ukraine.
 But actually it's a rogue nation that attracts another rogue nation.
 So Iran finds itself now in a greater place of security in alliance with Russia
 in the hope that this would give Iran a greater security in this part of the world.
 Whether this is realistic or illusion, I think remains to be seen.
 I think Iran-China relation makes more sense.
 Although if you ask ordinary Iranians, they don't like it.
 They would tell why should we be tied up with China as the only trade party with America
 because of the foolish isolations that you have created for us,
 because of all the sanctions that you have created for us, the Islamic Republic.
 So in a sense it's a very difficult question to answer.
 Probably Iranians also like to be more on the other camp.
 But what happens is that in the real term, what surprises me most is not this alliance with China,
 but it's kind of becoming a lackey or subservient to Putin's regime in Russia.
 Since if you look at it, Iran ever since at least the 19th century, not going further back,
 the beginning of the 19th century always viewed Russia as the greatest threat strategically
 because it was sitting right at the top of Iran.
 It was infinitely more powerful than Iran has ever been.
 And Iran fought two rounds of war at the beginning of the century,
 lost the entire Caucasus to Russia and learned its lesson that you have to be mindful of Russia
 and you have to keep it as an arm's leg.
 And that's what was the Iran's policy throughout the course of the 20th century,
 19th and 20th century up to what we see now around us, which is a very strange situation.
 Whether the balance has changed in terms of if Russia is purchasing weapons from Iran,
 which was unheard of, and means that there is a new balance is emerging,
 a new relationship is emerging, perhaps remains to be seen.
 But if you look at the historical precedence, it would have been enormously unwise
 to be an ally of Russia given its long history of aggression in Iran.
 See, part of the reason why it's actually Iran allied itself with the British Empire
 was the fact that it was so much afraid of the Russian expansion.
 And as such, I don't know what's going to be the future of this relationship.
 There is a big disconnect between governments and the people.
 And I think ultimately, I have faith that there's a love across the different cultures,
 across the different religions, amongst the people.
 And the governments are the source of the division and the conflict and the wars
 and all the geopolitics that is in part grounded in the battle for resources and all that kind of stuff.
 Nevertheless, this is the world we live in.
 So you looked at the modern history of Iran the past few centuries.
 If you look into the future of this region, now you kind of implied that a historian
 has a bit of a cynical view of protests and things like this that are fueled,
 at least in the minds of young people, with hope.
 If you were to just for a while have a bit of hope in your heart and your mind,
 what is a hopeful future for the next 10, 20, 30 years of Iran?
 I'm not cynical. I'm trying to be realistic.
 And I actually may be critical, but I have great hopes in Iran's future for a variety of reasons.
 I actually did write an article, only the last version of it is going to go out today,
 in which the title of it is The Time of Fear and Women of Hope,
 which in a sense is this whole coverage about what this movement means that we see today.
 It may fizzle in a few weeks' time, or it may just go on and create new dynamics in Iranian society
 that would hopefully result in a peaceful process of greater accommodation
 and greater tolerance within the Iranian society and with the outside world.
 And I think the majority of the Iranian people don't want tension, don't want confrontation,
 don't want crisis.
 If 40 years they have suffered from a regime that has dictated an ideology that is regressive and impractical,
 they want to go back to a life in which they don't really create trouble for their neighbors or for the world.
 And therefore, I would see a better future for Iran. That's for one reason.
 Strategically or geopolitically, it may be in Iran's advantage in a peaceful fashion to negotiate,
 as it's the fate of all the nations, rather than commit itself or sworn to a particular course of policy.
 So, it's give and take as the nature of politics is art of possible, as it's been said.
 So, probably Iran is going to be hopefully moving in that direction.
 I think there is a generational thing. That's the third reason.
 No matter how much the Islamic Republic tried to Islamicize the Iranian society in its own image
 of kind of radical ideological indoctrination, it has failed.
 It has failed up to what we see today in the Iranian streets.
 And the Iranian population said no to it.
 And I think if there would have been, and I very much hope there will be,
 a possibility for a more open environment, more open space where they would be able to speak their views out.
 Iranians are not on the side of moving in the extreme directions.
 They are on the side of greater accommodation and greater interest in the outside world.
 And if you look at every aspect of today's, beside the government, every aspect of life in today's Iran,
 you can see that from the way that people dress to the way that they try to live their lives,
 to the way that they're educating themselves or being educated in the institutions,
 do you see a desire and intention to move forward? And I'm optimistic.
 Well, in that struggle for freedom, like I told you offline, one of my close childhood friends is Iranian.
 Just a beautiful person, his family is a wonderful family.
 On a personal level, it is one of the deeper windows into the Iranian spirit and soul that I've gotten a chance to witness.
 So I really appreciate it.
 But in the recent times, I've gotten to hear from a lot of people that are currently living in Iran,
 that are currently have that burning hope for the future of the country.
 And so my love goes out to them in the struggle for freedom.
 That's so nice of you to say so. And I very much hope so.
 There are moments of despair and there are moments that you would think that there is no hope.
 But then again, something triggers and you see 100,000 people in the streets of Berlin
 that are hoping for a better future for Iran.
 And I very much hope it eventually emerges, even I'm hoping at the same time
 there's not going to be a very strong leadership as it was the case in the past.
 We started with hope. We ended with hope. This was a real honor. This is an incredible conversation.
 Thank you for giving such a deep and wide story of this great nation, one of the great nations in history.
 Well, that's kind of it to say so.
 Thank you for sitting down today. This was amazing.
 A history that, as I've said in the start of my book, I say it's the history of a nation
 which has learned a huge amount from the outside world by force of its geography.
 It was always located somewhere that people would invade or come for trade or something happened to it
 that this diffused culture continued to, and they were not afraid of learning or adopting as they do right now today.
 This is a very different society.
 Never a boring moment in its history as you write about. Thank you so much. This was awesome.
 Thank you.
 Thanks for listening to this conversation with Abba Samana.
 To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description.
 And now let me leave you with a few words from Martin Luther King Jr.
 From every mountainside, let freedom ring.
 Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.