Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi Challenges Trump To Support Regime Change in Iran
Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi returns to the PBD Podcast to discuss the Iranian regime's future. He tells Patrick Bet-David about the importance of regime change, the effectiveness of Trump’s sanctions, and why the West must stop appeasing Iran.
---
📕 PBD'S BOOK "THE ACADEMY": https://bit.ly/3XC5ftN
👕 TEAM USA GEAR AT VTMERCH.COM: https://bit.ly/40gZun5
📰 VTNEWS.AI: https://bit.ly/3Zn2Moj
👕 VT "2024 ELECTION COLLECTION": https://bit.ly/3XD7Bsm
🎙️ FOLLOW THE PODCAST ON SPOTIFY: https://bit.ly/3ze3RUM
🎙️ FOLLOW THE PODCAST ON ITUNES: https://bit.ly/47iOGGx
🎙️ FOLLOW THE PODCAST ON ALL PLATFORMS: https://bit.ly/4e0FgCe
📱 CONNECT ON MINNECT: https://bit.ly/3MGK5EE
📕 CHOOSE YOUR ENEMIES WISELY: https://bit.ly/3XnEpo0
👔 BET-DAVID CONSULTING: https://bit.ly/4d5nYlU
🎓 VALUETAINMENT UNIVERSITY: https://bit.ly/3XC8L7k
📺 JOIN THE CHANNEL: https://bit.ly/3XjSSRK
💬 TEXT US: Text “PODCAST” to 310-340-1132 to get the latest updates in real-time!
----
SUBSCRIBE TO:
@VALUETAINMENT
@vtsoscast
@ValuetainmentComedy
@bizdocpodcast
@theunusualsuspectspodcast
ABOUT US:
Patrick Bet-David is the founder and CEO of Valuetainment Media. He is the author of the #1 Wall Street Journal Bestseller “Your Next Five Moves” (Simon & Schuster) and a father of 2 boys and 2 girls. He currently resides in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.
Well, are we talking about Srotkov covert operations and coup plots and that kind of stuff?
The discourse in Iran is no longer reform.
The discourse in Iran is now revolution to change the regime.
Yeah, I don't know if you saw the story or not.
Literally, it just came out from New York Post.
Iran claimed they could build a nuclear weapon as supreme leader on Saturday, threatened the U.S. and Israel with toothbreaking response.
Because you don't need to have war to have that change.
I revert back to it.
These guys leave, though.
Well, okay.
When it says death to America and death to Israel, it's not just a slogan.
They actually mean it.
These guys have been in office for 46 years and they're still in there.
Does that make them better at keeping control than your father and your grandfather?
Don't you think my father knew what was going to happen?
I'm prepared to lead this transition.
As the leader or as an advisor?
Leading the transition.
We'll see what happens.
Let the Iranian people say to me.
There's too much crayari in that answer.
To be very direct.
So let's say Trump wins on Tuesday.
This will be the last chance of you being able to do so, possibly in you and I've lifetime.
It takes two to tango.
Okay.
Fair enough.
But the leader needs to lead.
Why do you ask me the question?
Yeah.
This question should be posed to Donald Trump or Kamala Harris.
I think Americans need to remember this.
Sometimes we forget about things too easily, too fast.
Before you watch this interview, I want to give you a little bit of perspective of this interview versus the first one that we had.
The tension in this one was much higher.
He was challenged, he was pushed, and his energy was something else.
And it kept increasing more and more and more throughout the entire almost at the end of the interview.
He was defiant, like he wants to do this.
It was great to see that.
We talked about, he reacted to a Trump clip of what Trump's level of commitment would be if he becomes president towards helping Iran.
And it was almost as if he was making a case to the Trump administration and to the Iranian people.
I asked him, I said, why is it that the voter turnout from the Iranian people in Iran has been the lowest for the last couple of decades?
We talked about that.
We talked about the executions on an annual basis in Iran under Obama versus under Trump versus under Biden.
It was so revealing.
Asked him the question.
There's some rumors about his father, when he was on his deathbed, he accepted Jesus Christ and became a Christian.
He gave his perspective on that because he was bedside when he gave that.
And then it's just very much more emotional, much more emotional on this one and intense.
And I think the Iranian people, as well as people that are not Iranian but interested in seeing peace in the Middle East, you're going to be fascinated by today's sit-down with Crown Prince Reza Pallavi.
Enjoy this interview.
Why would you plant on Goliath when we got bet David?
Value payment, giving values contagious.
This world of entrepreneurs, we get no value.
They hate it.
I didn't run, homie.
Look what I become.
I'm the one.
Last time we had the crowned Prince Reza Pahlavi on, it got millions of views, so many interested people worldwide wanted to hear about the conversation.
It was the first time he had a three-hour sit-down, which was just dynamic.
Today is a follow-up part two.
This is going to come out a day before election when you see this with tensions of Iran, Israel, campaign, Trump, Paris, all these discussions taking place.
It's great to have you back on.
Good to be back, Patrick.
Yes.
So I want to start off with a clip that I want to get your reaction to.
I had the president here three weeks ago, President Trump.
And we're having a conversation.
And one of the things I brought up was when I was in Monaco, I met a gentleman who worked in all the banking in 21 countries in the Middle East.
And I asked him, I said, how bad are the sanctions on Iran?
He said, it's devastating.
And I followed up by saying, you know, what's going to happen with you?
Are you going to be doing anything for Iran to go back to what it used to be in the 70s?
Here's his response.
I want to get your reaction to it.
Go ahead, Rob.
Because, and I can just only tell you this.
The power is obliteration.
Okay.
It's not, I always say it's not two army tanks running around.
What's going to happen to Iran with you by the end of your administration?
I'm not asking you to see Iran be very successful.
The only thing is they can't have a nuclear weapon.
Are you okay with the same administration and way of governing states?
Or would you like to see it go back to the 70s when Shahz was running it and Iran was one of the top three countries in tourism?
Yeah, we can't get totally involved at all.
You know, I mean, we can't run ourselves.
Let's face it.
Sure.
Patrick, we can't run ourselves.
people are going to turn and flip on them it's not going to be a what should i think if you when i handed it over i told them right now make a deal with the rent They'll do anything.
They wanted to make a deal with me.
They wanted, had that election not been rigged and stolen, I will tell you right now, we would have no problems anywhere in the world.
You know, Victor Orban, you know, he's a very tough guy.
He's a very smart guy.
What's your thoughts on his answer?
Well, Patrick, without necessarily isolating the question just to President Trump, we need to have two basic understanding of the Iranian quagmire in the first place since the revolution.
Number one, and something that has been, in my opinion, the biggest flaw in the way of thinking of Western governments, the U.S. included, vis-a-vis this regime, is not fully understanding its nature.
Why do I say this?
Because I think if you look at the tactics or strategies of either containment or appeasement or trying to make a deal, was all hinging on a concept of behavior change.
And the reason all those approaches have failed is because unlike governments that may have a strategy or think strategically, this is a regime that is ideological.
When it says death to America and death to Israel, it's not just a slogan.
They actually mean it.
And that's why I've been saying all this time that trying to think that you can come to terms with them and that this kind of regime can coexist with countries like America or France or Germany as Western democracies is simply unrealistic.
So the problem is the regime itself.
It's not whether you can try to use diplomacy with them or come to terms with them.
And the second element that needs to also be understood is that if some of the lessons of recent history that involved America, that led to changes of governments, but with not good results, has created an element of rejection of the idea, are we going to get involved yet again in another adventure that is going to involve U.S. taxpayers' money, that is going to have our soldiers being deployed to the other side of the world,
and perhaps create some apprehension and like, you know, we need to stay away from it.
The reason I use this as a basic guideline is to say that, look, if we understand that so long as the regime in Iran continues to exist, not only the nuclear threat, but many other ways that the regime depends for its existence by creating and fomenting instability and intervening in other countries' affairs is not going to disappear because it's its nature.
No matter what you think, that is not going to change.
Number two is that the change that we as Iranians are calling for and are hoping that governments like the U.S. government would understand and have our back for a change does not involve the kind of elements that some people may assume will have to happen.
Oh my God, we saw what happened in Afghanistan.
Oh my God, we saw what happened in Iraq.
Are we going to have yet again that kind of a scenario?
In fact, the case of Iran is none of the above.
It's going to be totally different as a means of change.
But we have to first understand that change of regime in Iran is a prerequisite to a better future, that this is in everyone's interest.
And of course, I can elaborate on that.
So I get what you're saying, but President Trump, his answer, his impression is a different impression.
The impression I got from it is, you know, he says, I'm always fluid.
It's a fluid mind.
Last time we used sanctions, we may use something else.
Maybe I'll ask you this question.
When he was president, this is the chart I showed the president.
Economic growth in Iran.
He comes in in 2016.
They're doing great.
That's when the nuclear deal was implemented, sanctions lifted.
Obama's ending of it, boom.
Then Trump comes in.
Sanctions are reinstated from Trump.
Look at 2018, 2019, right?
Iran is in shambles at that time.
You're in communication with everybody around the world that's interested in wanting to see Iran be a democracy, a monarchy, whatever, maybe that many of us can go back and visit the country that we were born in and we lived in.
I lived there almost 11 years.
How close was it from your experience since you left after your father when he was in exile?
How would you compare the level of tension in Iran and how close it got to a fall in changing regime if Trump would have been re-elected, if those sanctions would have stayed?
How close was it?
Well, that's a very good question.
And again, I need to be expanding on this discussion because it has several components.
It's not just one element, but several elements together.
Clearly, what we saw under President Trump's administration was something that proved to be effective, and that was maximum pressure on the regime.
We saw as a consequence how it affected the regime's or curtailed its means to be able to basically fuel its war machine or finance its proxies or do other things.
Unlike his administration, the current administration did just the opposite.
It did not implement the oil sanctions, which meant that the regime had access that more than $100 billion, perhaps almost close to $200 billion worth of oil revenue by selling it to the Chinese.
Money that was used and spent on not the people of Iran, mind you, but that appeasement approach and that paying even ransom to get hostages back.
All of that made the regime more virulent to the point that we shouldn't be surprised that October 7th is an example of what's the consequence of that approach.
But is pressure alone sufficient in terms of a foreign policy?
And again, I tie this to whether it's based on understanding now Ultimately, the regime has to go as opposed to we're putting pressure just to force them back to the negotiation table and expecting behavior change in them.
So, if we understand that ultimately the root cause of the problem, and I think this is something that the strongest allies of the United States in the region may not voice it, but understand it, whether it's in Riyadh or in Jerusalem, is the fact that so long as this regime is there, none of these problems are going to disappear.
So, let's say that this time the element of change are the Iranian people.
And by the way, since we spoke last time, there has been definitely a shift of optic within Iran itself.
The discourse in Iran is no longer reform.
The discourse in Iran is now revolution to change the regime.
We are in a pre-revolutionary stage.
It could become a revolutionary stage by adding a component parallel to maximum pressure, one of maximum support to help the Iranian people.
Not by sending troops, not by sending taxpayers' money, but let's say repurpose frozen assets of the regime that actually is the Iranian people's money themselves.
How do you do that though?
The mechanics may be a bit more complicated.
But the fact is that we're not looking for American intervention.
We're simply saying stop trying to cut a deal with this regime and throw the Iranian people yet again under the bus.
This is an opportunity to invest on the people of Iran as the agent of change, very different than what happened in Afghanistan and Iraq.
And if you begin to do that, you also add a third component.
And that means when people within the system, the bureaucracy, the technocracy, that are fed up, the fact that you see that as a result of escalation, people will die, including officers in the military that ought not to be put in that position in the first place, and they want out.
They will ultimately have an element of perhaps what could lead to maximum defections from the regime, limiting their means to respond.
If you consider all of these components, the ingredients for change exist.
It's just a matter of deciding to shift your policy from one that continues to be in the maintenance of the status quo of trying to yet again say, okay, as long as they're not posing a nuclear threat, we can live with them.
You can't live with them as it is because they won't let go of their antagonism against the West and particularly the US as a target.
Example: the funding and financial support that the regime is spending in American universities, fomenting anti-Israeli and anti-American thinking, even intervening in the elections process here.
Or having, as we speak right now, their so-called IT ministers helping the Venezuelans and the Cubans with the same means of internet filtering and what have you as they have used against the Iranian people at home.
They won't let go of any of this.
So don't assume and be naive into thinking if we can eliminate one of the immediate threats, the rest is going to come into the fold.
That's not going to change.
They will continue to do that.
Okay.
So going back, I want to isolate one question.
Because there is President Trump, when you're president, Iran's not in your top five list of to-do lists.
It's economy, it's re-election, it's family, it's the border, it's building the wall, it's all these things, it's staff firing this person, hiring the next person, reading it, all these things that's on your mind, right?
Yes.
But to someone like you, you know, Iran's in your top three that you think about.
When you wake up in the morning, you probably want to find the first stories that has to do with Iran.
Why?
Your entire, your last name, who you are, what you've done, that's your interest, right?
If I'm the Yankees general manager, when I wake up, what's the first thing I want to see?
MLB, Yankees, trade, all this stuff, right?
But if he's watching this, or if his camp is watching this, okay, and you were to say, just want to let you know, what you did in 2018 and 2019, here's how close you were of Iranian people flipping and that place being forced to go back to getting rid of the, you know, all the chaos that they create in the Middle East, whether it's funding of the Hezbollah, the Houthis, all these other things that we can look at.
How close was Trump accidentally to cause Iran to fall?
How close were they?
Well, obviously, the momentum was in the right direction.
And this is why he received a lot of appreciation and support from Iran itself, to the point that he even sent messages in Farsi to the Iranian people.
But that's with the Iranian people's assumption that he actually means to put the kind of pressure that will give them a chance to then ultimately mobilize themselves against the regime.
The very same people who appreciated that approach and toughness by his side, if they think that he's here to throw them under the bus and cut a deal with the regime, will be the first one to react negatively to it.
Now, I'm not saying this only from the point of view of others.
I'm not saying this only because I'm Iranian and I care about the Iranian people.
I think...
You mind if I read this to the...
Yeah.
Yeah, of course, please.
This is in January 11th, 2020, to the brave and suffering people in Iran.
I've stood with you since the beginning of my presidency, and my government will continue to stand with you.
We are following your objections closely.
Your courage is inspiring.
That's his message.
And he tweeted that at real Donald Trump in Farsi.
So the question, therefore, is which one is it then?
Are we going to fall back to an isolationist mode all of a sudden?
Or are we seeing the results and the feedback on public opinion?
Because look, I think one of the issues that comes across the desk of analysts or specialists or people who want to have a better understanding of whatever country we talk about, it could be North Korea, it could be China, it could be Iran, it could be whatever.
Isn't it about understanding the actual thinking of the people in that country?
Let me go way back, just to give you an example.
Do you remember, of course, immediately after 9-11, what was the mood on the streets of countries in the Middle East following September 11th?
What was it?
Do you remember Al Jazeera television and showing people rejoicing on the streets of many of these so-called allies of the United States celebrating the September 11th?
There was an attack on the U.S. and America got caught off guard and it was an embarrassing moment for U.S. and they're celebrating that embarrassing moment.
And do we remember also that the only country where people went on the streets the same evening after the attack, holding candlelight vigils in sympathy to the victims of the September 11th attack were the people of Iran.
Iran was the only country which its regime has the most hostility towards America, but the people have the most sympathy for America.
I think Americans need to remember this.
Sometimes you forget about things too easily, too fast.
So that tells you that when you are talking about trying to come to terms or a deal with a regime that is inherently antagonistic to America and all of its values, as opposed to a nation that aspire to the very same values and principles of liberty, of human rights, of separation of church from state as a prerequisite to democracy and freedom of religions, we think, like you,
we want to have the same values that are incorporated in American law, the law of the land, the American Constitution.
Even if you look at the way Thomas Jefferson was inspired by Cyrus the Great, who was the first one to bring about the very principles of human rights by liberating Jewish slaves in Babylon and helping them rebuild their temple in Jerusalem.
And as the descendant of Cyrus, we Iranians take pride in that.
What the world of a difference it will be if you have the people of Iran freed from this regime and be truly represented.
And you yourself, Patrick, you know what success Iranian emigres and all people who were basically now part and parcels of America as Iranian Americans, how successful they're being as entrepreneurs, as business people, as leading in all.
And imagine the potential to have all these resources and their counterparts in Iran, bring about the change we want, bring about an element where you have a different Iran that is at peace with Israel, with Saudi Arabia, and regionally, we provide that element of stability that doesn't require America to have to deploy its troops or its fleets in the region to maintain stability.
That's the whole difference.
And now as an American taxpayer, now as an American who say we have no business getting involved everywhere else, what you're doing is in fact helping yourselves, but not having to do it in the place of others.
But if you lag in that, not only will you be dragged into it no matter what later on, but it'll be worse than what we have right now.
And the best way to avoid and eliminate all of these problems is to make the situation.
I'll follow up for you.
So I want to show this clip because I had never even seen this clip that you were talking about until we just pulled it up right now.
So there's an article out there that says Iranians who gathered for a soccer match in Tehran two days after the 9-11 attacks observed a moment of silence in Iran.
There was also candlelight vigil.
Huge crowds attended candlelight vigils in Iran and 60,000 spectators observed a minute silence at Tehran's soccer stadium.
Rob, if you can play the clip, if you have it, it'd be great to see this go forward.
The U.S.-led war on terrorism is getting at least verbal support from some among a one-time adversary, Iran.
In Tehran this week, demonstrators held a candlelight vigil for victims of the attacks in New York and Washington.
And Iran's foreign minister was quoted today as saying his government wants those behind the attacks, quote, tracked down and severely punished.
Where Iran's controlling mullahs stand is unclear.
Yeah, so when I see that, you know, it tells you where the Iranian people are at.
Even when I lived in Iran, the people, we admired America.
You admired what they did.
It was like, oh my God, this other family is going to America.
it's a dream, right?
America was a, and at the same time, I lived there when all you heard was Mac bat on recall, Mac bat on recall, you know, all these things that you hear.
But I want to show you this.
So I made an amateur chart here, and I want to see what you say about this, okay?
So Trump, do you think Trump sanctions brought you halfway through of pressure in Iran where something has to happen, okay?
Because I think he brought it all the way there, right, to the 50% mark.
What do you think is the rest of the 50%?
Because I don't think he's going to be the guy.
You heard what he said about Liz Cheney yesterday.
Oh, they're a war hawk.
All they want to do is go to war, war, war.
I don't want any war.
He got endorsements from Muslims in Michigan standing up and saying the reason why we're voting for this guy is because he's going to stop all the war in the Middle East.
So that's his reputation from his first term.
There is no war.
If that's 50%, is that it, Rob?
What they're saying, you should play this clip.
Muslims supporting Trump.
Go ahead, Rob.
Good afternoon, Mr. Ganders.
As the president said, we just had a positive meeting with President Trump.
We as Muslims stand with President Trump because he promises peace.
He promises peace, not war.
We can pause it right there, right?
So Muslims being behind him because he's going to stop war, which means Trump's probably not going to be, you don't know, but we go based on first administration.
He's not going to be sending troops to Iran to help him topple or regime, all that stuff falling.
If he's saying, guys, this is how much I'm going to do for you, the rest is on you, what do you think the rest is?
Well, again, it's a perfect question.
And also, I would like to take this opportunity and to say that in our optic, at least from my viewpoint, and I think many of my compatriots share this analysis, we're not asking for America to intervene militarily in the first place.
Nobody wants war.
And war is not going to be the solution either, because you don't need to have war to have that change.
I revert to that.
You're going to make these guys leave, though.
Well, okay.
Well, this is a regime that is extremely repressive, meaning that the Iranian people need to have an element of having, you know, a fair chance to succeed.
This is not going to happen without having what I was suggesting earlier, that parallel to maximum pressure, have also a campaign of maximum support.
You're right in your charge of saying that he came halfway.
And in fact, if we look at all the charts that we have seen, if you look at the way the regime was curtailed, the fact that the level of executions in Iran was half of what it was between the Obama administration and the Biden administration was in fact as a result of the regime backing off because they were facing something, pressure.
You know, the old adage of peace through strength.
But let's define what strength means.
Strength doesn't mean that you divest completely without having something to replace it with.
Strength doesn't mean that you always have to have boots on the ground to enforce your interests militarily.
Strength means that you find the right allies, work with them, but you need to nurture that.
You need to be able to give them the footing they need to be able to succeed.
What can bring change in Iran?
Let's analyze that for a second.
And how can it tie into what I think could be part of the foreign policy of, let's say, the American government?
I still believe in the principles of civil disobedience as the method for change, non-violent civil disobedience.
And most of the Iranian people so far has abided by that.
But they need more help.
They need more help in terms of making sure that they are not cut off from the world.
So internet access is one thing.
Then we need to be able to help Iranian families, particularly that of political prisoners and blue-collar workers.
Because I think the quickest way to paralyze the system from within are ultimately labor strikes.
And we need to be able to support that.
Right now, if an Iranian family that is living in Germany or in America or in Canada or anywhere else would like to send some money to help somebody inside Iran, we can't under the sanctioned rules and OFAC.
We are limited in terms of being able to help our kind.
So the problem is that the bad guys somehow make the money by undercutting the sanctions, but the good guys aren't able to help each other because they are limited by means.
So I think there are so many policy changes that could change that aspect, but it needs to be implemented by whatever government.
In other words, America doesn't get to get directly involved, but there are certain things that can make it easier for us to operate.
One of those elements, as I indicated, was there are a lot of frozen assets that belong to the Iranian people in the first place.
And this can be a means to fund and finance many elements that will be helping the people inside.
You're not going to them.
Even the frozen assets you release, you have to go through the current regime that is going to spend it.
When you hear stories that Khamenei's family is worth $95 billion, is that accurate?
Do you believe that?
I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised because definitely the symbiosis of the mafia, that is the IRGC working with the regime, helping each other, has really enriched them while the people are starving on the streets.
Now, yeah, maybe it would be people would say, okay, how do we actually get that done?
But I believe in the principle of when there's a will, there's a way.
And I think one of the things that can be done is to make it possible for Iranians to help one another.
The Iranian diaspora has means to help the fellow compatriots.
But if you ask them right now, can they actually help fellow Iranians at home?
It's very complicated under the sanction rules.
So I think there has to be some modification.
So one thing that President Trump did, and again, part of your chart, he put the IRGC on the list of terrorist organizations.
The Europeans have yet to do that, but that was a courageous first step of indicating we know where we can hit the regime when it hurts.
You can even expand on those sanctions for purposes of imposing even more pressure on the regime.
But that won't be sufficient for the change we are seeking.
What we are seeking is to have also a campaign of maximum support.
Now, very short of what some people may assume, are we going to yet again be forced to engage or intervene militarily?
So let's say we all understand that America doesn't want to go to war.
I'm sure whether it's the Democrats or the Republicans, nobody wants to go to war.
We don't want anything to lead to a war.
But let's understand one thing.
The other side will continue to use every means at its disposal to force conflict because they have lived with that all these years.
If you come to think of it, Patrick, don't you think that they've been given ample opportunities since the Iran-Iraq war ended to come clean and to change?
How many times have we seen succeeding U.S. administration attempting that?
Let me go back to the days of Ronald Reagan.
What happened after Carter lost his presidency and the hostages were taken?
We are about two days from the anniversary of the American hostages taken in the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.
President Reagan dispatched Robert MacFarlane with a Bible and a cake to try to humor Rafsanjani at the time.
Let's not forget that.
And one after the other, Bush's father came and said, the world is less threatened right now, or something to that effect.
And of course, that resulted with, okay, now that we don't have to worry about the Middle East, let's elect Bill Clinton.
And Bill Clinton came in, and then he had to face the situation in Bosnia and what have you.
And then we came to later on, 9-11 happens.
George W. Bush decides to take down Saddam Hussein, which actually was net net lose for America, win for the Islamic Republic as a result.
Then we came to the Obama era.
We tried the ACPOA.
We saw what happened, that even after that, the regime started taking hostages and even more hostages.
Then we arrive at the Trump administration.
We saw some effect of his pressure and the regime backed off.
Then came the Biden administration with all this appeasement and releasing money to the regime.
And we have October 7th.
So where are we today?
At the eve of the U.S. elections in 2024, with Iran doing what it's doing right now, the nuclear threat still be there.
The Israelis having to do what they have to do.
The Saudis starting to sweat as to, okay, where is America so undecisive?
What do we need to do in the meantime with the Chinese and the Iranians and what have you?
All of this is at play and at stake.
And then going back to the original question that you asked, why should America care about Iran or why should we even get involved?
Or isn't it time that we pull away from the region?
The fact is that you create a vacuum.
And ultimately, the biggest fault that America may have, which is, come to think of it, perhaps China, is going to take advantage of the situation and fill that vacuum with the help of the Iranian regime and have total dominance regionally, economically, and others.
Is that net net what America would like to face as a result?
These are the kind of questions that the advisors to both candidates need to think about, irrespective of the divide between the Republicans and Democrats in this country.
I agree.
I just don't know because when I look at this, your father served roughly 38 years, right?
From 41 to 79.
Your grandfather served from 25 to 41, roughly 16 years, right?
These guys have been in office for 46 years, and they're still in there.
So what does that make them better at keeping control than your father and your grandfather?
Because when you look at a couple of reports, you're talking about executions.
Look at this here, Rob.
So 2008, Obama gets in, okay?
350 annual executions in Iran.
What happens?
Goes up to 402, 546, 676, 580, 687, 753.
Obama's last year, he had the highest level of executions in Iran.
Last year, Trump comes in, drops immediately 50%.
530, 517, 273, 280, 267.
Boom.
Biden comes back in.
333, 582, 834, just skyrocketing to the top.
And we just have 2023 numbers.
And Rob, if you can pull up some of the reports that we have on what just happened with executions, not this one.
Matter of fact, let me just stay on this and I'll go to the next one.
Show the other chart, Rob, that shows who was the most favorable by the Iranian people.
I'll give you the thumbs up on the chart that we have so you can just go to it.
It's a chart that shows how favorable was the Shah, how favorable was your father, how favorable was Mossadegh, how favorable was Khomeini, and then Khamenei.
And when you look at this, here's what you'll notice.
The blue is very favorable.
The Navy blue is somewhat favorable.
Gray is somewhat unfavorable.
Red is very unfavorable.
Green, no opinion.
Look at the left.
That's your grandfather, I believe.
Yes, he's your grandfather.
1870, 1944.
41.4%, very favorable.
17.7, very unfavorable.
Let's just focus on those two numbers.
Your father, 32.8%, very favorable.
18.4%, you know, unfavorable, very unfavorable.
Go to Mossadegh.
A lot of people say, Mossadegh was the guy.
He was the modern-day Bernie Sanders.
16.4%, very favorable.
12.7, unfavorable, right?
Then you go to Khomeini, 1902 to 1989.
I lived 10 years in Iran under Khomeini.
20% favorable.
Look at the unfavorability rate.
You got 58.6% of Iranians unfavorable.
Khomeini today, 20.4%, exact as Khomeini, favorable.
That's one out of five.
62% of people, that's three out of five, are unfavorable.
Even though that's been the case since 79, they've been able to keep reign for 46 years.
I mean, how are they able to do this while there's no data that benefits that they're doing the right thing for the people of Iran long term?
Well, one aspect is, of course, repression.
And I would add to this chart the fact that if you look at the turnout in their most recent elections in Iran, it was the lowest ever.
It was the lowest ever show of people to participate in the elections in the past 46 years that you mentioned.
Again, showing the element of people moving away from the reform discourse into a change of regime discourse as a rejection of the government.
But when you say the lowest ever turnout, that's not a good thing.
No, I mean, they didn't participate in the regime's elections.
So this is the one you're talking about, right?
I'm talking about the fact that the regime itself admits that Iranians are not supportive of the regime.
No, but Iran's presidential election voter turnout, right?
39.2% 2024.
Right.
The second closest 48, 2021.
The way I view this, and please push back, I view this as they've given up.
No, that means that they don't validate the regime or basically, the regime always tried to tell the world, look, we are popular.
People are participating in our elections, which was, of course, a fallacy and a force to begin with.
But they always use that as a pretext to claim legitimacy.
Yeah, they're not going to be able to do that.
People on purpose don't participate by saying, you know, we boycott the election.
No, the way I see it is the following.
You know how American polls will say, oh, you know, Hillary Clinton gets the favorite.
I mean, it's just such a massive landslide victory, Hillary Clinton over Trump, and then Trump wins.
Polls, right?
And right now, with all these conversations that are going on, it's like, oh, it's going to be done.
It's over with.
And it's like, no, you guys got to go vote.
We need vote or turnout, vote or turnout, vote or turnout.
Sometimes people stop voting when they think their vote no longer matters because it's not going to happen anything.
The way I read this is the Iranian people feel defeated that their voice doesn't matter.
You read this differently than I do.
Yes, and I'll tell you why.
Because look, if we assume that when in countries that hold free and fair elections and candidates are not pre-vetted or pre-approved or eliminated by some kind of a filter mechanism imposed by a regime, then of course people have all the incentive to make the difference by voting their conscience.
But when people know that it doesn't matter what they say, the regime is going to manufacture an outcome.
We saw that at the Green Movement, what happened with Ahmadinejad and Mousavi, this is 2009.
Okay, look at that.
No, no, stay on that, Rob.
Go back.
Go back.
You see, that's the highest.
That's 84.83% voter turnout.
Because they were still in the mindset of reform, despite the fact that they knew that their candidates are filters.
But no, but the way I view that is the fact that I see 84.83 as hope, that they had hope that something could happen.
39.92 now split in half.
I look at it as Iranian people have no money right now.
Look, you're right, because if you go back to even before the green movement, if you go back to the days of Khatami, 21 million people in Iran voted for 1997, yeah.
Okay, so look at 97, almost 80%.
Well, why?
Because there was a generation saying he's the first guy to talk about reform, talk about promises of liberalization and all that.
They had a lot of hopes.
And guess what happened?
The regime started going after the students, threw them for their dormitory rooms to their death.
And Khatami at the time said, don't forget one thing.
I'm here to protect the regime.
That was the first sign of being rejected.
Flash forward to fast forward to 2009.
Again, the Iranian people were standing there.
They were chanting slogans in English, not to practice the linguistic skills, but to send a message.
Obama, Obama, Yoba, Una, Yobama, which means Obama, either you're with them or with us.
Again, another letter.
But here's, I'm studying this data.
When you look at a leader, a voice, somebody that's able to rally and get people to go out there and want to do the work, they don't have somebody right now.
And I tell you, because the mindset there, and again, despite the fact that people knew that, well, you know, they used to use the terminology, the choice between worse and worse.
That's not really a choice.
But if you're forced into it, you have to – but that – what shows in the latest statistics, I don't read the way you read it as a deflation or loss of hope.
I mean it as a sign of rejection that the regime can no longer claim legitimacy by saying, look at the rate of participation Iranians have in the election.
That's our read.
We may agree to disagree.
Oh, that's totally fine.
But that's our read on it.
Why?
Because they are tired of this game.
People said, you know what?
This regime is not going to reform itself.
And the reason I have to insist on this point, Patrick, is because it's the key element for world leaders and foreign governments to understand the change of dynamics and paradigm within Iran itself.
Because all this time, let's not forget one thing.
Whether it was the Europeans or even some people here in the United States, looking at Iran was always issue.
You know, there are elements that are more moderates or more reformists.
Maybe we can talk sense with them.
And all of that was attempted as part of that behavior change approach that maybe we can't come across, come to terms better with those who are less hawkish or less radical than the so-called moderate elements.
But at the end of the day, when you look at the behavior of the regime, irrespective of who was at the helm, the attitude was basically one and the same.
So it didn't make any difference what Khamenei will pull out of his bag of tricks and say, this is the next president.
Same thing with Raisi and company all the way to the current guy.
Why?
Because this is not the people's choice.
This is the regime choosing who they would like to bring out of the ballot box, which is a complete mockery of any elective process, which is why it's important for the votes to be counted in countries that respect the principles of free elections and free and fair elections, America included.
Of course people should participate in free and fair elections.
But why should people participate in a system that doesn't even respect votes, that doesn't give people an opportunity to truly choose their own candidates?
It means you've given up on hope, though.
Because to me, like if I think about, I just had Maria Corina Muchado, who from Venezuela, right?
And her and is it Edmundo?
Can you see what Edmundo's last name is?
I want to say correctly.
I think it's Gonzalez or it's with a G. Edmundo Gonzalez Uritia.
Urutia, yes.
So I had Maria Corina Machado on, who ran against Maduro in Venezuela.
And according to their chart, they ended up winning 67% to Maduro getting 31%, right?
And while I'm interviewing her, she's sitting there and the internet sucks.
I can't understand anything she's saying.
It was weak, right?
And I said, People are no longer interested in Venezuela.
You're waiting for Kamala Harrison Biden to help you.
They're not going to help you out.
Maduro the other day just got up and said, Venezuela and Iran are uniting to be on the same page of war against the West.
Wait a minute.
He's wanting to remove sanctions, yet you're coming back and talking shit about U.S. after you asked them to remove sanctions?
Like, what are you doing here?
I said, you got to get out there.
And she says, no, it's working for us.
I said, no one's caring about Venezuela right now because there's not a lot of stories about it.
And she says, I disagree with you.
I said, I totally get you disagree with me, but let me give you a case study.
Here's a case study.
The case study that worked, which was unbelievable case study.
I'm in Argentina six years ago.
I don't know, four or five, six years ago, let's just say.
And I'm going around and I'm always interested in what the people are going to say.
So tell me about your government.
Oh, my God.
You know, 30% of us work to take care of the other people that are no longer working and they're just getting handouts.
And we're so sick of it.
This place is getting destroyed.
This used to be the Paris of the West, you know, whatever they called it.
You know, Argentina had some phrase that they're giving us, like the Europe of the West.
Argentina is France of the West.
I said, okay.
I said, but how come nothing's happening with it?
And they're like, oh, we're just, we've lost hope.
We've lost hope.
We've lost hope.
Then shows up a psycho-crazy competitor who's unreasonable and is willing to go to war up against these bureaucrats and aristocrats.
And he's sensational.
He's very different.
Javier Mele.
What does he do?
He has the brass to go in front of Klaus Schwab and talk about capitalism.
He has the brass to get up there and say, afuera, afuera, all these stuff that he's doing.
Everybody around the world is following this guy.
And he wins the election.
What?
And he lowers inflation and he's able to get the economy like back to a little bit of normal.
It's able to go up against all these guys.
And how did he pull it off?
He was able to inject hope into the Argentinian people.
When I see something like that with the turnout, it tells me Iranians.
And by the way, I'm going to transition into this question, and I've got a few other things I still want to go through.
But I saw a video you posted, I think, two weeks ago, where it went viral.
And if you remember the video, I'm sure you know which one I'm talking about.
You're speaking in Farsi, so I can't show it.
I'm sure most of the people watching this, a lot of them will be right now.
We subtitled it in the ruin in Iran.
I know you did.
I know you did.
But the last time you and I spoke, I pressed you a little bit at the end about, hey, nobody understands what it is to be the son of your father, the grandson of your Hezakan and all these other things.
Do you want the job?
Do you want to go back?
Do you want to go back to Iran?
Do you want to go back to being that?
And you gave your story, and then I pushed back again.
You gave your version.
And then finally, you're like, I'm willing to help.
I'm willing to be a vessel, but I don't want to move my family back.
Or I don't want to go back and be that person.
Has anything with your position changed since the last time you and I spoke?
Look, I've always said that my life is dedicated to the liberation of my country.
And I've always considered the finish line be the day that Iranians go to the poll and elect their next future democratic government.
As an instrument, as an agent of change who has been called upon, I'm not shying away from this responsibility.
There's a tremendous amount of expectations that my fellow compatriots have in the role I can play to help them in that transition.
And, you know, I will stick to this line and say, I'm not going to put the carriage before the horse.
I think we need to get to the point that then everybody, including yours, truly, can say, okay, what's next?
But we need to get to that point.
And I need to remain focused because I don't want people to be distracted as to a bunch of hypotheticals.
You think that way has worked?
You think that strategy has worked?
Well, certainly I get the feedback from Iranians that is positive because they see that I'm not doing this for me.
I'm doing it for them.
I guess that's the big difference.
Again, so you have to realize I would like to see, you and I have a similar desire.
I do as well for different reasons.
However, the difference is the following.
Do you think, like, are there people that you believe would make good leaders for everybody to get behind in Iran?
Are there people that you know and you see that you can endorse and vouch for and say, if that guy did it, I'd get behind him.
If this guy did it, I'd get behind him.
If he did it, I'd get behind him.
Do you have certain names that you're talking about?
I'm certain that Iranians don't lack talent in every aspect of managing and running a country, whether they are entrepreneurs, whether they are specialists or scientists or good managers and what have you.
They just need to have an opportunity to show up.
Under this regime, they could not.
All the talent that we've had had either been forced to leave the country because of persecution, they had to live away from their country as exiles.
They all migrated and became citizens in other countries.
And most of them realize that so long as this regime is there, all of these dreams and hopes for rebuilding our country will be unattainable as long as the regime is in place.
But immediately, once this regime is gone, everything changes.
All the circumstances are provided for all of us, including myself, to be able to help and rebuild our country.
But I don't think we need to start putting titles and positions to anything.
I think that has to be a process, which is why I say, look, rather than jumping the gun, let's focus on what needs to happen.
I'm prepared to lead this transition.
I have taken this as the leader or as a advisor.
Leading the transition.
Meaning, the leader in that transition.
And going back to Iran.
And of course, I can't do it from a distance.
I have to be able to be in Iran.
The minute the circumstances are right for me to be able to be there safely, of course I will do that and help with that transition.
And then we'll see what happens.
Let the Iranian people see.
There's too much gray area in that answer.
But I don't like the one part of it is unclear.
No, but it's very great.
And I'll give you an idea what I mean by it's very great.
And again, don't take this personally in any way.
It's just my interests are the same as yours.
I want to see that place be peaceful.
The world, I will feel more peaceful if that chaotic regime doesn't exist where they look at us as the enemy and the Western ideology as enemy.
And I think tourism back to the Middle East will increase in ways we've never seen before if that regime is no longer there.
And in business, I know guys that every year they make 10 million bucks, they take 100% of the profits off the table, right?
And I know guys that they'll make 10 million bucks, they put 100% of the 10 million bucks back into the business.
And next year they make 20 million bucks, they put 100% money back, and then 10 years later, they make 370 million bucks.
Then they're like, okay, now there's something that we can do.
The current regime in Iran doesn't reinvest the resources in Iran like the way your father did.
Your father put money back into Iran and these guys are taking money off the table for themselves.
That's why Khamenei has got a $95 billion net worth, that whole family and most people are not aware of it.
No, I think, again, if we go back to case studies of what's worked, Bukele was like this.
Boom.
I'm the guy.
I'm here.
I want to do the job.
Let's roll.
Millay, boom.
I'm the guy.
Screw these guys.
We're going after them.
Here's what we're going to do.
Here's why.
I need your support.
And he called out everybody.
Trump.
I'm the guy.
Boom.
Here's what's going on with America.
The swamp is this.
Boom, boom, boom.
Everybody got behind him.
I'm the guy, so a part of voter turnout being that low means there is nobody that's going like this.
There's a bunch of gray area and no one wants to follow somebody.
I've been in leadership and business for a long time.
Every time I see a company go like this, there's nobody that's casting a real vision that's clear.
The concept of casting a vision, Crown Prince, has to be, in my opinion, I can be wrong and I'm very comfortable being wrong.
The idea of casting a vision has to be vomit.
It can't be.
It's got to be boom.
Easy to understand, easy to replicate, easy to share with somebody else.
Easy to say, I'm with this guy.
Why?
Because of this.
And it paints the picture of the enemy clearly and people realize who the enemy is.
On the Iranian side right now, I don't see that.
I don't see somebody that's doing this.
And I think, frankly, to be very direct, so let's say Trump wins on Tuesday.
Let's say he does.
Let's assume he does, won on Tuesday.
And if he doesn't, that's going to get worse the next four years, by the way.
These executions and all this stuff just can go worse.
Chaos in the middle is going to get worse and worse because Kamala is way more progressive than Biden is.
Biden was a moderate trying to win the progressive vote.
Kamala is a progressive trying to make herself seem like moderate, and she's not a moderate.
She's never been a moderate, right?
So, but if Trump does win, the strategy on Iran needs to be clear now because you're not going to get possibly another chance for 10, 15, 20, 30 years.
How many candidates are going to come that are going to be like this?
Trump's like this.
Most of them are very diplomatic.
So if you don't have another 20 years to do this, that means there's 46 years that all these guys have had it under control.
It's going to go for 66 years.
I think the Iranian people deserve better to get something right now to say, no, this is our time.
We must cease.
Let's go.
And urgency, let's go.
Let's go.
Let's go.
Here's why.
I don't feel that today.
You may say it in different ways.
I just don't.
I think the current strategy is still a little bit of gray.
Instead of black and white, let's roll.
Come behind me.
We're going to make this happen.
Okay.
So if you allow me to respond.
First of all, I define this campaign as a two-stage campaign.
And I have a five-point plan of how to go about it, not only in phase one, which is now, until the regime is no longer there, and then what happens right after the regime during a transition to ultimately a secular democratic system.
And I think part of the reason most of my compatriots support me in this effort is because in fact they understand my approach.
They understand the components of this strategy.
I have explained it and there's much more explaining to do and messaging, of course.
But it incorporates a vision of how to approach this issue.
What is needed for us to get there?
What do we need to bring maximum support and pressure on the current regime and support for the people?
How can we have the Iranian diaspora be effective in influencing foreign governments in coming behind this and help us succeed back home?
What happens after Iran changes the transition period?
What is the interim government responsibilities?
We have economic experts thinking of the first hundred days of how to run that temporary government.
We have legal experts focusing on constitutional law, on truth and reconciliation as to what has to happen with the remnants of the regime and so on and so forth.
There is a newer project that I've started a couple of years ago, which we refer to it now as IPP Iran Prosperity Project, which means what is our roadmap to Iran reconstruction and recovery?
How can we bring in the kind of resources, assets, investments from companies and expertise to redress our country's economic vowels and problems?
All of that is part of the strategy, and it's been explained and it's been discussed.
The only difference is that if you think that I have to necessarily say I'm running for office, will make the difference, I'm telling you, we are way ahead of the curve arguing this issue prematurely.
Right now, my focus is the only job that I think I have and for which I have the most support from my compatriots, and that is to be leading the transition.
But in order to lead a fair transition, you cannot be biased.
You have to be completely impartial and neutral.
That it's not for me to advocate: should it be a republic?
Should it be a monarchy?
All I'm telling about my fellow compatriots is that for us to succeed, we need to be able to have a secular democratic system.
And the biggest lesson we learned under 46 years of religious totalitarian dictatorship is the fact that we cannot achieve the kind of freedoms we want without having separation of religious from government.
That's now a concluded reaction.
And we had to go through this sad experience to get to this point.
Now, at the end, what the people want, we will find out.
Let the ballot box define that.
I believe in the sanctity of the ballot box as being what determines the issue.
And ultimately, the highest instance in any land that people's representatives can legislate and decide for the country is the major.
It's the parliament, one that currently we do not have.
So I based everything on the transition period, bringing us to a point that we can have that Constitutional Assembly decide what's best for Iran.
And unlike 1979, where Khomeini was an unknown, nobody understood what it means to have an Islamic Republic.
But they paint the enemy.
But people had to vote in plain light with some guy standing with a Kalashnikov over a barrel, and you had to throw in a green or red.
But he took a position, though.
But he took a position.
And the reason for that.
That nobody understood.
Nobody knew, including the intellectuals that at the time thought it was my solution.
I thought it was actually a very simple campaign with his tapes.
And I listened to a lot of the stuff that this guy, all he's doing is making money.
Look at the 2,500-year anniversary thing that he put.
That's your money.
Why should he be spending all that money?
If you make me become the leader, I'm going to give that money back to you.
We're going to share the wealth together.
And you're going to have everyone's going to have rice.
And everyone's.
I've heard all these speeches.
Many false promises.
It is, but it worked, meaning it is, but at least he was casting something.
He was casting a vision.
think when i good or bad candidate it doesn't have to be you can learn from everybody on the way they did it i just think uh uh sometimes when you go by the way i think i think i'm casting a better vision than khomeini who talked about free electricity I don't disagree.
I'm talking about something that President Trump emphasized, that bringing the current regime into the fold of the Abraham Accords, as if it's what's going to happen.
I tell you what, when I was in Israel a year ago at a press conference, what I said was I hope the day will come that Iran will bring the Abraham Accord to the Cyrus Accord, meaning Iran is part of that.
A different Iran, an Iran where the Iranian people are not at war with the Jews or Israel, are not at war with the Arabs in the region, are not trying to instigate chaos in the whole world.
But Iranians who want to live at peace and a vision of that future, you mentioned my message to the region and all the feedback it got.
Why?
Isn't that a vision I talked about?
There is, but respectfully, there is having a clear vision and executing.
Well, executing has to have the means, which is why I'm saying it's not going to happen by itself.
Let me ask you.
Part of it is what foreign governments can do.
They can be an obstacle to that and make it more difficult for us to succeed.
Or they could be on the right side of history this time.
You remember the two people that came and flew from France to meet with me multiple times in 2015 in LA, 2024?
I don't know, maybe you wouldn't, when we had the first meeting, you and I in DC.
Do you remember the first meeting you and I had in DC?
It was me, you, and Siamak Sabatimani, and we had a three-hour lunch together.
I have the pictures.
We've talked about this before.
To be honest, I don't recall exactly what we were discussing.
No, no, the discussion was just an introductory discussion.
But there were two people that I was speaking to who were with your camp.
One guy's name was Reza, and there was another girl, and they were from France.
Right.
I wrote, and I think we've spoken about them before.
I'm trying to find it.
I wrote a 10-page proposal to you on my sincere thoughts.
Did those ever make it to you or no?
Patrick, honestly, I don't remember.
It's too long ago.
Because I'm going to try to find that and send it over private.
At the time, I think you're referring to the Iran National Council for Free Elections in Iran, which was at the time what we were trying to organize the opposition to say, look, we want free and fair elections in Iran.
This regime is not providing us, which explained the reason why we say we need to go beyond this regime so we can have political circumstances in Iran for people to be able to participate in free and fair election.
That was the premise and the basis of that council back then, right around the same time of the green movement, it was, I think.
I found it.
Nazila Golston is who it was.
And it was a, yeah, I found it right now.
And if I find this letter, I'm going to send, by the way, this is in 2015 is when this was, when we had the conversation.
And then if I find this letter, I want to forward it to you privately.
I'm going to send it to you where it's just you and I for you to read.
Because when I think about last 46 years, who has been the most constant voice in helping Iran be free again?
If I was, we can't say at the beginning stages, because at the beginning stages, you just had a birthday yesterday, right?
Happy birthday to you, by the way.
I think you're Halloween, right?
October 31st.
Two days ago, you had a birthday.
And when I think about it, so you're, I think you're 64, if I'm not mistaken.
So in 79, 25, you were 19 at the time.
So, and you left a little bit earlier, right?
Because you were doing the fighting.
We talked about this last time.
But if we were to say during that 45 years since 79, the number one draft pick, and I'm using an example of sports, the number one draft pick of somebody that can bring freedom back to Iran has been you.
If it's been you, I don't know what other names have been up there, but you've always been the top three during that entire time, till today.
My only request would be for there to be a more crisper, clear vision and painting the picture of the enemy with a high level of urgency, where there's a bigger turnout and the people are willing to do something.
Because I believe if Trump wins on Tuesday, this will be the last chance of you being able to do so, possibly in you and I's lifetime.
Maybe we're going to get one more chance in the next 20 years.
But if the other side comes in and they're able to do what they're doing, you're not going to find another Trump type of a candidate for at least 20 to 30 years, that kind of a candidate, where Iran fears the way they did with Reagan back in 84 when he got elected and whatever the year was when they're like, you know, they released the prisoners and he gave credit to Carter.
It's the only thing I'm suggesting to you is to have a little bit more urgency of being able to do that.
And if you're going to say you're going to be the guy, be clear, be crisp, and paint the enemy in a way that everybody wants to get behind it.
That's an unsolicited advice.
You have to do nothing with it, walk in and say, this guy has no clue what he's talking about, but I'm coming from a place of wanting to see this become a reality.
Okay, but let's talk Turkey.
Please.
It takes two to tango.
Okay.
Fair enough.
But the leader needs to lead.
Okay, but I can only do as much as I can doing my part together with my fellow compatriots.
Okay.
The element that has been missing all these years was not the fact that Iranians are not resilient, not the fact that you say they have given up hope.
I say if I'd given up hope, they wouldn't still be on the streets fighting, getting shot in the eye.
39% voter turnout war since 20 years.
That doesn't mean that I've given up.
They are resilient on the streets, but they are also sending a clear signal to the world.
We're not going to validate or legitimize the regime by participating in their mock elections.
That's the way you ought to be reading it, because I think that's the correct read, not one that are deflated and given up.
If they're given up, they'll be at their home and going about quietly into the night.
But that's just to shut up the scenery.
So what are we saying?
What am I saying, representing that alternative and ask that the Iranian people have what is the ask of the Iranian people from the U.S. government?
Let's try to analyze that.
Number one, they say, we are your natural allies.
You keep throwing us under the bus, ignoring us, and trying to cut a deal with our enemies within the status quo.
In what other ways can we tell you that while we've been killed here, repressed here, and we are the people that can come to terms with you?
They don't even need to persuade us.
We want to be with you.
We want to rejoin the free world, but you're not helping us in any way.
Every opportunity that we spoke, you have thrown us under the bus.
And I think the question is, perhaps clearer should it be President Trump winning the elections in a couple of days, as opposed to Kamala Harris, which probably is going to be a continuation of the Biden administration.
I have no indication that that has changed drastically in terms of approach.
But let's say if it's President Trump, is it going to be a halfway job?
You raise it yourself.
Is it going to be, okay, enough pressure?
They give up on the nuclear.
Then we can pack our bags and go back home.
We don't want to get involved in any conflict.
And the Iranian people say, hold on.
What about us?
What about what will happen to us Iranians?
And by the way, again, let me emphasize, Patrick, I'm not talking about this only because it suits and benefits the Iranian people.
It will affect every country in our immediate region.
I know this because I talk to them.
I talk to Israelis.
I talk to Arabs.
I talk to Lebanese.
I talk to Iraqis.
I talk to Syrians.
I know even Pakistan and Afghanistan, of course, not the Taliban, but I can't tell you what the sentiments regionally is.
A change in Iran will affect everyone positively.
I don't disagree.
Well, I'm not sure if the current apparent things that we can read between the lines of President Trump has said.
No, President Trump.
I'm talking about President Trump.
Where is it exactly?
That's a foggy area.
You were telling me that I'm being gray.
I think I'm clear as if it possibly be.
Let me push back.
But let's do this because this is what we're doing.
We're doing our part, but we cannot do it all by ourselves.
I also said one thing to Iran.
Do you think Bukeley did it because U.S. helped him?
Do you think Malay did it because U.S. helped him?
Do you think Malay and Bukele did it because U.S. got involved and they were able to do something?
You think Venezuela being where Venezuela's at, okay?
And Maria Corina Machado, who is wanting to free Venezuelans from a dictator like Maduro, who has destroyed an incredible society that was the most beautiful place of people having the most oil in the world.
They had wealth.
It was just a great people, Venezuelan people are phenomenal people.
Do you think that regime is going to fall with just the help?
Or do you think some of these guys that are making it happen, there's only so much the regime can do.
There needs to be somebody that's just a relentless, crazy, direct, visionary, crystal clear that people are going to say, I'm going to go and do something with this year.
I just think that's been soft the last few years.
And all I'm saying is, if we walk away, if you walk away from this interview and you and I, you're like, you know what?
Who the hell does this guy think he is?
I'm comfortable with that.
If you say, this guy doesn't know what he's talking about, I'm comfortable with that.
All this stuff.
But if you leave and then all of a sudden everything is boom and, you know, crystal fired, all this stuff that we're hearing, and there's a resurrection of this 39% that goes back to 83%.
All I'm saying is I'm creating urgency to know you got four years.
If it's not four years, it's in 20 years.
And that 20 years may never come.
And if that 20 years never come, you may never in your lifetime be able to go back to Iran where you have some of the greatest memories of your life with your mother, with your dad, with your siblings, memories of playing outside, flying planes, all this stuff that you did.
That may never happen in your lifetime if there's not more urgency.
And I'm very comfortable being 100% wrong with what I'm saying.
I'm not trying to do this with.
For example, I had Eric Prince on.
I don't know if you know who Eric Prince is.
Eric Prince was on, and he used to be the founder of, is it Blackwater, Rob?
Blackwater, I don't know if you're familiar with Eric Prince or not.
One of the things I asked him, I said, you know, if you were to be giving the assignment, I don't think this is the one, Rob.
I think you got to go to the second one.
The first one is the fact that, Father, you know what I'm talking about.
There's two clips.
You got to go to the second one.
And I asked him a question about what to do with Iran.
Here's what his answer was.
I'm curious to know what you'll say about this.
Go ahead, Rob.
I'd like some ideas.
If we wanted to bring democracy back to Iran and whether it's a revolution to change the regime, come on, man.
How would you go about doing that, Eric?
Of course I've thought about that.
But you think I'm going to talk about it on camera?
Give me three things.
I mean, you know, it's just this.
First of all, we have a small podcast.
Probably 17 people will watch this.
And the 17 people that watch it, they're all going to be Iranio, just so you know that.
But if I know you can't, do you in your mind know?
Like, do you, you're.
You know exactly what I do.
You know exactly what you would do.
Absolutely.
Who else knows?
Some of my friends.
Okay, good.
So what I'm saying is.
So if I get clipped, the mission was.
That's not what I'm saying.
What I'm asking is like.
No, look, think about it this way.
Reagan took office in 1981 and he sat in the Oval Office because we'd had a policy of containment for 35 years.
And he said, enough.
We're going to fuck the commies.
We're going to go at them economically, politically, culturally, socially.
In all ways, we push back.
I remember that speech.
Fuck the commies.
It was...
No.
I get what you're saying.
I'm with you.
Maybe he said it behind closed door.
Watch my podcast off leash with Eric Prince and see Jack Wheeler.
Put the link below, by the way, so the audience can find it.
Jack Wheeler was the guy that went abroad and brought back all the ideas which became the Reagan doctrine for all the places to push back on the Soviets.
And I mean, he's the closest thing to a real-life Indiana Jones.
Anyway, I digress.
What they did, what the U.S., working in concert with the Catholic Church and MI6 in Poland, provided communications equipment to the shipyard workers, the solidarity movement, students, farmers, the church, all sorts of communications.
And that, you know, the means to communicate is essential.
There's a fantastic book called The Dictator's Handbook.
Composite, right?
It's actually a very good book.
Dictator's Handbook is a very good book.
So the reason why I asked him this question is because U.S. military is probably not going to get involved.
They're just not going to get involved.
They don't need to get involved.
Right.
But if they don't need to get involved, you know, and Iranians are sitting there thinking their vote doesn't matter anyway.
It's 39% turnout.
You're going to need to find a creative way to get in there to do something outside of the way that it's been, right?
How is that strategy going to be just without U.S. military involvement?
When I asked him, he's a private military contractor.
He's done a lot of work for a lot of different people.
I think one of the biggest contracts he got was a $600 million contract, Rob, if I'm not mistaken, with the CIA.
This guy was one of the most hated guys in America, right?
Have you thought about anything like this with PMCs?
Look, let me go back to what you were pointing at before.
Part of the reason I enjoy so much popularity, respect, and support by Iranians, including the GNZ, is because I've stayed the course for 44 years.
When I was first in Cairo sending my first message to Iran, at that time, the Carter administration brought pressure to impeach the satellite transmission to be made so that people in Iran could hear my message.
Okay?
So I never depended on any foreign support in order for us to achieve our freedom.
In fact, I've been telling my fellow Iranians, we should never depend on anybody else than ourselves, but it would be so much easier for us to succeed if we had support from the outside world.
That's the game changer.
Look, Lancer Mandela could tell you this if he was still alive.
Lech Velessa, Václav Havel could tell you how different it was because they actually had support.
When was people like Sakharov or for that matter, the dissidents in the Soviet Union in Siberia lose hope talking about Ronald Reagan, the day he called Russia an evil empire?
Yes, I've been saying that twice we've seen how the West prevailed during the Second World War, putting an end to the Nazis because you had a Roosevelt in Washington and a Winston Churchill in London.
And then you had Ronald Reagan in Washington and Margaret Thatcher in London.
Today, facing Putin and Xi in China and Russia, what is the equivalent in the Western world?
We shouldn't be surprised, therefore, that regimes like the one in Iran survive all these years because A, the misread on their attitude and nature was a big flaw.
But now in 2024, when the people in Iran are on the street fighting the fight, they know that I'm not a miracle worker.
They know that we need to have some foreign support.
They know that I'm not sitting back waiting for some military coup to occur for us to succeed because I've said that.
I said we don't require any of that.
What I did say, however, and continue to say, and this is my message to both candidates that in two or three days will end up winning the elections in the US, is understand where Iran and Iranians are today.
Understand what the Iranian people are and where the regime is.
You should focus on the Iranian people for the first time in 45 years, as you put it, as opposed to focus on the regime and what should we do with this regime.
Because the regime will never give you the solution to the problem.
The Iranian people, on the other hand, will.
My entire strategy is based on the Iranian people prevailing over this regime.
Because they'll be the first one to tell you and I and the rest of the world how similar in thinking and values they are with Americans, with French, with Swedes, people living in free countries.
We have to absorb all of that.
We are dying to get there.
And the only obstacle between us and the free world is this regime.
So what is our ask there for from the would-be next government?
And I agree with you that we don't have all the time in the world.
So that's exactly where we have to have a meeting of minds.
So far, we've been running on parallel tracks.
This is only this much that I and my fellow competitors could do under the best of circumstances.
Is it enough to tip the balance?
I don't know.
History will tell us, but I can tell you one thing.
We can increase dramatically our chances of success.
If this time we have government to say, you know, we had enough with this regime.
It is time we look at the Iranian people in an alternative.
And let's give them a chance to succeed as opposed to give a regime a chance to change its behavior.
If that shift of strategy begins to be marked in terms of American foreign policy, we're finally getting in a direction that could lead to a proper solution.
What do you think about what Eric Prince said, private military contractor?
But I don't know what he said because, you know, I don't understand what was the idea of it.
The idea of using a PMC to coincide and raising enough money to be able to have someone like him go help with the regime.
Have those thoughts ever crossed your mind or no?
Well, are we talking about Srpkov covert operations and coup plots and that kind of stuff?
I don't think that the change in Iran is occurring through those means.
But look, we saw what happened in Iraq and the debatification process.
Nothing to replace it with, basically living to some kind of a failed state solution.
I don't think that's a problem in Iran.
Look, for the most part, and in a scenario of survivability post-regime change, a lot of it depends on as long as elements don't have their hands soiled in the blood of the Iranian people that will have to face justice one day.
But imagine how much you can maximize defections by telling those elements that they can survive regime change, that they don't need to stick with this regime to the bitter end, thinking that we are coming back with revenge and want to settle score with the people who repressed us for 44 years.
Iranians are tired of war, of conflict, of repression.
They want to be able to breathe and free and live normally, but they need to be given an opportunity.
We're bringing structure.
We're bringing principles of rule of law.
We're bringing elements that are the prerequisites to what modern society depend on to survive.
That discipline, that understanding, I believe, exists in Iran.
Don't think that the Iranian people have been brainwashed.
In fact, you mentioned something that was interesting in your own childhood, that you were raised in a climate that in schools that were teaching you to chant slogans of death to America and this and that.
And you know, a lot of the feedback I get from today's Gen Z, young Iranians in their teens or early 20s, they say we were all subject to that.
But, you know, the gig is up.
We know the truth.
We've done our own duty just.
It is, but we understand our history.
So the elements for change, the desire for change and the understanding for change is there.
How do you further motivate them?
How do you further empower them is exactly what I'm talking about.
This is not rhetoric.
How can you empower people to actually succeed against extremely repressive?
It's not going to be cool by some special undercover things.
I don't think that's so important.
I'll give you a crazy thing here.
So I wrote this book, The Academy.
The story, The Academy, I've been working on for 13 years.
It's a story about your father's in it.
It's about the Iranian revolution, a kid who gets recruited to a secret society and they help develop leaders that go around the world and do big things.
And the villain in the book is a SAVAC member that turns against the Shah.
Okay.
And when I wrote this book, this villain was the former deputy director of SAVAC.
And I've been writing about this guy for many years.
Story gets out.
And all of a sudden, this gentleman calls me and we start having a conversation together and says, hey, somebody wants to talk to you.
No problem.
And we get on a Zoom together.
And he says, I was the former deputy director of SAVAC.
I said, really?
Yeah.
Okay.
Interesting.
I look, I'm like, shit, this is the guy.
So I said, you know, you wrote a book apparently that you're talking about SAVAC.
Yeah.
I'd like to read it.
I send it to him.
He reads the book.
Comes back, calls me, schedules a time.
Him and his wife come to my house and we spend eight, nine hours together.
Great conversation.
And this is Padavis Sabeti, which I'm sure you know who he is.
And I'm sure you've had conversations with him and or maybe you haven't.
I don't know if you've had conversations with him or not.
So this guy was a former, if you can pull him up, Rob, when you hear some stories, Parviz Sabeti.
Rob, there is no videos on him.
But if you type in Padaviz with a Z, Sabeti, S-A-B-E-T-I, right there, that's him.
And if you go to his Wikipedia, some of the stuff that he did as a SAVAC member to go in, and I'm sure you've seen the documentaries or the stories and how he was able to get in and get some of the Hezbollahs with women and get them to do what they, this guy was a, he had an element of J. Edgar Hoover, but he had an element of understanding how to control some of these guys.
And he worked under your father.
Probably the relationship didn't end on the best note.
But they were there where, hey, these two-day people and the Khomeini people, we have to take them a little bit more seriously.
You know, we can't be this naive to think that this guy's weak and he can't topple you and get rid of you, right?
So the entire premise of this is of a couple moments of either missed opportunities, naivete, or arrogance that we all flirt with.
All leaders flirt with.
No one's free from it.
Like it's not like, oh, you're such a noble, humble guy.
You're never going to flirt with these things, right?
Do you think it's a bit naive or even a little bit arrogant or maybe overly confident to think that this approach that we're going with can the very traditional logical approach is going to be the one that's going to bring freedom back to Iran, or there needs to be some creative ways to be able to go up against a regime like Khamenei that are capable of doing anything.
You have to be able to fight with them.
Like if you wrestle with a pig, you know, you sometimes got to get down and dirty with them.
Do you think that needs to be the case or do you think it needs to be now the traditional way of doing things?
You know, Patrick, one thing that is interesting is that having had the benefit of time for people to, you know, contemplate, do their own diligence and research.
It's very interesting that the younger people in Iran today, who, by the way, reproached their parents, what were you thinking?
Of backing up this revolution?
Were often critical of my father in the sense of if he knew what was going to happen to us, how could he possibly allow this to happen?
In other words, they blame him for having allowed his arch enemies basically succeeding and taking over, but the same students who today revere him, chant his name and, as a result, say, the legacy that I have on my shoulders is as a result of, when they call my grandfather and they say, may he rest in peace.
Al-Ruhad Shot, or the way my father today is revered in Iran, forget the fact that their peers in that age group back then were asking for his head.
And imagine that's my point imagine if my father who, by the way, did warn many, look understand what will be the consequence, not just in Iran but for the whole region, that Iran will become Iranistan.
It didn't take more than a year for the Russians to invade Afghanistan, by the way.
After the Iranian revolution, the whole area went south.
Don't you think my father knew what was going to happen?
He had two choices, either stand there, push back, arrest a bunch of people, execute them and maintain power or say look, after 37 years of reign, I'm not going to crack down on my own people.
And he voluntarily left the country.
It was a choice that he made consciously.
Yours truly will not be sitting here with this amount of support from Iranians, because the same people who revere my father would have said he was a tyrant that tried to stay by killing his people and he would have gone in history as a bloodthirsty tyrant, a little bit like Cheausescu at the end of the Cold War.
So let's understand what it is that is at play here.
It's damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Well, I tell you what I think.
My father made the rational logical, moral decision and which is why people today say that, and I understand why people are frustrated.
Some young people say, if he knew all of what was going to happen to us, he should have stood there fight.
Why did he desert us?
But they would have said the completely different thing had he actually done that, he would not be known as a patriot and somebody who built, build that country.
They will say, look at this.
He's killed so many of us.
And the question is, let's assume he did that for a second.
Would it really have made the difference?
Would it really have changed things?
There was euphoria at the time.
Patrick University professors were swearing that they saw Khomeini's face in the moon.
You cannot reason with that mentality.
So yes, there was a huge momentum As a result of the Marxists on the one hand and on the Islamists on the other hand.
That certainly did not like our relationship with the Western world, particularly with America.
Today's generation said, whoever among our parents who thought that was the solution, and you pointed earlier that Khomeini had a message or had a clarity of vision, well, today what that vision was all about.
It had nothing to do about Iran.
Oh, but that's irrelevant.
It's nothing to do with it.
No, I understand that, but it just tells you how effective it was.
You have to give it credit for effectiveness.
Yeah, we can't forget that.
Some of the people, some of the time, but ultimately you cannot fool all of the people.
For 46 years, they've had rain.
For 46 years, they've had rain of that place with some insane policy.
Well, it took the Russians almost 80 years to get rid of communism.
Do you want to wait that long?
No, I'm not saying we need to wait that long.
That's a lesson in history.
We should not wait that long.
But then again, why do you ask me the question?
This question should be posed to Donald Trump or Kamala Harris.
Do you understand the consequences of continuing in a policy that actually keeps this regime?
Well, it's not their number one.
But it doesn't need to be their number one.
But that doesn't need to be their number one.
It needs to be the Iranian people's number one, not his number one.
No, no, I understand.
Okay.
I understand, but let's say, apart from domestic American politics, economy, this, this, and that.
Fine, foreign affairs.
Foreign affairs.
Okay, what's at stake right now?
A lot.
Okay, let's talk about it a little bit.
Which China do you want to go with?
Sure.
Russia.
Okay.
The conflict with Ukraine?
Sure.
The Middle East, the escalation, the nuclear threat, terrorism, radicalism, etc.
Today you're talking about American universities fomenting anti-American, anti-Israeli or Jewish rhetoric, financed and trained by the Iranian regime and so on and so forth.
How could this not be an element under consideration of brushing it under the rug and trying to say, you know what, we had enough with dealing with the Middle East and its problems?
You cannot just abandon ship in that sense because if you think you don't want to get involved, they will keep you involved.
They will force you to get involved.
And again, you have to think about the solution, not being how can we contain them or can we expect them to change their behavior, but say, let the difference be a different Iran under different circumstances.
We need to have a meeting of minds.
Otherwise, it doesn't matter what me and Iranians are going to do, as long as the world, and especially at its leadership in the free world, in the Western world, America that has a big role to play here, depending on what they end up doing or not, could be the game changer.
I'm telling you very honestly what I think it is.
I don't disagree with you on that point.
We don't have time to waste.
And I'm not the only one saying that.
I bet you many people in the region think exactly the same.
And what has led them to be confused is because the hesitancy or lack of will to do anything from this end in Washington.
I don't think, I don't think Trump's going to go as far as he's going to go.
I think Trump's going to go as far.
I think the way he is as a leader.
So I had a conversation with his son, right?
Eric Trump was here, what, last week or a week and a half ago?
Last week.
Last week.
And when he was here, he said, when he told me he's running for office, he says, Eric, you're going to run the whole business.
What are you talking about?
I've never ran this before.
You have it.
You got it.
Right?
But you got this.
You're going to be fine.
Right.
And he has to figure out a way how to make it work.
His father was a style of you got to figure out how to make it work.
I think Trump's going to help you and say, hey, here's what I'm going to do.
Boom, boom, boom.
Rest is on you.
You want it?
Do something about it.
That's what he's going to do.
I don't think he's not Iranian.
He's an American.
His priorities are America.
Legacy is his mom and dad.
Legacy is his kids.
Legacy is, you know, Israel, what he's done with Israel.
And, you know, it's not, let me see what's going to happen with Iran.
I think he will go as far as empowering Israel to choose to do what it wants to do with Iran, but not itself.
It'll go as far as helping Israel do it.
You saw what's going on with one Hezbollah leader gets killed, then the next one, the replacement, gets killed, then the next one gets killed, and a new one just got hired.
And God knows, he's probably got a few days left.
His days are numbered, right?
So Israel's doing their part against Iran, but Trump's not going to get involved, right?
I think there needs to be a painting of the picture that's crystal clear for something to be taking place.
By the way, just out of curiosity, and I know I'm going, does it at all mess?
Your father passed away at 61 years old, I believe, right?
Did it at all mess with you that you're now older than him?
Does it do anything to you as a son of your father that he died at 61, you're 64 or no?
That thought doesn't cross your mind.
Every now and then.
Every now and then.
It's got to be kind of a little bit strange feeling, right?
Well, I mean, you know, a lifetime is a lifetime.
There's only as much as you could do in a lifetime.
And I hope that I would have the ability to save my country in my lifetime, obviously.
So, you know, age does count at some point.
You look very healthy, though.
I mean, it's just, I wonder, like in your mind, like.
Yeah, look, we are all human, right?
It's not unnatural to have this kind of thoughts.
But, okay, let's go back to Trump or what we think that President Trump is willing to do and where would be his, okay, beyond that is yours.
I think that what I'm asking for is something that he would be able to do without going beyond what he likes to do.
I know he thinks like a businessman.
No businessman wants to have, I mean, war is not good for business.
Everybody wants to avoid conflict.
We're not asking for conflict.
In fact, I think what I'm proposing will help avoid conflict.
But if we don't do this part, conflict will become inevitable.
And all I'm asking is that, okay, you tried and you succeeded when you implemented in your first term maximum pressure when you worked out of the JCPOA, which, by the way, was not something that affected the Iranians positively, regardless of what the Obama administration was thinking at the time.
But that's a halfway thing.
What I'm asking for, and I'm not asking beyond that, let's be very clear.
What I ask is, I'm saying parallel to maximum pressure, you have to have an element of maximum support to at least give the Iranian people an more equal playing field.
Nothing beyond that.
I'm not asking for America's direct intervention.
I'm not asking for military intervention.
I'm not talking about spending American taxpayer dollars on the issue.
But if you give us those two components, then fair enough that the rest is up to us, Iranians.
But if you're going to come and say the Iranian people, you know what?
If we can guarantee that the regime is not going to do anything beyond the nuclear threat, that's good enough for us.
The rest, we don't care.
That basically means, you know what, the regime can stay there, continue massacring its own people.
We don't care.
That's fine with us.
We can live with that.
Is that the message that America wants to send the Iranian people?
And that's something for both camps to consider.
Yeah.
That's part of the notion.
That would be interesting.
Here's what would be interesting.
Rob, can you check to see?
Did President Trump ever visit Iran while he was the president?
No, no, but much earlier in his days, there are a picture of him in Tehran, I believe.
No, no, I'm telling when he was president, 16.
Did he visit visit 16 to 20 or no?
Like, did he go meet with any of the leaders in Iran or not?
I don't know if they had any secret meetings in other places.
But not public.
I'm not talking public.
I don't know.
I don't know.
Did you find anything?
No, I'm searching right now.
This is a list of the just to control F Iran.
I did.
Nothing showed up.
Nope.
Okay.
So this would be interesting.
And I think it would be, I think it'd be a major milestone for respectfully to you, Crown Prince, to pull off, is if Trump visited North Korea, which North Korea is a bigger threat than Iran, some would say.
In the Middle East, it's Iran, but North Korea, you know, Kim Jong-un, his positions, the stuff he says, very radical.
He went there.
He visited anybody and everybody.
It'd be very interesting if he went and visited Iran and accompanied you went with him with the team.
Oh my God, that would be a weird visit.
If you guys were to go there and have the conversations, that image of you sitting across from them with Trump next to you, now that's a moment in history that I'd like to see that I'd like to see.
And I wonder, like, I got questions that I don't even know if I want to ask live.
I wonder who's on your team.
I wonder who's on, who's the people that are doers on your team that can get stuff done.
I wonder who's working.
I got a lot of those types of questions, but we're coming to the end.
I got a couple of other questions I want to ask you, and then we'll wrap up.
Rob, can you pull up that one clip with Eric Prince?
He said this, and I'm curious if you can validate this or not.
Is this true?
Go ahead and play this clip if this did happen to your father at the end or not.
I'm sure if anybody can validate it, it's you.
Go ahead, Rob.
Let's just say hypothetically.
You know what someone just told me?
That the Shah converted to Christianity before he died.
Did he, really?
I've heard that story.
Yeah, this is his last book he wrote before he died, Answer to History.
You can just add a son on.
Is that true?
True to the untrue.
Okay.
One of my aunts did, but years ago, before the revolution.
He did not.
Did that story circulate among some people that they said?
I have no idea where it came from, but it's part of the same webs of lies and were you bedside when he passed away?
I was in Cairo in the Mahadi hospital.
If anybody knows that it didn't happen, you would know.
Okay.
So you just validated the story, right?
That was easy took you a second to say that.
You yourself, your faith.
How do you see yourself right now with your faith?
What do you practice?
I would say, you know, in the principles of what I believe should be the case is that I would never question a fellow Iranians what he or she believes in or not.
Why I do say that.
I think that if we understand that, if you have faith or follow a particular religion, it should be a private matter to begin with.
It should not matter what you believe in or what I believe in.
This is a private matter to us.
It shouldn't be subject to scrutiny.
It's the guarantee of having the freedom of choice in whatever we choose to believe or practice, whether it's faith or anything else.
And therefore, it shouldn't matter what is my faith.
I mean, I'm saying this for a predominantly religious country, but the read on the streets today is Iranians will be not at odds with what I just said.
They would have been 50 years ago.
Not today.
Not today, because if you look at what is happening in Iran today, as a result of imposing an ideology, a religious one at that matter, when you look at what happened to religious minorities in Iran, to the Baha'is who are forbidden of having higher education in Iran, to the Jews in Iran, the highest rate of convergence in Iran today is Christianism, believe it or not, under a so-called religious government.
And most mosques closing down, by the way.
All of this means that people say, listen, we ought to be able to freely practice without fear and punishment.
So the principle that I would like to bring to the table here is today, it shouldn't matter what I have as a faith or not.
It should be about the principles and values of freedom.
You think a Christian man could be a leader in Iran or no?
I hope one day Iranis will not worry about whether or not their leaders is a female or a male or a Jew or a Christian or an atheist.
It should not be that.
The number of mosques located in Tal Snowd has declined from 20% in 2010 to 6%.
And Rob, if you can pull up the story I just sent you right now from CBN, Iran's Jesus revolution, mosques close to as one million Muslims accept Christ, which is very, very interesting to see this underground project that's taking place in Iran with that.
It's great to see.
Last question.
Again, this is selfish for me, not for anybody.
Hold on.
You offered an image.
Let me tell you right now.
Go for it.
Look, I can only, whatever I end up doing, I'm basing everything that I have only and solely on my fellow Iranians and their resources.
Nothing foreign, governmental or otherwise.
The image of me coming along with a foreign leader simply means that I'm a puppet of that government or country.
I don't want President Trump to come and say I endorse Raza Pahlavi.
I need President Trump and say I will stand with the Iranian people and on their side and help them succeed.
He's already said that.
Okay, but that's halfway.
As I said, the component of maximum support is missing.
If that is added, fair enough, Mr. President.
We're not asking you to go beyond that.
The rest is on us.
But at least you've given us a real chance for succeeding.
I think he's done that.
Well, let's see.
That's the question.
I think he's done.
He's already done that.
Maximum pressure, yes.
Maximum support was not really existent.
We need to build that into the equation.
Maximum support.
More direct support for the Iranian people.
Give them a chance.
It could be technology.
It can be communication.
Ilon can give Starlink and those types of things.
That can happen.
Well, it's under his watch.
I mean, look, you can easily sanction.
You can easily remove some of the restriction that exists so we can better have this is a matter of 45 minutes before we started the interview.
I don't know if you saw the story or not.
Literally, it just came out from New York Post, 45 minutes before you walked in.
Iran claims it can build nukes, threatens Israel and U.S. with tooth-breaking retaliation, 10.12 Eastern Standard Time.
I think we started after that at 11 o'clock.
Go a little lower, Rob.
So Iran claimed they could build a nuclear weapon as supreme leader on Saturday, threatened the U.S. and Israel with a tooth-breaking response to Israel's strike on Irani military.
Now, Talah Khomeini spoke with students ahead of the anniversary 1979 seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.
The enemies, whether the Zionist regime or the United States of America, will definitely receive a tooth-breaking response to what they are doing to Iran and the Iranian nation and to the resistance front.
And he continues, if you go, this is at 85 years old.
Go a little lower, Rob, if you could.
And the comments came after David Top advisor issued a warning about Iran's nuclear capabilities.
Advisor Kamal Ghorazi said Friday the country could alter its policies on using nuclear weapons if the threat seems big enough.
Go a little lower.
If an existential threat arises, Iran will modify its nuclear doctrine.
We have the capability to build weapons and have no issue in this regard.
He said, your thoughts on this?
Yeah, this was yesterday.
And he basically said we're only limited by a fatwa that has forbidden us to go towards that direction.
In other words, we can't change that anytime.
But in that context, let's remember one thing.
How fragile and vulnerable this regime is.
They are basically puffing and huffing a lot, but the fragility of this regime comes down to Ali Khamenei himself.
Who, by the way, he is the one who is the problem, not the people of Iran.
Iranian people don't want war.
He does.
But he is, imagine a tent, and he is the pylon or the, you know, whatever you call it, that keeps the tent up.
The minute it's gone or is weakened, it will collapse.
There are too many fractions within the regime fighting over power and inheritance.
This is going to become even more relevant.
You cannot depend until now, it's been Ali Khomeini having the final word and controlling every aspect of Iran's structure, whether it's the intelligence, whether it's the military, whether it's the separate, whether it is all the instruments under his watch.
I don't think that his successors, including Hinksan, will be able to be able to maintain that apparatus of state any longer, which goes back to your question.
How did they survive for 45 years?
Because this has been, and unlike the Soviet Union, who, by the way, had several different leaders from Leonid Brezhnev all the way to the last one being, of course, Mikhail Gorbachev, before Yelsin finally came in, Iran has had only one leader since Khomeini, and that was Ali Khomeini.
So you're talking about an absolute religious dictatorship under the control of one ultimate man at the top of the pyramid.
That will collapse eventually.
So these are opportunities that will present itself to the Iranian people.
They also understand what I was arguing earlier, that this regime will continue.
Now, regardless of what kind of a nuclear deal you may have with them, it will continue fomenting regional conflict.
It will continue taking hostages.
It will continue supporting all sorts of other methods.
That's not going to do it.
The hate towards U.S. is not good.
The hate towards the U.S. and Israel is not going away.
And that's the part that I think you need to understand.
That even if you say, you know what, we don't need to get involved in the Middle East anymore.
Well, they won't leave you alone.
They will, in fact, force you.
And the chances that you'll be forced back into the equation, this time dealing with a much higher state of conflict, will come down in the long term.
So I am with you on this, Patrick, that this is now a moment that we need to be able to utilize.
I think the Iranian people are ready more than ever.
I hope that our counterpart, as far as one foreign key government is concerned, America, is also ready.
Only in the sense that that paradigm that has shifted in Iran proper needs to also shift in Washington in terms of foreign policy.
Are we still talking about appeasement or dealing with the regime or trying to ask for a behavior change?
Or are we this time saying we have their backs to the wall?
Let's throw the knockout pouch.
Not by America doing it for us, but by helping the Iranians have the best chance to succeed.
And that's what we're asking for at the end of the day.
Yeah, I don't know if you saw or not.
Ayatollah Khomeini's Khomeini's X account was suspended.
I think Facebook, Instagram, everybody.
If you go on Google.
He tweeted something in Hebrew and they instantaneously.
What did he say?
I'm not sure what he said.
I had to see the translation.
That was about a couple of days ago, I think.
Earlier on Monday, Briefing was suspended accounts.
X Suspends account violated X rules.
The suspension occurred following Israel's first open strike against Iran in response to a ballistic missile.
It wasn't immediately clear what the excess violation was, called the lore.
Ilam Moss Social Media Tom Khomeini's speech on Sunday, Israel strikes in response to ballistic missiles, which saw 200 missiles, should not be exaggerated, nor downplay will stop in account of retaliation.
The newly suspended X account, which was created on Sunday, began with a message in Hebrew that read, in the name of God, the most merciful, a standard Islamic greeting.
Second post referred to Khamenei's speech and was sent to English accounts.
Zionists are making a miscalculation with respect to Iran.
They don't know Iran.
They still haven't been able to correctly understand the power initiative and determination of the Iranian people.
Go a little lower, Rob, if you could.
And then here it says Khamenei has maintained multiple accounts for 85-year-old X for years, has sent messages in variety of languages in the past.
This is not the first time he's used social media has been suspended.
In February, Meta, Facebook, Instagram removed the accounts associated with Iranian leader due to express support for Hamas following the group support attacks on Israel on October 7th when Iranian backed militant group Hamas.
The operation.
Okay.
Yeah.
So.
You know, it's really laughable when Khamenei says that they don't understand the Iranian people.
In fact, he doesn't understand the Iranian people.
And even worse than that, he doesn't care about the Iranian people at the end of the day.
Do you think Iranian people know that?
As I told you, they are on the streets proving that.
They say death to the dictator.
They are willing to risk life and limb just to make the point that we are tired and fed up of this regime.
How long will the world continue letting these animals continue to threaten not just Iranians, but everybody in the region and beyond?
There were two clips of females.
Rob, if you can bring one, just bring up both of them, if you don't mind.
We'll show the first one and if you can moderate this.
One of them was a young girl who, a soldier, a private.
Go to the other one first, Rob.
I storied these two things today.
Right, that's exactly you shared with me earlier.
This is shown by Manoto official.
If he can play this clip and if he can moderate what's going on here, go ahead.
Well, this was a muted clip.
So we only have the CT cameras in Tehran.
So this guy's trying to come and intimidate and at the same time said something to her and now she's responding in plain view.
I mean, this is a woman unveiled.
In Iran.
In Iran.
What city?
In Tehran, I said it was.
Reacting to the.
I think it was Tehran.
I'm not 100% sure.
Wow.
That was pretty.
I mean, that shows that, you know, in plain view, they wouldn't have done that five years ago.
Well, listen, I mean, Dana White may reach out to her.
But what's even more shocking is the next one, which is very tough.
Go to the next one, Rob.
So this is in a university in Iran.
And these are girls filming it from the window.
The campus security, she probably was not wearing a hijab.
Not only did she not put back her hijab, she took her clothes off in plain view.
Look at her.
What's her attack by mobilized forces and they were saying gods for hijab?
They keep harassing people into, I mean, these two example of defiance is what she's talking about.
I mean, to the point she knew she was going to get arrested, she did get arrested.
On my way here, I was watching the Nestorian this Patrick.
But look at that.
Who would have thought that in Iran you will see someone?
What happened to her?
She got arrested last thing I know, but a couple hours ago on my way here.
What they will do to her?
Do you know what they're going to do to her if she got arrested?
And she's attractive.
I mean, for her to have the audacity to do this.
But what I'm trying to tell you is she's doing this hoping that not only Iranians see that, but people here in the West see that.
How old is she?
I wonder how many outlets here in this country, the media will ever show this, as opposed to showing pro-Hamas demonstrations in Texas.
There's a lot of courage to do that.
I'm telling you.
That's a lot of courage.
No, that's a lot of courage.
You know, and what keeps me going at the end of the day, Patrick, what makes me be sitting here talking to you, that I'm willing to give my life up to free my country, it's only because of them.
It's because we cannot be indifferent to that.
Because we cannot sit back and say, you know what, how could we let this happen?
That's what I'm in this for.
Not for me, for them.
I think that's the place we can finish this interview with.
As usual, another fantastic conversation with you.
And I enjoyed every single time we do this.
And I appreciate your sincerity.
And I appreciate you being a sport to take me challenging you and pushing you back.
And you're so respectful about it.
That's very admirable.
And I think in moments of tension, that shows the examples of if you were ever put in a position like that.
you're going to be able to handle the criticism and all the challenges that comes with it.
And I applaud you.
Well, you know what, Patrick, I always encourage criticism because I think if everybody had the same mind, it would be so stale at the end of the day.
Even water, if it remains stale, it will ultimately become an awesome.
But it's not something people like.
It's not something people that like.
And you're a gamer.
Well, you don't have that problem with me.
No, I respect it.
I enjoyed that.
Tremendous respect for you.
Thanks again.
Thank you, Patrick.
Take care, everybody.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
If you were interested in this topic with Crown Prince Reza Palavi, odds are you're Middle Eastern, maybe you're Iranian, Armenian, Persian, maybe you're living in the Middle East, or maybe you're an American that wants peace in the Middle East.
The last 13 years I wrote this book called The Academy.
It's a very interesting thing.
I talk about his father.
I talk about moments why the revolution took place with this character named Asher, who is half Assyrian, half Armenian, and he gets recruited to the secret society.
And the villain in the book is the former deputy director of SAVAC, who is in the book breaking down why the fall of Iran took place, what mistakes that were made.
And very interesting what happened when I wrote this book.
I never wanted to publish this book until I finished Building My Insurance Company.
I published a couple months ago.
Something very strange happened when I was at the tail end of finishing this book.
I get a call from somebody saying the former deputy director of SAVAC wants to have a call with you.
I said, the former who?
Deputy Director of SAVAC.
They don't know the villain is in this book.
That person had read the book.
I have a Zoom with the deputy director of SAVAC.
He reads the book, calls me back immediately.
I need to have another part two with you.
Did you write this book about me?
Am I the villain in the book?
I need to come and meet with you face to face.
He comes to my house.
My dad meets him.
My wife meets him.
We have an eight, nine-hour meeting together at the house because of what perspective he had that caused Iran to fall.
Some of that is documented in this book.
Again, this is a fiction book based on true stories.
If the topic of Iran, the revolution, leadership interests you, I think you would really enjoy reading this book, The Academy.
You can go to Amazon or QR Court here to order the book.
I look forward to having you read it and posting a review on Amazon because I read every single one of them.
