← Call Me Back - with Dan Senor
Loading summary
Transcript43 lines
- [00:00]
A
As events accelerate in the Middle east, the team here at ARC Media is increasing our coverage. More conversations, more context, more time spent trying to help make sense of what's happening. And all with an expanding cast of podcast hosts, analysts and journalists. Our Inside CallMeBack subscribers help make this expanded coverage possible. It helps us be here when it matters most. If you're not yet an inside call me back subscriber, this is an important time to join us. To subscribe, you can follow the link in our show notes or visit ark media.org and to our insiders, thank you. You are listening to an ARK Media podcast.
- [00:48]
B
So in 1979, the lie that the regime sold to the Iranian people was that the way to free Iran and the people of the Middle east from the oppressor is to eliminate all forms of Western imperialism in Iran. But it is them who are empire builders. It is them who send their proxies out to Lebanon, to Yemen, to Gaza. Because for the Islamic regime to export its revolution across the Middle East, Israel, the Jewish nation, will have to fall. Now, of course, they can't come out and say that to the world because they just will essentially sound like the Nazis that they are. This is a Nazi regime. And so they disguise their Nazism behind anti imperialist rhetoric. They tell the world, well, this isn't about the fact that we hate Jews or this Jewish nation. It's just about the fact that we hate imperialism.
- [01:48]
A
It's 3:30pm on Sunday, March 8, here in New York City. It is 11:00pm on Sunday, march 8, in Tehran. And it is 9:30pm on Sunday, march 8, in Israel as Israelis wind down their day. The news these days is moving quickly. As you may have noticed, ARC Media has been producing more frequent call me back episodes to track the big questions and dilemmas revolving around the war. But we also want to give you more frequent and urgent news updates. For this, we turn to our ARC Media contributor, Deborah Pardes. Here's Deborah with the news update.
- [02:24]
C
This is Deborah Pardes. On Sunday, two Israeli soldiers were killed in a Hezbollah attack in southern Lebanon, marking Israel's first confirmed combat deaths in in the war. Hezbollah has grown more involved in the war in recent days, reportedly showing more strength than the Israeli decision makers had anticipated. And the Israeli military said it carried out more than 100 strikes in Lebanon. Iran also intensified its bombardments of Israel. On Sunday, six people in the center of the country were wounded by shrapnel from a ballistic missile that appeared to be armed with a cluster warhead. Overnight, Israel attacked several IRGC oil depots near Tehran, directly targeting the regime's energy sector. For the first time, Iran threatened to retaliate by targeting the oil infrastructure of its Arab neighbors. On Sunday, a UAE tugboat in the Strait of Hormuz sank following an explosion. Since the start of the war, Iran has been applying increasing pressure on trade going through the strait, which is responsible for 20% of the world's oil shipments. Iranian media announced on Sunday that Matjaba Khamenei, the son of the late Ayatollah, will succeed his father as supreme leader. Earlier in the day before the official announcement, the Israeli military warned on social media in Farsi that it would kill whoever is named as successor. President Trump also weighed in, saying any Iranian leader who doesn't get America's blessing is, quote, not going to last long. Also on Sunday, Trump appeared to walk back his previous willingness to involve the Kurds in ground operations against the Iranian regime. The president said that while the Kurds are willing to go in, he isn't ready to greenlight their involvement, saying, we don't want to see the Kurds get hurt or killed. Asked whether he's planning to deploy American ground forces, Trump said, maybe later. He added that if American troops will be sent to Iran, it will be for, quote, a very good reason. Earlier Sunday, Axios reported that the US And Israel are considering sending special forces into Iran at a later stage, that in order to seize the regime's stockpile of enriched uranium. In other news, special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner are expected in Israel later this week. This will be the first time senior administration administration officials have been sent over to Israel since the Iran war began. I'm Deborah Pardes, and this is the news update.
- [04:44]
A
And now onto today's episode. While resistance to the war can be found on both the left and right, the arguments coming from each side are very different. Both are fueled in part by centuries old anti Semitic tropes, but they arrive there through very different paths. As Walter Russell Mead outlined in our previous episode, the opposition on the right in the US Is largely based on economics, concerns about cost, overreach American interests, and even a rather uneven experience many, especially younger Americans, have had with American military action over the past couple decades. The opposition on the left, however, is framed as a moral argument, one in which Iran's regime, a regime that brutally oppresses its own people and has killed tens of thousands of them, is somehow cast as the victim. The regime is cast as the victim. As Bill Maher recently asked, why are liberals against liberation? The Short answer, as longtime listeners of this podcast already know, is quite simple. Israel and the Jews. But perhaps the longer answer is better articulated not by someone Jewish or, God forbid, someone Israeli, but by an Iranian, an Iranian woman. Which is fitting, given that it is International Women's Day. Today I'm joined by Elika Laban. Elika is an Iranian American lawyer and activist. She was born and raised in London to parents who fled the 1979 Iranian Revolution. She's become known for her clear eyed, unscripted commentary on Middle east politics. Elika recently drew widespread attention after appearing on the Pierce Morgan program. Elica, welcome to the Call Me Back podcast.
- [06:34]
B
Hi. Thank you for having me.
- [06:36]
A
So, Elica, we have a lot to cover. I want to just start with your origin story so people understand where you're coming from and how you come at this issue. Let's start with your background. Tell us a bit about your family story. What led you to personally become an activist on these issues? Like, how did you wind up doing what you're doing?
- [06:54]
B
Like most Iranians in the diaspora, my family lived in Iran prior to 1979. So my father was a student. He was one of the top students in Tehran and under the Shah's government, he was sent out to study at Oxford in the UK While my mother and her family were still in Iran. When the revolution happened, they cut off his bursary because there was a regime change. He had to drop out and he sought asylum in the uk. Well, my mother and her family were still in Iran at the time. The new hijab laws were codified and so began the crackdown on anybody who possessed any types of dissidents against the regime. So both my mother and my aunt were taken to Evin Prison.
- [07:37]
A
Wow.
- [07:38]
B
Which is notoriously known as the Prison of no return.
- [07:41]
A
For our listeners. This is known as one of, if not the most brutal and barbaric prisons targeting primarily political prisoners and political dissidents in not just Iran, but in the Middle East. I mean, it's really at another level.
- [07:55]
B
Correct. When protesters are sentenced to be killed by hanging, that's where they go to. They go to Evan Prison. So my mom, there was somebody, a relative of hers who the IRGC was seeking out and they saw her go into my mum's house. And then after that relative left, they went in and arrested my mum and took her to Evan Prison because she was, you know, essentially they accused her of harboring a fugitive, my aunt, so my mom's sister, she was arrested. She was pregnant at the time with my cousin. And her husband was taken on the suspicion that he was against the regime, possibly had some materials against the regime. Well, my aunt stayed in prison while she was pregnant. Her husband was extensively tortured, really faced with not just physical torture, but a lot of psychological torture. Things that they would say to them, like, if you shoot your friend, we'll let you go. And then they would kill them both anyway. You know, it's like it's a type of depravity that most people in the west just can't even imagine. It sounds like cartoonish evil, but that is the reality for Iranian people. So my mom was released. My aunt was eventually released to give birth, and they executed her husband. My cousin was born never knowing her father. My mom got very sick after that. She got a medical visa to go to the uk. She met my father, and they got married. And then she obviously joined in becoming a British citizen because he had already sought asylum. And then she was able to bring her sister and the rest of my mum's family to London through that way.
- [09:26]
A
And you've stayed engaged on the issue of Iran and fighting for Iranian human rights. How did you get involved in these issues in this cause?
- [09:35]
B
I first started speaking up about the Middle East, I guess you could say, four years ago now, when the Mahs Amini protests broke out in 2022. Now, for a year after that point, the advocacy was all about showing the world that this was a terrorist regime that was oppressing and killing and slaughtering people. And then a year later, almost to the date October 7th happens. And I have this really surreal experience where now all of a sudden, people are like, you know what? We don't know that these are really terrorists. We don't know, because that seems to be Zionist propaganda. That seems to be American propaganda. This seems to be a liberation movement. Maybe we've gotten it all wrong about who the terrorists are. Right. And so then what I experience after this year of advocacy, where I think, you know, I'm getting through to people, I have this sort of psychological disruption where I'm experiencing something which I didn't understand at the time, was a propaganda war. It was a narrative warfare. And that warfare was taking place between the Western world of liberal democracy and what has always been the West's enemy, which is either the Communists or the Islamists on the other side of that, or some type of authoritarian regimes. And then when I realized that this was fundamentally a civilizational clash, that's when my interests and personal stakes really intensified and drew me to this conversation harder than I'd ever been.
- [10:58]
A
So how would you then describe this dynamic we see, particularly on the left in the west, where people struggle, shall we say, to make the same distinction. So how would you describe the difference between the Iranian people and the regime that rules them?
- [11:14]
B
You probably, you may have heard this being said before by Iranians, but we generally consider them to be an occupying force. They do not reflect Iranians, they don't reflect Iranian nationality, they don't reflect Iranian history, culture, poetry, none of it. This is a regime that came in in basically through a coup and from that point onward changed the dynamics, culture and infrastructure of Iran into this reflection of this Islamic regime. They took our flag, they took away our line and sun emblem, and they put their Islamic text onto the flag, which is considered foreign to Iran because it came to Iran. Suffice it to say that Iranians are indigenously, you could say, is a Rustrian. This move to turn Iran into an Islamic republic was overwhelmingly rejected by the Iranian people because they do not identify with that ideology. I think the best comparison you could say would be if Hamas was ever, you know, God forbid, successful in Israel and turned Israel into the Islamic Republic of Palestine, let's say. And you asked, what is the difference between the Israeli people in Hamas? It's almost a laughable question. You can't put those two things into the same sentence because they are essentially mortal enemies. And that is the same answer to the question, what's the difference between the Iranian people and the irgc? They are mortal enemies. They are not aligned in culture, they are not aligned in politics, they are not aligned in ideology. They are as opposite to each other as you can get. Persian culture is 7,000 years old. And we have similar values of liberal democracies, even though they've been expressed differently. And that is what, in general, the Iranian population aligns with over this ideological extremism, which is for all intents and purposes foreign to us.
- [13:01]
A
But after 46 years in power, the regime must have built some base of support, however narrow, inside the country. So I guess how separate is the regime from the population? Are there any pockets of meaningful support for the regime or is it mostly ruled through fear?
- [13:18]
B
The best we can do to avoid anecdotal and get sort of like a bird's eye view is through surveys and the Gaman Institute.
- [13:26]
A
So the Gaman Institute is an independent research institute out of Europe, out of the Netherlands, that is widely regarded as an independent analytical platform for tracking public opinion inside Iran.
- [13:38]
B
So those studies revealed in recent surveys over the last couple of years that I think was 84% of Iranians oppose the Islamic regime, then around 10% support the Islamic regime, and about 4% are undecided or passive in some way. At the end of the day, of a population of 19 million, 10% is still significant, but it really is a minority. And when you look at that minority, it is, as you've described, its cult of personality. It is a fan base. It's not regular sensible people who say, well, you know, I think that, you know, there's some strengths and there's some weaknesses. These are people who are, for all intents and purposes, ideologically subverted extremists, which you do find in almost many societies. We could say that we have neo Nazis here in, in the U.S. right, right. But for the most part, the majority of Iranians do not support this regime.
- [14:34]
A
So, Elik, I want to talk about the regime's obsession with Israel, which seems to be an obsession that goes back to 1979. It's something that Yossi Klein Halevi brilliantly articulated in the most recent episode of Arc Media's For Heaven's Sake podcast. And we'll link to the episode in the show notes. But can you talk a little bit about the regime's obsession with Israel and why Israel occupies such a central place in the ideology and rhetoric of the regime?
- [15:01]
B
I mentioned this so briefly when I was on Piers Morgan the last time about the fact that the regime has an eschatological vision of the elimination of Israel. And this is something that is enshrined in their charter. As most people know, it's death to Israel, death to the United states. So in 1979, the lie that the regime sold to the Iranian people was that the fight of good versus evil or oppressed versus oppressor, which as we know, is a sort of Marxist dynamic. So this oppressed oppressor dynamic said that the way to free Iran and the people of the Middle east from the oppressor is to eliminate all forms of Western imperialism in Iran. Now, the time was a very successful narrative to galvanize the Iranian people into revolution. But the reality behind why do they have this sort of anti imperialist narrative when in fact it is them who are the empire builders, it is them who are the imperialists. It is them who send their proxies out to Lebanon, to Yemen, to Gaza to expand their ideology. Because with the existence of Israel in the Middle east, the sole Jewish nation that disrupts Islamic hegemony, the Jewish nation cannot exist if the Islamic regime is going to build its Emmate in the Middle East. And so what the regime has been specific about since its inception and in its charter is that it isn't just about creating the Islamic Republic in Iran. It is about exporting the revolution. Well, how are you going to export the revolution where you have this tiny state in the Middle east that is actually a, a liberal democracy that is not going to fall to your ideological extremism? And so from the very beginning, there has been this idea that for the Islamic regime to export its revolution across the Middle East, Israel, the Jewish nation, will have to fall. Now, of course, they can't come out and say that to the world because they just will essentially sound like the Nazis that they are. This is a Nazi regime. And so they disguise their Nazism behind anti imperialist rhetoric. They tell the world, well, this isn't about the fact that we hate Jews or this Jewish nation. It's just about the fact that we hate imperialism. And in terms of this eschatological vision, which is this idea that justice will arrive on earth once Israel falls, that goes to this theory they have of Mahdism, the idea that the Imam Mahdi will return once Israel falls. Now, the regime has actually been heavily criticized by Islamic scholars who say that you have manipulated this text. The idea of Imam Mahdi returning has nothing to do with Israel. But that's exactly what they do. They take things from scripture, they manipulate it to make it against Israel. So all of this combined is either weaponizing anti imperialist rhetoric or some type of manipulation of Islamic scripture to essentially justify the elimination of Israel, because Israel is the obstacle to their empire building and to the establishment of their mma in the Middle East?
- [18:02]
A
And to what extent are there any rational actors in the regime that try to strike some kind of balance between what you just laid out in terms of the existence of Israel being a threat to the story of Iran's role in the Middle east, of the regime of the Islamic Republic's role in the Middle East? How do they strike a balance between that and the reality that pursuing the practical implications of that ideology could result in the regime being destroyed? Right. Pursuing this obsession, practically, pursuing it against Israel and pursuing it against America and pursuing against the west has resulted in the situation that the regime finds itself in right now and found itself in back in June? So is there any effort by any senior influential player in the regime to try to strike that balance and say, yes, we have these ideological principles and commitments and passions and worldview, and at the same time our pursuit of them is going to result in our destruction
- [19:03]
B
from my perspective, I don't think that there is this split that you imagine between extremists and rational actors. I think at the end of the day, if you find yourself in some type of high ranking position in this regime, you are categorically an extremist. There's really no way around it. You can't be in Hamas and be a rational actor. Right. But I think what it's more about is that that extremist vision is tempered by how much they can get away with. It's not that, you know, some of them split off and they're like, okay, we know this whole thing is a lie, so let's not do anything about it in reality. It's that the regime, for all intents and purposes and all the actors within it genuinely do believe what they believe about Israel. It's just that they have to sort of be strategic about what they can do without getting hit back. And that's why October 7th is just a perfect example of that, that October 7th is an example where the regime helped to fund, train, support Hamas for years, but there was never any type of coordination about specifically what date this would happen. You know, they kept their hands clean, and that is generally how they move across the Middle east, and it's generally how they move in their strategy against Israel, keeping their hands clean while fueling and supporting groups that can do the work for them without the strikes coming back on them. And I think that this is why the world perhaps is confused about where this war has come from, because they haven't seen it being fought in the invisible for so long. It's been fought in the unseen for so long. It's been fought with disconnection for so long.
- [20:35]
A
In one of your social media posts, you laid out a diagram that really captures the left's moral confusion when it comes to Iran's regime. Can you talk us or walk us through that framework and the kind of mental gymnastics that lead some people to see the regime as the victim in this conflict?
- [20:53]
B
This began in the 1960s and 70s in the United States, where there was this sort of Marxist infiltration of the Western world. And it's really important for people to understand that the roots of the contemporary American west have been infused at its foundation with Marxism. And the Marxist story was a grand lie for all intents and purposes, but essentially had this very oversimplified binary that said that, you know, all people in the non Western world are oppressed and the Western world is the greatest source of evil. Israel, the US and the west are the greatest source of evil out in the world. And so this became the story that was told in academia, in culture, in society, even entertainment was saturated with this idea of the west being the source of all evil. Now, that created a reality in the minds of the Western left that in fact, the enemies of the west aren't bad, evil people. That's all Western propaganda. All they're doing is trying to resist the imperialism and the oppression of the West. Now, what that has done over time, especially for people who have sort of attached to this social justice narrative, in fact attached their whole identities to this social justice narrative, is that it has convinced them that what is morally upright, what is righteous, is to be against the west in every circumstance. And to consider that any actors from the non Western world are just the oppressed uprising for liberation and democracy in their lands. Well, we know that that absolutely isn't what these actors are looking for. And so what I talk about in this video is that they sort of go into their own alternative reality. And once they are in this alternative reality, where they've been trained to see the world through the this way, what happens is that every act is twisted to confirm that narrative. So when they see, and it is so surreal to witness it with your own eyes. When you see people, for example, going on Piers Morgan and saying things like, Israel is attacking seven different countries. These are people who have seen with their own eyes, with their own eyes, every single one of those terrorist groups in those countries attacking Israel first. And when Israel retaliates their brains from this space of this alternative reality, simply delete that information. Israel has unilaterally committed these acts. Why does the brain demand that it believes this? To convince it that their alternative reality is in fact, fact. And delete everything that confirms the reality that they don't want to accept, because it collapses their entire narrative. And once it collapses their narrative, it collapses the identities that they have have fused to that narrative. And so nothing, and this is what a Soviet defector, Yuri Besmanov, said, nothing can ever convince them otherwise. No amounts of corpses, no amount of casualties can ever convince them otherwise until they've been deprogrammed.
- [23:51]
A
Do you think the reaction that you're describing would look different if Israel weren't involved in this war at all? Or put another way, do you think that this deprogramming that you would hope for or wish for could actually occur if Israel was not in the frame of this war?
- [24:10]
B
Effy, in my book that I've just finished writing recently and actually explains all of these Things I talk about this being a type of mind virus, but it's also important to understand that there are two sort of components of this mind virus that are collaborating at the same time. There is anti Westernism, which is is its own standalone sentiment, and then there is anti zionism. And in recent times, the two have sort of fused into one. So anti Westernism and anti Zionism have now sort of become one and the same. So what I would say to answer your question is, do I believe that it would be significantly different or less of a reaction if Israel wasn't involved? Yes and no. I do believe that there would be an anti war movement still. But where you see the anti Semitic neo Nazi component of this protest is in the fact that not just that they oppose the war, that they blame the existence of the war and every part of this conflict on Israel. So that's how I think the two components both overlap and have their separation.
- [25:16]
A
Okay. We're also hearing a lot of claims that this war violates international law. Again, some of those arguments are not necessarily being made in good faith for all the reasons that you're saying. And people have other reasons for being oppositional to this. What's happening right now, what the US and what Israel and now others are dealing with in Iran. But let's just address it on the merits. How do you react to arguments that this is a violation of international law?
- [25:40]
B
I mean, it's a selective invocation, right? When Hamas committed Oct. 7, which it violated, penetrated a boundary of a different sovereign nation, nobody said, oh, oh, this violates international law. Oh, we're going into a sovereign nation that we have no business going into. So it's such a selective invocation that there is just absolutely no credibility to the claim of international law. Second of all, you're talking about striking the basis of a terrorist regime. If your primary concern is to try and make a case for this being against international law, well, then you're just showing us that your concern isn't actually liberation and freedom from oppression as you so claim it is, as I've been saying repeatedly, just about being against the west, against Israel and anything that they do, they never cared about international law when this regime was massacring tens of thousands of people in January. They never cared about international law when these proxies were throwing their rockets into the Red Sea. So I'm sorry, but I really don't give a damn about your quote unquote, international law doesn't even mean anything except a tool for your politics.
- [26:53]
A
Okay? So I want to Talk about the protest movement, which you have been tracking very closely and I presume in contact with, given the regime's brutal repression, especially the killing of what we understand to be tens of thousands of Iranians in the last couple months. It's astonishing, actually, that Iranians still are taking to the streets, could still be taken to the streets, but the numbers, as big as they are, are still a relatively small share of the population. And so one wonders whether or not that what has turned out so far, which again, is the level of bravery and sacrifice is that these people are making, is just, again, awe inspiring. But what would it take for this to become like the protest movement to reemerge in really big numbers and be a real tipping point in toppling this regime?
- [27:42]
B
Well, you know, every time these protests have been sparked throughout the years, and especially most recently, we are seeing a major turnout in virtually every city in Iran. But at the same time, we cannot ignore the chilling effect of the massacres that are committed every time they do protest. It isn't just about shooting them dead in the streets. It isn't just about blinding them. It is about coming into their homes in the middle of the night, dragging them into prisons and sentencing them to death by hanging, sometimes on cranes in public squares. And that we cannot overstate the extent of the chilling effect that that has on people's ability to go out there and protest. So what we are hoping for, the outcome that we're hoping for with this war, in particular this war on the regime is, and Trump has said this, it is full and unconditional surrender of the Islamic regime. If that were the case, that the regime falls from this war alone, fantastic. However, if that's not the case, then what the Iranian people would be looking for is that the regime is so severely and significantly undermined, is on the verge of collapse. That's when you're going to see people appreciate the fact that they have more to gain than to lose by going out into the streets. And that's why it's so important that this war does achieve those objectives of either completely, you know, eliminating this regime or doing as much as it can to weaken the regime so that the people feel confident to come out into the streets and topple it themselves.
- [29:14]
A
So I guess in closing, then, Elico, what is the risk, both for Iranians and for the region, if, if this regime remains in power? Because it sounds like what you're saying is even if the regime survives this war, it's going to be a shadow of itself. It will definitely not look impervious to external or internal pressure. That is certainly a better situation than what existed before the war. But nonetheless, even if this regime can hang on and kind of hobble to live another day, another month, another year, what are the implications of that?
- [29:46]
B
That the implications are always going to be worse for the Iranian people. After the 12 day war, they went door to door dragging people, executing them for being Zionist spies. And you're talking about people who may have just been cheering on as the strikes were landing on the regime spaces. They really, you know, they have kangaroo courts. They have no means of actually identifying people who are connected to Mossad in any way. If you think about the fact that this is the first time that the regime in 47 years is experiencing a major war war. These people, this regime has been so ideologically extremist already. It already hates Israel and the U.S. the great Satan and the little Satan, okay? So to imagine that their two enemies have now sort of collaborated in this war against them, that's just only going to intensify any extremism that already exists there. And so if this war is abandoned before it achieves its objective, I fear that it only intensifies their extremism. It definitely intensifies their crackdown on the Iranian people. Are they going to become milder and kinder and nicer after this? I mean, we could only imagine the opposite, right?
- [30:55]
A
Yeah. What would Iran look like? How would the region be impacted and then the broader world by an Iran not run by this regime? Paint a picture of a future without
- [31:06]
B
this regime, if this future materializes, which we pray for and genuinely feel is inevitable, you are talking about another sort of node of liberal democracy stationed in the Middle east. And that becomes an alliance between Iran, Israel and the United States. And you're going to see Israelis and Americans traveling freely to Iran. You're going to see them collaborating on foreign policy. You're going to see Iran supporting its allies, Israel and the US to ensure regional stability. I mean, if you think about it this way, Iran as a country is such a central figure in the sort of Persian Gulf, right? And so I think truly only wonderful things can come from it.
- [31:52]
A
What you're describing is kind of what existed before the revolution, right? It's a version of what I mean, this is not an imaginary picture you're painting. This is something that existed. It was a modern, highly educated, I think, largely secular society. Before the 79 revolution. There were direct flights between Tehran and Israel. There was direct travel between Tehran and Europe. People traveled freely between Iran and the United States. So this is not an imaginary thing.
- [32:19]
B
Thing. It's not an imaginary thing. But I think why this time it will be even more meaningful is because back then the world really didn't understand the sort of Islamist threat. And so there really wasn't significant efforts for these sort of crackdowns. And the last Shah of Iran actually said, I have been ousted by this Islamist ideology. And you guys, the rest of the world, who have collaborated with this ideology to oust me, I are very soon going to feel the effects of this. You're going to feel it in the Middle east, you're going to feel it in the west, and you're going to see what happens when you fall for this. And so what this will be, will be a sort of closure of this chapter where we have allowed these jihadist groups and their ideologies to fester all over the world. And once we see this alliance, this democratic alliance between these three countries, that is a message to the world, we are not tolerating intolerance anymore.
- [33:14]
A
And before we go, I keep saying before we go, before we go, between here and there, this picture you're painting, do you worry about perhaps in the wake of the regime falling, if it does fall, domestic bloodshed and strife and civil war? We hear constantly about the prospects of civil war inside Iran. Obviously, we've seen versions of civil war, so that's why it's top of mind for people. Obviously, what happened in the Syrian civil war, that was while Assad was in power. But obviously what we saw in terms of sectarian strife in Iraq after the Saddam's regime was brought down. So does that concern you?
- [33:49]
B
No. And I know people often bring up, you know, oh, but what about Afghanistan? What about Iraq? I think in general, those people, I don't think that there's a lot of merit to what they say. I think it's quite intellectually lazy because this is a different country altogether. And what stands out about Iran in comparison is that this is a country that has thousands of years of national unity. You know, we might have political differences, but we're unified behind one language, behind one flag. And we don't have that type of sectarian division that has existed in places. When you think about places like Iraq or Afghanistan, you're talking about places where outside forces have tried to build states. Well, Iran is already built. It already exists. It is already a nation state. We're really just talking about a change of leadership. And after 47 years of living under a tyrannical extremist government, you can bet your bottom dollar that the Iranian people are not going to tolerate any more extremism, sectarian violence. They don't want it, they're done with it, and the only thing they want going forward is the peace and safety that comes with a liberal democracy. And from what they're saying, that transition being guided by the Crown Prince, Reza
- [34:59]
A
Pahlavi, Elika, we will leave it there. Thank you for this. I'm sure this won't be the last time we speak to you. You've really helped get us to understand not only what' how various voices are over here are shaping a narrative about what's happening over there. And I just think it's useful for us to get a little bit of clarity. So I appreciate you doing this.
- [35:20]
B
Thank you. Thank you for having me.
- [35:31]
A
That's our show for today. If you value the Call Me Back podcast and you want to support our mission mission, please subscribe to our weekly members only show, Inside Call Me Back. Inside Call Me Back is where nadavayalamit Segal and I respond to challenging questions from listeners and have the conversations that typically occur after the cameras stop rolling. To subscribe, please follow the link in the show notes or you can go to arkmedia.org that's arkmedia.org call me back is produced and edited by Lon Benatar. Arc Media's Executive producer is Adam James Levin Aretti. Our production manager is Brittany Cohn. Our Community Manager is Ava Weiner. Sound and video editing by Liquid Audio. Our music was composed by Yuval Semo. Until next time, I'm your host, Dan Senor.