Loading summary
Transcript87 lines
- [00:02]
Ralph Nader
Hi, this is elliot gould and you're listening to kpfk 90.7 fm in los angeles and 98.7 fm in santa barbara.
- [00:26]
Behrouz Ghomari Tabrizi
This is John Nichols of the Nation magazine and you're listening to the Ralph Nader Radio Hour. Stand up. Stand up. You've been sitting way too long.
- [00:40]
Steve Skrovan
Welcome to the Ralph Nader Radio Hour. My name is Steve Scrovan along with my co host David Feldman. Hello, David.
- [00:46]
David Feldman
We had a great podcast that people should listen to about the situation in Iran.
- [00:51]
Steve Skrovan
That's right, a bonus podcast we did earlier in the week. And our producer, Hannah Feldman. Hello, Hannah.
- [00:57]
Hannah Feldman
Hello, Steve.
- [00:58]
Steve Skrovan
And of course, the man of the hour, Ralph Nader. Hello, Ralph.
- [01:02]
Ralph Nader
Hi, everybody. And our guest today was featured in a long interview in a Capital Citizen. The editor interviewed Professor Behrouz Ghoumari, author of the Long War in Iran, New Events, Old Questions and Spread the Words of Reality, Historical Context, and Waging Peace.
- [01:22]
Steve Skrovan
That's right, Ralph. Last Saturday, the US And Israel launched an aggressive bombing campaign in Iran. Iran has retaliated with missiles targeting Israel as well as several US Allies in the region. The Trump administration has given a number of conflicting reasons for what many international experts are calling a war crime to free the Iranian people, to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons to prevent an imminent but nonspecific threat to America. Already there are reports of hundreds dead, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei and dozens of top Iranian officials, which has destabilized Iran and potentially instigated a much broader conflict in the Middle East. To help us sort this all out, we welcome sociologist and historian Behrouz Gamary Tabrizi, who has written extensively on modern Iranian history and is author of the book the Long War in New Events, Old Questions. He will be our featured guest for the entire hour, but as always, we will check in with our corporate crime reporter Russell Mokhyber, too. But first, a view of the attack on Iran from an historical perspective.
- [02:32]
David Feldman
David Behrouz Gamary Tabrizi is an Iranian born American historian and sociologist. He is a research fellow at the center for Place, Culture and Politics at the CUNY Graduate Center. He was the Chair of the Department of Near Eastern Studies and director of the Sharman and Bijan Massavar Rahmani center for Iran and Persian Gulf Studies at Princeton University. He is the author of three books on different aspects and historical context of the Iranian Revolution of 1979 and its aftermath. Welcome to the Ralph Nader Radio Hour.
- [03:11]
Behrouz Ghomari Tabrizi
Behrouz Ghomari Tabrizi thank you for having me.
- [03:15]
Ralph Nader
Thank you, Behrouz. We share a common background with Princeton University. I went to school there and you taught there. In an interview you had recently with Amy Goodman, you said that I don't think there's any reason to celebrate the demise of the Iranian leader because it's happening in the hands of what I call the king of genocide and someone in the US who's so deeply in trouble with the American legal system with the Epstein files. And so for as many people say that this is an Epstein war and I think we should not be sort of fools to think that this is in any shape or form being done on behalf of the Iranian people. This is done on behalf of American and primarily on behalf of Israeli interests. And I think Americans should ask themselves, quote, why exactly are we attacking Iran without any kind of provocation? This is a war that is not in the interest of the United States and only fulfills and realizes the desires of a regime in Israel that is promoting forever wars in the region, unquote. And you talk about the civilian toll and the school in southern Iran with girls being killed at a number of that now is well over 1259 to 12 year old girls being blown up this by I believe an American missile. So with this background, and you've had your degree of suffering under this regime, you were imprisoned early in the years of the Ayala Tola led regime. But with this in the background, tell us how this war could have been avoided.
- [04:54]
Behrouz Ghomari Tabrizi
This war. I disagree with people who say that this is a war of choice. I don't think this is a war of choice. This is a blatant case of illegal war of aggression. And I think we need to be very careful about these terms that we use. This is an illegal war of aggression. There was no reason to launch this war. While actually, according to the Foreign Minister of Oman, the negotiations were going very well and Iran had shown tremendous flexibility in trying to accommodate the demands of the United States. And exactly as it happened in last June, in the middle of a very successful process of negotiation, the US and Israel launched this war. Which leads me to believe that negotiations basically have been a smoke screen for preparing for an attack on Iran to destabilize the country and to create a situation of chaos in the country which is actually now is happening and without any specific reasons that could persuade anyone, anyone to for what reasons are we attacking Iran in violation of which international rules and regulations and laws Iranian government is at this point the only countries that I see that in constant violation of international law is the United States and Israel. And frankly, I am speechless, although I'm speaking, but I am speechless that in what universe this war can be justified as a self defense. You listened to Secretary Rubio's speech in Munich that he laments 400 years of colonial rule because being lost to this international law and laws of fighting wars because they want to go back to the way things were in 18th and 19th century. This is a naked expansionist, extortionist administration here. And that's the only reason they have launched this war. And there is absolutely no justification for it.
- [07:26]
Ralph Nader
Let's go into the history of this, because if you listen to the media today, history starts, you know, a few weeks ago. It doesn't start in 1953. Can you tell our listeners the lineage of brutal pressure and violence by the United States on Iran, starting with the overthrow in 1953 of its popular elected Prime Minister Mossadegh, who wanted to control Iranian oil from foreign interests. Give people the assassination, the sabotage, the Hussein backed invasion. Give us the history. This.
- [08:03]
Behrouz Ghomari Tabrizi
Yeah, that's actually my job. I'm retired now from teaching history. But for your sake, Ralph, I would do that in a very short and brief manner. You know, after the second World War, ironically, a lot of people around the world who were struggling against the old colonial rule looked at the US as an ally. And they tried to sort of justify their desire for independence and national liberation to American administrations, first, you know, to Truman and then Eisenhower. But the US decided that they are going to support the old colonial world, namely the British Empire and the French empires, and to protect their interests in their colonies and then later in their former colonies. Iran was never colonized officially formally, but nevertheless Iran from mid 19th century on was this sphere of influence of many colonial powers, including Russian Empire and the British Empire. Iranian oil was discovered in 1908 and the British forced a contract. Listen to this very carefully. They forced a contract on Iranians that 80% to 85% of the profits from Iranian oil would go to the British oil companies, 50% of which was owned by the British government. And only 15% to 16% of the profit of oil would go to the Iranians. This is a natural source of Iranian wealth that only Iranians could benefit from with only 15%. In 1952, Iranian government led by Mohammad Mossadegh decided to nationalize the oil industry and to renegotiate the oil industry contracts with the British Empire. The British refused. They enforced embargoes, sanctions. Sounds very familiar. Sanctions and embargo against Iran. And Mossadegh actually appealed to the Americans to defend the Iranians right to manage and own their own oil industry. And of course, you know, during Eisenhower administration they decided that it's in the interest of the US to side with the British and the CIA, with MI6. They organized a coup in 1953, in August of 1953. And they overthrew Mohammad Mossadegh and they executed many people who were supporting him inside the country. They installed the Shah of Iran which ruled after that for another 25 years. And in the Iranian history forces this years of 25 years rule is known as the dark ages of tyranny. Because then they established a horrendous secret police intelligence services by the help of the Israeli Mossad and the CIA. And many, many, many people were executed under the Shah and imprisoned. And you know, people wonder about 1979 revolution, why it happened and why did it have such an anti American undertone in it. Because for Iranians at the time rising up against the tyranny of the Shah was part of the same struggle against American interests in Iran. Because American interest in Iran was to keep this kind of tyrannical rule for different kinds of justification. One of which was to sort of stop and contain the spread of communism in the region and the interest of the Soviet Union. But nevertheless Iranian revolution, which was an anti monarchy, anti shah revolution inevitably had an anti American core because of the US support for the Shah. And of course after the revolution a bunch of radical Iranian students took over American Embassy thinking that they wouldn't want to allow history repeat itself. Because once the CIA overthrew Mossadegh, the fear was that the US is going to work and organize another coup to topple the revolutionary state. They wanted to create a disruption if there was any kind of project to organize a coup against the post revolutionary regime. Of course I believe that was a mistake. They shouldn't have taken over American embassy. But I know what the justification was and I think that people should understand that, that it wasn't the work of a bunch of crazy people. They were not crazy. They were thinking about history and the fear of history repeating itself. And then of course to contain the Iranian revolution, the Americans, the French, Germans, Soviet Union, they all supported Saddam Hussein to invade Iran. A war of eight years of war which caused close to half a million people killed and the entire infrastructure of the country in ruins. And there was this joke that when Colin Powell was saying that we know that Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons, one of his advisors, this is a joke, one of his advisors said that how could you be so sure that Saddam had chemical weapons? Colin Powell said that because we kept the receipts because during the war the US was supplying helicopters and Germans were supplying chemical warfare to chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein to attack Iranians and Iran survived.
- [13:52]
Ralph Nader
And by the way, just to interrupt, Senator Riegel, who's the chairman of the Senate committee investigating US companies role in providing the raw materials to Saddam Hussein for developing chemical weapons, criticized these corporations. They did pick these sales by the way, with a license from the US Government. The raw materials were sent by US companies.
- [14:14]
Behrouz Ghomari Tabrizi
Absolutely. That's why, you know, Colin Hause, we kept the receipts because they sold these things to Saddam Hussein. And of course, you know, you enter Israel and Israeli interest. For years and years the Israelis have been assassinating Iranian scientists. They were sabotaging Iranian industries. And actually the Iranian government showed tremendous restraint in responding to these Israeli provocations because they didn't want to create a situation in which we find ourselves today. But then, you know, at the end of the day calling Iran the aggressor here, I think it's basically a total ignorance of history and the context in which this war has started.
- [14:59]
Ralph Nader
Well, you know, the US military surrounded Iran in Afghanistan. When it was in Afghanistan, it surrounded Iran because of its presence in Iraq and its alliance with Israel. And Iran has been accused repeatedly in the US media by US government officials and Israeli officials as being a chief exporter of terror. Well, they wanted a ring of defense. That's why they allied themselves with Hezbollah, for example. Imagine the shoe being on the other foot. We are like thousands of miles away from are empire plunderer arguing that it's defending U.S. interests. And for Iran to try to do this, having been violently attacked, undermined and sabotaged, they call it an exporter of terror.
- [15:51]
Behrouz Ghomari Tabrizi
I want to make one point clear. I mean all these things is not to suggest that the Iranian government in any form or shape is democratic and just state. But the question here is about the sovereignty of Iranian state. And the only inheritance of the revolution that was kept, has been kept throughout these 40 odd years was the question of sovereignty. Because that was one of the demands of the revolution. The question of social justice was thrown out of the window after the revolution. The question of civil liberties were thrown out of the window after the revolution. The only thing was left and is left is the Iranian sovereignty. And according to every single intelligence study, what Iranians do outside their borders is a defensive posture. Iran does not have an expansionist agenda. In my book that just came out, the Long war on Iran. I quote Henry Pratt, who was at the Iran desk at the State Department, and he very aptly said that Iranian government is primarily concerned about economic prosperity and security inside, not dominion abroad. And I believe that US Intelligence services are quite aware of this. And the Iranians help and that the support for Assad regime in Syria, for Hezbollah in Lebanon, in Iraq, these are all very justified and for good reason, that if we don't do this, then the fight is going to be on Tehran streets. And this is actually what happened.
- [17:33]
Ralph Nader
We're talking with Professor Behrouz Ghoumari Tabrizi, retired professor from Princeton University, author of the new book the Long War in Iran. New events, old questions. When was the last time Iran invaded anybody?
- [17:48]
Behrouz Ghomari Tabrizi
Never invaded any other country. And Iran has always been attacked from the outside forces. Never. There is not even a single case that Iran has attacked any other country, neighboring countries or otherwise.
- [18:03]
Ralph Nader
Now, let's look at Iran from another lens, that of Iranian Americans, the expatriates who are demonstrating in support of what Trump did in toppling the Ayatollah. It is often forgotten how dictatorships are created by outside enemies. We're not foreign to that. Look what we did against immigrants in Minneapolis. It's just a harbinger of more to come. But if you want to destroy the Castro revolution and actually invade it, you're going to create dictatorial conditions under Castro and Cuba. If you want to destroy Iran, you are going to create dictatorial conditions in Iran. So let's explore the point of view of Iranian Americans who want to get rid of the Ayatollah regime, democratize Iran, open it up. And are actually celebrating what terrorist Trump has been doing to Iran in collusion with the Israeli Netanyahu regime.
- [19:07]
Behrouz Ghomari Tabrizi
That's right. You know, for decades, after decades, Iran has been under this draconian regime of sanctions led by the US and some other European countries. And I have always argued, and you see that argument in my recent book, that these kind of external pressures create a security apparatus inside the country that moves totally against any possibility of democratization. This is exactly the point. Ralph, you brought up, that sanctions do not bring possibility of democracy. Sanctions, military threats, armed resistance to these regimes from outside only securitizes society, and it also impoverishes the population, a population that has the ability to mobilize itself to create a more vibrant civil society. And it's been doing that in Iran. And a lot of people fail to see how much Iranian civil society have been active and vibrant in the past 30 years. Or so in creating that space for struggle for social justice and civil liberties, all these external pressures work against that possibility inside the country. Because once people open their mouth to criticize the government, immediately they're understood to be agents of foreign powers. And if the US Government or any other government or these Iranian diaspora who are promoting this kind of intervention pay close attention, they realize that all these years, all these decades, these efforts have pushed Iranian society towards a more securitized and tyrannical society, rather than helping them to create that space for the growth of civil society.
- [21:07]
Ralph Nader
Well, I think in your book, one of the most illuminating sections is how you talk about Iranian society over the past 40 years and the important events happening inside Iranian society decade after decade showing, and I'm quoting you, that they are capable of transforming their own society. Issues of social justice remain very prominent in Iranian society. Iranian women were very, very active in changing the conditions of their own life inside the country. And the Iranian labor movement was very strong. Iranian students always are very strong. And I thought that at this moment, toppling the government without having a clear alternative would only damage those struggles that people have maintained throughout the past 40 years and they would diminish them. And you say, quote, I'm very pessimistic about the possibility of regime change in Iran without having a clear idea of what is going to replace it, end quote. Let's say you're talking to an auditorium in Los Angeles full of Iranian American expatriates. And you know where they're coming from. They don't like the theorecracy, they don't like the suppression. They want an open society. And your knowledge says that we're doing everything to make sure it's a closed society. And so the Israelis are, in terms of the theocratic security state that gets entrenched because of the foreign assaults and violence and sabotage and threats against it. What would you say to this auditorium in Los Angeles?
- [22:43]
Behrouz Ghomari Tabrizi
Well, I have to sort of correct you in this, that they would never, ever allow me to speak in an auditorium in Los Angeles to those Iranians because, you know, there is, unfortunately, there is such a sort of narrow minded and fascistic kind of environment now that any voice that questions their wisdom about regime change is suppressed and is not allowed to be spoken. And that's very unfortunate because these are people, many of whom were suffered under this regime, like myself. And I always say that the worst kind of politics one can subscribe to is the kind of politics that is merely the extension of a personal experience. Yes, we all suffered many of US suffered. I suffered tremendously. But it would be naive and ignorant if I want to base a politics based on what happened to me. This is not about me. There's a history out there. There are so many different actors in this world that needs to be considered. And these Iranians who are sort of romanticizing the pre revolutionary times, first of all, they have no idea about what kind of life people had before revolution. These are all kind of a fantasy that is built by Israeli investment, by hundreds of millions of dollars poured into creating a propaganda machine to whitewash the atrocities before revolution. And again, I say this, I don't want anybody to. Let's say that then the post revolutionary regime was good. No, post revolutionary regime was not good. Post revolutionary regime committed atrocities. Post revolutionary regime created all these laws and regulations that are very anti social justice. They were misogynistic, all, you name it. But that doesn't mean that we have to forget or romanticize a pre revolutionary condition in which Iran as a state was only acting as a client of the United States to protect the United States and Israeli interests in the region. And Iran was number one consumer of American arms. Iran before revolution was the fifth largest military in the world. So I would caution people to go and study their history, to look at the development index numbers from the United nations to see what situation Iranians had before revolution. Only 30% of women were literate before the revolution. They talk about how great gender situation was in Iran before the revolution. Look and see how actually it was before the revolution. Life expectancy for women was only 56 years old before revolution. After the revolution it rose to 78 years old for women. So there are changes, there are positive changes that both were initiated by this state, but mostly won through the struggles of civil society against this state. And I think that people should be very, very careful buying into this propaganda machine, which is that in another conversation I call this return of monarchy to Iran. And as an Israeli project. It is an Israeli project and they poured money into it. They created a network of misinformation, a network of romanticizing the pre revolutionary times. And unfortunately, anybody who questions that now is suspect and is accused of collaborating with the Islamic Republic in Iran.
- [26:45]
Ralph Nader
For the record listeners, Professor Behrouz spent several years in jail under this regime when he was a student protester in Tehran. So you speak from a very, very broad historical and humane perspective that needs broader attention in the media. Just recently we had two specialists. Chaz Freeman, a diplomatic specialist under several presidents, and Ted Postal was an MIT engineering professor expert on Missiles and other instruments of warfare. They asserted that this is not going to be a quick and easy war, that the Iranians are going to conduct the war of attrition over months. They're going to bring in a larger number of regional countries at risk for supporting US Bases.
- [27:39]
Behrouz Ghomari Tabrizi
Stand up. Stand up.
- [27:42]
Ralph Nader
Well, let's segue to Chad Freeman here. What do you think the strategy is going to be of the Trump regime here and its ally Israel? They can't endure a war of attrition. What do you think the strategy will be?
- [27:55]
Chad Freeman
Well, they don't have a strategy. They have a campaign plan which is different. We heard Secretary of Defense, self styled Secretary of War Hegseth expand on that this morning. Their campaign plan consists of destroying this, that and the other, weakening this, that and the other, and continuing to do it for as long as we have the capacity to do it, which they overestimate. So that's a campaign plan. There is no political element to this, no war termination strategy, no clear statement of objectives. You know, when you start a war, the first thing you have to do is define what your goals are. Those goals have to be feasible. You have to have the resources essential to achieve those goals. And you have to have a strategy for terminating the war through a negotiation or some other process to which the defeated side agrees. None of these elements are present in the current effort. If I may, I would say we're focused a bit on the wrong issue. As Ted said, this is the early days of what is going to be a very long war. Very likely it was posed to Iran as an existential war. We were going to remove the Islamic Republic, incapacitate it, subject it to foreign control, Israeli control. Israel's objective very clearly, as Prime Minister Netanyahu has explained for 40 years, has been to eliminate Iran as a competitor or as a potential threat. And Ted is absolutely right. If you, if you pose an existential threat to a country, it will behave as though like a cornered rat, it will defend itself with everything at its disposal. So what is going on at the moment is what I expected. Namely there was a lot of hui in the American press that said if the United States attacks Iran, Iran will attack the United States and Israel will be left out of it. And in fact, some people argued, well, let's get Israel to attack first because then maybe we'll have a chance to justify our war in a defensive, in defensive terms. That was always nonsense. The Iranians know exactly what the source of this war is and it's in Israel. And the fact that Donald Trump believes that authorization for war from Benjamin Netanyahu is superior to asking the Congress for an authorization is an obvious case in point. The secondary objective which is being pursued by the Iranians now and is very important, they've closed the Strait of Hormuz. Qatar has suspended all gas production. The other countries in the Persian Gulf are closed for shipments of oil out of it. The impact on allied economies, Japan, South Korea and so forth, as Ted mentioned, is going to be profound. But the main thing that they're doing is attacking American bases on these countries territory. Why? Because those bases were justified to the host countries as defense against regional enemies. But it turns out they're an attractive nuisance in legal terms. That is to say, they create targets.
- [31:17]
Behrouz Ghomari Tabrizi
Stand up.
- [31:18]
Ralph Nader
Stand up. And I questioned them, I challenged them, I disagreed with them. The destruction of Tehran is proceeding with such ferocity, unchallenged by the destroyed Iranian defense system. They're being bombed the way Gaza was being bombed. And they have huge amounts of TNT equivalent that's raining down on the Iranian country from Israel and from the US what is your prediction here? Trump says four to six weeks, Netanyahu says two weeks. What is your prediction and what's the resilience of the Iranian government here?
- [31:58]
Behrouz Ghomari Tabrizi
It's hard to predict, Ralph. I don't know. My sense is that the US and Israel for many years has had the goal and objective of creating a situation of civil war in Iran. And this civil war in Iran, they are trying to invest in different ethnic groups. And now the reports are indicating that they are actually indeed going to create a liberated zone in Iranian Kurdistan. They're arming Iranian Kurdish parties to take over the Iranian Kurdistan and use that liberated zone as a basis of launching ongoing attacks on the central government. And I think from American standpoint and from the Israeli standpoint, their mission is accomplished if Iranian. The central government is busy fighting Turkish or Baluchi or Azeri separatists, different armed parties, and they're going to be busy doing that. And this is the scenario of Syrianization of Iran. And at that point, I think their mission is accomplished because they have totally successfully created a disintegrated society, a society of chaos and civil war. And I don't know how one can prevent that. I don't know what the possibilities are for the Islamic Republic to prevent the realization of that project. But one thing I know that everyone miscalculated the Iranian government's military capabilities. And they are now witnessing that they exceed their assessment of how powerful their military is. And I think that, you know, Also, there is a misconception that this government has no support inside the country. That is not true. Even if the Support is around 15%, 15% of people who are willing to actively defend the existing order, we are talking about millions and millions of people. Iran has a 92 million population and if we are talking about 6 to 7 million, 8 million people willing to defend the existing state, we are going to have a very, very long term, unfortunately, civil war in Iran. And that would be from Israeli and American standpoint, mission accomplished.
- [34:30]
Ralph Nader
Well, before we go to Steve, I want to add something. Congress could put a stop to this the way they stopped the Vietnam War. They just cut off the funds in the 1970s and just told Nixon no more money. That was the end of it. Trump is committing a federal crime. He's violating the Anti Deficiency Act. That's while he violates the Constitution and declaring his own wars, which is the exclusive authority of the Congress. The Anti Deficiency act prohibits spending funds unappropriated by Congress. And this is a Exhibit 1 case of it. And it's a criminal statute by the way. And he's also violating the UN Charter, which is equivalent to an international treaty, the Geneva Conventions and other laws. So what I want to ask you is, do you think that the American people have the patience given all the domestic problems, inflation, prices higher, the labor market softening, the risks to health, safety and economic well being brought about by the destruction of these protective federal agencies under tyrant Trump, do you think they're going to have the stomach for a long war in Iran? Already only 8% of the Democrats support the war and there is increasing fissures in the MAGA movement behind Trump because he's doing what he promised he wouldn't do during the campaign and get involved in endless wars. What's your reaction to all this?
- [36:06]
Behrouz Ghomari Tabrizi
I also wanted to add another aspect of legality of this and that's the assassination of foreign leaders. And that part also is illegal. And this is a federal law and executive order that prohibits the US to assassinate foreign leaders. And as you remember Ralph, that during Reagan they wanted to assassinate Gaddafi. And Reagan administration went through a long sort of try to say that no, no, no, that's not what we were trying to do. But nowadays they openly say that, you know, we are going to go and assassinate the President, the Supreme Leader. Xyz these are different times and unfortunately it's true that this war is so unpopular. But the unfortunate part is that a good percentage of Democrats in the House also are supporting this war. And I don't think that this resolution in the House would limit the war powers of the president. I'm very skeptical of that because of the relationship that many Democrat members of the House and Senate had with AIPAC and Israeli lobby. And I think unfortunately only 6% of Democrats in the country support this war. But I don't know exactly the percentage, but a good percentage of Democrats are supporting it in the House.
- [37:28]
Ralph Nader
Well, that remains to be seen in the coming debates on Capitol Hill. But your new book, the Long War on Iran, new events, old questions may seem remote to you listeners, but take a look at the Trump pumps at the gas stations and watch the price go up. Take a look at your gas bill, heating bill, watch the price go up. Take a look at what it does when energy prices spike for the rest of the economy. It increases the cost of everything you buy. And heaven forbid, because this is an aggressive war, under international law, the Iranians have a right to counterattack in self defense. That's settled international law. And if we ever get a retaliatory attack in this country, we'll be in a complete turmoil and chaos because we can't take the kinds of 9 11s again and react as a democracy should, which is to uphold the rule of law and to wage peace instead of provocative aggressive warfare anywhere in the world that we choose to engage in. And Trump has said again and again that under Article 2 he can do whatever he wants as president. We have a dictator operating here out of control with a fragile ego, as many psychologists have described him, a dangerously unstable personality. So this is not some remote attack halfway around the world that's not going to disrupt our normal routines and rhythms here in America. You better pay attention to it, Steve.
- [39:10]
Steve Skrovan
Professor, tell us about the demonstrators in Iran who were being killed and provided at least the temporary pretext for this attack. Who were they? What were they trying to do? And what was the response of the government?
- [39:27]
Behrouz Ghomari Tabrizi
The latest protests happened around Christmas time with a free fall of Iranian currency versus American dollar. And in the past three years or so, the Iranian currency has lost 300% of its value. And the protest started in Iranian bazaar in Tehran, and many shopkeepers closed their shops. They rallied outside the bazaar, big bazaar in Tehran. And for a week there were protests everywhere in different parts of the city, primarily with economic grievances. And the government set up some meetings with some of the protesters to discuss the possibilities of how to remedy the situation. And as the demonstrations, as the protests grew, and one of the problems there that the repressive apparatus of the state for many Decades, they have eliminated all different kinds of political parties, political opposition leaders either in jail or in exile, and civil institutions. So people really don't have a very meaningful way of engaging with the government. And the only way they can engage with the government and air their grievances is to march on the streets. And if you. For. I mean, if you think about it in American context, you know, there are so many different layers of institutional engagement which is absent in the Iranian case. And from having a grievance, the next step is to go march on the streets. And of course, once these marches happen, there are so many different actors who are interested in exploiting the situation and instrumentalizing it for their own goals and objectives. After a week of protests, these rallies on the streets became a crying point for many Iranians abroad. And from erring economic grievances, these rallies turned into a demand for regime change, which was also a big jump from thinking about what's the remedy of the free fall of Iranian currency and economic situation to a regime change, to overthrow the regime. So at that point, I don't know whether these reports were true or not, but we know people like Pompeo, for example, tweeted that Israeli Mossads are next to Iranian protesters. Israeli Foreign Ministry tweeted that, you know, we are with you on the streets of Tehran. And this basically really freaked the Iranian government out. Again, I don't know whether that was true that Mossad was on the streets of Tehran or not, but for the Iranian government, that was irrelevant. Once they're saying that we are on the streets, they take it seriously and they think they are on the streets. And these demonstrations became very violent, attacking banks, different government buildings, and police stations. And the Iranian security forces indiscriminately opened fire towards these demonstrators.
- [42:43]
Ralph Nader
Well, it's well known that the Israeli spy system in Iran is unparalleled in the world. I mean, they know because they've killed these people movements, and they're right there. The security specialists in the US Government don't even try to hide it. They're right there turning peaceful protests into violent protests.
- [43:04]
Behrouz Ghomari Tabrizi
Yeah, but again, I mean, this is a known fact. You know, Israelis have been assassinating Iranian scientists inside the country. So obviously they have people there. They have agents there to identify these people, to follow them. But the point remains that despite of that, I don't think any government has the right to. To open fire indiscriminately to a crowd and thousands of people. This government released the names of 3,200 people. And they say that 300 of those people were security forces, some of whom were beheaded and shot. But the great majority of them were protesters, some of whom might have been armed or not. But they. The great majority of these people were people who were protesting on the streets and killed by the security forces in Iran. Now, there is a dispute over numbers. I hear numbers like 50,000 people were killed over two nights or 30,000 people were killed. I think these are, well, exaggerated numbers. But from the humanist perspective, it really doesn't matter, because once you get to the thousands, then from that standpoint, it doesn't matter. It matters from the standpoint of foreign intervention, because once you say that 50,000 people were killed, I think that's that number is created to justify external foreign intervention.
- [44:35]
Ralph Nader
The consensus number, and nobody knows really exactly, the consensus number is in the range of 7,000, which of course is 7,000 too many. But you're right, they're figured.
- [44:47]
Steve Skrovan
Professor, some people are saying that the Shah's son somehow could come back or people would rally around him. And it seems like that is delusional. Would you agree with that?
- [44:58]
Behrouz Ghomari Tabrizi
Absolutely. I think this is just a fantasy. And even the US Is not willing to put all its eggs in the basket of Reza Pahl Levi. You know, Trump yesterday said that he hasn't even talked to him, and instead he's talking to Kurdish armed groups.
- [45:14]
Ralph Nader
You know, by the way, are you getting on NPR or PBS or the mainstream press at all?
- [45:20]
Behrouz Ghomari Tabrizi
No, the mainstream press don't like me.
- [45:23]
Ralph Nader
How about any op eds?
- [45:25]
Behrouz Ghomari Tabrizi
I've been writing op eds. There was a long op ed in Haarez which got a lot of coverage. I was very happy about that. And, you know, I was on Democracy now the other day. But, you know, I've gotten a lot of publicity about my position, but the mainstream still sort of remains distant.
- [45:45]
Ralph Nader
Try Wall Street Journal in USA Today for op ed.
- [45:49]
Behrouz Ghomari Tabrizi
Okay.
- [45:49]
Ralph Nader
Yeah. You may be surprised. Okay, let's go to David.
- [45:53]
David Feldman
I have a question. I just want to underscore something you said, and that is, I believe you said, the purpose of this war is war is to create conditions where there's a permanent civil war in Iran like there is in Lebanon and Syria. That's the goal. So when Ralph says the American people don't have an appetite for a forever war, there is going to be a forever war. But I believe what you're saying, and what I think is that Trump is going to blame the victim and say, we gave you an opportunity. We bombed, we killed the Ayatollah, and instead you rather fight among yourselves. And he's going to leave and say, we tried, but these people are incapable of. Like a rapist, he is a rapist or an alleged rapist, he's going to blame the victim. That is the. There is a plan, isn't there? Is that the plan?
- [46:51]
Behrouz Ghomari Tabrizi
That is absolutely the plan. And, you know, if one reads the Israeli position objectives, their own language, you know, they want to create a failed state in Iran, and the failed state solution is the best option for Israel. I think there is a little bit of a nuanced difference between Israel position and the US Position. And the US Position is that the US Wants a client state, a client and weak state, rather than a failed state, because a failed state creates a lot of danger for Iranian neighbors. For the Gulf states. And the Gulf states really don't want to see a failed state. Iran is a huge country, and a failed state in Iran would have dire consequences for Iranian neighbors. Turkey doesn't want a failed state. Pakistan doesn't want a failed state. None of the Gulf states wants a failed state. But that's the Israeli project, because for Israel, no matter how dire the situation gets in Turkey or Pakistan or Gulf states, that's still good because that's the part of the greater plan for the region to get all these states busy dealing with their own instability and chaos, rather than focusing on any question about Palestinian rights or Israeli position in regard to that. So one needs to be a little bit kind of nuanced about the American and Israeli positions. But at this point, I think Trump administration has been dragged into following the Israeli project, which is a creation of a failed state. And as you said, David, the way they're going to justify is that these are barbarian, savage people and they can't stop fighting one another. And we tried. We gave them. And that's actually Trump yesterday was saying exactly that. We gave them the opportunity to take over their own destiny and determine their own future. But they failed. And because that's their nature, because they are barbarians and they want to fight one another and they come out victorious because. And then, you know, with a tap on their shoulders say that we did our part, but unfortunately they were not ready to accept our assistance.
- [49:16]
David Feldman
Ralph, could you respond to that? Because I've been listening to you talk about that. I'm curious to what you think is going on.
- [49:23]
Ralph Nader
I think he's exactly on point. I mean, look at Syria. It's a failed state. Lebanon's been in chaos. Jordan is an Israeli protege. And Iraq basically is the model. It is in a state of instability. The People are in dire need. It doesn't present an external threat to Israel or the United States. And it goes on year after year. And this is exactly what Israel and the US want. The US would prefer, based on diplomatic history, an outpost country that serves its interests. And Israel wants a failed country. And in both cases we're going to get chaos and huge internal warfare. About two thirds of Iran's population are Persian if I'm correct, professor, and the rest are minorities, like Kurds.
- [50:17]
Behrouz Ghomari Tabrizi
Yes, it is.
- [50:18]
Ralph Nader
Right, let's go to Hannah.
- [50:21]
Hannah Feldman
My question is about using the word war to describe what's been going on. War implies, I mean, there's the legal implications of calling something a war in the US Constitutionally. But for the average person walking around, there's an understanding that a war is somehow reciprocal. And as of now, the US has committed acts of terrorism in Iran, you know, killing students at a girls school. They've committed assassinations by attacking government officials. Should we be discussing this as, you know, the US and Israel's war on Iran, when war implies that two groups are fighting, when really it's just one side beating up the other side and the other side maybe lands a couple of defensive punches, it seems potentially counterproductive.
- [51:08]
Behrouz Ghomari Tabrizi
Yeah, thanks, Anna. That's why at the beginning I said that, you know, we, because nowadays everybody uses the war of choice and I said that we need to use the term an illegal war of aggression. That I think is a good sort of way of describing what's happening. Because a war of aggression by definition is one sided because one country goes against another country without provocation. And of course at this point there is a war obviously because Iran has retaliated and Iran is willing to expand this war for whatever strategic decisions they have made. But that's their decision to expand this war, to drag in other countries, to sort of eliminate this space of neutrality for countries because they have to make a decision, especially for Europeans, that they can stand on the sidelines and just issue statements because we are talking about massive number of people being killed, the destruction of the entire cities in Iran, the destruction of historical sites in Iran and hospitals in Iran. They can't just issue a sort of half hearted kind of statement to say that let's have respect for international law. While the US very clearly, I mean the Secretary of War, very appropriately, the Secretary of War has said that they have zero respect for international law. And this very openly is said explicitly. And they think that international law is just a restriction imposed upon American will to exercise its power around the world.
- [52:49]
Ralph Nader
Hannah, Another way of describing this is state terror. This is state US And Israeli terror in all its dimensions. Targeting healthcare facilities, targeting schools, targeting civilian infrastructure. It's just what the Israeli ministry said after October 7. No food, no water, no medicine, no fuel, no electricity. And they meant it. And they've reduce Gaza to rubble before we run out of time. Anything else you'd like to say?
- [53:20]
Behrouz Ghomari Tabrizi
I really want to appreciate that giving me that opportunity to talk with you. I been a big supporter of you, Ralph, for many years. And it's a pleasure talking to you about this unfortunate issue. But it's a pleasure nevertheless talking to you and your colleagues.
- [53:37]
Ralph Nader
Well, I think most Americans want to know is this going to end soon or is it going to last for weeks?
- [53:42]
Behrouz Ghomari Tabrizi
It's going to last for weeks. I don't think there is any prospect for ending this very soon.
- [53:48]
Ralph Nader
Well, we're out of time. We have been speaking with Professor Behrouz Gamary Tabrizi. He is a retired professor from Princeton University. He's a scholar and author who spent three years on death row in Iran's event prison and he's the author of the brand new book the Long War on Iran. New events, old questions. It might be a long war involving the United States of America and the American people. Pay attention to what he's been saying. Thank you very much, Professor Behrouz Hammadi.
- [54:25]
Behrouz Ghomari Tabrizi
Tabrizi, thank you so much for having me. This was a pleasure talking to you.
- [54:30]
Steve Skrovan
We've been speaking with Behrouz Gamary Tabrizi. We will link to his work@ralphnaderradiohour.com now let's check in with our corporate crime reporter Russell Mokiver from the National Press
- [54:40]
Russell Mokhyber
building in Washington, D.C. this is your corporate crime reporter Morning minute for Friday, March 6, 2026. I'm Russell Mokhyber. America has a hidden justice system. There, decisions are made in secret and judges are paid for by the companies and abusers who are being sued. Victims usually lose, but when they do, they cannot appeal and they cannot turn to real courts for for help. They are trapped in the system and quite likely, so are you. You joined it when you accepted the terms and conditions on a website, opened a new credit card or started a new job. When you did, you agreed to be trapped in this secret justice system called forced arbitration. Through its secrecy and corruption, forced arbitration helps companies cheat their workers, helps banks deceive their customers, and helps predators act with impunity. That's the conclusion of former federal prosecutor Brendan Ballou. In his new book, When Companies Run the Courts How Forced Arbitration Became America's Secret Justice System. For the Corporate Crime Reporter, I'm Russell Mulcaber.
- [55:40]
Steve Skrovan
Thank you, Russell, to Steve's Grove, along with my co host David Feldman and our producer Hannah Feldman, of course, Ralph Nader. That's our program. I want to thank our guests again, Professor Behrooz Gamari Tabrizi. For those of you listening on the radio, we're going to cut out right now for you podcast listeners. Stay tuned for some bonus material we call the Wrap up featuring Francesco de Santis with in case you haven't heard, a transcript of this program will appear on the Ralph Nader Radio Hour substack site soon after the episode is posted.
- [56:10]
David Feldman
Subscribe to us on our Ralph Nader Radio Hour YouTube channel and for Ralph's weekly column. It's free@nader.org for more from Russell Mokiver,
- [56:20]
Steve Skrovan
it's at corporate corporatecrimereporter.com the American Museum of Tort Law has gone virtual. You can visit tortmuseum.org to explore the exhibits, take a virtual tour and learn about iconic door cases from history.
- [56:33]
David Feldman
To order your copy of the Capitol Hill Citizen Democracy Dies in Broad Daylight. It's@capitol hillcitizen.com and remember to continue the
- [56:43]
Steve Skrovan
conversation after each show. You can go to the comments section@ralphnaderradiohoura.com or and post a comment or question on this week's episode.
- [56:51]
David Feldman
The producers of the Ralph Nader Radio Hour are Jimmy Lee Wirt, Anna Feldman and Matthew Marin. Our executive producer is Alan Minsky.
- [56:59]
Steve Skrovan
Our theme music, stand up, Rise up was written and performed by Kemp Harris. Our proofreader is Elizabeth Solomon.
- [57:05]
David Feldman
Join us next week on the Ralph Nader Radio Hour. Thank you, Ralph.
- [57:10]
Ralph Nader
Thank you very much. And people, it's going to affect you what's happening in Iran under the tyrant Trump, Trump and the Israeli regime. At the Trump pump, the gas station prices are going to go up, inflation is going to go up and the economy is going to be adversely affected because of the supply lines that are being frozen with the condition in the straits of Hormuz.
- [57:41]
Behrouz Ghomari Tabrizi
Stand up, up, step up. You ought to step up, rise up. Arise up. I know you want to rise up. Stand up, stand up, stand up. I think you step up, step up. I think that you should step up, rise up.
- [58:03]
Ralph Nader
Don't laugh. The system pulls you down
- [58:08]
Behrouz Ghomari Tabrizi
stupid.
- [58:28]
Hannah Feldman
Starting Monday, March 9, KPFK 90.7 FM honors the voices that refuse to be silenced in celebration of women's Herstory Month, we're opening the vaults. Join us every Monday in the month of March from 1 to 2pm as we dive deep into the Pacifica Radio archives. From the radical grassroots organizers of the sixties to the poets and visionaries who reshaped our culture, we're bringing you the authentic sounds of women making history. These are the recordings that captured a movement uncensored, unfinished, filtered and uniquely KPFK. That's Mondays at 1pm Honor the past, inspire the future. KPFK 90.7 FM radio powered by the people,
- [59:22]
Ralph Nader
The Visionary Activist show can now be heard Fridays at 1pm on KPFK.
- [59:28]
Hannah Feldman
Dedicated to anything we need to know
- [59:30]
Ralph Nader
to have a democracy, democratic animism, pragmatic
- [59:35]
Behrouz Ghomari Tabrizi
mysticism, applied divination, Renaissance of Reverent Ingenuity
- [59:40]
Hannah Feldman
hosted by Caroline Casey.
- [59:42]
Behrouz Ghomari Tabrizi
Her guests are allies contributing to a
- [59:44]
Ralph Nader
culture of reverent ingenuity, critique and solution. That's the Visionary Activist Show, Fridays at 1pm on KPFK, 90.7 FM Los Angeles
- [59:54]
Behrouz Ghomari Tabrizi
and om online at KPFK.
- [59:57]
Ralph Nader
Org.