>> From WXXI News.

This is Connections.

I'm Evan Dawson.

Our connection this hour is made in an agreement to end the war in Iran.

President Trump has called it more of a memorandum of understanding, with more work to be done to finalize the part of the deal regarding Iran's nuclear program.

But the Trump administration says Iran has promised they won't pursue a nuclear weapon.

So what exactly is in the deal?

Vice President JD Vance says the entire deal should be released to the public for transparency purposes, and maybe that will happen later this week.

The vice president says Iran could get up to $300 billion in new investment and recovery funding if they comply with the rules.

As for bringing about a new democratic government, Vance says that is not our business.

That's between the Iranian people and their leaders.

But President Trump says the current Iranian leadership is not radical in his eyes.

He says they've been easier to work with.

That praise might surprise some observers.

Trump seems satisfied with the current Iranian regime.

He also said at the G7 today that if he changes his mind, we might just drop more bombs on their heads.

We want to know what Iranian Americans think of all this.

When the war started, we welcomed various viewpoints.

No one we talked to was shedding any tears over the death of the Ayatollah, but there were different points of view about just how successful this kind of war could be.

And today we follow up as the war seems to be winding down.

Let me welcome our guest, Shahin.

Monshipour is an Iranian American former instructor of anthropology and sociology, among other titles.

It's nice to have you back here.

Thank you for being here.

Thank you.

Next to Shaheen is Pouya Seifzadeh, who is an Iranian American, an associate professor of strategy in the School of Business at Suny Geneseo, also a local business owner of the Funtastic Adventure Park Bounce Hopper Ontario Play & Cafe Pouya.

Welcome back.

Thank you for being here.

>> Thank you for having me.

>> And welcome across the table to Ghazal Dehghani, who is an Iranian American who's a senior lecturer at RIT.

Welcome back to the program to you.

So before we hear from the Vice President and the president about what we know about this deal, I'm just going to ask all three of you.

Do you feel like you understand it, Shaheen?

Do you feel like you understand how the deal is constructed right now and what is actually in it?

>> Uh, parts of it are confusing, of course.

Um, but if there are a lot of hypotheticals, if those 14 items are what I read, um.

It is, uh, we are in a better position than we were a few days ago.

Um, but there are, um, a lot of questions and ifs.

>> What do you mean a better position than a few days ago?

>> I was, uh, it's a sigh of relief to know that at least we are so far today, Wednesday, at a place where, uh, we are not under threats of bombardment by United States or Israel, at least in the short time.

It's good that the war, um, that there is a ceasefire in place, people are not being killed or threatened to be killed.

Um, and the bombs coming, um, so in that respect, to put a stop on all that unjust attack on Iranians is good.

Um, the fact that, um, many of the items there are very good, but as I said, it's all conditional.

There are many.

I hypotheticals if this stays to be the memorandum, if the one that has leaked is the same one, that would be would stay the way it is until Friday.

If the two sides agree and sign it, if they agree and sign it, what part of it would be starting right away?

We can't trust what Trump says from day to day.

So I have no idea until Friday.

I will believe the 150 million going to Iranians when somebody announced which bank account did it get deposited into >>?

I would believe, um, the other things, if they happen, not just in talks.

>> Okay.

Pouya do you feel like you understand it?

>> I think it's very difficult to really understand.

>> This even close to get it right on your.

Yeah.

Get real close.

>> Yeah.

Um.

>> I, I heard somebody calling this a memorandum of misunderstanding more than a memorandum of understanding.

And this is exactly how I understand it.

Iranians claim there is there are very difficult different items that are on the list than what the American side states is on the list.

This is not an agreement.

This seems to be a framework regarding what, uh, what is to be discussed.

And both sides seem to be putting forward what they expect to be the outcome of the agreement after after the negotiation is to start in within 60 days.

>> Wouldn't it be easier if they just released it to the public so we could all read it?

>> Yeah, that would be that would be very helpful.

And, but, uh, I, I was just listening to, uh, Canadian Prime Minister's interview this morning.

Uh, and it seems that it's not a very extensive document.

It's a page and a half document.

So it's not very much very well developed.

And, uh, and it's just, uh, I don't think it could be taken that seriously if it is released to the public at this point, I'm not going to put too much weight into this.

Uh, if they reach an agreement, if there is a cease fire, well, I don't think a cease fire is going to make things better for people or worse for people.

The government of Iran is already executing people in jail.

Right?

So people who are imprisoned, people who are in protests, they are already being killed.

So things are not going to change for them.

If there are any funds that get released, if there are any, uh, relief on sanctions from Iranian oil being sold, I don't think that money is going to be trickled down to the, uh, to the economy in a way that's going to benefit the ordinary Iranian.

Uh, it's going to probably go towards rebuilding the military sites, the military capabilities.

Uh, so the 60 days, perhaps the only thing that would change would be some noise and some other civilians that might not be killed otherwise.

But then in their place, other civilians will be gathered, will be executed.

Uh, so, um, I'm not, I'm, I'm finding it very difficult to, uh, to, uh, assess the, this MOU or mom or however you want to.

>> Call it.

>> Yeah.

Uh, across the table.

Gazelle.

What do you, what do you make of it so far?

>> So as you mentioned and other guests mentioned this, um, memorandum, which is not a deal yet because no official details have been published yet, appears to put an end to, uh, military actions and, um, um, sanctions against people.

To me, it, it can be positive.

Um, if it works, if, uh, it puts an end to, uh, murdering and bombing kids in hospitals and families and civilians in schools, in their homes, uh, while there were no clear goal from the beginning for this war, um, from other perspective, um, for U.S.

Taxpayers, including myself.

We don't have to absorb billions of dollars of in our daily cost.

Uh, hopefully we don't see skyrocketing oil prices that cause gas and inflation and higher gas prices.

And generally, I think the sooner Trump administration learned a lesson that, uh, military action, at least a fast paced, kinetic, military action was never a good solution.

Uh, never helped Iranian people towards more freedom and never helped other complex problems with Iranian government.

I think it's a positive, uh, outcome, but I also think, as you know, from a perspective I have as people, we have the right to sit here and ask ourselves, what was the outcome of this, this war?

What were those assumptions that caused this war?

And whether or not to what extent it helped people, how people paid prices for that.

>> So I want to listen to some of what President Trump has said in the last couple of days.

And I want to preface that by saying that when this war started and we were talking to Iranian Americans, there was agreement on, you know, a loathing for the regime, but there was some disagreement about whether this war could actually lead to, um, a more democratic solution for Iranian, the Iranian people, either in the short term or, as Pouya talked about, perhaps down the road in the long term.

And one of the surprising things is hearing the president talk about the current leadership in Iran in such different terms as he did just weeks or a couple of months ago.

And maybe that's because he wants the momentum of a deal to go forward, I don't know, but I want to listen to some of what the president said at the G7 about that.

>> We're dealing with people that I think are very rational people, and they were nice to deal with.

They were strong people, smart people.

I think actually they're smarter than the first and second group, but they're not radicalized and they're, you know, looking to help their country.

>> The terms he used to describe the current Iranian leadership, rational, nice, not radicalized.

That is not a set of terms that indicates that this president feels like he should support the Iranians and rising up against them, or that he wants to follow through on what he initially talked about, which is backing the protesters, putting a hard line in on the torture and killing of the Iranian people, demanding some kind of regime change, and even comparing it to Venezuela, in which the president said, you know, Venezuela was easy.

And that's the model that we want to follow in Iran.

So we'll go around the table here and Shahin when you hear the president describe the current leadership as rational, nice, not radicalized, not hard to deal with.

What do you make of that?

>> He's trying to change the mind of American people who say anything about that.

Government is negative.

You shouldn't talk to them.

You should bomb them more.

He's trying to say, no, this is a different group.

They are not as bad.

>> He's saying that we got regime change.

And look, they're different.

>> Yeah.

And he's trying to say, look, we got regime change.

That deal is done.

And this new guys are okay because he wants to see, uh, this, um, situation moving towards something that would rescue him from being entangled in a web of things he has created for himself.

And he is trying to calm down the opposition in the United States.

And so it's a political babbling, but I don't know.

We don't know.

First of all, I don't think it's anything wrong to say nice things about, uh, a regime.

If it is truly more rational.

And that's to be, um, qualified.

Like, what do you mean by rational?

They are more friendly with you based on their own politics.

You call it rational, or are they truly more rational about what we don't know?

Well.

>> He also said less.

>> Radical.

>> And that's a very.

>> He says they are less radical, less radical to him is, um, less less opposing making.

He has been wishing for sitting across the table with Iran and negotiating a deal.

So this group agreed, this new regime agreed to sit on the table with him and negotiate a deal.

So that's a positive to him.

They are not as radical as saying, no, no, we won't talk with you.

>> Sure.

But do you think the people in Iran who have suffered under a regime for decades view the current leaders as less radical and more rational?

>> They don't know.

We don't give people time to make up their mind.

We are ahead of them, trying to, uh, hurry up and make up your mind.

I don't know what the new regime has been in place for.

Uh, just a couple of months and entangled in this struggles for survival of the country for Hormuz.

>> But could all could it.

>> Be more democratic?

Do you think it's even possible with this group?

>> It could be.

Actually, you know what?

All these um, I must say, I am not at all pro Islamic regime.

I've been one of the first ones in my generation to say this is bad.

But the thing is, Iran was, uh, Iranians were making a little bit inching towards more freedom, towards more democratic rules.

It was not like a terrible, terrible, the end of the story.

Uh, even with a terrible regime in many aspects, it has some positives that it's given to people.

And, people's lives are different from what we imagine.

And I think it's important to remember that as bad as the regime is, if the next it's up to the people of Iran to decide whether this is enough of a change in this new regime or not, and they haven't tested it yet.

Let us receive that deal you made with the United States.

And let us see how much of it you allow to trickle down.

And if it's enough of a trickle down, maybe we we we would not rise up against you.

Maybe if you again abuse us, abuse the nation, steal our money, steal our opportunities, we will rise up against you.

So I think that is all up to the people.

We can't just say anything positive said about any Iranian Islamic regime is bad.

I don't know if it's bad.

>> Or good.

>> I take that point.

And before I get to your co-panelists, because I know they have a lot to say, Pouya told us previously.

And I'm sure he'll have a lot to say about this today, that one of the reasons he had some optimism about this war was because it might not produce a democratic change in a month or even a year, but it could plant the seeds for change in time.

>> How?

>> Okay, I'm asking you if you see it that way.

If you think this war could have changed the conditions that will eventually allow a more democratic regime.

>> Absolutely not.

You don't.

>> I think it was a kind of, uh, attack that showed its face very quickly.

It was against the people of Iran.

And I don't think when you shoot people of Iran, you're going to move towards democracy.

Those are two different things.

>> Okay, let's ask you, first of all, when you hear the president of the United States talking about the current regime as being nice, rational, not radicalized, do you see it that way?

>> No, I.

>> Don't see any element of this regime to be positive, nice, rational.

I can understand that with removal of some of the key players of the regime in the early days of the war, uh, there's some consolidation in power.

Perhaps it's made it easier for the American side to negotiate with a more, uh, more unified friend, which is, uh, which is less in contention, less in competition for power.

Uh, it seems more apparent that the IRGC has taken the reins of power.

And there are gradually replacing some of the, uh, other, uh, active players with their own, with their own players, um, but, but thinking that the, this Islamic regime has given anything positive to the country, I think is preposterous.

This has taken so many lives, every bit of every inch of movement that this society has taken towards creating a democracy was not because of this Islamic regime.

People have paid with their blood for those movements.

They've come to streets, they've been killed in thousands recently, in tens of thousands.

And just giving some credit to the regime that this has created the opportunity for people to do this.

I think that is that's a step too far.

This is a regime that is still unpredictable.

This is a regime that is still ideological.

This is a regime that is rational in the way that it thinks that how it wants to grab power and how it wants to operate in the way of its ideology.

>> So when you told me that you were at least hopeful that this operation would eventually lead to a democratic possible revolution in Iran, do you still feel that way?

>> Do you?

Yes, I do.

>> Do you think this war could eventually be proven to have been successful in that way?

>> It could have been, and it.

>> Still could.

I and I am against any targeting of civilians.

And in in, uh, any, uh, hitting any civilian targets, refineries.

Those are not the installations that the United States or Israel should have gone after.

Yes.

Hitting Khamenei the Revolutionary Guard bases, uh, besieged bases, uh, their, some of their sort of the key figures that are in charge of, uh, sort of making decisions, eliminating those individuals.

Obviously, it has put Iran, the Islamic regime, in a weaker position than it is today.

Yes, they are have attacked their neighbors.

They would not attack their neighbors if they were in a position of strength.

They have started to they shut down internet.

That is not what a powerful regime does.

This is what the regime did because it was in a position of weakness.

But that did not.

The regime did not start massacring people because of the war.

That happened a month before war started.

>> So when the Trump administration and JD Vance says, look, it is not our business on regime change, if that's between the Iranian people and their leadership, that sounds a little more detached than what the Trump administration was talking about in January, February into March.

Do you disagree with that?

>> No.

I actually think that this is a step in the right direction.

The United States has no business installing a government in Iran.

They should be up to the people.

They should.

That should be up to the people.

But there is no reason that Iranians should not take advantage of an opportunity where the United States has interests that are aligned with the interests of Iranian people.

>> How do the people take advantage of it?

>> If the United States were to eliminate the top decision makers of IRGC, the top decision makers of the judicial system, the top decision makers?

Yes, there is a layer of technocrats that will be more reasonable to negotiate, and perhaps even to to start a transition.

Those are those individuals that are part not everybody in this country, and it's a country of 92 million people is ideological.

People work, people get promoted.

They may not be key decision makers, but they are the technocrats that build the body of that.

And they, they, they rise, but not to the very top.

Let those people come float to the top.

>> All right.

Ghazal, um, how do you hear it when the president talks about the Iranian leadership as being different, not radical?

>> Well, first of all, I think the this administration tried, um, war a few times and it didn't work.

And now we are witnessing a little bit of changing their position.

But what I would like to emphasize is that this campaign, the military campaign from the beginning was result of false, elusive and wrong information about how complex the government and the society in Iran is.

And, um, through overly simplification of, um, a government that is, uh, ruled by different groups and military groups and different councils.

And, and this was a, this is now proven to be wrong, that assassinating some series of officials or even the supreme leader would lead to collapse would lead to regime change.

Um, now we have some facts to actually talk about that and to, um, see whether those assumptions are correct or not.

Um, so what we, from what we have seen is that, um, during this war, the government, uh, found excuses to shut down the internet.

The government found better justifications to do executions on top of what they already have been doing.

Um, and from what I after the, the, the internet shut down was partially back to normal.

But from what I heard from my family, um, my, my relatives is that they see these days, actually those, um, hardliners are more aggressive in the street.

They probably, um, have more important roles.

Um, the younger generation hardliners are in charge now.

Do we know what happens in future.

No, we don't know.

But I don't think, um that this actually helped people, um in Iran, at least from what we are observing now.

>> Okay, so before I grab a phone call from Brian in Spencerport, just briefly around the table, anything you want to add from what you've heard there?

Go ahead.

I'll ask all three of you.

If there's nothing.

Shaheen.

Okay.

We've established where where we are here.

And there's again, a lot, some agreement, some disagreement on what this war might have produced.

But Brian and Spencerport is asking about another component that we haven't talked about yet.

Go ahead, Brian.

>> Thank you.

And I think that that I don't believe that Trump and his cohorts have any interest whatsoever in the leadership or the people of Iran.

Instead, they have an interest in paying back the oil companies.

We.

How come no one in the media has talked about.

Trump demanded $1 billion from the oil companies for his campaign.

Well, he's paying them back.

And he got so bored with this all.

And he didn't understand what the Straits of Hormuz was about.

And he has no concept of what what this war is about and what the, the, the decades long interests are there.

He just wants to pay back his oil companies and he's done it.

Thank you Brian.

>> Thank you.

So this morning, this is what the president I'm reading this morning.

He said on the Iran deal, quote, it is a very strong deal.

Nobody knows what it is, but it's very strong.

And then he went on to say, I'll tell you who's really happy is the market.

You know, so the first thing the president is kind of pointing to, look how well the market is responding to the news.

The president says, look at the Dow Jones Industrial Average.

Look at the price of a barrel of oil and Brian is saying he suspects, just as we did in Venezuela, that we're lining up oil deals.

Do you are you concerned about that?

Shahin.

>> Uh, I really can't say anything about that.

I think that the.

Yes, the oil prices will come down temporarily.

Maybe we don't know how long it would last.

Um, but I cannot make a prediction on the oil at this point.

>> Okay.

>> Well, if you ask a lot of Iranians in Iran if they care that much about whether Trump is interested in Iran's oil or not, they wouldn't care that much.

Already.

Iranian government is already selling Iran's oil at around 10 to $25 a barrel, below the price.

Market price to China and to some other countries.

For 90% of it goes to China.

So they are already not making what they should as a nation from oil.

And that revenue is not being trickled down into the economy.

We've been asking for decades.

Where did those hundreds of billions of dollars?

It was about $700 billion that was lost between, uh, 2004.

And very recently, it was lost in Iran's economy.

Now we know where it went.

It went into those silos and missile programs and everything that we we had no idea where they existed.

>> But my understanding is there's not a deal set up now that demands that the Iranian people benefit, right?

>> Yeah.

No, there is none.

But the only benefit the Iranians could take out of all of this ordeal if it concludes at some point, perhaps in the long term, is if there is a regime change.

>> Sure.

But I'm saying President Trump and his team did not say to Iran, look, as part of the agreement, you're going to open the Strait of Hormuz.

And the money doesn't just go to your pockets.

It doesn't just go to your regime.

It doesn't just go to your nuclear program.

It doesn't just go to.

>> Your that is that.

>> Is it goes to your people.

>> And that is the criticism.

>> He didn't he didn't do that.

Yes.

Here's another quote from President Trump today.

The alternative to this deal was a global recession.

There are stupid people who want to see a global recession.

They are just stupid people.

The Strait of Hormuz would never have been reopened, end quote.

That's what the president said this morning.

But again, he didn't demand conditions for the Iranian people.

Fair?

>> Yes.

No.

Absolutely.

You're absolutely right about that.

And that is part of the reason why I think this deal will never have long term success, even if they we go through this memorandum of whatever we want to call it.

And in 60 days, they come back and they sign a deal and there's going to be peace between Iran's IRGC regime, which is essentially a criminal organization that is running a country and the US government.

This is not going to be sustainable because it's not taking the Iranian people into consideration.

I.

>> I feel like it just comes back for you.

It comes back to whether this eventually leads to regime real regime change.

Yes.

And if it does, maybe this will have been worth it.

And if it doesn't, it's a disaster.

>> Yeah.

Well that is that is the ultimate goal.

This regime has been draining Iran's resources, has been killing people, has been murdering people that are in prison, has been imprisoning people that have been thinking otherwise and has caused mass immigration from people into other countries for decades, and it has not been confined to Iranian borders.

It has reached far outside Iranian borders because of its ideological nature.

>> And then you want to add here, Ghazal.

>> About oil prices.

Yeah, well, I don't have any anticipation about that.

I don't know to to what extent, um, you know, the details of deal are going to work out for um people.

But what I know is that the Strait of Hormuz, um, had been open already before the war before.

So I don't think this, this can be counted as an achievement of the war.

Um.

>> You can't dig a hole in your backyard and then weeks later say, I filled the hole.

Give me the credit.

Now.

There's no hole there.

You're saying you're the one who dug the hole?

>> Yes, exactly.

Okay.

Um.

>> Yeah, but you laughed at the president's quote about the Strait of Hormuz would never have been reopened.

>> I had the same point that you are the one who, uh, boasted that you blockaded it, and now you're, uh, boasting that you are reopening it.

You just caused a lot of trouble, a lot of killings of people, bombing of people.

Uh, Strait of Hormuz.

He doesn't have any other choice.

I think part of his decision, uh, is that, um, he had to let go of his blockade.

That's what was not sustainable.

And he finally surrendered to those who thought they were very weak.

Whatever Iranian regime is, it's not weak vis a vis United States.

>> I need to add there.

Pouya.

>> Yeah, well, I, I, I think, uh, yeah, we're in a short term.

Uh, it was these actions that caused the Strait of Hormuz to close, but it wasn't more than five years ago that Kayhan newspaper, which is one of the prominent hardline newspapers in Iran, which actually is one of those newspapers that sets policy a few years ahead of when it's executed, had an article published about how Iran should take control of the Strait of Hormuz through military action.

This was on Iran's agenda.

They were building all those installations around the around the the Strait of Hormuz for years, for decades had Iranian missile program progressed long enough, and their military capabilities developed longer, at some point they would have used this card.

It may not.

It would have not been.

This year may not have been like in two years.

But at some point they would have taken control of that because they have been discussing this for years as one of the most important geopolitical assets that they have.

>> Jack and Grace, we're going to take your call on the other side of this break.

We can read emails at connections@wxxi.org.

The phone number 844295 talk.

It's toll free, ( 844)295-8255.

Around the world, the Iranian diaspora had been sort of debating the merits of a possible war here.

And we've talked about how some of the polling in this country, early days after the assassination of the Ayatollah, was around 5050.

It quickly shifted to about 2 to 1 against.

And but in this studio, you're hearing from, uh, people in that population.

Ghazal Dehghani.

Shahin Monshipour.

Pouya Seifzadeh who are telling us about their perspectives as Iranians and Iranian Americans who want to see a better future for the Iranian people.

The question is, did this war do anything to make that possible?

And that's what they're discussing.

We'll take more of your feedback on the other side of this break.

Coming up in our second hour, social psychologist Ron Friedman has a new book on Superteams, and he's writing about teams at work.

How workplaces function better, how useless meetings can be eliminated, how burnout can be avoided, and how more of us can feel successful during our jobs while not feeling overwhelmed by them.

That's next hour.

>> Support for your public radio station comes from our members and from Mary Cariola center.

Supporting residents to become active members of the community.

From developing life skills to gaining independence.

Mary Cariola center.

Transforming lives of people with disabilities.

More online at Mary cariola.org.

>> This is Connections.

I'm Evan Dawson and this is Jack in Greece on the phone.

Hi, Jack.

Go ahead.

>> Oh, thanks, I appreciate it.

I missed the very first part of the discussion, but I wanted to respond.

I guess two things.

First is there was one of the woman on your panel and I didn't catch all the names.

I apologize, but when the question was asked about freedom and give the people time to accept the new leadership, um, I just think that's from anything that I've seen.

Now, I you have people on the panel that are much more Connections back to the Iranian people than I do.

But anything that I've seen says the people that are in charge now are no different than the leaders that they took out.

I mean, we have the the ayatollahs son, I, you know, it's the same people are in place, except maybe even more radical now, before the war, before we started bombing Iran, we saw tens of thousands or many more Iranian citizens protesting in the streets.

And they seem to be you know, I would guess there's probably a very large number of Iranian people that want change.

But what happened?

The Iranian government slaughtered them.

The people there can't fight back.

You have a military.

Maybe it's a small percentage people in charge, but they're the ones that dominate.

And and and so I personally see this war is doing I don't see the Iranians, the Iranians are weakened.

The Israelis weakened them a couple of years ago, and they are weaker.

But Iran is still as far as their people's concerned, they are the dominant power.

And I don't know what you call it, a dictatorship or a theocracy or some combination of both, but they are not interested in what the people in the streets want.

They are interested in keeping their ideology alive.

I have I have no doubt that we got into this war because Donald Trump was convinced by Netanyahu.

Iran is a threat to their life.

They want to wipe out these Iranians, the Israelis and the Israelis are fighting back.

And he got us to go along with it.

And now we're in the midst of it.

And Donald Trump wants to do nothing but get out.

So I don't think Donald Trump really cares about the Iranian people.

And I think the Iranian people are in just the same stuck places.

They were before.

And, uh, that's what I see.

And we're just going to get out.

>> All right, Jack, I do appreciate the call, but part of what Jack is referring to is some of the comments from Shahin earlier.

>> So I'll start with you.

Go ahead.

>> Yes.

I wasn't suggesting that the new regime is any better.

I was saying that it's too soon to judge.

I was pointing out that whatever is wrong with the new regime as it was with the old regime, it is proven that U.S.

And Israel attacking Iran would not improve that situation.

That was my major point about it.

Of course, Iranian people want to get rid of this regime.

Everyone wants to get rid of this regime, not because they are a threat to Israel.

That's phony baloney.

It's Israel who's a threat to everyone with their misbehaving every day.

So you have a misbehaved Israel that creates these wars.

Uh, gets Trump to go attack Iran and all of that.

These are not solutions for Iranian people.

Iranian people wish, wish.

There was a superpower that they could invite him to please come, even bring your military and change our regime.

And Mr.

Trump says, that's us.

We are on the way.

And next day he says, no, no, no.

Our goal is not to change your regime, to bomb you.

Uh, because you have nuclear weapons.

And then he says, you know what?

We obliterated all those nuclear weapons.

There is no uranium in Iran.

Then the next day says, because they are going to demolish all of United States with their nuclear weapon, we have an excuse to go fight because he doesn't know why he's fighting somebody, namely, Israel talked him into attacking Iran for his own political gain.

Probably they told him, you will win the election or blah, blah, blah.

So he's there.

I'm not saying that the present regime of Iran is good.

I'm saying it's up to the Iranian people to make that judgment.

And for one thing, they need a superpower badly, somebody who will be truthful, somebody who could be trustworthy, somebody who would have the power, somebody who could do a surgical removal if they can, but not promise these things.

And they just come and do the bombing part.

That was my point.

>> Pouya you want to add to that?

Go ahead.

>> I think Iranian people are in a better place, even if it doesn't seem that way.

Uh, and, uh, the regime has been severely hit.

It seems like it's operating, but it's operating because IRGC has been trained to operate in asymmetric, asymmetrical warfare.

That's what they did, how they operated Iran during Iran-Iraq warfare.

It's created some hassle for the Iranian regime over the past 40 years, but they have learned a lot about this.

If you go back to 2002, if you think about the Korean affair, that ship that was intercepted in Red sea, that was a ship that was sent by air, a segment of IRGC to, to, to, to Israel, to Palestine, to PLO at the time, uh, which kind of which was intercepted by the Israelis.

The Iranian government was not aware at the time that this ship was sent.

There was no dispute that this ship was sent later, was found out that there were segments, parts of IRGC that were operating independently.

This has been the way that this organization has operated throughout years.

Now, the communication between these segments has severely been sort of damaged as a result of this war.

Doesn't seem like it right now because we've just been through it for the past couple of months.

But long term, it will show this deal that we're we're we're waiting to be signed in two years, a two month, two months in 60 days.

I don't see any way that this deal will reach an agreement, a sensible agreement.

The demands that the Americans and the Israelis want, the limitations on missiles, the limitations on the nuclear program, on enrichment.

Those are things that Iranian regime will never, uh, see the way.

And as a result of that, I think, uh, the regime is going to be in a much harder position, uh, find itself to be in a much harder position to survive.

And, uh, and the Iranian people with a much weaker opponent within the next three, four years.

>> All right.

So just briefly here, when you say I think Iran is in a better place today, even if it doesn't look like it, it's not because you think the current regime is any different.

It's because of what might come next.

>> Because I think this regime is weaker than what it was before the war, when in in in January, they didn't think twice going to the streets, killing 40,000 people in two days.

They didn't think twice about that.

They had practiced this three years earlier, two years before that.

They have practices over the years.

They practiced this in Syria.

They practiced this in all the other places where they sent their militia.

They learned how to kill civilians, and then they came and, well, they executed that on the Iranian civilians.

They didn't think twice about that.

>> Okay, Ghazal, you want to jump in here?

Um, you know, Jack thinks what he sees is an Iranian people not in any better position, and an American government that doesn't seem to care.

>> About them.

Okay, so I if this is my my point of view, I think at some point president claimed that this is a regime change.

Obviously, from what I see, it's not a regime change, but also it has been proven through history from different societies, different countries that wars, military wars actually strengthened the hard line military elements of country.

And Iran is not an exception.

I think governing faction in Iran learned the lesson from Venezuela.

Syria.

We haven't seen any single official to step down or flee.

Uh, in spite of some of the claims that, um, you know, have been from the beginning of the war.

And I think from the beginning, actually some of the experts, including CIA director, I'm referring to some of the stories I read through the New York Times recently.

They, they warned whether or not this kind of military short term action would lead to a regime change or would lead to a, you know, a significant change in the Iran's position.

Um, so at this point, we don't really know who they are or what, whether or not they allow reforms or they allow more freedom for people.

But what I think is that in Iran, through civil disobedience, uh, that is an important element.

And gradual reforms through the years, this have been work.

I hope this is my hope.

I'm not certain about that.

That, um, with better economic situation, with empowering people, people of Iran actually get that, uh, because they are hopeless.

Now get that, uh, you know, position again.

Um, that, um, they actually think about their future and they find better solutions.

Um, towards freedom.

>> Across the table.

I can see someone shaking your head in disagreement.

>> Well, we had the highest economic, uh, sort of returns on oil during Ahmadinejad's presidency.

What happened?

Did we get better, more freedoms?

Did people get freed from jail?

Did we have freer press?

Did we have more newspapers?

Did we have more political parties?

Then we had 2013 and 2000 to 2015.

We had sanction reliefs.

In fact, during those two years, executions increased.

And then in 2016 and 2017, we had another round of sanctions relief economy, improved, GDP growth grew to 7%, 572 executions during the first year, I think around 550.

The second year political prisoners.

Now, know that doesn't bring about change.

The aftermath of every round of economic prosperity was that the money trickled down to IRGC.

It hasn't been freedom.

It hasn't been political openness.

If it was the case, how many political parties do we have in China today?

Do we have a lot of political parties, or is it a one party system?

No.

Economic, economic prosperity does not is not synonymous with political freedom.

Social freedom, at least in Iran.

We have seen this happen over and over again, not decades ago, just in the past decade.

Right.

So I don't I don't agree with that.

>> Okay.

Any rebuttal here?

Anything else?

>> I just want to clear my position that I didn't say any, any more money would directly translated into freedom or Ahmadinejad is actually the person who started to, uh, you know, legitimize the sanctions.

I think Ahmadinejad, his his personality is now known as a person who caused many of these, you know, troubles we are witnessing today.

So, no, no, I don't think, you know, this.

Any money would.

But I think transparency and freedom comes from civil disobedience and social groups, not groups led by government, like what they did in Ahmadinejad era.

They actually suppressed many social groups, many people in academia.

I remember I was a student those days.

Many of our, professors in academia had to retire, forced to be retired so that we we actually never seen freedom because of the money.

But I what I say is that freedom comes towards social disobedience.

And if people are not struggling to, uh, you know, uh, find food for their children, yes, they eventually, um, find some more creative ways, you know, to empower themselves and to, um, to strengthen themselves.

Now people are also paying for the prices of these sanctions, uh, because they, they have to think about, you know, how they are starving and, you know, they can't find food and drugs for their children.

That's also a part of the, you know, problem here.

>> Shahin you had.

>> Your hand up.

>> I want to say, um, a point about, um, this trickling down money.

What will happen if Iran has, uh, relief from sanctions?

Um, and, uh, from this economic situation and the money 150 billion that, as I said, I don't believe it until I see it.

Um, I do think that that money will trickle, not distributed evenly.

Yes.

It will have to trickle down as soon as Iran starts rebuilding even their military compound, their bridges, their hospitals, their homes, it's going to be needing workers.

Wages are paid, obviously, any it will be trickled.

It will be the same thing that Shah did.

He grabbed millions, billions of dollars of oil money and he trickled it down.

And he gave breadcrumbs to sections of Tehran to make it look like a modern country and ignored all the rest.

>> But that's not okay, though, right?

>> It's it wasn't okay.

It's not okay now.

But to say that there will be no money spent on Iranians, it's not true.

It's not true.

There will be some.

And that some.

>> But you call it true.

>> Exactly what Ghazal said.

People in that situation have proved to be able to have civil movements.

If Mr.

Pahlavi, the Clown Prince and Trump wouldn't jump in the middle of it and bombard them more.

So I don't see any point in first of all, this U.S.

War in Iran, all the world knows now, including him.

That was wrong.

It was nothing but an aggression in self interest of his own pockets, not even to Americans.

>> All right.

We got to be brief here.

Go ahead.

>> Pouya this argument is as if we claim that let's build prisons.

We're going to have prison guards.

We're going to pay prison guards.

They're citizens.

That's going to trickle down into the economy.

We're going to have construction workers that are going to be paid, being paid to build prisons.

You're you're you're you just said that building military equipment, they're going to be workers that are going to be working.

That is exactly what is going to happen now to that, uh, issue of civil disobedience.

We did have civil disobedience not long ago, this past January.

What happened to those 40,000 people who came to the street when they were told to go back home?

They disobeyed, they died.

They went to they they were killed.

They will never come back.

What happened to all those other people who got executed, those people who got jailed and imprisoned?

No civil disobedience against a government that does not play by norms of humanity and is willing to turn the gun at any point that you are trying to exercise your basic right of and freedom of freedom of speech that does not work.

>> All right.

30s, go ahead.

>> Okay.

>> I >> Think the civil disobedience was crushed more by the actions of those that I named.

It was not crushed just by the Islamic Republic.

And let me tell you, Araghchi and others like that, in top of the Iranian regime right now, they have not been hurt or threatened or anything.

We want them in place.

Us is not going to get rid of another layer of officials who are operating as we speak.

They're going to stay live and do damage to Iran.

With us backing that.

I don't think anybody is fool enough to think because you call, you kill Khamenei, let us kill another layer, then we'll be rid of that.

No way.

You are not rid of all of them.

You didn't.

You left them.

>> I've got.

>> It safe to negotiate your deal with who you want.

>> I Ghazal you're going to hear the music in 10 seconds, so go fast.

>> Okay, so first of all, we have a successful example of civil obedience.

And nowadays, if you go to Iran, you see women are deciding what they wear.

They are not forced to wear mandatory.

So this is one example.

Number two, people have been in a street for 11 days until President Trump, uh, interrupted and claimed that we have some Mossad agents helping you.

There are some people helping you.

And this actually worsen everything.

So this was, I thing against people and against the, you know, benefits of the people who were already, uh, trying hard to change the situation.

>> I wish we had another hour with all of you because now we're really just getting going.

But what you will see for for sure is there is a unity in agreement that what needs to happen is something better for the Iranian people.

The question is how Ghazal Dehghani Pouya Seifzadeh Shahin Monshipour.

Thank you for your perspectives.

Let's talk.

>> Again soon.

Thank you, thank you, thank you all.

>> More Connections.

>> Coming up.

Thank you.

>> This program is a production of WXXI Public Radio.

The views expressed do not necessarily represent those of this station.

Its staff, management or underwriters.

The broadcast is meant for the private use of our audience.

Any rebroadcast or use in another medium without expressed written consent of WXXI is strictly prohibited.

Connections with Evan Dawson is available as a podcast.

Just click on the Connections link at WXXI News.org.

>> Support for your public radio station comes from our members and from Excellus Blue Cross Blue Shield, providing members with options for in-person and virtual care, creating ways to connect to care when and where it's needed.

Learn more at xAI.

El-Sisi.com.