a Question for Iranians/Persians

[korashkhan]

Hi, I am an Iranian living in Sweden and I am currently writing an essay on how Persians think Iran AND Iranians would RESPOND if they were to be BOMBARDED in a preemptive strike by:
A - The United States of America; or
B - The Zionist Regime occupying Palestine (or Israel if you will)

And would they REACT differently if they were to be INVADED by:
A - The United States of America, solely; or
B - Coalition Forces led by the USA

What is your position on the Reza Pahlavi, our "self-proclaimed" King?

What is your position on the Mujahedin-e-Khalq?


I would be grateful if some of you Persians would take your time to answer this question in a sincere and professional manner, as I will post your answers for my teacher to view. I would also appreciate if you could write a couple of lines of what you think the best solution is to this nuclear/geopolitics predicament! Please be professional, no ranting or prattling!

[zubin]

Whether this is for an assignment or not, note the diversity of views and attempt to find the most objective answer.

Iran AND Iranians would RESPOND if they were to be BOMBARDED in a preemptive strike by:
A - The United States of America; or
B - The Zionist Regime occupying Palestine (or Israel if you will)

First, none of these are going to happen, so there's clearly a political agenda behind the question. Instead of academia or whatever fighting for peace, they assume and sustain danger.

A related, fundamental flaw of the question, to me at least, is there is no context in the question. Is the assumption that there is proof of a weapons program or mild suspicion? If there was clear proof, the US and Israel's threat in my opinion would produce something closer to a regime change because Iran would look guilty enough for people to take advantage and push forward fundamental notions of change. It would be the start of a bloody revolution, I think a bit similar to the Russian Revolution. It doesn't mean that many people won't defend the regime, but that there will be a conflict and a bit of a balance away from support for the regime to produce the conflict and the change.

But there is not going to be any proof. And in fact, it is clear that Iran's intention is to use the "nuke card." This means that they don't want to become transparently peaceful until they achieve equal rights and a better footing in the region and world. In other words, they allow for the OPTION that they develop weapons, until what they consider their own security is achieved.

Because the first option is scarier and more bloody, as well as jeapordizes the reputation of Islam, regular people and the Iranian government alike are already attempting to avoid it, pressuring the US for instance, in place of the second option. So there will be no pre-emptive strike, and no nuclear weapons program. Public sentiment will be enough to pressure the Iranian government to reform and change gradually from within, as well as prevent US/Israel intervention.

And would they REACT differently if they were to be INVADED by:
A - The United States of America, solely; or
B - Coalition Forces led by the USA

Exactly the same as above.

What is your position on the Reza Pahlavi, our "self-proclaimed" King?

Apparently he's democratic, which is very important for a self-proclaimed King's credibility. To a certain extent, its a lie, because there is a conflict of interest between anything imperial with justice and fairness. In the future, the "soft power", reputation and past importance of the imperial family will become influential in some Iranian social affairs like should happen.

What is your position on the Mujahedin-e-Khalq?

They are simply trying to gain enough power, enough voice, to eventually have some hand in Iran. Its never going to be successful to take over power completely, but an influence is possible because of their current, successful cultish practices aimed at the greater good. That's how it should be as well.


You will need to compare the above with counter-arguments. Good luck, and thanks for the question. If you liked anything in particular, I am a firm believer in collaboration on essays, so feel free.

Also, you might be able to find ambiguities in the above. Some things are not clear, and there's a lot to be elaborated upon. The analysis can be made more precisely through asking a few more questions and refining the argument and outlook. The important thing is that a real, accurate, and authoritative outlook, with maximum effectiveness, is possible.