The MacNeil/Lehrer Report; The Shah and Opposition

ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. Is the Shah of Iran going to be able to ride out the storm? Compared to the earlier chaos and violence-there has been relative calm since the Shah installed a military government and clamped down on demonstrations on November 6th. Sporadic violence is still happening; yesterday security forces wounded five demonstrators in Behbehan in southern Iran, and police opened fire to disperse demonstrators in two other provincial cities. But a show of force by the Iranian armed services in Tehran today to mark Armed Forces Day passed off quietly, although the Shah himself did not appear to take the customary salute. In the Iranian oil fields production is reported back to roughly two thirds of normal, after a crippling two-week strike.

Yet the question remains: will the opposition forces, who insist that the Shah leave the throne, be able to recreate the momentum that nearly paralyzed the country earlier this month? Is this a lull before the real storm? Those are the questions we consider tonight. Jim?

JIM LEHRER: Robin, that opposition to the Shah is made up of several different elements, some political, some religious. One of the political elements is known as the National Front. Its leader is Karim Sanjabi, who was arrested in Tehran ten days ago, just before he was to hold a news conference calling for the Shah`s abdication. Sanjabi is still in prison. His son, Dr. Parvis Sanjabi, lives here in the United States. He`s a medical doctor who practices and teaches medicine in Carbondale, Illinois. He accompanied his father to Paris for the widely publicized meeting with the exiled spiritual leader of the Iranian Moslems, Ruhollah Khomeini, called the Ayatollah, or the Revered Leader.

Dr. Sanjabi, have you heard from or about your father since he was arrested?

Dr. PARVIS SANJABI: Yes, sir, I have been in daily contact with my mother in Iran. As of this morning he was alive and in Shah`s jail.

LEHRER: Is there anything to add to that? How has he been treated, according to your mother?

SANJABI: We understand he has been treated fair, if there is such a thing as fair treatment in jail.

LEHRER: All right. Has he been charged with anything? Any crime?

SANJABI: I`m not quite aware of any charge; I understood when they arrested him they said he is advocating uprisals against the government. That was the extent of my knowledge about the charges.

LEHRER: There`s been speculation, as I`m sure you know, since he`s been arrested that he may be conferring with the Shah while in jail about the possibility of forming a coalition government. Does that sound right to you?

SANJABI: No, sir. I don`t really have a first-hand report on this, or any knowledge of it, but I don`t think it is the nature of Karim Sanjabi, to make a deal with Shah. It is of course possible, while he`s in jail, they can take him to Shah and Shah can talk to him, of course. I haven`t heard of this, and the first time I heard of this was by a reporter who quoted, I think, a Christian Science Monitor source.

LEHRER: I see. Your father has said that he is opposed to forming a coalition government, to participating in a coalition government. Is that the way you understand his position before his arrest?

SANJABI: Yes, sir.

LEHRER: Why is he so opposed?

SANJABI: It is the stand of the National Front in Iran that the present government is contrary to the Persian constitution at this time; and Shah, by advocating the corrupt system, cannot be accepted by my father`s followers and himself. So I think that would be a right answer to your question.

LEHRER: So as far as your father and the National Frontare concerned, as long as the Shah remains the Shah, on the throne, there can be no accommodation; that`s their position.

SANJABI: Yes, sir.

LEHRER: How much of the population of Iran actually supports the National Front and your father?

SANJABI: I don`t know. I don`t think there is any good poll on that. But he is a veteran leader; he was, as you know, Minister of Education in Mossadeq`s government, he was the...

LEHRER: That was back in the early `50s, right?

SANJABI: Yes, sir. And he was the judge in International Court of Justice in The Hague while the oil problem with the British Petroleum Company was discussed, and he has a long background in the politics of Iran.

LEHRER: Why did he go to see Khomeini in Paris?

SANJABI: Because Ayatollah Khomeini is the supreme religious and moral leader of Iranians at this time and he has wide support, and without Ayatollah Khomeini`s support a politically firm condition cannot be established in Iran.

LEHRER: There were stories at the time, Doctor, that your father might have been willing to make some accommodation with the Shah, but he went to see Khomeini and Khomeini said no dice, or nothing doing as far as he was concerned, and that pretty well convinced your father to also take that position. You were there; is that in fact what happened?

SANJABI: No, I don`t think so. I think my father came from Iran with the idea that the coalition is not feasible, and I understood that this was offered before he came, and while he was in Paris there were some messages from Iran asking for the possibility of forming a coalition government. And he was always steadfast against it.

LEHRER: All right; thank you, Doctor. Robin?

MacNEIL: Now for the views of the exiled Moslem Ayatollah Khomeini, whom we`ve just heard discussed. His closest associate, now in the United States, is Shahriar Rouhani, a member of the Young Moslems Organization and currently a Ph.D. candidate at Yale University. Mr. Rouhani, has the uprising against the Shah been defeated by the firm measures that he has taken?

SHAHRIAR ROUHANI: Not by any means. Actually, we think of this as a mere calm before the storm. And in fact, with the coming of the holy month of Moharram a total change definitely going to be brought about, one. And the second thing is that the Iranian people really have not stopped the movement by any means. In fact, in so many cities there have been riots reported, which unfortunately has not been fully reflected in the Western press. And even the oil workers, under tremendous pressure from the Iranian government, still have not fully resumed the work. In fact, quite a few of them have not gone back to work yet.

MacNEIL: Then why -- if the Iranian people, as you say, have not given up the struggle, the opposition masses -- why is there quiet at the moment?

ROUHANI: As I said, it is a case of the calm before the storm. Naturally, for any action a certain period of reconstruction of the struggle is needed, and I`m certain that that is a period in which they are undertaking it.

MacNEIL: Will Ayatollah Khomeini order the faithful to resume demonstrations or strikes at a particular point?

ROUHANI: In fact, Ayatollah Khomeini has declared that the people, after regaining a certain momentum, shall fully continue their struggle and continue the strike and demonstrations.

MacNEIL: Will the faithful masses be willing to face the bullets of the Shah`s soldiers?

ROUHANI: They have been doing that, not for the past two years but in fact since 1900, from this Shah, his father and the predecessors of his.

MacNEIL: What kind of government does the Ayatollah have in mind? For instance, a government of Mr. Sanjabi`s -- the father of Dr. Sanjabi -- persuasion, the National Front?

ROUHANI: Before going into that, I must clarify one point. The political and spiritual leader of the Iranian people is Ayatollah Khomeini, and as he has declared, he has someone that he would appoint as the political leader of the Iranian people.

MacNEIL: Who is that someone?

ROURANI: This is not yet known; he has not declared it yet. MacNEIL: Where is that someone?

ROUHANI: I can`t tell you. MacNEIL: In Iran?

ROUHANI: It is something that Ayatollah Khomeini shall tell, shall declare, soon. However, the point is that the aim of the struggle is toward establishment of an Islamic government. The Islamic government may sound extremely alien, which is very natural; in fact, especially as far as the comparison with Saudi Arabia or luammar el-Qaddafi`s Libya is concerned. None of those countries are Islamic. We want an Islamic government which naturally ensures the full freedom and participation of the people.

MacNEIL: Would that be what we would regard as a democratic government?

ROUHANI: It will be a full participatory democracy, with the particular structure that is presented in Islamic thought and codes of life.

MacNEIL: What do you say to those in the U.S. government and Americans who fear that if the Shah goes there will be no security of the oil supplies, which account for ten percent of this country`s imports, and the general strategic security in that situation, nobody but the Shah can maintain that?

ROUHANI: That is a hundred percent incorrect a statement. The Iranian people, for one, do have the (unintelligible) to carry on the duties that at the present time the work force of Iran is carrying, one. And two, we do acknowledge that we have to deal with other people. We do know that oil is a God-given gift, and Japan, Western Europe, et cetera, and the United States of America need it.

MacNEIL: And Israel?

ROUHANI: And certainly -- well, I should just put that aside; that`s a different question. But these countries do actually need that. So we have to give them, and we deal with them. However, as Ayatollah Khomeini says, not as a slave-master relation but as a friend-to-friend relation. We are a friend with the American people, and that is the message that should be carried across. I`d like to mention something else, too. Unfortunately, this is not presented in the American press. Even a distinguished reporter and editor like Mr. Mike Wallace, when he interviews for one complete hour with Ayatollah Khomeini, a man who is in Iran offered great popular support and endorsed by Ayatollah Khomeini, not even a single second of his talk is represented in his program. Now, Ayatollah Khomeini has said our people are friends with American people, and we are ready to sell to them as friends, not as slaves.

MacNEIL: Can I just follow up on what you said should be a separate point? Iran is a principal supplier of oil to Israel at the moment. Would that continue under the government that Khomeini envisages?

ROUHANI: The question of Israel remains entirely in the state of Israel and the theology that the Israeli people follow. We have nothing against the Jewish people; in fact, the history of Islamic struggle and in fact the entire history of Islam shows that according to Mr. Abba Eban in his book, The History of My People, one of the golden eras of Jewish people has been the Islamic conquest.

MacNEIL: We have to move on. Would it be fair to say that is something to be considered and discussed, that is not a certainty?

ROUHANI: Yes. If Israel is run by Jews, not by the Zionists as such, certainly we are friends with Jews and that is no problem.

MacNEIL: Thank you. Jim?

LEHRER: The United States government, fearing instability in the strategic Persian Gulf area, continues to give its full backing to the Shah. Congressman Stephen Solarz, Democrat of New York, a member of the House International Relations Committee, just returned from a trip to Iran last month and can tell us about U.S. policy in the current crisis. First, Congressman, you`ve been briefed by American intelligence, among others. What is the best assessment right now on whether the Shah can survive?

Rep. STEPHEN SOLARZ: I would say that the Shah probably has a little bit better than a fifty-fifty chance to ride out the current crisis and to remain in power, but I think that the chances that he will be able to maintain the kind of absolute rule which he had in the past in the future is much less. I think there are clearly going to have to be significant changes in the political structure in Iran if any kind of stability is going to be achieved in that country; and that is going to require, after a period of order is re-established, I should think, some very significant political concessions on the part of the Shah in terms of the amount of power he actually wields in the country.

LEHRER: Is the Shah willing to make those concessions?

SOLARZ: I think the Shah is prepared to make some very significant political concessions. Time, of course, will ultimately tell whether he delivers on the promises which he`s made, but he has, for example, pledged to hold genuinely free elections in June. My understanding is that as of about a month ago there were over a hundred political parties which had registered an intention to contest those elections. Before the recent disturbances they had begun to permit a much greater measure of freedom of the press in the country; political prisoners had been released from jail, and I understand the Shah has promised to release all of the remaining political prisoners by the middle of December. So I think he has indicated a willingness to make some very significant political concessions. Whether in fact he ultimately makes them I think will be told during the course of the next several months.

LEHRER: Do you think the United States government is correct in continuing to support the Shah?

SOLARZ: I think that what we`ve got to do in Iran right now is to facilitate the kind of political transition which will make it possible for the people of Iran to have a government which enjoys the support of the broad masses of the Iranian people; and I think that in the final analysis this is an Iranian problem which is going to have to be solved by the people of Iran themselves. I don`t think that Washington can effectively pull the strings in Tehran. I think we can offer advice to the Shah, but in the final analysis I think it`s up to him and the people of his country to determine their own future.

LEHRER: You said the United States should facilitate this transition. What do you mean by "facilitate"? What can the United States do?

SOLARZ: I think basically what the United States can do is offer advice to the Shah in terms of what we think would be in the best interests both of Iran and our own country in terms of what should be done in the months ahead. And here I think that what we ought to be doing is to encourage the Shah to live up to the commitments of liberalization and democratization which he has made to the people of his country over the course of the last several months.

LEHRER: Do you believe that the forces of Khomeini, the Moslems, as Mr. Rouhani just explained, can in fact form a stable government if the Shah should step aside?

SOLARZ: I think one of the real problems that we face right now is that if the Shah were in fact to abdicate tomorrow, the most likely alternative to the Shah is not a government headed by the Ayatollah Khomeini or by Mr. Sanjabi and his associates in the National Front, but a military regime which is likely to be far more repressive, at least in the initial instance, than the current military government, which is at least under the overall political direction of the Shah. Part of the problem is that over the course of the last twenty-five years, due to the repressive character of the Iranian government, no indigenous viable political alternative has been permitted to develop; and if we could be sure that the successor to the Shah would be a kind of Iranian version of Thomas Jefferson it might be one thing. But there`s a very real possibility that if the Shah were forced out of office tomorrow his successors would be far more repressive than he`s been in the past, and this would in and of itself be a significant source of continuing instability in Iran.

LEHRER: All right, thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: Yes; if the Shah should abdicate, the Congressman says, tomorrow, the result would most likely not be a government headed by your father or by the Ayatollah but a perpetuation of an even tougher military government. What do you think of that, Dr. Sanjabi?

SANJABI: I don`t think that is correct. I agree with most of the things that the Congressman ventured, except with two major facts. First of all, Shah is not the only answer to Iran`s problem. If he goes, there will not be chaos. There is not the necessary rule of "after Shah there will be repression." That is not correct. There can be a democratic government ruled by the people and for the people; and this is exactly what Shah wants the American people to think, that if he goes everything goes, not only Iran goes but the whole Middle East goes, which is not correct.

MacNEIL: But the world is littered with countries with an appetite for democracy where an army steps in in order to prevent chaos and restore order and stays a very long time. Why would that not happen -- why would the army leave if the Shah abdicated?

ROUHANI: For one, the army is highly dependent upon Americans, so quite contrary to what the Congressman said, in fact American existence is very vital and important as far the support of their army is concerned. That has to be removed, one. And two, the fact that the masses of even the soldiers -- that is, the soldiers within the army -- do follow their spiritual leader, Ayatollah Khomeini. Three is that...

MacNEIL: They are devout Shi`ite Moslems before they are soldiers, is that what you mean?

ROUHANI: A hundred percent. But the third and the most important portion is that we do have the (unintelligible) and the intellectuals, hundreds of thousands of them living within and without Iran who can come and take care of the diplomacy and the political affairs of the country. After all, we are not in such poor shape that we would not send as the ambassador to the United States a person who is expert in chicken production -- that is, Mr. Zahedi -- who is known by the Washington Post as the "dancing ambassador". We certainly are going to have better ambassadors and better (unintelligible) than him.

MacNEIL: Congressman, you wanted to say something?

SOLARZ: I think that there`s no doubt that there are many, many people in Iran who clearly have the capacity to participate in the government of their own country. I don`t think that the survival of Iran depends on one person. But I think that our ability to facilitate a transition in Iran in which the Iranian people are able to participate in their own political future depends on the kind of gradual evolution to which the Shah has committed himself over the course of the last several months, and I think that if the Shah were to abdicate tomorrow the most likely alternative would not be a continuation of an evolution in a more democratic direction but either a kind of political chaos on the one hand or the imposition of a repressive military regime on the other.

MacNEIL: What about Mr. Rouhani`s point that we have, as the United States, leverage on the army and could -- inferring from what he said -lever them out of there?

SOLARZ: I think that one of the things the American people have learned in the wake of Vietnam but which unfortunately a lot of other people around the world haven`t learned is that there are some very real limits to American power. I found when I was in Iran there was a widespread feeling that we had but to press the right button and the desired outcome would be effectuated. In reality, I think our power to determine the future course of events in Iran is exceedingly limited; I think we can express our point of view but in the final analysis the people of Iran and the army of Iran are going to do what they believe is in their best interest.

MacNEIL: Thank you. Jim?

LEHRER: Mr. Rouhani, you used the term "calm before the storm"; that is how you described what`s happening. How long is that calm going to remain before the storm erupts?

ROUHANI: That is going to be noticeable especially in the month of Moharram that is coming within approximately two weeks; then the storm shall start. It is exactly as Ayatollah Khomeini has declared; we Persians believe that we are following the footstep of Husayn, may God be pleased with him, the grandson of Prophet Muhammed. So we do think that we are following him, and we are not ready to be frightened by any power, whether it is Shah`s or the superpowers. We shall continue and we are not afraid of being killed.

LEHRER: When you say "storm", what do you mean? What physically is going to happen in Iran in two weeks or so?

ROUHANI: Out of the course of the struggle, the Islamic struggle shows, first we do wage a demonstration and a strike and we try to cripple the government. And too, try to reach, try to make our voice and our outcry to reach the people of the world and to reach the American people to prevent their government from supporting an endorsement of Shah. And then when that has happened, Shah will not have a chance. If that does not happen, naturally more firm measure has to be taken.

LEHRER: Like what?

ROUHANI: As Ayatollah Khomeini said, if continuously the people without arms are killed and massacred by Shah of Iran, then we have to take arms ourselves.

LEHRER: Dr. Sanjabi, let me ask you this: from your father`s point of view, from the National Front`s point of view, is there anything that the Shah could do now to prevent this storm?

SANJABI: Oh, yes.

LEHRER: What could he do?

SANJABI: Step down.

LEHRER: I mean besides that.

SANJABI: I honestly can`t think of anything else. If I may regress for a minute and refer to what Congressman was saying about commitments of Shah in the last few months, let us look at the problem and ask ourselves, why all these uprisals? It is not only what is happening now, it is the matter of corruption which has been going on since 1953; and people are not going to forget that. You see, you can`t tell the people, "Well, I`m going to be a good boy now; forget what I did before." This is just simply impossible.

LEHRER: Congressman?

SOLARZ: Let me say, Dr. Sanjabi, that when I was in Iran several weeks ago some of the leaders of the National Front told me at that time that they felt that the abdication of the Shah would not be in the long

term political interests of the country. What they wanted, they said, was the transformation of the monarchy into a constitutional monarchy, in which the powers of the Shah would be severely circumscribed but whereby the Shah could remain in office as a symbol of national unity. Now, it appears as if in the course of the last few weeks that the Ayatollah Khomeini, who is clearly at this point the pre-eminent spiritual leader of the Iranian people, has come to the conclusion that nothing short of the removal of the Shah will satisfy him. And to the extent he has such broad-based appeal in the country as a whole, it now seems as if your father and other leaders of the National Front who previously might have been willing to reach an accommodation with the Shah are now unwilling to do so. I think in a way that`s unfortunate, because my very strong impression is that the Shah was genuinely determined to move Iran in a more democratic direction, and I think that the alternatives to moving in that way, in a gradual and evolutionary way, are a potential for very real chaos on the one hand or the kind of repression which could ultimately serve the interests which you and your father seek to represent far less well than what we have today.

SANJABI: Well, this is where we differ, sir. I don`t really think that there is a need for presence of chaos after the stepdown of the Shah. And the stand of National Front, as I understand it, is very clear with the declaration that my father presented in Paris after his meetings with Ayatollah Khomeini, and I think that stands; and that is a referendum and allowing the people to decide whether a monarchy will continue or not. And that cannot be done with the presence of a suppressive militaristic dictatorship regime.

LEHRER: Mr. Rouhani, let me ask you, finally, is the Ayatollah willing to submit things to elections? You said he was going to appoint the national leader of Iran in case the Shah steps aside. Is he willing to submit that issue to the electorate of Iran?

ROUHANI: With the presence of Shah, or without?

LEHRER: Without the presence of the Shah.

ROUHANI: Hundred percent; in fact, Ayatollah Khomeini does wish to make a referendum. After all, it is the people of a country who have to determine their own destiny, not an elite like East or West, like this ideology or that. Only the people have to determine.

LEHRER: Or the Ayatollah. He wouldn`t determine it either, right?

ROUHANI: He only nominates. It is the people who determine. It is the Islamic path.

LEHRER: All right, thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: We have to leave it there. Thank you very much for joining us, Congressman. Good night, Jim.

LEHRER: Good night, Robin.

MacNEIL: Thank you, Mr. Rouhani and Dr. Sanjabi. That`s all for tonight. We`ll be back on Monday night. I`m Robert MacNeil. Good night.