>> From WXXI News.

This is Connections.

I'm Evan Dawson.

>> Our connection to Sauer was made last night at the White House, where President Trump made his first national televised statement regarding the war in Iran.

The president said that the war would need to last for several more weeks.

He said that the war has essentially already been won because Iran's military capability is devastated.

And he said that around the world, nations are amazed and grateful at what the United States is doing.

I want to listen to part of his statement about the success of the war effort so far.

>> The whole world is watching and they can't leave the power, strength and brilliance.

They just can't believe what they're seeing.

They leave it to your imagination, but they can't believe what they're seeing.

The brilliance of the United States military.

>> But there was a lot the president did not say.

He did not explain whether he had decided to send ground troops, which his administration has been debating.

He did not say that the war would continue until the people of Iran have a new, democratically chosen leadership.

Meanwhile, Iran's ruling regime has promised to fight on.

They continue to control the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran can still fire missiles.

President Trump has promised to hit Iran even harder.

This hour, we bring back the voices of Iranian Americans to evaluate what they are seeing and hearing.

And this comes at a time when polling indicates that the war effort over the first month of this war, has convinced at least some Iranian Americans to oppose it.

About a month ago, polling was pretty split, pretty evenly split among Iranian Americans, many of whom wanted to see a new regime, but many of whom distrusted this administration to achieve that.

Well, the latest polling that we see that comes from the National Iranian American Council, Nayak, commissioned by Zogby in the last week, shows that 66% of Iranian Americans now oppose the war.

Only 32% support it.

So there's a lot to talk about this hour.

And let me welcome our guest, Shaheen Monshipour is an Iranian American who's been here for 47 years in this country for decades, teaching at the college level and now retired.

Welcome back to the program.

>> Thank you Evan.

Thank you for having me.

>> And let me welcome Yousef Zaidi, who is an associate professor of strategy at Suny Geneseo and a local business owner of the Funtastic Adventure Park, bounce, Hopper and Ontario Play and Cafe Puyo.

Welcome.

Thanks for coming back on the program today.

>> Thank you very much.

Evan, thank you for having me.

>> So brief.

Let me ask both of our guests and Puja's time is a little more limited.

I'll start with you, Puja.

Uh, some some of your remarks about the president's speech to the country last night.

What did you make of it?

>> Uh, regarding the speech, um, there was not too much, uh, new information that we could, uh, that, that, that I could actually make sense of.

Uh, the only thing that was, uh.

Kind of a question mark prior to the, prior to the remarks and the statement being made was whether there was going to be a very quick end to the, to the operation or was this going to extend for another 2 to 3 weeks, weeks, or even for months?

Uh, well, the statement last night made that clear.

I think there was a lot of jargon about jargon about, uh, the military might of the United States.

Uh, there was, uh, there were some threats about, uh, attacking, um, civilian infrastructure, which I don't necessarily agree with those remarks.

Uh, and, uh, but in general, um, I thought that this was just a report, uh, that was, uh, demanded from the public, uh, without so much new information that would be useful.

>> About a month ago, we talked to you, uh, Dr.

Seifzadeh, and, you know, I, you described the feeling of almost relief.

And for many Iranians around the world, joy at seeing the ayatollah gone, the top leaders of the regime gone.

But a month later, I wonder if your views have they evolved at all?

Have they changed at all regarding this war?

>> Well, obviously, as we get more information, uh, we develop new understanding about the situation.

Uh, I still believe that we need foreign military intervention.

I do believe that, uh, we have gone through a lot of different paths to, uh, peacefully, uh, try to make changes within Iran, uh, and a lot of that have been met with, uh, very fierce violence from, from the regime.

I don't see this as a situation that we are making a sort of a choice between peace or violence.

This is a choice between violence and violence.

Uh, more violence at the hands of the Iranian regime or more violence as a result of a war.

My hope is that the war is going to be targeted, not eliminating civilian infrastructure, eliminating, uh, the top leadership in Iran.

Now, has it evolved in that direction?

For the most part, yes.

But there has been civilian casualty.

I've been vocal about it has been a lot of Iranians that have been responsibly asking questions about why have been certain locations being targeted.

Uh, why have been threats being made against Iran's, uh, oil reserves, uh, power generation facilities, uh, desalination, uh, facilities.

Those are, uh, targets that you would not include within, uh, within the, uh, uh, military, uh, sort of, uh, targets that, uh, would be legitimate, um, do I still think that this, uh, military campaign is moving us in the right direction?

I think it is weakened the regime significantly.

I would like to see it conclude at a point where the Iranian people are able to make, uh, the changes, uh, without really facing the violence that they faced two months ago at the hands of the regime.

>> Shaheen Monshipour, you listened to the president's remarks last night.

What are your first impressions from the president?

>> First, as he started his repeated rhetoric that we have heard over and over with all contradicting things?

I was beginning to get angry.

But as I put on my social work cap and my, uh, psychological psychology background a little bit, my undergrad was psychology and social work, I started to think that I felt sad, more than upset.

I felt that this was a deranged guy, that the whole program of last night was sick.

I thought it was no report, a coherent report of anything.

It was a bunch of, uh, you didn't need a psychoanalyst to Warsh this man.

And not to conclude that here is a narcissist, insecure, deranged, demented.

Is he capable of massive crime?

Yes.

But deep down, I was sad that we're not taking action.

I think probably in many countries, if they had a leader like that, they would take him either one of two places either to jail as a criminal or seeing his sickness take him to therapy.

Why do you put him on a pedestal and either praise him or ridicule them?

What is this?

It's costing thousands of lives that we are looking away from, and he is pushing our buttons with, oh, oil price, as though oil price is the only thing that Americans are worried about.

No, I think Americans have more decency than that.

With all that he is doing, if he continues, I believe even if at the gas pump you get oil for $1 a gallon, there will be many true Americans who will oppose a gun in the hand of a juvenile, like a criminal.

Here to shoot at anybody he wants.

Listen to his vocabulary of last night.

How many wars did you see?

These are not wars of words, of war engagements.

No, these are statements of a deranged guy using words all the time.

We can disseminate.

We can obliterate.

We can knock them down to a stone age.

We can give them hell.

We can wipe them out.

We can explode.

We can damage.

We can kill this guy.

Are you guys out of your mind?

I think the rating of more than anything that bothered me last night was that his popularity rating is about four out of ten.

That's way too high, honey.

But it is way too high.

>> We're going to listen to some of what you just described in a moment.

But but briefly, you have said yourself on this program that you have been hoping for a long time for a new regime and leadership in Iran.

>> Yes.

>> And the president of the United States is saying he is trying to affect that with part of this operation.

>> No, really.

Which day are you talking about?

Which comment?

He said in the beginning, don't forget Evan.

He said the only reason for being engaged in the war was when he came out, when Iranians were pouring through the streets, giving their lives and bloods and shouting against the regime.

He jumped in and said, help is on the way.

>> Help is on the way.

Yeah, yeah, that was that.

>> Was I do want regime change.

And at that point, I was right to not trust him.

I said it was a trap.

I said, on your program, it was a trick to kill and to announce victory.

How many more I killed?

And we see it now.

>> So I want to listen to two different sound clips and have our guests respond.

The first is from last night's presentation by the president.

And I do wonder how Iranians around the world, to say nothing of Iranians in Iran, felt about this particular comment.

>> We are going to hit them extremely hard over the next 2 to 3 weeks.

We're going to bring them back to the stone ages where they belong.

>> So pure Seifzadeh when he says back to the stone ages where they belong, how did you receive that?

How did you hear that?

>> I see that as a strategic overstatement.

I have from somebody who is stating something that is, uh, making threats, uh, to the regime.

Uh, do I agree with that rhetoric?

No, I don't, I don't want Iran to be bombed to the Stone age.

I don't think any of the Iranians inside the country or even in the diaspora, want Iran to be bombed to the Stone age.

And, uh, I'm looking more at actions than the actual words that are being said.

Actions haven't been bombing Iran back to the Stone age, and those are the things that we need to pay attention to.

Uh, yes, there has been civilian casualties that shouldn't be.

But compared to a lot of other previous military operations, uh, the attacks have been far more targeted.

Uh, some of the more recent ones are more questionable.

Uh, the one attacking, uh, cement plants, uh, steel manufacturing, uh, the, the, uh, sort of pharmaceutical, uh, installations.

Those are questionable, but for the most part, uh, people within Iran, uh, they are, uh, under stress.

Uh, but the, it's not like a total war zone inside the country.

And I hear this from people firsthand.

I'm in daily contact with them.

They're not happy, they're not happy or they're not.

Don't feel comfortable about that.

But do I put too much weight into these words?

No I don't.

>> Okay.

>> Do I agree with them?

I don't yeah.

>> So one other follow up before I ask Shaheen about that.

I, I take your point that you hear the president saying we're going to send Iran back to the Stone age where they belong.

And you're hearing that as a threat to the regime, not to the people, not to the populace.

Although the president did not distinguish.

And one thing that surprised me, Pooja, was two months, three months ago, when the president said to the people of Iran, help is on the way.

If this regime is going to target you, we've got your back.

Last night, he didn't make those kinds of statements to the people of Iran.

He didn't try to spend a few minutes talking directly to the people of Iran, not the regime.

He didn't distinguish, and I was surprised at that.

I thought in a in a situation like this, if you are trying to ingratiate yourself to the people of a country that you are bombing, why not speak directly to the people?

Why not send a message to them and not the regime?

Were you surprised at that?

Were you disappointed at that?

>> No, I wasn't surprised when President Trump said help is on the way.

There was a lot of pushback from the American community and American society from from even from the America First, uh, people, uh, from his, uh, from his own base.

A lot of people thinking that this is a more issue, uh, pertaining to Iran's sovereignty, uh, and, uh, and, uh, as the president of the United States.

Uh, President Trump, well, he needs to look out for American interests, not for Iranian interests.

Um, and when he said that help is underway, uh, when he started to mobilize those forces and moved them to the Middle East.

Um, well, uh, I had almost, uh, the certainty that there is going to be military action.

Uh, the question was that how was this military action going to be packaged?

How is it going to be sold to the public in a way that it would gain more acceptance?

Uh, President Trump is very much, uh, sort of, uh, who's a lot of value and weight into his ratings, uh, the way that he's received, particularly among his base.

And, uh, I think he's speaking to them.

Uh, did the military invasion the sort of the operation take place?

Yes.

Has it led to changes or weakening of the regime?

Yes.

Has it put people in a stronger position if they want to take back the country?

Yes, it has uh, has it put costs on the shoulders of the regime?

Yes it has.

And, uh, and I think he will continue talking to his base going forward and less talking about giving freedom to the Iranian people, because that is not something that has been received well by on either side of the aisle.

>> So now let me ask my guest in the studio, Shaheen Monshipour, the same kind of question.

So you heard the president say that use the phrase Send Iran back to the Stone age.

Did you hear that as a direct threat to the regime, but not to the Iranian people?

How did you hear it?

>> No.

All in all, uh, I think it was very clear that this man has never made or will make a distinction between people and their regimes.

I don't think he understands any of this.

And I think it was directed at the whole country, especially when he says, um, just boldly, I will target your infrastructure.

I will target your sources of water and electricity.

These are not political statements.

These are threats to the Iranian nation.

And it's easy for us, the diaspora, to sit here and say, oh, it's not quite like a war zone yet.

And we have made these improvements, but we have these problems.

No, this man, his biggest thing he's done in Iran, that is very obvious is he has unleashed Bibi bulldozer on Iran.

And that guy has devastated universities, hospitals, schools, the, uh, food processing center in Isfahan.

And he's going after more and more and more.

And both of them are causing all this devastation.

And this man likes to get a victory out of it.

And maybe a Nobel Prize peace.

Prize.

I don't know.

>> Let's listen to one other clip.

And this does not come from last night.

This comes from last week.

President Trump was asked about the idea that from the outset, he had asked the Iranian people to rise up to overthrow their leaders, to institute a democratic form of government.

And he was asked a question about whether regime change is part of the the series of goals for the United States.

And I want to listen to how he describes how he considers a successful move towards regime change.

>> But let's see how they turn out.

It's.

We have really regime change.

You know, this is a change in the regime, uh, because the leaders are all very different than the ones that we started off with that created all those problems.

So this was, I think we can say, Jason, this is regime change, right?

>> So he wants credit for regime change now because Ayatollah Khamenei is dead.

I mean, there's a new Ayatollah Khamenei, I understand, but the previous ayatollah is dead.

A lot of the previous top leaders are dead.

And the president is saying, what is that if not regime change?

So let me start with you, Shaheen.

What do you think of that?

>> That is not a regime change because he doesn't understand what his regime change, number one.

Number two, if he gets that, Jason, whoever it is over there.

Yeah.

Uh, to agree with him, he feels good.

Okay, then it's a regime change.

It's a lunatic.

This guy.

I don't think, I don't think I like to spend much time, uh, analyzing what he says from each side of his mouth.

He says something different.

His behavior, his talk, his mannerism is nothing like a president.

Especially a president.

Yeah, he looks like a president who wants to become an emperor or a king.

>> But in a few weeks, if this operation ends and the current leadership is still in place, the president is likely to say that they effectuated regime change.

>> He can say whatever he wants.

I don't care.

People who have brains in the world, Europeans have talked about it, read Guardian and the other magazines who believes that this is a regime change with billions that United States has been spending on this war.

They could do a successful regime change, and they know it.

And they don't want to.

It seems to me to do a regime change.

>> Well, I mean, time is short here, so I'll ask you to respond to the president's statement last week to reporters when he said that really effectively, we've already had regime change.

What do you think Putin.?

>> No, we we haven't had a regime change.

And I don't think it's President Trump's responsibility to, um, cause a regime change in Iran.

Even if you said it in the past, I think that was just overstepping his boundaries.

Um, Iran's regime change in Iran needs to happen by Iranians.

Um, American military intervention is only going to help Iran or Iranian people in that direction.

Um, I don't think, uh, contrary to what your other guest said.

I don't think it's as easy, uh, using all pouring, all pouring in money and just affecting, effecting a regime change in Iran.

Considering how, um, the sort of IRGC has been tied into Iran's economy, uh, how everybody's everyday lives are affected as a result of that, um, everything that is imported comes through, runs through IRGC, the oil that you.

Yes.

That you pump at a gas station.

The, uh, pharmaceutical products that you buy, everything somehow gets connected at some point.

So it's no, it's not that easy to do a regime change in Iran.

Uh, and what we see there is not a regime change.

If that is regime change, then we have a regime change here in the US once every 4 to 8 years, when everybody in the administration changes, um, as long as that is the flag in Iran, as long as well, Iran has not recognized the state of Israel as long as people that are in jails haven't been freed.

Uh, political parties haven't been, uh, sort of legalized in a way that they are in a democratic society and we don't have a new constitution in place.

We don't have a regime change.

And well, again, that is something that will happen at the hands of Iranian people.

>> I've got one minute left for Puja and he's got to go.

So let me just try to squeeze.

>> I might be able to stay longer.

>> Okay.

Let me try to at least squeeze this in for you.

Because if you got to go, I want to make sure you have time to respond to this.

I understand the idea.

There's two ideas that I can I can see and understand here.

One says, forget what the president says.

The war has effectively created more opportunity for regime change, starting with the Iranian people.

I understand that the second part of this, that I want you to respond to is if the president says, we've won the war and we've changed the regime and we're going to do business with Iran, now, we're going to try to treat them with some legitimacy because this war is over.

They accepted some of our terms.

We're going to take whatever uranium they have, and that's that.

Doesn't that foreclose on the possibility that the Iranian people could actually overthrow this regime?

If the United States says, hey, we won the war, they accepted the terms, we're going to honor that regime in power.

That's that.

Doesn't that make it more difficult for the Iranian people to overthrow.

>> It makes it a little bit more difficult, but much easier than what it was two months ago.

Uh, a lot of the infrastructure for the oppressive forces, uh, Basij and IRGC have been targeted.

A lot of their leaders have been eliminated.

Uh, and there is, uh, it is, it is undeniable that they're, uh, they're on a weaker foot than what they were.

And that takes time for them to rebuild.

Are they stronger under conviction?

Yes.

Those that remain might be stronger in their conviction.

Are they going to get more violent?

I don't think you can get more violent than what they were two months ago when they slaughtered 35 to 50,000 people on the streets of Iran in around two days.

So the level of violence can't really exceed that.

Uh, while we are dealing with a with a weaker regime and a weaker, uh, weaker security forces, um, now going the economy of Iran before the 12 day war, before this current war was already, uh, facing, uh, significant difficulties.

Uh, the inflation was the official inflation rate was 40 to 45%.

The unofficial rate was around 60 to 90%.

Uh, and Iran has a very significant population, uh, that is very young, about 60%, 75% of Iran's population was born after the revolution.

Uh, 28% is under 18 and 78% of the population is urban.

So that makes controlling this population extremely difficult for a regime that has a very weak base among this, this this group of population that has, uh, difficulty seeing a very bright future for themselves under the umbrella of this structure.

So no, I don't think, uh, they, it will significantly have an impact on the ability of people to overthrow the regime.

Makes it a little bit harder.

Uh, but, uh, I think again, we are in a better place than what we were two months.

>> Ago.

>> Shaheen I'm reading a piece from a couple of weeks ago in the Atlantic by Mark Dubowitz called Glimpsing Victory in Iran.

And he argues, similar to what we're hearing from Puah, which is probably we're not going to see a regime change to a Democratic installation in this round of war.

But this has sowed the ground for it that whatever regime survives will have less legitimacy.

It will certainly have less military capability.

It will have less enforceable power, it will have less sort of moral purchase.

And that maybe within a year, within two years, within three years, we eventually see the overthrow because of some of what this action has led to.

Are you hopeful at all that that could be true?

>> Um, I pray that that could be true.

I am not that hopeful.

I'm not that hopeful at all.

And I think it's easy for us to apologize and find some reasons to apologize for the actions of Israel and United States as hegemonic governments and look the other way and say, hey, we are better off.

You're better off.

I don't know how we are better off.

The people of Iran, I know we have to respect them.

They came to the streets and they said, we want regime change.

I never suggested when I said America has a lot of power and wealth and could do a better regime change than this.

I really believe that if you give it a thought, it is possible and they.

But this from the president.

When you say words don't matter, well then words of Ahmadinejad shouldn't matter that he wants to see Israel obliterated.

Why are we talking from both sides of our mouth when it comes to Iranian.

Their words matter when it comes to Trump's rhetoric.

Words don't matter.

Look at his action.

What positive action could you possibly show me that Trump has done to Iranian nations for four decades?

Iranians have suffered from sanctions that denied them antibiotics for their babies, smoke of chemicals.

Iran is raining all over Iran and is not reaching me or Pooja.

So for us, it's easy to say, oh well, wars are not comfortable.

Oh yeah, we know that this is the price we have to pay.

And if we give it more of a chance, we will eventually overthrow.

Ah, show me some recent actions.

Show me any sympathy.

Every time Americans speak, they.

They talk about 13 Americans who are dead there, and I should, I think not even one should be dead.

But please pay attention to a whole country.

You're destroying.

And with all of your mouth might.

Military education, money, weapons, everything you cannot make one positive move without.

By bombing a country to stone age.

You don't think it has happened?

It's not for me to say.

Not much has happened.

It's for that Iranian family there whose babies, many of them.

Hundreds were dead last week because of chemical rain.

>> It's for them to say this is too much or not.

It's not for me.

From here, away from danger.

Just to philosophize and say it's not so much.

It will pass.

>> I take that point.

The reason I'm asking about the president's comments on regime change, and the reason I think this matters, is when I try to understand the disposition of the Iranian diaspora on this war.

What I quickly learned a month ago was there are different opinions and but there's almost unity on the.

The idea that it is not a bad thing to see.

Ayatollah Khamenei gone, that there is a relief.

In some ways a schadenfreude.

I mean, there's a lot of of raw emotion about that.

The the disagreement has been on whether this war is actually intended to serve the Iranian people or whether it is not.

And I don't know if the reason that the polling of Iranian Americans is moving against the war is because of President Trump's remarks about a regime change.

It feels to me like that's connected, Shaheen, that when the president a month ago was saying, this is the time new government, democratic reforms.

And then days later, he says, well, no one would blame you if you didn't do that.

You don't have the guns.

And then three weeks after that, he says, well, don't we already have regime change because we killed Ayatollah Khamenei?

I could understand why Iranian Americans would say, I thought you were with us here.

I thought you were all in on a new government.

I wonder if you think Shaheen that's part of what is changing the polling against the war.

>> You are right on.

Exactly.

I agree with you.

This is exactly what's happening.

I received a letter from an Iranian a few days ago in a very zigzaggy way.

I won't take the time to tell you how I received this.

An Iranian doctor who lost two of her kids in this.

Bombardments by Israelis.

She writes, and she says, please tell Americans, yes, we said we even give our blood and property and oil and our lives for a regime change.

What you did to us was you started from the bottom of the list.

You said, okay, first, let's take care of you, don't you?

You are suicidal and want to lose your lives.

No problem.

We'll have Israel with some bombs.

Take care of some of your lives.

She says.

We said we will give blood and property.

You first took our property and you took our lives and you made us sick.

And we're still waiting to see.

Whether you'll give us a better regime.

And we totally distrust you, she says, because of what we have seen, they have people are swaying back.

As you said, I was on this program about 40 days ago.

People of Iran were were split Pahlavi was starting mid-February to spend a lot of his money on his propaganda, uh, machine, which, by the way, is achieved by money.

Don't forget, these things are achieved by money.

If we had another propaganda machine wealthier than him, it would have not happened.

So anyways, he started in mid-February, jumping in the war, claiming at a war for bringing back Pahlavi.

And at that time many Iranians were attracted to his views and thought, oh, Pahlavi is on the way too.

Just like Trump, they're going to come and save us.

But now today, after a month or so, it is not 5050.

He.

They reached the number of almost 40% of Iranians wanted Pahlavi in about a month.

But now another month.

Six out of ten Iranians, almost seven, say, no, thank you.

We don't want Pahlavi.

We don't want Israel to help us.

We don't want America to help us.

We'll take care of our own business.

Get the hell out of here.

We don't know what we will do.

We're not any better off than we were before, and we don't think we will be.

>> We have to take our only break.

We're going to come back and we've got some feedback from the audience on the other side of this only break of the our.

Coming up in our second hour, a conversation about the nonviolence movement during a very violent age.

What do those who profess nonviolence say about the state of the world right now?

Can nonviolent protest work?

We saw a lot of no King's demonstrations this past weekend.

Can those have any effect?

What does work and how.

We'll talk about it next?

Our.

>> Support for your public radio station comes from our members and from Monroe County Economic Development.

Accepting applications for the Micro Advantage Loan program designed to help small businesses with expenses such as equipment upgrades, marketing and hiring details at Monroe County, Business.org and Bob Johnson Auto Group.

Believing an informed public makes for a stronger community.

Proud supporter of Connections with Evan Dawson focused on the news, issues and trends that shape the lives of listeners in the Rochester and Finger Lakes regions.

Bobjohnsonautogroup.com.

>> This is Connections.

I'm Evan Dawson.

Let me read a comment that came from another Iranian American in the Rochester region.

This is from gazelle Dehghani and gazelle writes, while much of Western media focuses on the consequences of war through its significant costs and higher gas prices, important concerns in their own right, another reality is unfolding on the ground.

Just this week, two major pharmaceutical institutions were destroyed by American Israeli strikes.

One was the Pasteur Institute, founded in 1921, which housed 13 national laboratories and collaborated closely with the World Health Organization.

It served as a vital hub for vaccine research, particularly for children.

The other, the Tofiq Daru Research Center, specialized in developing treatments for cancer and multiple sclerosis.

The destruction of such critical infrastructure has little to do with America First or the safety of the future generations of Americans, as President Trump claims.

Instead, it imposes broader costs on the global economy and deepens the suffering of civilians.

Children are pulled from the rubble, electrical systems are threatened to be destroyed.

Bridges collapsed under targeted bombing and cultural heritage sites are damaged.

All of this unfolds in pursuit of a right wing worldview that prioritizes force over diplomacy with a stronger side, seeks to achieve its objectives through coercion and destruction, regardless of international law or contradictory evidence.

That's from Ghazali Dehghani, an Iranian American, and I think we still have.

So I want to I want to give you some space to respond to Ghazali remarks.

And, Priya, you said earlier this hour that there are some aspects of the war operation that you don't agree with.

And you mentioned pharmaceutical plants, things like that.

Why do you think those strikes are happening?

>> I think, um, I think the examples that were brought here, um, are similar to the examples that I, the issue that I brought up, this doesn't really undermine the fact that there should be military intervention.

It just signifies the fact that we need to have better intelligence, more responsibility in what target, what targets we pick.

Um, and, uh, and as always, right, these are pharmaceutical installations.

Uh, they should not be, uh, among targets, uh, in any shape or form.

Uh, these are, uh, there are patients that are dependent on these products that are developed by these centers.

I know that there were, uh, there is some dual use for some of these installations, but even dual use of these installations in no way justifies targeting these installations, given the dependance of, uh, so many, so many patients.

So no, I do not condone this.

Uh, and I think that, uh, this is, uh, just emphasizes that we need better intelligence, more responsible targeting and going after the targets that are, um, are going to bring us, uh, whether it's the US or Israel, bring them closer to their aims, but hopefully bring Iranian people closer to their, uh, freedom.

>> Do you want to briefly comment on this?

Shaheen?

>> Uh, again, I think that, um, this is a page out of, um, Bibi bulldozers book that he has practiced for years in Gaza and different parts of Palestine, that every time you want to level, uh, a property and, uh, kick them out to have the occupiers come in.

You say there was a terrorist or there was dual purpose and there was something else in there.

We are sitting here and apologizing them for, uh, bombing our sources of livelihood.

And, um, I don't think it takes that much effort to honestly take a real careful look at the last night's address and see for yourself.

Is this truly a sound of somebody who wants a better Iran and America?

He wants cheaper oil.

He wants oil money in his pocket.

And he has said it and he has proved it.

And many people around the world know it.

So this hiding his crimes under, uh, the shield of, uh oh, it's necessary.

They were just trying to bomb, uh, dual purpose or whatever.

It just makes me very sad.

Makes me cry for Iranian people.

Lack of emotion for the homeland is incredible.

It's the biggest pain that we.

The six out of ten in United States diaspora are taking.

>> Okay, so here's a listener named Dallas who says it appears essentially what Dallas is saying.

This award does appear to be isolating Iran, even among its neighbors.

And he's asking, how damaging is it for Iran going forward after their leadership shot rockets at a lot of their neighbors?

Um, I want to I'll start with you, Jean.

I'll ask both of you.

Is Iran isolating itself in their response to this war?

>> To some extent, yes, to some extent, yes it is.

But, you know, if you would look at your at Iran with the same eyes that you look at United States, then we wouldn't ask these questions.

I think underneath that question is we are hoping that the Iran is the big loser at the end.

And Trump can, uh, announce victory because, hey, look at Omanis and Qatar.

And of course, you can spend money on those countries.

Again, money is important money in those countries with those regimes to isolate Iran.

And partially, yes, but I am not sure I nobody can predict what will happen.

After all, uh, politics is a complicated thing.

And I think it is just as likely that Iran and Saudi Arabia will be friends, and it is likely that they will be enemies.

>> Pooja, what would you say to Dallas who thinks that Iran seems to be isolating itself further?

The regime, with their lashing out at neighbors?

>> I think in the short term it will isolate itself in the midterm.

They will have to reconcile in the long term.

Uh, the problem would be that most of the, uh, states in the Persian Gulf region, they will look for other ways other than, uh, the Strait of Hormuz to transfer their oil and, um, and they're probably going to go through Israel, right?

So that is going to help, uh, in one way or another, bring those countries that are involved in the Abraham Accords closer to one another.

If that means isolation for the Iranian regime, uh, that will probably be the case.

Um, I think the fact that, uh, Iran, uh, used military force against these countries, uh, made them more, made it more apparent than long term.

Um, they are a greater risk.

Uh, it also, um, many of the actors in that region probably, uh, anticipate that there is going to be a change in that regime and they're probably not going to put their eggs in that basket for the long run.

>> Listening on, watching on YouTube, Yana says to attack desalination plants and power plants.

Isn't that a war crime?

I mean, I think under international standards it very well might be.

And that's why a lot of people are watching to see if the president follows through on his threats to attack power plants and desalination plants intentionally going forward.

The president indicated last night that that is still on the menu of possibilities in the next few weeks in Iran.

Uh, something to watch there, Robert and Fairport is next on the phone.

Hi, Robert.

Go ahead.

>> Yeah, I'm kind of curious.

I mean, the whole, the whole starting point for this was the fact that, uh, Iran is pretty close to being able to put together a nuclear bomb.

Um, assuming that they actually do that someday.

How soon do our guests think that they would proactively attack Israel with a nuclear bomb?

Because this is tremendously destabilizing for the whole region.

Once you get a nuclear Iran, you're going to have to have a nuclear Saudi Arabia and so on and so forth.

>> All right.

Yeah.

Robert.

Thank you.

So, Shaheen, I'll start with you.

On the day that Iran has a nuclear weapon that can be used, how long would it take them to use it on Israel?

That's the question from Robert.

What do you think?

>> Uh, if the present regime is still in power, if we have failed to make significant changes.

Yeah.

And Israel is at a point that it is, uh, I wouldn't put it past Iranian regime.

Um, like Khamenei and Mojtaba and the others to wish to have that.

But I tell you, this is a sham.

There is tons of research by those who are experts on this, not me saying that there are ways to curtail these efforts to make an atomic bomb with real good advance notice.

And there are other ways of stopping this.

Um, imaginary bomb that Iran has.

>> So in other words, you think if they had one, this regime probably would use it, but you think it's been overstated how close they've been to getting one?

>> Exactly.

Okay.

Not only close to getting her, but being able to even get one.

I think it's not a realistic threat.

And those who know these things, American military officials, I've seen making analytical, um, discussions about this, they all say, no, this is phony.

Iran can say that they want to obliterate Israel.

But look at actions.

What has Israel done to obliterate is people and what has Iran done to obliterate other countries?

>> Well, let me let me just briefly ask PG&E and then I've got one question for each guest to close here, but briefly.

Puia on the day that Iran has a usable nuclear weapon, do you think they would use it?

This regime would use it on Israel?

>> No, unless they are about to fall.

So that would be the day that they would use it.

But what they would do is that they're going to unleash, uh, their proxies.

So a nuclear weapon with an active missile program is going to give them a sense of security, similar to what North Korea has.

>> Yeah.

>> And Iran's military doctrine has always been to fight its wars outside of its borders.

If adopted this during the Iran-Iraq war, when they started to, uh, they realized that, uh, organized warfare was not really, uh, successful.

They created very disorganized groups that were each operating as a cell.

This is very well documented.

And after that, after the war, they decided that they are going to take this doctrine, uh, they, they injected, uh, organizations such as Hezbollah and all these other proxies outside Iranian borders with this destabilizing everything that is outside of Iran's borders to prevent any attack on Iranian soil in the future.

Um, and nuclear weapon is just going to embolden them to do that.

Okay.

Continue to do that.

Right.

Um.

>> I have.

>> It will do.

>> Yes.

Let me just jump in for you because we're going to lose the hour here.

And I want to give you each about a minute.

Just describe for me, for you in about a minute's time where we are today, April 2nd, with everything that's happened, what is the best case scenario for Iran going forward from here?

By the minute?

Go ahead.

Pouya.

>> The best case scenario would be for somebody within the current Iranian regime or a fraction of a group within the Iranian regime, realizing that the Islamic Republic is no longer, uh, on a path of survival, reaching out and trying to establish a connection with, uh, with somebody from outside in the diaspora.

Um, I unlike your other guests, I think currently the leadership that stands out.

I'm not a monarchist, but I think it would be Reza Pahlavi.

I would like to see us get to the ballot box.

I would vote for Republic.

But if it's a monarchy that comes out of the box, I would accept any outcome that comes out of it.

Uh, but, uh, there should be some way to preserve the core, uh, without creating a power vacuum in Iran and creating, causing any further bloodshed.

>> Okay, so that's the best case that I can see from here for you.

Realistically from here, what's the best case scenario in Iran?

>> The best case scenario is, um, that Israel, uh, stops United States, stops its war against Iranian people, both of them and Iranian people.

Did start an effort with their lives to overthrow their government.

They will come up eventually with a better government.

Uh, many nucleus of, um, many coalitions are happening around the world of Iranian intelligence and capable people who could take the government that Pahlavi honestly will not be anything compared to them.

Pahlavi is a puppet.

It's a little toy here and he's being played.

And I think.

>> But you think there are people out there who could do this work?

>> Of course they are, but there has not been a sincere, uh, help, uh, from the foreign powers to help them get in there.

They have been in jails and, uh, nobody has a screamed for their freedom and human rights.

They have been in diaspora and they don't have Pahlavi stolen money that he has inherited from his father's reign in Iran.

>> Well, I want to thank our guests for sharing their insights and their thoughts.

I know this has to state the obvious here.

Um, it's been a very tumultuous and very difficult time for the Iranian people in Iran and for the Iranian diaspora around the world.

And we're grateful for their voices here.

And they will continue to be invited.

Shahin Monshipour, an Iranian American, for 47 years, four decades of teaching at the college level, enjoying a well-earned retirement.

And I know praying for your homeland in Iran.

Thank you for being here.

Thank you.

And thank you to Hussain Zaidi, associate professor of strategy at Suny Geneseo, and his business is locally.

You might have been there.

Fantastic adventure Park bounce Hopper, Ontario playing cafe Hua.

Thanks for sharing your insight.

I know we'll talk again soon.

>> Thank you very much.

Thank you for having me.

>> More Connections coming up in just a moment.

>> 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 wxxinews.org.

>> Support for your public radio station comes from our members and from Excellus.

Blue Cross Blue Shield.

Working with members to find health coverage for every stage of life, helping to make care and coverage more accessible in more ways for more people across the Rochester community.

Details online at.

Zealous Ebsco.com.