In an interview with Balkans Post, Darius Shahtahmasebi said the whole world should know that any US-backed revolution in Iran that supports the MEK’s rise to power is not one that represents the Iranian people.
Here’s the full transcript of the interview:
BP: The US Balkanized Yugoslavia into smaller states; do you think Washington peruses the same policy on Iran?
I certainly think Washington has enjoyed breaking up Iraq and Syria, and weakening these states into smaller, weaker states that pose no risk to the US or its allies in the region has been a strategy for some time.
It is hard to know what strategy Washington believes it can and should impose on Iran. I think the ultimate goal of the United States war machine with respect to Iran is regime change. Whether or not Washington can achieve regime change, and whether or not the US will actively pursue it are completely different issues. It seems to have ruled out the military option for now and believes it may be able to collapse the regime through sanctions, fomenting of public dissent, support for the MEK, etc.
I have no idea if the US wants to ultimately balkanise Iran; in my opinion, it would be the final nail for the region’s coffin if it did.
BP: Why do you think Albania tolerates the presence of an established terrorist group like MKO on its soil? What are the perils for Albania and Europe?
I have no idea why Albania tolerates the MKO/MEK on its soil, I don’t know what is in it for Albania. I had never really considered this before. But you can take this from an Iranian man, and every other Iranian I have talked to and the Iranian people who message me with concerns about America’s support for the MEK, they are wildly unpopular with the Iranian people. I think the whole world should know that any US-backed revolution in Iran that supports the MEK’s rise to power is not one that represents the Iranian people.
France is another NATO country that has an interesting history with the MEK. I don’t know what is in it for NATO, other than to support their wider regime-change strategy of overthrowing Iran’s government and snatching up its resources. It can’t be for democratic concerns, given NATO supported jihadists to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi in Libya in 2011, turning it into a failed state and jihadist haven.
BP: The US adversaries have always been under dollar-based sanctions. What exactly does Iran look for to switch her economy from the dollar to other world currencies?
I am not sure what Iran looks for specifically. In this scenario, Iran isn’t really left with many choices. In my opinion, Iran has to look to bypass the dollar out of necessity. China has helped in this regard, for example, by giving Iran a 10-billion-dollar credit line last year which worked entirely on yuan and euros in order to bypass US sanctions. By the way, Iran has been selling oil to China for yuan for some years now. It is also looking at some cryptocurrencies I believe, and other alternatives should the Iran deal collapse completely. If it doesn’t come up with realistic methods to bypass the dollar, the effects of the sanctions may cripple Iran’s economy entirely. Its intended effect, which is quite openly talked about.
BP: Looking Iran’s politics from outside, it seems Iran’s President and the Supreme leader are at odds with each other on crucial issues such as foreign policy and economy. Do you approve of the idea? Can you explain?
I think any president of Iran can only do so much given the power structure is designed in that way, so the president can be overridden on these crucial issues. I don’t think these differences matter in the end, given Trump’s animosity toward Iran. As long as Iran wants to rule itself and control its resources without outside interference, the US will always view Iran as a problem in need of a military solution. So I don’t think the two of them being at odds will really matter at the end, given the US has one end-goal for Iran and one end-goal only.