 Hello and welcome to everybody who is joining us by Zoom or by Facebook live for this conversation with Professor Salwaad Azadi, who is a professor at the University of Tehran and a dear friend of mine who I spent time with during my recent trip to Iran in October of last year. Salwaad, thank you so much for joining us. Thank you for having me. Hello to everybody who's watching and listening. And I hope that the minutes that we'll spend together would be fruitful for everybody. So, I know we have some new things that are happening today, new sanctions being imposed, but I want to just start off with asking you what the atmosphere is like on the ground right now and what it's been like for the past week. You know, the country has been under sanctions for many, many years. Just an hour ago, the United States government announced new sanctions and so the sanctions are designed to pressure the government, the Iranian government. In reality, they pressure ordinary citizens more than anyone else. We have some people in Washington that want to change the Iranian government for regime change as they call it. I remember reading John Bolton's tweet after the assassination of the Iranian general. The last line of the tweet said that we need to have regime change. So Bolton is not in the White House, but there are a lot of people that think in similar lines and believe in the same concept. And some of them at least would like to pressure the Iranian people so they come to the streets because of economic difficulties and that's a way of overthrowing the government by sort of putting pressure on ordinary citizens. So they get tired of economic hardship and they do something about it by changing the government. And I don't know that that has ever worked. This is not the first time that the U.S. has tried that. The U.S. government calls this. Sorry, go ahead. Yes. You know, one place that has not worked is Iran because it has been practiced for many decades and you don't see the government falling. In fact, after the assassination of the Iranian general, we had this nationalism sort of enhanced and people actually a lot of people rallied behind the government. The aim is to change the government, but in practice, a lot of people here realize that it was the United States that left the nuclear agreement. And many people blame President Trump for the economic difficulties that they have, not their own government, not President Rouhani. And the end result is that maybe the Trump administration wants to change Iran's government, but what they are doing is actually in a way is helping the government by justifying some of the mismanagement because they can always blame the United States for the economic hardships. And from what we've seen here, the government is not about to fall. They are sort of dealing with the difficulties that they have and the assassination of the Iranian general actually resulted in a new generation of Iranians sort of feeling anti-Americanism the same way that the generation that orchestrated the 1979 revolution felt that way because they thought of the general as someone who was providing security for the country. We had a lot of U.S. tank tanks and media outlets that thought of him as someone who had fought ISIS. In fact, Newsweek had a cover story a couple of weeks ago talking about the fact that if Iran is pressured more, it would be a win for ISIS. And during the time that ISIS was taking over a lot of territory, Iran and the United States sort of were working in a way together to confront that sort of ISIS advances. But after the ISIS defeat, the United States government seems to have forgotten the contribution that Iran made in terms of fighting ISIS and they assassinated the general that was in charge of ISIS fighting activities of Iran. So overall, I think when the assassination took place when I saw the news, I know I was quite shocked and surprised just to see the braveness of the Trump administration to assassinate such a high level member of Iran's government. What was the, was there a shock and surprise on the ground or was this more expected given the U.S.'s past interference in Iran? And if you could talk a little bit about the history of U.S. interference in Iran. You know, the history starts from 1953 with the coup d'etat. And you know, there are always difficulties in countries, but this is a sign of disrespect, I think, when another country comes and tries to overthrow a government in a manner that the United States did in 1953. So Iranians are proud people and they generally don't want interference from others, even if they have internal difficulties. So they don't like the disrespect. And I think a similar feeling was very much present when the news of the assassination of the general was announced. A lot of people felt disrespect. You know, a couple of months before the assassination news, we had demonstrations in Tehran, other cities, against government policies. And so the country was very much divided and what the assassination did was that it actually ended in uniting the country against a foreign force. And so we had, I don't know if you have seen the videos, we had hundreds of thousands, some people estimate millions of people in different cities showing up, not necessarily supporting the government, but opposing the assassination of general that was quite popular in public opinion polls. He was actually the most popular individual in Iran because he did not get into political faction fighting. He served the country. People thought of him as someone who's serving the country and protecting the borders. So when you assassinate the most popular person in a country, you will have people coming to the streets and that's what happened. And in a way, U.S. action united the country and actually helped the government solidify its power because at the end of the day they could point to President Trump as someone who is disrespectful of Iran. And that message was reinforced by him when he threatened to attack Iranian cultural sites. And so a lot of people thought that he is someone who doesn't like Iran, not just the government because the cultural sites are made by Iranian ancestors. You know, the historical sites are not, you know, you have visited Iran, some of them date back 2000 years ago. So when you disrespect a country's cultural and historical sites and you threaten to attack these sites, which is a war criminal war crime, then you are sending the signal that there is a level of hatred against the country of Iran, not just the current government. And so the way President Trump tweets and conducts his business is basically making a lot of people think that his animosity is with the Iranian people more than the Iranian government or at least at the same level as the Iranian government. And we have been reading the news of Iranian Americans. I'm not sure if any of them are listening to this broadcast, but Iranian Americans who went to Canada for the holidays when they came back, although they were U.S. citizens, they were questioned, some of them spent hours answering questions, and sort of this type of harassment is something that bordered a lot of people, which is another sign of the Trump administration not liking Iranians, even the people, Iranians who have gotten U.S. citizenship. So this is tragic, I think, and I hope the people who are listening would realize the damage that the Trump administration is doing to the United States and its status internationally, and the opinion of people in Iran is really turning against the U.S. government, even the new generation, the younger generation that experienced in 1953 could have or even don't remember the Shah are developing the same type of feelings towards the United States as their parents and their grandparents. So I want to go back to sanctions, but before I do that, I want to let everybody who's joining us know that we will be taking questions. If you're participating through Zoom, you can type your questions in the chat box. And if you're participating through Facebook, watching the Facebook Live on Code Pink's Facebook, you can email any questions to me. My email is r-e-l-a-r-i-e-l at CodePink.org, and we can ask them of Professor Salad. So back to sanctions, one of the things that's been especially concerning for me and for all of us at Code Pink has been the reports that humanitarian aid, life-saving medicines in particular, such as medicines for cancer and epilepsy, and to treat injuries, eye injuries sustained by the use of chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war are not making it into the country. And this is despite the Trump administration saying that the sanctions that humanitarian aid is exempted from the sanctions. So I'd like to ask what you see of that in terms of medicines not being able to come into the country, any of those effects that you're aware of? You know, the Trump administration is saying the truth that the sanctions legislation exempts humanitarian material medicine through the staff. That's actually correct. That's what the law says. But the problem is that in order for Iran to import medicine or the humanitarian aid that they need, they need to pay for it. And in order to pay for it, they need to have banking transactions. And it's practically impossible to have banking transactions because of the sanctions. So the sanctions exempt humanitarian aid and medicine, but they don't allow Iran to pay for the medicine that needs to be bought. So in practice, although medicine is not sanctioned, in practice it is sanctioned. And you can see that every day. You know, I take blood pressure medicine, which is a very popular medicine. A lot of people have blood pressure. And for a while, I couldn't get my medicine. And the medicine was actually made by an Iranian company. But the reason they couldn't provide that to the pharmacies was because a small portion of that medicine, a component, was coming from abroad. So they made more than half of the medicine internally. They had this stuff to do it internally. A little bit of it was coming from outside. And because they couldn't get that small portion, they couldn't make the medicine internally because of that component. And they couldn't get the component because they couldn't pay for it. Not because they didn't have the money, but because of the banking sanctions that existed. So even for blood pressure medicine, people had difficulties. And there are some medicines that are not made internally. So they have to buy the whole thing from outside, and that's even more difficult. And we don't know how many people have died in the last many months because of the United States talking about exempting medicine. But in practice, and not allowing medicine to come in, we had the issue of instincts, this setup that the European countries wanted to create for this type of exchange that Iran could actually pay for medicine and other things that Iran needed under European supervision. And just an hour ago, a US Secretary of Treasury announced in the White House that they're going to sanction people who are involved with instincts, this European initiative that was designed to basically resolve some of these problems. So it is sad to say that although the US government officials talk about supporting Iranians or wanting to help Iranian people, but in practice, they are not even allowing them to get the medicine that they need. And I'm not sure how these guys sleep at night, knowing that they are killing people on a daily basis, but apparently they have no problem sleeping. We at Code 10 do not sleep well at night, knowing that. And we have a question, who would, Steph would like to know, what do Iranians think about the in-depth system to circumvent the banking sanctions? Do Iranians expect it to become a reality at any point, given how delayed it's been, and then I want to add to that, that when Mnuchin announced the sanctions today, Mnuchin and Pompeo, they outlined that instincts, in fact, would be subject to secondary sanctions. So this might affect the question as well, but do Iranians feel any hope for the system and any sense of foreseeing that it might ever be implemented? You know, after the US left the nuclear agreement in May of 2018, it's about, you know, one and a half years almost that the US left. Iran didn't want to leave, because the Rouhani administration negotiated very hard for two years to get that agreement. And what the Iranian government said was that we want to stay, but we need to get some benefit out of the agreement. And as you may know, the European governments also did not approve of the Trump administration leaving the agreement. And they came up with this project instincts that would allow Iran to pay for medicine and other humanitarian aid that Iran needed. And Iran has been waiting for this initiative for over a year now, but in practice, not even one dollar was allowed to be transferred to the other side. It has not started working. And given what Mnuchin, Secretary Mnuchin said about an hour ago, it seems that it's not going to operate anytime soon. So the question is whether it's going to start or not. I think that was the question. And based on what we know, the answer is no, because the US government wants to exert maximum pressure campaign. And part of that maximum pressure campaign is to prevent Iranians from getting the medicine that they need it seems. The Pompeo today said that when Iran struck the US base in Iraq, that they had full intentions of killing US forces. Of course, I know that you and no people ordinary people can can know for sure the full intention. But if you could say, what is what is the feeling on the ground from the Iranian people about that strike, and the fact that it's not hit any US forces, it also didn't hit any Iraqi forces. Do the Iranian people think this was intentional? And are people glad that it didn't hit people, or do they wish that there had been a larger hit that way? You know, I think you know me long enough to know that I oppose war. So I don't like the fact that governments engage in activities that result in people dying. But what happened was that after the killing of the general, this is what I see in the people that people some at least became scared that the US is basically doesn't have any limitations on user force. If you kill a general and you know the Iraqi Prime Minister issued an statement saying that the Iranian general was carrying a message. The Iraqis have been mediating between Iran and Saudi Arabia for some time and the general was carrying a letter which had Iran's answer to that mediation effort. And he was supposed to meet the Iraqi Prime Minister at 8am and he was assassinated a few hours before he could do that. So when people in Iran saw that the United States is willing and able to kill a general when he is on an official visit, even there were announcements that he came through normal channels, he got his passport, the stamp, like anybody else who is visiting foreign country. And when they see that, then people become concerned that maybe the United States next step would be to attack Iran as we have some US politicians talking about. We had Tom Cotton, the senator, I think he's from Arkansas, if I'm not mistaken, talked about a war with Iran would be one strike. Trying to say that it's going to be an easy job. I remember Dick Cheney talking about Iraq war being a cakewalk. So that type of mentality exists still in some US politicians. And if they have that mentality and if they have influence with President Trump and then who knows they may want to orchestrate another war with Iran. The same way they did with Iraq. And obviously people in Iran become very concerned because they know what happened to Iraq next door. And no one wants to experience what Iraq experienced in 2003. So when the strike happened, some people became happy. And the reason they became happy was because they thought that okay, the country is not weak. There are missiles that can be used. And some people at least thought that this is a good measure because it sends a message to Washington that attacking Iran or Iranian people has a cost. And so the argument here was that if attacking Iran or Iranians doesn't have a cost. If there are no ethical standards in Washington, then going to a war would be easily justified because the cost is not going to be that much. So creating cost for that type of behavior was something that some people in Iran like. And the end result is that people did not have problem with people that many people that I saw and sort of talked to. They didn't have problem with Iran striking that base because they didn't want to have the United States thinking about attacking Iran problem. We have another question. Since this most recent crisis. Americans have been paying much closer attention to the situation in Iran and, and have been taking to the streets I would, I think we probably the largest anti war mobilization. A very long time. Did Iranian notice were they aware of that and what were the reactions. You know, the Iranian media outlets actually cover these demonstrations. The videos are available online so they get subtitle and social media and television, people see that. And they actually appreciate what they see because they don't want to have a war with the United States, you know, the US Army is much larger than the Iranian Army. The US spends over 700 billion dollars a year on military spending 700 something and that something is three times larger than the Iranian military budget. So I think that the number this year was 735,000 735 billion dollars, 735 billion dollars. And that 35 billion dollars is three times larger than what Iran spends on its military Iran's military budget is about 10 billion. So no one really wants to have a military conflict with Iran. And then they see Americans also coming to the streets and opposing war and opposing militarism and opposing policies that at the end of the day are going to help the United States. Also, because Americans, soldiers get killed in wars and American resources and treasure are going to be wasted when they see that they are, let me say, good Americans that sort of don't want to have this type of foreign policy. And then they become happy and they realize that you have Trump and then you have a real gold, which is, you know, someone who opposed this war. And I think that's very, that's very important that because we don't want Iranians to feel have this feeling of anti American people that's not going to really help. And by having these anti war organizations participating in this type of activities. You are sending this message to the Iranian people that American people, at least some people in the United States don't want to have war with Iran. We have a question from Julie. What if any, how do you feel the sentiment has changed between Iran and Iraq, in terms of what people are talking about. So what President Trump did with the killing of the general was that it enhanced nationalistic feelings in Iran. As you know, there was a Iraqi general also that was killed the same night that he had gone to the airport to welcome Iran, the Iranian general. So the Iraqi general was also killed. And so you had this nationalistic feelings in Iraq as well. And similar to Iran, not too long ago, you had demonstrations in Iraq against the government there. And the killing of the Iraqi general had a similar result in Iraq. It sort of increased nationalistic feelings in Iraq. And the end result was that the Iraqi parliament voted a few days ago to ask the US to leave Iraq. I know that President Trump likes oil. He talks about liking oil. He uses that sentence often. He says, I like oil. But I think the Iraqi oil belongs to the Iraqi people, not President Trump. The US is an energy rich country. There are plenty of oil inside the United States. So it may be a good idea for President Trump to like American oil, not Iraqi oil. We have another question. What is your perception of the role that Europe is playing in this ongoing conflict? Is Europe and especially Germany considered a partner of Iran? You know, Europeans announced their disappointment with the Trump administration after the US left the nuclear agreement. Because, as you know, we had this P5 plus one and you had, so within that P5 plus one, you had the UK, France and Germany and EU representative being part of the nuclear agreement. So it was basically a European initiative that invited Iran to join and invited the United States to join. And then you had Russia and China in that P5 plus one as well. So European governments and I think European people were disappointed with the Trump administration left the agreement. But since that time, Europe has not been able to do much besides being disappointed. We just talked about instincts. That's a European initiative, but it's not really a starting. And, you know, before, you know, just a few years ago, Germany was Iran's number one partner in terms of trade. So Iran-German relations were quite good. Iran was buying a lot of goods from Germany. And because of sanctions, trade between Iran and Germany is quite a small now. So we have countries like China replacing European countries when it comes to partnering with Iran. And I don't think the European governments and people like being out of the Iranian market in Iran. Iran's population is over 80 million. There are a lot of places for investment and trade. There are a lot of places in Europe that need to export their goods to Iran. And they're prevented to do so. And not because of what their governments want, but because of the pressure from the United States and the legislation that is passed by the U.S. Congress, which is a violation of countries' sovereignty. The U.S. Congress can decide to pass laws that prevent American companies from trading with Iran, but passing laws that prevent German companies from trading with Iran is a violation of German sovereign rights. But, you know, the U.S. seems not to care about international law. You know, the nuclear agreement was part of a UN Security Council resolution, 2231. And U.S. during the Obama administration signed up to the agreement. And so the UN resolution, 2231, is international law. You know, UN resolutions are supposed to be followed by UN members. So what the U.S. government is doing now is not only not following the resolution, the U.S. government is sanctioning any country that is trying to follow a UN resolution, which is very strange because the U.S. is part of the Security Council. So that is a violation of not only Germany's sovereign rights, it's also a violation of international law and UN Security Council resolutions. Nadia Benjamin of Code Pink, who I know you know well, I would like to know if you have any thoughts on why Europe isn't doing more to oppose Trump's push for war. It's, I think, you know, they are under a lot of pressure from the United States. You just saw an hour ago a U.S. Secretary of Treasury threatening Europe, you know, Instincts is a European initiative. And they have threatened European government officials, they have threatened European companies, they have threatened European individuals that are part of Instinct setup. They have told them that they would be on the SDN list, that it's a sanctions list, and they have told them they would never get a visa to the United States. So the type of treatment that Europeans who want to follow the UN resolution get from the United States is not much different from the treatment that Iranians get from the United States. And I think that's a big problem that Europe has. And because of historical facts, because of historical relationships, it's difficult, it seems, for Europe to have a more independent foreign policy. And so, and this is going to be damaging for themselves because they're losing trade and they're losing also political linkage and cultural linkage because of the law that someone passed in the United States or the executive order that the president signed. So as we prepare to end, I want to ask if there is anything that the people and especially your students would like to see from us here across the world and here in the belly of the beast, as we call it in America. If there's ways that we can show our support and our opposition to our own government. Well, you know, I mentioned this webinar to my students at the University of Tehran, and they wanted to join, sort of come and share their thoughts. And I told them maybe we can do this next time. You know, the people in the United States can do things that Iranians cannot. They can influence their government to follow policies that are good both for the United States and Iran. Preventing war would be one example. Iranians cannot demonstrate in Washington because of the Muslim back, you know, they cannot come to Washington, even if they had the money to do so. But Americans can do and sort of fighting these type of policies. I think is a patriotic thing to do for the Americans because we have seen what the Iraq war did to the United States. It's soldiers, it's treasure, you know, even President Trump used to or at least until some months ago talked about the fact that $7 trillion was basically wasted. And, you know, and his policies have led the Iraqi Parliament and the Iraqi Prime Minister to ask the United States to leave after wasting all that money and having four, five thousand Americans killed. So sometimes to be honest with you, I wonder why we don't have more Americans joining the anti-war movement. And given the fact that these type of policies hurt these Americans, the anti-war, you know, war policies, militarism policies hurt people in Iran because we are on the receiving end. But they also hurt Americans because the country that engages in needless wars is not going to be a country that people look up to. So the idea of American exceptionalism is turning to the US government is exceptional because they engage in a lot of wars. That's how they're exceptional. And preventing that and fixing that problem is something that Americans can do only, not others. Well, I want to thank you so much for joining us. And we would love to do a follow-up interview with some of your students. And so I will chat with you about that and we can figure out a day and time and we will let everybody know when that is. And we just want to as well, we at Code Pink want to express our solidarity and support and our desires for peace and our love for all of you in Iran and our hope for your safety as Donald Trump continues to try to provoke a war. Thank you for providing this forum. Thank you for having me. I'm going to be available anytime you need me and students. This is the exam week. So give them a couple of weeks so they can pass the exam and then and then they'll be happy to be with you in the next term when they start. Best of luck to all of your students on their exams and we look forward to that. Thank you so much.