May 22, 2024 • 37 mins
On Back Story Russia's 300 billion in frozen funds may be about to thaw and fund Ukraine's defence, whether Russia likes it or not. The EU's bold maneuver to repurpose frozen Russian assets for Ukraine with guest Bill Browder.
Then, we pivot to a nation seemingly in mourning and turmoil—Iran—where the sudden demise of President Raisi in a helicopter crash has opened a Pandora's box of political outcomes.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Bill Browder (00:00):
Well, first of all , I don't think there are any
reputational risks and she'sabsolutely right that we're
talking about.
If Russia wins, then they'regoing to be fighting at the
Estonian border and theLithuanian border and the Polish
border or even pushing intothose countries, and then we
have a NATO obligation to fightwith Russia, obligation to fight
(00:23):
with Russia and that's going tobe literally.
At the moment, the US spends 5%of their military budget
supporting Ukraine.
The United States will behaving to spend 100% of their
military budget fighting Russia.
Dana Lewis (00:35):
What is happening?
Do you think away from thatfuneral procession?
Are people really mourning thepassing of this man Actually?
Shahin Gobadi (00:43):
quite to the contrary, people are celebrating
because he was deeply, deeplyhated by the Iranian regime.
He was loathed by the Iranianregime for a very good reason.
Actually, raisi was known asthe butcher of Tehran.
Dana Lewis (01:06):
Hi everyone and welcome to another edition of
Backstory.
I'm Dana Lewis On this editionfunds for the front line in
Ukraine from an unlikely donorWell, not exactly a willing
donor either, russia.
Eu countries have formallyadopted a plan to use windfall
profits from Russian centralbank assets frozen in the EU for
(01:30):
Ukraine's defense.
A senior Russian diplomatdenounced the plan, saying it
would have unpredictableconsequences, with the EU
obliged, sooner or later, tohave to return to Russia what it
had stolen, he said.
We talked to Bill Browder, whohas pushed sanctions against
Russia and Iran.
(01:51):
A helicopter crash takes outthe notorious president and
(02:16):
others on board.
Could it usher in real changein Iran?
I speak to Iranian dissidentShaheen Gobati.
Welcome, good to see you, goodto see you again.
So look, the debate on frozenRussian assets.
I mean, I want to take you downthat road, but just for people
who don't understand what'shappened the war started and
$300, roughly billion, inRussian assets were frozen in US
(02:39):
and mostly European banks.
Am I correct?
Exactly US and mostly Europeanbanks, am I correct?
Bill Browder (02:44):
Exactly so.
About a week after the warstarted, the main countries
allied with Ukraine againstRussia the United States, canada
, the European Union, uk, japan,australia all of those
countries in unison froze whatappears to be about 300 billion
(03:05):
dollars of russian central bankreserves.
This is the money that therussian government kept in in
foreign currency, um, and thatmoney has been frozen since the
beginning of the war, and andthe original intention was just
to unfreeze it at the end of thewar, and that would be the that
would be part of thenegotiation when there was a
peace settlement.
But but of course, the war hasgone on a lot longer than people
(03:28):
had hoped.
Russia has destroyed, dependingon whose estimates you believe,
somewhere between $500 billionand $1 trillion of property in
Ukraine, property in Ukraine andthe obvious thing that that
(03:49):
brings you to is that that moneyshouldn't just be frozen at
this point.
That money should beconfiscated and given to Ukraine
, and that's where the debate isat the moment is should it be
confiscated or should it not?
And if it is confiscated, howdo you do it?
And then lots of people on bothsides of the debate come up
with their own reasonings why itshould and shouldn't be done.
Dana Lewis (04:12):
Let's walk through some of that.
So the European Central Bankargues against seizing frozen
assets, which almost seems likea contradiction in turn to me,
because they are, in effect,seized.
Russia certainly couldn't goand make a bank withdrawal at
this point, but they are notredirected to anything, so
(04:37):
they're frozen in these banksand Washington.
Now I think that it seemed tome that initially, america was
kind of behind everybody else inthis debate, um, and and the
last ones that wanted to dealwith the whole issue of assets.
Now they seem to be leading thecharge.
(04:57):
I mean, uh, treasury secretaryjenny yellen is, is uh talking
to the europeans and saying thatyou saying that we have to take
some of these Russian assetsand Russia has to pay at this
point how we take them and whatform we take them.
But it looks like the US now isleading that charge.
Is that right?
Bill Browder (05:18):
Well, in all of these stories, the US is usually
the one leading the charge andthe Europeans are the ones
lagging, and this is anotherexample of the whole story.
I mean, there's very littlethat anyone can say in favor of
Putin here.
Ukraine didn't ask for this war.
(05:41):
Putin launched the war.
Ukraine suffered enormousdamage.
Putin caused that damage.
We have custody of the money,of Russian money, and there's
really nobody to make theargument that Russia doesn't owe
Ukraine this money.
What happens as you sort of getinto the details is you have
(06:05):
different people from sort ofdifferent parts of the apparatus
of government and central banksstarting to squirm and say well
, actually this hasn't been donebefore.
It kind of makes sense on thesurface.
Dana Lewis (06:20):
This is where you get into this idea that the
seizure would threaten thefuture stability of the
financial system becausecountries like China and Gulf
states would then potentiallythe argument against this.
They would then shun Westernreserve currency.
Bill Browder (06:36):
Which is an absurd argument, because there's no
such thing as a Western reservecurrency.
There is something called areserve currency.
As a Western reserve currency,there is something called a
reserve currency.
A reserve currency is acurrency that belongs to a
country that's liquid, whichmeans you can convert into it
and convert out of it withoutany problem, where the economic
(06:57):
background of that country isrelatively stable they don't
have hyperinflation or othertypes of things, and, as a
result, there are only certaincountries that have reserve
currencies.
The United States has a reservecurrency, the EU has a reserve
currency, japan has a reservecurrency, switzerland has one,
(07:19):
uk has one.
These are the reservecurrencies, and there are no
other currencies that arereserve currencies, and if
somebody else comes up with areserve currency, probably they
would be part of our allianceagainst Russia and for Ukraine.
It's generally the sort of safe, civilized countries that are
(07:41):
reserve currencies, and so you.
And so it's an absurd andspecious argument to say that
the Saudis, for example, wouldkeep their money in Argentine
pesos or Brazilian real.
It's a dumb argument.
It just doesn't make any sense.
The only thing they can do iskeep their money in reserve
(08:04):
currencies.
We have the reserve currencies,and so, as much as people may
not like the idea that if youlaunch a war of aggression, you
can have your money confiscated,nobody has any other options.
The world of finance my entirelife.
I'm 60 years old.
I've been doing this for nearly40 years.
(08:26):
There's no other place for themto keep their money I can
guarantee you that, and sothat's just a stupid, dumb
argument that shouldn't be madebecause it makes no sense.
Dana Lewis (08:36):
Nobody's arguing for the pesos, but in terms of
the euro and the dollar, thosewho don't want to go along with
this and it looks like it's alot of europe are saying maybe
there's a compromise.
Why don't we take the interestfrom the frozen russian assets
and give that to ukraine?
(08:57):
In the form of what?
A loan or a bond?
Bill Browder (09:03):
Well, so again, let's back up on this whole
thing.
So what's happening is theEuropean Union doesn't have a
single decision maker.
There's not, like the presidentof the European Union, who's
weighing up the costs andbenefits of this thing, a sort
of administrative construct inwhich there are 27 countries
(09:25):
that have to come to a consensusdecision, and so the consensus
decision is based on somecountries that are bullish on
Ukraine and defending freedom,and then there are some
countries that are friendly withPutin, like Hungary, and so
what ends up happening is theycome to basically sort of a
(09:46):
fudge, a compromise, a completeit's not a decision made up of
pros and cons and all that kindof stuff.
Dana Lewis (09:54):
Is that why?
Is it because Slovakia andHungary and those countries,
they won't give them a unanimousdecision.
Therefore, let's come up withthis fudge.
Is that really the reason why?
That's how it works.
Bill Browder (10:05):
I've been involved in advocacy sanctions advocacy
at the European Union for thelast decade.
I know exactly how it works andthat's how it works, and so
it's not like someone sayingthis is the best alternative,
given all the pros and cons.
This is a bunch of peoplenegotiating with themselves and
coming to some lowest commondenominator, and before we get
(10:32):
to, is it the right decision orthe wrong decision?
Let me just address the otherbig concern that people have
about confiscating the money,which is they're saying it's not
legal.
There's no law that allows youto do this, and again I want to
stress that of course it's legal.
If a country invades anothercountry and causes damages,
(10:52):
they've broken the law, they'vebroken international law and
they've got to pay for thosedamages, and there has been
absolute legal precedent of thathappening.
That happened after the firstGulf War, when Iraq invaded
Kuwait and we confiscated theircentral bank reserves.
It happened when, at the end ofthe Second World War, nazi
(11:12):
Germany we confiscated a hugeamount of their sovereign
property.
Dana Lewis (11:19):
They were cases of direct conflict, were they not?
Whereas Ukraine is….
There's a direct conflictbetween Ukraine because it's not
a war within I mean, it is partof Europe but it's not a war
within Western Europe, where thebanks are.
Bill Browder (11:32):
Well, it's a direct conflict between Russia
and Ukraine, and so Ukraine hasthe right to that money.
And so then the question is dothey have the derivative right
to that money if it's being heldsomewhere else?
And this is where there ispotential legal ambiguity.
There's no uncertainty aboutwhether they should or shouldn't
(11:52):
, it's just legal ambiguity.
And so what do you do in asituation where there's legal
ambiguity?
You create a law to resolvethat legal ambiguity.
That's exactly what the UnitedStates did.
They passed something calledthe Repo Act.
This was passed alongside the$61 billion of military aid, and
the Repo Act resolves any legalambiguity.
The United States now has thelegal right under the Repo Act
(12:15):
to confiscate Russian centralbank reserves.
The same thing could happenhere in the UK.
It could happen in Europe.
They could legislate to saythat if a country invades
another country and causesdamage, then that country's
assets in third countries can beconfiscated.
They can legislate that that'swhat lawmakers do, and that
(12:36):
would then resolve any legalambiguity.
Half-hearted, half-asseddecision of the European Union
where they're saying well, wedon't believe we can confiscate
the principle, but we somehowbelieve that it's okay to
confiscate the interest whichjust comes out.
Would that do anything?
Dana Lewis (12:53):
If that is the end of the discussion and they say,
instead of 300 billion, we'llgive them 30 billion in interest
and I know that that's a softfigure because I've read other
figures on what the interestwould be um, will that do it?
Will that accomplish the goalof, of helping ukraine at such a
(13:15):
desperate time?
Bill Browder (13:16):
well, 30 billion is greater than zero, if that's
the number.
I don't think that's the number.
I think that it's five percenton 200 billion, um, or something
like that, but in any eventmaybe 4%.
I don't know what they earn onthese deposits, but what I can
say is that if there's a concernabout confiscating principal,
there should be an equal concernabout confiscating interest.
(13:38):
That doesn't solve that legalambiguity.
You need to actually legislatefor it and once you've
legislated for it, you might aswell confiscate the whole damn
thing.
Actually legislate for it, andonce you've legislated for it,
you might as well confiscate thewhole damn thing.
And at the end of the day, thisis not going to be a question of
the stability of the financialmarkets, because that's a
complete red herring, and it'snot going to be a question of
legal ambiguity, because thatcan be resolved very easily.
(13:58):
It's going to purely be afinancial question.
And the financial question isshould the taxpayers of Europe,
should the taxpayers of the UK,should the taxpayers of the
United States, should theirfinancial resources, their money
, their taxes, be lower on thetotem pole on the pecking order
(14:19):
than Putin's rights to his money?
And I would argue that Putinhas less of a right to his money
than the taxpayers of Europeand the UK and the US and other
places to their money, and so weshould be taking Putin's money
before we take our own money.
I think we're going to have totake both in order to carry on
with this thing.
Dana Lewis (14:37):
By the way, I think the 30 billion figure comes
from.
If you did a loan or a bondover some period of time, they
would give them 30, and thenthat loan would be guaranteed by
those Russian assets over time.
That's where that number camefrom.
Bill Browder (14:52):
But again, that's an absurdity.
If we're feeling uncomfortableabout confiscating those assets,
why should anyone feelcomfortable about buying a bond
that's secured against thoseassets if you can't confiscate
them, if the bond isn't paid?
And so it all comes back to thenecessity of just confiscating
the money once and for all, andI think that it's certainly good
(15:14):
to get more money to Ukrainethan less, but at the end of the
day, this war is going onlonger than anyone wanted.
There's a huge uncertaintyabout what's going to happen in
November in the US presidentialelection.
If Trump becomes the nextpresident, which looks more
likely than not based on thecurrent poll numbers.
He's pretty much made it clearhe doesn't want to spend any
(15:35):
more money on Ukraine, whichmeans that the Europeans will
have to double down in order tokeep the same amount of aid
flowing, and the Europeansprobably don't want to double
down and tax their taxpayers.
And so how do you solve thisproblem?
Well, there's 200 billionsitting at Euroclear in Belgium,
and that could go a long waytowards funding Ukraine and
(15:57):
funding their defense andwhatever else they need.
Dana Lewis (15:59):
Let me read two quotes to you.
I'd be interested in yourcomments on them.
One is from Olena Halushka,head of the International Center
for Ukrainian Victory.
Also warns that if the assetsare withheld from Ukraine and
the country loses the war, theeconomic and security
consequences for Europe would befar worse than reputational
risks of using Russian assets.
Bill Browder (16:21):
Well, first of all , I don't think there are any
reputational risks, and she'sabsolutely right that we're
talking about.
If Russia wins, then they'regoing to be fighting at the
Estonian border and theLithuanian border and the Polish
border, or even pushing intothose countries obligation to
(16:48):
fight with Russia, and that'sgoing to be literally at the
moment, the US spends 5% oftheir military budget supporting
Ukraine.
The United States will behaving to spend the 100% of
their military budget fightingRussia, and so she's absolutely
right in that respect, which is,we should just be doing
whatever we can right now to getUkraine back on track, because
otherwise we're going to be theones engaged in this war.
Dana Lewis (17:08):
One more.
The Institute for StrategicStudies argues, we quote we have
this very strange ordering ofrisks.
Somehow we persuaded ourselvesthat it's more risky to take
Russian state money than it isto send weapons to Ukraine that
kill Russian soldiers.
That ordering makes no sense.
Bill Browder (17:26):
I agree with that as well.
There is no risk to taking thismoney.
And, by the way, there's oneother unexpected consequence,
which I actually define as anexpected consequence, which is
that who's the other countrythat has a whole lot of central
bank reserves scattered aboutthe world that's looking at
(17:46):
eyeing up invading one of theirneighbors, and that's China.
And perhaps that will changethe economic equation for China
to do the same thing.
If they see that the world isserious, that if you invade
neighbors you lose your centralbank reserves, that would be a
good consequence.
Dana Lewis (18:02):
Bill, you're always generous with your time and I
think your last question, Ipromise, and that would be look,
I have, you know, friends thatgo in and out of Russia still,
and they tell me you knoweverything's there.
Whatever you want on theshelves is still there, despite
all these talk of sanctions.
And yes, there's.
(18:23):
You know there's been someimpact on you know gas problems,
profits and and et cetera, butgenerally goods are flowing,
however they get in therethrough Tajikistan or Kazakhstan
or wherever they're coming from.
And Janet Yellen, again, the UStreasury secretary, is saying
that these, these sanctions haveto be tightened, they have to
(18:45):
work.
But despite that, the goodsseem to flow and Putin just
seems to thumb his nose at theworld.
Why?
Why is it still happening likethat?
Bill Browder (18:57):
Well, first of all , what they have on their
shelves is not going todetermine whether the war stops
or starts, or ends or begins.
What will determine whetherthis war can carry on is whether
Russia can afford.
The war stops or starts, orends or begins.
What will determine whetherthis war can carry on is whether
Russia can afford the war.
And at the moment we'vesanctioned Russia pretty
brutally.
If you look at this, we'retalking about the central bank
reserves which we've frozen.
Oligarch reserves have beenfrozen.
(19:18):
We've cut off all Russiancompanies and government
agencies and the governmentitself from the international
capital markets.
Companies have fled.
A million young, able-bodiedmen have fled.
It's a mess over there andanyone who says it's not is just
repeating Putin's spin, whichis that sanctions don't work.
(19:38):
But there is one huge loopholein this whole thing, which is
that Russia produces a lot ofoil.
They supply 10% of the world'soil and because they supply 10%
of the world's oil and we'reafraid of oil prices going up,
we're not embargoing Russian oiland, as a result, they make a
couple hundred billion dollars ayear off the sale of oil and
(19:59):
they use that money to buyweapons to kill Ukrainians.
And until, unless and until wesomehow figure out how to
increase oil productionelsewhere so that we can embargo
Russian oil, they're going toalways have enough money to do
this.
Or if, for some reason, the oilprice were to collapse, maybe
that would stop them as well.
And so that's the problem.
(20:21):
And that's the $ 200 billiondollar question, which is, how
do you stop them from, fromgetting that 200 billion dollars
to buy weapons to killukrainians, because they're
they're they're basicallygetting the money indirectly
from us, and then we're havingto pay the ukrainians money to
fight them back.
It'll be better if they justdidn't have the money to fight
in the first place bill browder,always great to see you.
Dana Lewis (20:44):
Thank you so much, bill.
Bill Browder (20:45):
Thank you.
Dana Lewis (20:52):
Shaheen Gubadi is a Paris-based National Council of
Resistance of Iran member,which is the political arm of
the MEK.
Is that right, Shaheen?
Shahin Gobadi (21:03):
Well, the National Council of Resistance
of Iran is basically a politicalcoalition which is against the
Shah and against a politicalregime in Iran, trying to
establish a democratic, secularrepublic in Iran.
And the People's MujahideenOrganization of Iran, also known
as MBK, as we said, is the mainmember organization of the NCRI
(21:26):
which, as I said, is apolitical coalition.
Dana Lewis (21:30):
The funerals have started in Iran, as you know now
for President Raisi and theforeign minister and others that
were killed in the helicoptercrash.
You see an orderly funeralprocession taking place today.
What is happening?
Do you think away from thatfuneral procession?
(21:50):
Are people really mourning thepassing of this man?
Shahin Gobadi (21:56):
Actually, quite to the contrary, people are
celebrating because he wasdeeply, deeply hated by the
Iranian regime.
He was loathed by the Iranianregime for a very good reason.
Actually, raisi was known asthe butcher of Tehran, and the
reason was that throughout thepast 45 years, since basically
(22:18):
the inception of this despoticrule in Iran, raisi played a key
role in suppressing, killingIranians, dissidents and people
from all over the country.
He joined the regime when hewas only 19, and the only thing
that there was in his resume waskilling, killing, killing and
(22:41):
repression, repression,repression.
That was his only achievement.
He was a total obedient of thesupreme leader first Ruhollah
Khomeini, then Ali Khamenei.
Dana Lewis (22:50):
What happened in the 1980s under Raisi.
How many people were killed?
Shahin Gobadi (22:57):
Well, actually, in 1988, to be exact when Raisi
was then the deputy prosecutorof Tehran Khomeini issued an
order basically saying anypolitical prisoner primarily the
members and activists of thePeople's Mujahideen Organization
(23:17):
of Iran who remain steadfastand firm in their beliefs for
democracy and human rights,should be immediately killed
with no mercy.
And to that effect, he set updeath commissions throughout the
country and in Tehran therewere four people who were
assigned to do this, and IbrahimRaisi was one of them.
In a matter of a few months,30,000 political prisoners, men
(23:39):
and women, were massacred aftergoing through sham trials that
last one, two or three minutes,massacred after going through
sham trials that last one, twoor three minutes.
In Tehran alone, thousands ofpolitical prisoners were
massacred, and Ebrahim Raisiplayed a very, very direct role
to that effect and that was oneof his basically records Some of
(24:02):
the human rights groups whohave written about that have
said things.
Dana Lewis (24:04):
Like you know, when you say sham trials, people
were asked one question or twoquestions and put to death by
the state after that, and then,most recently, he was really the
captain of the ship when itcame to the clampdown on the
hijab and the deaths of some ofthese women in custody.
(24:28):
Is that right, yeah?
Shahin Gobadi (24:31):
Well, I was about to get to that, actually first
about in 1988, as you said,there was first one.
Only one question was asked whyare you in prison?
And if you say because I wasaffiliated to the MEK or the
People's Mujahideen Organizationin Iran, that was enough.
No second question was askedand you were immediately sent to
(24:51):
the gallows.
There are a few survivors, veryfew survivors, who have
survived that process and theyhave basically explained to the
world, have exposed howatrocious it was.
It was by all definition, bymany, many, many prominent
international human rightsjurists, a crime against
humanity, probably one of theworst cases of the second part
(25:13):
of the world, second part of the20th century, which,
unfortunately, has gone verymuch unexposed, and the regime
leaders, who are all involved,including El Raisi, have not
been held accountable for theircrimes against humanity.
Now, more recent, for instance,in 2019, there was, as some
(25:34):
might remember, a massiveuprising by Iranians.
People came to streets all overthe country, in 200 plus cities
, asking for the overthrow ofthe regime.
They were protesting againstthe regime barehanded and 1,500
of them were massacred in amatter of two days and they were
(25:55):
shot at directly by, you know,live ammunition, and at that
time, ebrahim Raisi was head ofthe judiciary and he directly
played a big role in massacringthese protesters, many of them
teenagers, obviously, many, manyof them women, of them women.
(26:15):
So, as I said, his onlyachievement was killing, killing
, killing, and that's why he wasloathed by Iranian people from
all age groups and all stratathroughout the country and, as
Madame Mariam Rajavi, thepresent elect of the National
Council of Resistance of Iran,said yesterday, rais's legacy
was basically the wrath of allthese people who had lost their
(26:37):
loved ones, their sons anddaughters, in hands of this
regime, particularly by Raisi.
Dana Lewis (26:42):
So why was he put in charge as president?
I mean, they talk aboutelections, but they were very
controlled votes.
The voter turnout was dismal.
I mean, a lot of Iranians haveeven turned away from the
so-called democratic process.
Khamenei put him in charge aspresident.
Why?
Because it was a transition andhe was seen as the guy who
(27:05):
could do what.
Shahin Gobadi (27:08):
I think this is the key issue for understanding
what's going to happen next andwhy.
As Madame Rajavi said yesterday, we believe this was a
monumental, irreparablestrategic blow to the regime.
You see, there have been fourmajor nationwide uprisings since
(27:30):
2018 in Iran, one bigger thanthe other, 2018, 2019.
And you saw the latest one in2022, which went well into 2023,
all getting bigger, moreinclusive, more pervasive and
all demanding the regime'soverthrow and establishment of a
(27:50):
democratic, secular republic,rejecting any form of
dictatorship, being the currentone or the former one by the
Shah.
So Ali Khamenei, the supremeleader, who saw this momentum
and realized how things aregoing, realized that the only
way that he can, in his owncalculation, forestall the
overthrow of the regime is tocircle the values you know, get
(28:15):
rid of any kind of rift withinthe regime, make it totally
unipolar and bring the henchmenor the killer at the helm of
things.
And the most suitable personfor that mission was Ibrahim
Raisi, given his record.
So that's why he was propped upand handpicked and basically
(28:36):
selected by Khamenei for thisposition.
When it comes to Iran, I thinkit's a mockery and a joke to
talk about elections.
It has always been a farce.
Anybody who wants to be even acandidate, has to prove his or
her loyalty to the SupremeLeader in actions and in belief.
And they have to go through somany filters and watchdogs.
(28:59):
And unless they have total,total, absolute loyalty, they
are not going to be even put inthe ballots.
And for years the regime playedwith this game and in the last
few years it has become quiteevident that this is only, as I
said, a farce.
And now it's become evidentthat overwhelming majority of
the Iranians shun this gambitand even the regime cannot
(29:20):
pretend that the majority ofIranians take part in this.
Dana Lewis (29:26):
What can happen now ?
I mean, they're trying to havea smooth transition.
They're going to have anotherelection.
What can potentially happenbetween, say, in the next 50
days?
Do you think?
Shahin Gobadi (29:36):
Well, first of all, one has to realize what
happened.
As I said, loss of EbrahimRaisi was a big, big blow to
Khamenei and the strategy thathe was pursuing, because
Khamenei needed to, as I said,intensify clamping down, but it
does not limit it to inside Iran.
(29:57):
He also needed to intensify theregime's foreign intervention
and warmongering, and that'sexactly what we saw in the last
few years, particularly the lastfew months.
As you know, the Iranian regimehas been acting as the head of
(30:18):
the snake so far as it pertainsto terrorism and belligerence in
the region.
And who was the man, who was themain implementer of Khamenei's
objective?
Ebrahim Raisi, who put all theresources and help and
everything at the service of theregime's proxies, in line and
in tandem with the RevolutionaryGuards, and also so far as it
pertains to the regime'sinvolvement in the war between
(30:41):
Russia and Ukraine by providingdrones to Russia.
So basically, as I said,khamenei knew that in order to
keep the regime in power, he hasto rely on someone like Ibrahim
Raisi as the implementer.
Now Ibrahim Raisi is gone, soit will be very difficult for
(31:01):
Ali Khamenei to find someonelike him.
So, basically, his strategy isnot, as we see, the major, major
blow.
Basically, everything to thateffect has gone to a score of
one.
He has to start from scratchand that takes a lot of time and
effort.
And also one has to remember inorder to bring about what
happened, khamenei had to get alot of even the regime's
(31:24):
insiders and loyalists in favorof Raisi the people who believed
in him.
But they were not as loyal asRaisi Because there are
different factions in there,correct?
Exactly Factions and even thepeople who were not as absolute
loyal that was needed for thisposition.
Let's move like this.
So how many has received amajor blow.
The faction, the feuding at theheight of the regime will
(31:47):
exacerbate because, as I said,people are vying and they
realize that Supreme Leader hasbecome weaker, and so on and so
forth.
But also, so far as the societyis concerned, that will create
some kind of situation that inthe process and I emphasize, in
the process makes it easier forpeople to show their dissent.
(32:08):
It's not by what Khameneidesires, but that's what the
reality will happen.
Now, so far as Khamenei isconcerned, he has two choices
either to open up or to evenfurther intensify execution,
killing, middling in the affairsof the region and drive for
nuclear weapons.
It's absolutely impossible forhim to take the first because
(32:32):
the moment he opens up, it willonly expedite and accelerate the
regime's overthrow and he willsee a massive, massive uprising,
given the deep, profoundgrievances that exist in the
society.
So he has to intensify more onkillings, belligerence and drive
for nuclear weapons, and that'swhat he will intend on.
What will happen is in thissituation, but the regime in
(32:55):
totality will be much weaker and, as I said, the peoples will
become much more active as we goalong.
Dana Lewis (33:04):
You predicted they're going to try to tighten
the stranglehold that theyalready have on people in Iran,
but it seems to me you're sayingall it needs is a spark.
Whatever that could be, therecould be an incident near the
funeral weeks after the funeralin the elections, and that may
(33:26):
be enough to ignite the streetand create real possible change
in Iran.
Shahin Gobadi (33:33):
Definitely, and you don't have to rely on my
words on this.
The Iranian state press, evenbefore Raisi's death, is riddled
about this talk and basically,so far as the regime and how
many are concerned, it's anxiety, and that's our backstory this
week.
Dana Lewis (33:52):
The war in Ukraine isn't going well.
Russia keeps throwing moretroops into the grinder, more
missiles, more bombs, you'dthink.
After well, it's almost threeyears, it's into its third year
that President Putin would tireof all this.
He won't, because the war keepshim in power and that's really
all he cares about.
(34:12):
Thanks for listening toBackstory.
I'm Dana Lewis and I's reallyall he cares about.
Thanks for listening toBackstory.
No-transcript.
Well, first of all , I don't think there are any
reputational risks and she'sabsolutely right that we're
talking about.
If Russia wins, then they'regoing to be fighting at the
Estonian border and theLithuanian border and the Polish
border or even pushing intothose countries, and then we
have a NATO obligation to fightwith Russia, obligation to fight
(00:23):
with Russia and that's going tobe literally.
At the moment, the US spends 5%of their military budget
supporting Ukraine.
The United States will behaving to spend 100% of their
military budget fighting Russia.
Dana Lewis (00:35):
What is happening?
Do you think away from thatfuneral procession?
Are people really mourning thepassing of this man Actually?
Shahin Gobadi (00:43):
quite to the contrary, people are celebrating
because he was deeply, deeplyhated by the Iranian regime.
He was loathed by the Iranianregime for a very good reason.
Actually, raisi was known asthe butcher of Tehran.
Dana Lewis (01:06):
Hi everyone and welcome to another edition of
Backstory.
I'm Dana Lewis On this editionfunds for the front line in
Ukraine from an unlikely donorWell, not exactly a willing
donor either, russia.
Eu countries have formallyadopted a plan to use windfall
profits from Russian centralbank assets frozen in the EU for
(01:30):
Ukraine's defense.
A senior Russian diplomatdenounced the plan, saying it
would have unpredictableconsequences, with the EU
obliged, sooner or later, tohave to return to Russia what it
had stolen, he said.
We talked to Bill Browder, whohas pushed sanctions against
Russia and Iran.
(01:51):
A helicopter crash takes outthe notorious president and
(02:16):
others on board.
Could it usher in real changein Iran?
I speak to Iranian dissidentShaheen Gobati.
Welcome, good to see you, goodto see you again.
So look, the debate on frozenRussian assets.
I mean, I want to take you downthat road, but just for people
who don't understand what'shappened the war started and
$300, roughly billion, inRussian assets were frozen in US
(02:39):
and mostly European banks.
Am I correct?
Exactly US and mostly Europeanbanks, am I correct?
Bill Browder (02:44):
Exactly so.
About a week after the warstarted, the main countries
allied with Ukraine againstRussia the United States, canada
, the European Union, uk, japan,australia all of those
countries in unison froze whatappears to be about 300 billion
(03:05):
dollars of russian central bankreserves.
This is the money that therussian government kept in in
foreign currency, um, and thatmoney has been frozen since the
beginning of the war, and andthe original intention was just
to unfreeze it at the end of thewar, and that would be the that
would be part of thenegotiation when there was a
peace settlement.
But but of course, the war hasgone on a lot longer than people
(03:28):
had hoped.
Russia has destroyed, dependingon whose estimates you believe,
somewhere between $500 billionand $1 trillion of property in
Ukraine, property in Ukraine andthe obvious thing that that
(03:49):
brings you to is that that moneyshouldn't just be frozen at
this point.
That money should beconfiscated and given to Ukraine
, and that's where the debate isat the moment is should it be
confiscated or should it not?
And if it is confiscated, howdo you do it?
And then lots of people on bothsides of the debate come up
with their own reasonings why itshould and shouldn't be done.
Dana Lewis (04:12):
Let's walk through some of that.
So the European Central Bankargues against seizing frozen
assets, which almost seems likea contradiction in turn to me,
because they are, in effect,seized.
Russia certainly couldn't goand make a bank withdrawal at
this point, but they are notredirected to anything, so
(04:37):
they're frozen in these banksand Washington.
Now I think that it seemed tome that initially, america was
kind of behind everybody else inthis debate, um, and and the
last ones that wanted to dealwith the whole issue of assets.
Now they seem to be leading thecharge.
(04:57):
I mean, uh, treasury secretaryjenny yellen is, is uh talking
to the europeans and saying thatyou saying that we have to take
some of these Russian assetsand Russia has to pay at this
point how we take them and whatform we take them.
But it looks like the US now isleading that charge.
Is that right?
Bill Browder (05:18):
Well, in all of these stories, the US is usually
the one leading the charge andthe Europeans are the ones
lagging, and this is anotherexample of the whole story.
I mean, there's very littlethat anyone can say in favor of
Putin here.
Ukraine didn't ask for this war.
(05:41):
Putin launched the war.
Ukraine suffered enormousdamage.
Putin caused that damage.
We have custody of the money,of Russian money, and there's
really nobody to make theargument that Russia doesn't owe
Ukraine this money.
What happens as you sort of getinto the details is you have
(06:05):
different people from sort ofdifferent parts of the apparatus
of government and central banksstarting to squirm and say well
, actually this hasn't been donebefore.
It kind of makes sense on thesurface.
Dana Lewis (06:20):
This is where you get into this idea that the
seizure would threaten thefuture stability of the
financial system becausecountries like China and Gulf
states would then potentiallythe argument against this.
They would then shun Westernreserve currency.
Bill Browder (06:36):
Which is an absurd argument, because there's no
such thing as a Western reservecurrency.
There is something called areserve currency.
As a Western reserve currency,there is something called a
reserve currency.
A reserve currency is acurrency that belongs to a
country that's liquid, whichmeans you can convert into it
and convert out of it withoutany problem, where the economic
(06:57):
background of that country isrelatively stable they don't
have hyperinflation or othertypes of things, and, as a
result, there are only certaincountries that have reserve
currencies.
The United States has a reservecurrency, the EU has a reserve
currency, japan has a reservecurrency, switzerland has one,
(07:19):
uk has one.
These are the reservecurrencies, and there are no
other currencies that arereserve currencies, and if
somebody else comes up with areserve currency, probably they
would be part of our allianceagainst Russia and for Ukraine.
It's generally the sort of safe, civilized countries that are
(07:41):
reserve currencies, and so you.
And so it's an absurd andspecious argument to say that
the Saudis, for example, wouldkeep their money in Argentine
pesos or Brazilian real.
It's a dumb argument.
It just doesn't make any sense.
The only thing they can do iskeep their money in reserve
(08:04):
currencies.
We have the reserve currencies,and so, as much as people may
not like the idea that if youlaunch a war of aggression, you
can have your money confiscated,nobody has any other options.
The world of finance my entirelife.
I'm 60 years old.
I've been doing this for nearly40 years.
(08:26):
There's no other place for themto keep their money I can
guarantee you that, and sothat's just a stupid, dumb
argument that shouldn't be madebecause it makes no sense.
Dana Lewis (08:36):
Nobody's arguing for the pesos, but in terms of
the euro and the dollar, thosewho don't want to go along with
this and it looks like it's alot of europe are saying maybe
there's a compromise.
Why don't we take the interestfrom the frozen russian assets
and give that to ukraine?
(08:57):
In the form of what?
A loan or a bond?
Bill Browder (09:03):
Well, so again, let's back up on this whole
thing.
So what's happening is theEuropean Union doesn't have a
single decision maker.
There's not, like the presidentof the European Union, who's
weighing up the costs andbenefits of this thing, a sort
of administrative construct inwhich there are 27 countries
(09:25):
that have to come to a consensusdecision, and so the consensus
decision is based on somecountries that are bullish on
Ukraine and defending freedom,and then there are some
countries that are friendly withPutin, like Hungary, and so
what ends up happening is theycome to basically sort of a
(09:46):
fudge, a compromise, a completeit's not a decision made up of
pros and cons and all that kindof stuff.
Dana Lewis (09:54):
Is that why?
Is it because Slovakia andHungary and those countries,
they won't give them a unanimousdecision.
Therefore, let's come up withthis fudge.
Is that really the reason why?
That's how it works.
Bill Browder (10:05):
I've been involved in advocacy sanctions advocacy
at the European Union for thelast decade.
I know exactly how it works andthat's how it works, and so
it's not like someone sayingthis is the best alternative,
given all the pros and cons.
This is a bunch of peoplenegotiating with themselves and
coming to some lowest commondenominator, and before we get
(10:32):
to, is it the right decision orthe wrong decision?
Let me just address the otherbig concern that people have
about confiscating the money,which is they're saying it's not
legal.
There's no law that allows youto do this, and again I want to
stress that of course it's legal.
If a country invades anothercountry and causes damages,
(10:52):
they've broken the law, they'vebroken international law and
they've got to pay for thosedamages, and there has been
absolute legal precedent of thathappening.
That happened after the firstGulf War, when Iraq invaded
Kuwait and we confiscated theircentral bank reserves.
It happened when, at the end ofthe Second World War, nazi
(11:12):
Germany we confiscated a hugeamount of their sovereign
property.
Dana Lewis (11:19):
They were cases of direct conflict, were they not?
Whereas Ukraine is….
There's a direct conflictbetween Ukraine because it's not
a war within I mean, it is partof Europe but it's not a war
within Western Europe, where thebanks are.
Bill Browder (11:32):
Well, it's a direct conflict between Russia
and Ukraine, and so Ukraine hasthe right to that money.
And so then the question is dothey have the derivative right
to that money if it's being heldsomewhere else?
And this is where there ispotential legal ambiguity.
There's no uncertainty aboutwhether they should or shouldn't
(11:52):
, it's just legal ambiguity.
And so what do you do in asituation where there's legal
ambiguity?
You create a law to resolvethat legal ambiguity.
That's exactly what the UnitedStates did.
They passed something calledthe Repo Act.
This was passed alongside the$61 billion of military aid, and
the Repo Act resolves any legalambiguity.
The United States now has thelegal right under the Repo Act
(12:15):
to confiscate Russian centralbank reserves.
The same thing could happenhere in the UK.
It could happen in Europe.
They could legislate to saythat if a country invades
another country and causesdamage, then that country's
assets in third countries can beconfiscated.
They can legislate that that'swhat lawmakers do, and that
(12:36):
would then resolve any legalambiguity.
Half-hearted, half-asseddecision of the European Union
where they're saying well, wedon't believe we can confiscate
the principle, but we somehowbelieve that it's okay to
confiscate the interest whichjust comes out.
Would that do anything?
Dana Lewis (12:53):
If that is the end of the discussion and they say,
instead of 300 billion, we'llgive them 30 billion in interest
and I know that that's a softfigure because I've read other
figures on what the interestwould be um, will that do it?
Will that accomplish the goalof, of helping ukraine at such a
(13:15):
desperate time?
Bill Browder (13:16):
well, 30 billion is greater than zero, if that's
the number.
I don't think that's the number.
I think that it's five percenton 200 billion, um, or something
like that, but in any eventmaybe 4%.
I don't know what they earn onthese deposits, but what I can
say is that if there's a concernabout confiscating principal,
there should be an equal concernabout confiscating interest.
(13:38):
That doesn't solve that legalambiguity.
You need to actually legislatefor it and once you've
legislated for it, you might aswell confiscate the whole damn
thing.
Actually legislate for it, andonce you've legislated for it,
you might as well confiscate thewhole damn thing.
And at the end of the day, thisis not going to be a question of
the stability of the financialmarkets, because that's a
complete red herring, and it'snot going to be a question of
legal ambiguity, because thatcan be resolved very easily.
(13:58):
It's going to purely be afinancial question.
And the financial question isshould the taxpayers of Europe,
should the taxpayers of the UK,should the taxpayers of the
United States, should theirfinancial resources, their money
, their taxes, be lower on thetotem pole on the pecking order
(14:19):
than Putin's rights to his money?
And I would argue that Putinhas less of a right to his money
than the taxpayers of Europeand the UK and the US and other
places to their money, and so weshould be taking Putin's money
before we take our own money.
I think we're going to have totake both in order to carry on
with this thing.
Dana Lewis (14:37):
By the way, I think the 30 billion figure comes
from.
If you did a loan or a bondover some period of time, they
would give them 30, and thenthat loan would be guaranteed by
those Russian assets over time.
That's where that number camefrom.
Bill Browder (14:52):
But again, that's an absurdity.
If we're feeling uncomfortableabout confiscating those assets,
why should anyone feelcomfortable about buying a bond
that's secured against thoseassets if you can't confiscate
them, if the bond isn't paid?
And so it all comes back to thenecessity of just confiscating
the money once and for all, andI think that it's certainly good
(15:14):
to get more money to Ukrainethan less, but at the end of the
day, this war is going onlonger than anyone wanted.
There's a huge uncertaintyabout what's going to happen in
November in the US presidentialelection.
If Trump becomes the nextpresident, which looks more
likely than not based on thecurrent poll numbers.
He's pretty much made it clearhe doesn't want to spend any
(15:35):
more money on Ukraine, whichmeans that the Europeans will
have to double down in order tokeep the same amount of aid
flowing, and the Europeansprobably don't want to double
down and tax their taxpayers.
And so how do you solve thisproblem?
Well, there's 200 billionsitting at Euroclear in Belgium,
and that could go a long waytowards funding Ukraine and
(15:57):
funding their defense andwhatever else they need.
Dana Lewis (15:59):
Let me read two quotes to you.
I'd be interested in yourcomments on them.
One is from Olena Halushka,head of the International Center
for Ukrainian Victory.
Also warns that if the assetsare withheld from Ukraine and
the country loses the war, theeconomic and security
consequences for Europe would befar worse than reputational
risks of using Russian assets.
Bill Browder (16:21):
Well, first of all , I don't think there are any
reputational risks, and she'sabsolutely right that we're
talking about.
If Russia wins, then they'regoing to be fighting at the
Estonian border and theLithuanian border and the Polish
border, or even pushing intothose countries obligation to
(16:48):
fight with Russia, and that'sgoing to be literally at the
moment, the US spends 5% oftheir military budget supporting
Ukraine.
The United States will behaving to spend the 100% of
their military budget fightingRussia, and so she's absolutely
right in that respect, which is,we should just be doing
whatever we can right now to getUkraine back on track, because
otherwise we're going to be theones engaged in this war.
Dana Lewis (17:08):
One more.
The Institute for StrategicStudies argues, we quote we have
this very strange ordering ofrisks.
Somehow we persuaded ourselvesthat it's more risky to take
Russian state money than it isto send weapons to Ukraine that
kill Russian soldiers.
That ordering makes no sense.
Bill Browder (17:26):
I agree with that as well.
There is no risk to taking thismoney.
And, by the way, there's oneother unexpected consequence,
which I actually define as anexpected consequence, which is
that who's the other countrythat has a whole lot of central
bank reserves scattered aboutthe world that's looking at
(17:46):
eyeing up invading one of theirneighbors, and that's China.
And perhaps that will changethe economic equation for China
to do the same thing.
If they see that the world isserious, that if you invade
neighbors you lose your centralbank reserves, that would be a
good consequence.
Dana Lewis (18:02):
Bill, you're always generous with your time and I
think your last question, Ipromise, and that would be look,
I have, you know, friends thatgo in and out of Russia still,
and they tell me you knoweverything's there.
Whatever you want on theshelves is still there, despite
all these talk of sanctions.
And yes, there's.
(18:23):
You know there's been someimpact on you know gas problems,
profits and and et cetera, butgenerally goods are flowing,
however they get in therethrough Tajikistan or Kazakhstan
or wherever they're coming from.
And Janet Yellen, again, the UStreasury secretary, is saying
that these, these sanctions haveto be tightened, they have to
(18:45):
work.
But despite that, the goodsseem to flow and Putin just
seems to thumb his nose at theworld.
Why?
Why is it still happening likethat?
Bill Browder (18:57):
Well, first of all , what they have on their
shelves is not going todetermine whether the war stops
or starts, or ends or begins.
What will determine whetherthis war can carry on is whether
Russia can afford.
The war stops or starts, orends or begins.
What will determine whetherthis war can carry on is whether
Russia can afford the war.
And at the moment we'vesanctioned Russia pretty
brutally.
If you look at this, we'retalking about the central bank
reserves which we've frozen.
Oligarch reserves have beenfrozen.
(19:18):
We've cut off all Russiancompanies and government
agencies and the governmentitself from the international
capital markets.
Companies have fled.
A million young, able-bodiedmen have fled.
It's a mess over there andanyone who says it's not is just
repeating Putin's spin, whichis that sanctions don't work.
(19:38):
But there is one huge loopholein this whole thing, which is
that Russia produces a lot ofoil.
They supply 10% of the world'soil and because they supply 10%
of the world's oil and we'reafraid of oil prices going up,
we're not embargoing Russian oiland, as a result, they make a
couple hundred billion dollars ayear off the sale of oil and
(19:59):
they use that money to buyweapons to kill Ukrainians.
And until, unless and until wesomehow figure out how to
increase oil productionelsewhere so that we can embargo
Russian oil, they're going toalways have enough money to do
this.
Or if, for some reason, the oilprice were to collapse, maybe
that would stop them as well.
And so that's the problem.
(20:21):
And that's the $ 200 billiondollar question, which is, how
do you stop them from, fromgetting that 200 billion dollars
to buy weapons to killukrainians, because they're
they're they're basicallygetting the money indirectly
from us, and then we're havingto pay the ukrainians money to
fight them back.
It'll be better if they justdidn't have the money to fight
in the first place bill browder,always great to see you.
Dana Lewis (20:44):
Thank you so much, bill.
Bill Browder (20:45):
Thank you.
Dana Lewis (20:52):
Shaheen Gubadi is a Paris-based National Council of
Resistance of Iran member,which is the political arm of
the MEK.
Is that right, Shaheen?
Shahin Gobadi (21:03):
Well, the National Council of Resistance
of Iran is basically a politicalcoalition which is against the
Shah and against a politicalregime in Iran, trying to
establish a democratic, secularrepublic in Iran.
And the People's MujahideenOrganization of Iran, also known
as MBK, as we said, is the mainmember organization of the NCRI
(21:26):
which, as I said, is apolitical coalition.
Dana Lewis (21:30):
The funerals have started in Iran, as you know now
for President Raisi and theforeign minister and others that
were killed in the helicoptercrash.
You see an orderly funeralprocession taking place today.
What is happening?
Do you think away from thatfuneral procession?
(21:50):
Are people really mourning thepassing of this man?
Shahin Gobadi (21:56):
Actually, quite to the contrary, people are
celebrating because he wasdeeply, deeply hated by the
Iranian regime.
He was loathed by the Iranianregime for a very good reason.
Actually, raisi was known asthe butcher of Tehran, and the
reason was that throughout thepast 45 years, since basically
(22:18):
the inception of this despoticrule in Iran, raisi played a key
role in suppressing, killingIranians, dissidents and people
from all over the country.
He joined the regime when hewas only 19, and the only thing
that there was in his resume waskilling, killing, killing and
(22:41):
repression, repression,repression.
That was his only achievement.
He was a total obedient of thesupreme leader first Ruhollah
Khomeini, then Ali Khamenei.
Dana Lewis (22:50):
What happened in the 1980s under Raisi.
How many people were killed?
Shahin Gobadi (22:57):
Well, actually, in 1988, to be exact when Raisi
was then the deputy prosecutorof Tehran Khomeini issued an
order basically saying anypolitical prisoner primarily the
members and activists of thePeople's Mujahideen Organization
(23:17):
of Iran who remain steadfastand firm in their beliefs for
democracy and human rights,should be immediately killed
with no mercy.
And to that effect, he set updeath commissions throughout the
country and in Tehran therewere four people who were
assigned to do this, and IbrahimRaisi was one of them.
In a matter of a few months,30,000 political prisoners, men
(23:39):
and women, were massacred aftergoing through sham trials that
last one, two or three minutes,massacred after going through
sham trials that last one, twoor three minutes.
In Tehran alone, thousands ofpolitical prisoners were
massacred, and Ebrahim Raisiplayed a very, very direct role
to that effect and that was oneof his basically records Some of
(24:02):
the human rights groups whohave written about that have
said things.
Dana Lewis (24:04):
Like you know, when you say sham trials, people
were asked one question or twoquestions and put to death by
the state after that, and then,most recently, he was really the
captain of the ship when itcame to the clampdown on the
hijab and the deaths of some ofthese women in custody.
(24:28):
Is that right, yeah?
Shahin Gobadi (24:31):
Well, I was about to get to that, actually first
about in 1988, as you said,there was first one.
Only one question was asked whyare you in prison?
And if you say because I wasaffiliated to the MEK or the
People's Mujahideen Organizationin Iran, that was enough.
No second question was askedand you were immediately sent to
(24:51):
the gallows.
There are a few survivors, veryfew survivors, who have
survived that process and theyhave basically explained to the
world, have exposed howatrocious it was.
It was by all definition, bymany, many, many prominent
international human rightsjurists, a crime against
humanity, probably one of theworst cases of the second part
(25:13):
of the world, second part of the20th century, which,
unfortunately, has gone verymuch unexposed, and the regime
leaders, who are all involved,including El Raisi, have not
been held accountable for theircrimes against humanity.
Now, more recent, for instance,in 2019, there was, as some
(25:34):
might remember, a massiveuprising by Iranians.
People came to streets all overthe country, in 200 plus cities
, asking for the overthrow ofthe regime.
They were protesting againstthe regime barehanded and 1,500
of them were massacred in amatter of two days and they were
(25:55):
shot at directly by, you know,live ammunition, and at that
time, ebrahim Raisi was head ofthe judiciary and he directly
played a big role in massacringthese protesters, many of them
teenagers, obviously, many, manyof them women, of them women.
(26:15):
So, as I said, his onlyachievement was killing, killing
, killing, and that's why he wasloathed by Iranian people from
all age groups and all stratathroughout the country and, as
Madame Mariam Rajavi, thepresent elect of the National
Council of Resistance of Iran,said yesterday, rais's legacy
was basically the wrath of allthese people who had lost their
(26:37):
loved ones, their sons anddaughters, in hands of this
regime, particularly by Raisi.
Dana Lewis (26:42):
So why was he put in charge as president?
I mean, they talk aboutelections, but they were very
controlled votes.
The voter turnout was dismal.
I mean, a lot of Iranians haveeven turned away from the
so-called democratic process.
Khamenei put him in charge aspresident.
Why?
Because it was a transition andhe was seen as the guy who
(27:05):
could do what.
Shahin Gobadi (27:08):
I think this is the key issue for understanding
what's going to happen next andwhy.
As Madame Rajavi said yesterday, we believe this was a
monumental, irreparablestrategic blow to the regime.
You see, there have been fourmajor nationwide uprisings since
(27:30):
2018 in Iran, one bigger thanthe other, 2018, 2019.
And you saw the latest one in2022, which went well into 2023,
all getting bigger, moreinclusive, more pervasive and
all demanding the regime'soverthrow and establishment of a
(27:50):
democratic, secular republic,rejecting any form of
dictatorship, being the currentone or the former one by the
Shah.
So Ali Khamenei, the supremeleader, who saw this momentum
and realized how things aregoing, realized that the only
way that he can, in his owncalculation, forestall the
overthrow of the regime is tocircle the values you know, get
(28:15):
rid of any kind of rift withinthe regime, make it totally
unipolar and bring the henchmenor the killer at the helm of
things.
And the most suitable personfor that mission was Ibrahim
Raisi, given his record.
So that's why he was propped upand handpicked and basically
(28:36):
selected by Khamenei for thisposition.
When it comes to Iran, I thinkit's a mockery and a joke to
talk about elections.
It has always been a farce.
Anybody who wants to be even acandidate, has to prove his or
her loyalty to the SupremeLeader in actions and in belief.
And they have to go through somany filters and watchdogs.
(28:59):
And unless they have total,total, absolute loyalty, they
are not going to be even put inthe ballots.
And for years the regime playedwith this game and in the last
few years it has become quiteevident that this is only, as I
said, a farce.
And now it's become evidentthat overwhelming majority of
the Iranians shun this gambitand even the regime cannot
(29:20):
pretend that the majority ofIranians take part in this.
Dana Lewis (29:26):
What can happen now ?
I mean, they're trying to havea smooth transition.
They're going to have anotherelection.
What can potentially happenbetween, say, in the next 50
days?
Do you think?
Shahin Gobadi (29:36):
Well, first of all, one has to realize what
happened.
As I said, loss of EbrahimRaisi was a big, big blow to
Khamenei and the strategy thathe was pursuing, because
Khamenei needed to, as I said,intensify clamping down, but it
does not limit it to inside Iran.
(29:57):
He also needed to intensify theregime's foreign intervention
and warmongering, and that'sexactly what we saw in the last
few years, particularly the lastfew months.
As you know, the Iranian regimehas been acting as the head of
(30:18):
the snake so far as it pertainsto terrorism and belligerence in
the region.
And who was the man, who was themain implementer of Khamenei's
objective?
Ebrahim Raisi, who put all theresources and help and
everything at the service of theregime's proxies, in line and
in tandem with the RevolutionaryGuards, and also so far as it
pertains to the regime'sinvolvement in the war between
(30:41):
Russia and Ukraine by providingdrones to Russia.
So basically, as I said,khamenei knew that in order to
keep the regime in power, he hasto rely on someone like Ibrahim
Raisi as the implementer.
Now Ibrahim Raisi is gone, soit will be very difficult for
(31:01):
Ali Khamenei to find someonelike him.
So, basically, his strategy isnot, as we see, the major, major
blow.
Basically, everything to thateffect has gone to a score of
one.
He has to start from scratchand that takes a lot of time and
effort.
And also one has to remember inorder to bring about what
happened, khamenei had to get alot of even the regime's
(31:24):
insiders and loyalists in favorof Raisi the people who believed
in him.
But they were not as loyal asRaisi Because there are
different factions in there,correct?
Exactly Factions and even thepeople who were not as absolute
loyal that was needed for thisposition.
Let's move like this.
So how many has received amajor blow.
The faction, the feuding at theheight of the regime will
(31:47):
exacerbate because, as I said,people are vying and they
realize that Supreme Leader hasbecome weaker, and so on and so
forth.
But also, so far as the societyis concerned, that will create
some kind of situation that inthe process and I emphasize, in
the process makes it easier forpeople to show their dissent.
(32:08):
It's not by what Khameneidesires, but that's what the
reality will happen.
Now, so far as Khamenei isconcerned, he has two choices
either to open up or to evenfurther intensify execution,
killing, middling in the affairsof the region and drive for
nuclear weapons.
It's absolutely impossible forhim to take the first because
(32:32):
the moment he opens up, it willonly expedite and accelerate the
regime's overthrow and he willsee a massive, massive uprising,
given the deep, profoundgrievances that exist in the
society.
So he has to intensify more onkillings, belligerence and drive
for nuclear weapons, and that'swhat he will intend on.
What will happen is in thissituation, but the regime in
(32:55):
totality will be much weaker and, as I said, the peoples will
become much more active as we goalong.
Dana Lewis (33:04):
You predicted they're going to try to tighten
the stranglehold that theyalready have on people in Iran,
but it seems to me you're sayingall it needs is a spark.
Whatever that could be, therecould be an incident near the
funeral weeks after the funeralin the elections, and that may
(33:26):
be enough to ignite the streetand create real possible change
in Iran.
Shahin Gobadi (33:33):
Definitely, and you don't have to rely on my
words on this.
The Iranian state press, evenbefore Raisi's death, is riddled
about this talk and basically,so far as the regime and how
many are concerned, it's anxiety, and that's our backstory this
week.
Dana Lewis (33:52):
The war in Ukraine isn't going well.
Russia keeps throwing moretroops into the grinder, more
missiles, more bombs, you'dthink.
After well, it's almost threeyears, it's into its third year
that President Putin would tireof all this.
He won't, because the war keepshim in power and that's really
all he cares about.
(34:12):
Thanks for listening toBackstory.
I'm Dana Lewis and I's reallyall he cares about.
Thanks for listening toBackstory.
No-transcript.
Popular Podcasts
Bookmarked by Reese's Book Club
Welcome to Bookmarked by Reese’s Book Club — the podcast where great stories, bold women, and irresistible conversations collide! Hosted by award-winning journalist Danielle Robay, each week new episodes balance thoughtful literary insight with the fervor of buzzy book trends, pop culture and more. Bookmarked brings together celebrities, tastemakers, influencers and authors from Reese's Book Club and beyond to share stories that transcend the page. Pull up a chair. You’re not just listening — you’re part of the conversation.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com