The mullahs are insecure and fear a "soft" revolution. In some ways, this is already taking place. Most of the population is under 30 and has no connection to the 1979 revolution. Even their parents, those who survived the Iran-Iraq war, have changed their views since 1979. The tactics of 'positioning' by the West have failed, and continue to fail as an ineffectual way to enact change. Engagement through dialogue (as we did with Russia and China) would produce better results; after all, the population is a great deal unsympathetic to the priorities of the fundamentalist regime, and open to the West, and more democratic ways of thinking.

When we label Hezbollah and Hamas as terrorist organizations supported by Iran, we fail to understand why they exist--they were born out of Western, primarily Israeli, oppression and occupation. They also provide political and social systems in their communities, from healthcare to welfare to retirement and education. It is important also that we see the US has supported similar groups to represent our interests. If Hezbollah is proxy to Iran, then Israel is proxy to the US--the occupations, attacks on civilians and civilian casualties in Palestine and Lebanon prove as terrorist tactics as anything produced on the Iranian side. Also, we need to look at the history--in 1953, it was the CIA that orchestrated the overthrow of the Iranian nationalist government in deference to the Shah, puppet of the West. What we lack here is a real understanding of Iran, the complexities of the issues, and a picture of the Iranian people who can be supported in their efforts to enact change in the government. It was only a few years ago that the reform movement, under president Khatami, offered hope of real changes in Iran. Unfortunately, when he reached out to the US for support, he was ignored, opening the way for Achmedenijad since the reform movement, without aid from the West, proved ineffectual. We have had opportunity after opportunity, even under the current regime (Iran's aid in our invasion of Afghanistan is a prime example), but we do not take advantage of these opportunities, nor do we change our fundamentally flawed imperialistic approach of detachment and positioning that leads us to further conflict and ultimately, confrontation.

Dear Sir
Proponents of Western strategy of isolating "Iranian regime" in the hope of forcing the young and inteligencia to reject the entire Islamic Republic as a system of governance is to deny the entire population reasons for which they brought the 1979 Revolution in the first place. The socio-political landscape, in which all Iranians, regardless of their race or creed would come together to rebirh an enduring independence from East and the West. So that the entire nation would reclaim its identity and to belong as Iranians. What is happenning today of course, is a belated attempt by both East and the West to undermine the moral of its people or and even destroy that very goal of the revolution, which is Iran's independence as a determined and powerful sovereign nation. Iranians do not need nuclear arsenal to deter their enemies: It is their proven faith-based prowess, modern conventional military and technological progress that would make Iran a regional super-power. And certainly, they do not need either appretiation or the aproval of Washington to attain and sustain that progress. Moreover, because they are cultured and politically matured, Iranians could and do have the capacity to stand as a solid stabilising force that would benefit the entire region. Of course, much to the discomfort of old foes!

According to surveys taken in Iran in early 2008 by WorldPublicOpinion.org and Terror Free Tomorrow:

Most Iranians support a number of democratic principles, including the long-run goals of "ensuring free elections" (82% important, including 55% very important) and "ensuring a free press" (78% important, including 50% very important). Iranians express much greater support for a government in which "the Supreme Leader, along with all leaders, can be chosen and replaced by a free and direct vote of the people" (86% support, including 71% strongly support) than for a government in which "the Supreme Leader rules according to religious principles and cannot be chosen or replaced by a direct vote of the people" (38% support, including 19% strongly support). [TFT, QQ 14e-f, 23a-b]

Nevertheless, on separate questions a clear majority of Iranians express satisfaction with the "process by which the authorities are elected in this country" (62%, including 18% very satisfied and 44% somewhat satisfied) and approved of "the way President Ahmadinejad is handling his job as president" (66%). [WPO, QQ 40, 45] These approval ratings lie roughly midway between Iranian support for the "ideal" of a free and direct popular vote for political leaders (86% support - see paragraph above) and support for a religious autocracy (38%). While many observers characterize the present Iranian political system as a religious autocracy, evidently many Iranians do not see it that way.

Source:
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/527.php

http://www.bibijon.org/iranimage/

I think the answer's obvious as the Iranian regime, self-admittedly, does not speak for the people, but for the ideology and opinions of a small group of abberant clerics who seized power in a coup d'etat in 1979. A small clique of relgious idealist have imposed their own agenda on the Iranian people by force of arms (after coopting the other dissident groups by ruse just prior to the "revolution" then systematically killing them off shortly after seizing power), and are perfectly willing to sacrifice another 70 million people for the fallible and millenialist thoughts of a small cabal of men. The author must know this, so it's fairly obvious who he speaks for.

Stating that:

"To change Iran's behavior, the US should guarantee Iran's survival."

Does the writer mean the US must guarantee Iran's Government survival?

Yes, the despotic Iranian mullahs are scared and insecure -- that's why they open official government meetings with chants of "Death to America," that's why they kidnapped our embassy personnel (which was, incidentally, the US organ for negotiations with Iran) for 444 days, that's why they blew up the barracks of our Marines on a peace keeping mission in Lebanon (incidentally, not on their "threatened" territory) through their proxy Hezbollah in 1983; that's why they tried to export their violent revolution to Bahrain and numerous other Gulf countries (ending in utter failure, of course); that's why they continuously engage in and fund terrorist activities across the world (e.g. TWA 847 airline skyjacking in Athens, killing passenger Robert Stehem in Lebanon; Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia; Buenos Aires Jewish Cultural Center bombing in 1994). Yes, they are just insecure. Incidentally, all the incidents listed (aside from the "Death to America" chants, were done on foreign soil. Looks like they are a nutty bellicose terror projecting regime to me. And I don't think Barak Obama will like how the mullahs are repressing their own people too much to fill their pockets. "Insecure...." Wow, that's really weird.

I am certain the Middle East tyrants cannot wait until Chairwoman Pelosi's lapdog takes charge and the US turns its back.