PREVIOUSLY POSTED REMINDED

"I think a leader such as Reza Pahlavi would be more appropriate to head an interim government until proper referendums take place".

The drawback of an immediate monarchy, for which I remained in Iran after the Shah left and for which I had fought against the revolution would be too vulnerable to being accused of the bloodshed needed to remove the Mullahs. It would come back to bite it.

Which is why I suggest coming to terms - temporarily - with the MEK (Mojahedin) and use them as the eradicators. Let them spill the blood of the Mullahs, whom they hate deeply on a personal level rather than politically or philosophically. the Mullahs executed some 30,000 of them after severe torture.

Clearly they realize the peril of accepting and being removed themselves but the chance to seize power will overcome this awareness of only being a stop gap measure. Presently they ask for a six month grace period after being allowed and supported into Iran to hold elections.

In fact the two years to which I refer will be the time frame needed (in reality) to remove the MEK from power. It will not be easy but much easier than the Mullahs with over a quarter century (recent terms) of putting down roots into the populace. The MEK will have very tentative roots.

Reza Pahlavi would best arrive to rid Iran of the Marxist(MEK), the bloody murderers of so many "devout" Iranians (Mullahs etc.) and spill what can be termed "non-Moslem" blood, putting the Marxist tag onto the MEK with less taint.

The strategy for this is to have the young Shah form a government in exile immediately after the MEK move into Iran and literally eradicate the Mullahs, probably with one swinging on every lamppost from Tehran to Shemiran for starters.

"Personally, I am against an invasion (Iraqi style)".

So am I, since it would not be necessary after turning all military personnel and equipment into bloody dust and rubble with conventional bombing raids. But surgical strikes will be self-defeating if we want a future democracy or something like it in the future under a Constitutional Monarchy. (Which incidentally is probably the only umbrella or catalyst which might succeed in keeping the country in one piece instead of pieces and orchestrate a democratic system).

The late Shah had already started doing this when Carter interrupted everything and gave birth to the chaos we now face. Long gestation but his child nevertheless.

"But it must be ‘perceived’ as an internal event".

That would be best but a perception that America had finally had enough of being Mr. Nice Guy and had stepped in to save the world (constant post regime-change PR must be ready and budgeted) and would not hurt in the war against terror as a whole.

As I have suggested the regime change needs a two or three phase strategy.

1. Destroy ALL military equipment in conventional bombing raids and destroy or bury all known nuclear or WMD sites using the 24/7 Persian broadcasts for which about $50 million easer being requested by State Dept. to help warn and thus minimize residents living on top of such sites. Killing IRGC military personnel is a part of war and "legitimate". They would be free to desert and leave the IRGC to be "sorted out legally" later by civilians depending on their alleged participation in "crimes against the people". (Again MEK in charge and ending up as the bad guys).

2. Allow (or initially be unable to prevent) the MEK to form an Interim Government inside Iran, like Khomeini did with Bazargan.

3. Establish and recognize a government in exile for Reza Pahlavi and work on getting demonstrations inside Iran supporting him and ASKING him to return. Thus legitimized, he can come and remove the MEK.

I'm presenting this simplistically but without other options, I cannot figure out a better way to have a regime change and a lasting, stable situation later. Instead of the kind of coup after coup every few years that there was in Iraq till Saddam established a ruthless stranglehold some decades ago.