'A race against time': what does 'seriously talk' really mean?; will the regime seriously discuss its violations of human rights at home?(Reza Pahlavi)(Interview)(Excerpt)

Byline: Rachel Makabi

Reza Pahlavi was just a teenager in 1979 when an Islamic revolution in Iran ousted his father, the shah. In the years since, Pahlavi, who now lives in Maryland, has been involved with activists both inside Iran and abroad who seek to overthrow the mullahs from power. As the Iranian government continued to stonewall on the nuclear issue--with the United States calling for sanctions despite Iran's offer to "talk seriously"--NEWSWEEK's Rachel Makabi spoke to Pahlavi, 46, to get his thoughts on the standoff, the effectiveness of U.S. policy toward Iran and his ongoing work with Iranian dissidents. Excerpts:

Makabi: What do you make of Iran's latest nuclear proposal?

Pahlavi: The regime's response to [U.N.] Security Council Resolution 1696 was predictable, as it was simply a variation of double talk--a tactic they have now mastered to an art form. What does the regime's offer to "seriously talk" really mean? Will it seriously discuss its violations of human rights at home? Will it seriously discuss its patronage of regional militancy? I think not. [This] is a race against time. Will it get the bomb first, thereby bullying the world into appeasement, or will there be an actual convergence of domestic and international pressures [on the regime]?

What do you think will happen if China or Russia resists imposing sanctions?

Accepting the regime's rejection of the Security Council's demand for an immediate enrichment freeze will erode the prestige and moral authority of the United Nations, which for some time has been in need of rehabilitation. As permanent members, Russia and China bear important responsibility to not weaken the words, actions and authority of the Security Council.

Are you in favor of military intervention?