believe the wait for change. the only way to get rid of tyrants like these is to kill them dead. if you just exile them or kind of wait around or let them hang around or put them in prison, they will be there to cause more trouble. i think you have to make that change. if do you, there are plenty of americans here who will push congress to back you up to get off the dime. i think america is being too wimpy about these public statements and i think we have to do better than president obama is doing right now in that respe respect. host: who is it exactly you want to kill? caller: i guess can you start with ahmadinejad if not haminai or anyone who works for him sent

out to beat people, shoot people, round them up and torture them. and anybody that is backing the terrorists and giving money to isbala and hamas and bombing our shores. host: you believe that kind of action will bring resolution to this dispute? caller: i believe it is necessary to bring resolution to this dispute. guest: thank you for the call, caller. it is certainly an opinion that is shared by -- i don't know how many, but i'm sure a number of people would agree with the call. i don't see how that could be a possibility of giving the situation here -- i mean, we're talking about killing people. i'm not sure if blood -- as they say, blood begets blood. i'm not sure if that is in the future for iran or if it is possible at all to go and start killing people. so i just think that there is a

difference of opinion in regards to how the situation should be looked at and approached. again, you know, you got to differentiate the changes in the society in the oppressive regime and essentially iran had a long history of trying to combat this if a somewhat of nonviolent manner. host: in "the washington post" in the world section, iran's stealing chief cleric. why haven't we seen more of i iotola commentinayatollah comme? >> we are seeing him taking issue. this is how he survived. probably most of you may know the way he became the supreme leader. he did not have the proper qualification or credentials to

be an iotola. essentially, the person who was going to take over, the founder of the islamic state, he was basically pushed out and has been under house arrest for 30 years now. they decided to ratify the constitution to allow for ayatollah khameni to have that position. ahmadinejad is one of the people who elevate khameni to that position. the way he has survived, having all the insecurities is to say, as i said, above the fray and out of the personal conflicts and essentially, once in a

while, if it becomes an issue come out and install some of them yourself. host: up next, the first of two calls from chicago. this is gloria on the line for democrats. welcome to "washington journal." caller: good morning. this is my second time calling. i just tuned in and i heard the gentleman call talking about killing people. a lot of people think about that. i am so happy that the president did come out and speak on the matter. we shouldn't stick our nose in what is going on in iran. that is what the u.s. always do. we have the people on the focus on the people in iran, have you senators calling out to bomb iran. what happened -- it is just so phony. they're not even concerned about what is going on in america. people without health care, people dying on the street.

where is the outrage when you have people dieing on your streets. they're so concerned about what is going on over there, i think it is a political play on the republican side. i have more to say, you call in and want to say so much. you forget what you want to say. i'm happy that the president is handling this situation the way he is. i think he's not a cream puff. everyone wants to insight more war, go over and bomb and kill. the approach the president -- how he's going by it, i think it is the right way. we shouldn't interrupt. we shouldn't stick our nose in their affairs. host: based on what the president said so far and the things you're hear coming out of iran, what has been the reaction of the people there? do they appreciate what the president has said or has not said, for that matter? guest: i think you will find a good number of people asking for more. i think the majority, if you

take the pulse, the majority are happy with the way that it is, at the moment. really, we have to see how it will turn. i'm sure that mr. musabi, the main challenger, is saying i don't need anyone's support outside of iran. this is an issue for the iranian people. thoen these kind of movements,

it could be the challenger's hand in a mass rally. it could be any given moment that changes the mood of the movement and turns it into something nobody could ever calculate. he goes back and makes the point of the revolution of 1979, that not many people in the u.s. including the cia expected that to take place. this is a dilemma and challenge the white house is facing. do you see what you want to get whether? do you think it is credible enough to seize that moment? as president obama has insisted, given the history of iran-u.s. relations. host: second call from chicago is from gene on the line per independents. welcome. caller: 90% of americans don't know what the usz has done since 1963. this has been festering all of those years. not only iran. the united states has done this

in many countries to keep in power the complex and all the republican-type people who are brain washed and said kill, kill, kill, take over the whole world to get resources. another thing, we have no right to tell people not to have a weapon unless we get rid of a weapon ourselves in the same way. also, as far as obama says, he's satisfied with the election, well, it is not his duty to say that. he should keep his mouth shut about it altogether and let the people over there decide what to do. because if some of the other groups beside the one that gets to take over, a riot will turn out just like in the united states from the ghettos of nomadics and alcoholics and prostituted and people that ruin the society. trying to keep the society honest and pure and not in the corruption and greed and

ignorance. host: we will leave it there. guest: i think the situation of 1953 and u.s. involvement has been documented. i have to say a great deal of this was coming together. the british government was extremely upset at some of the movements by the newly appointed prime minister, who was a nationalist. he did aspire to a more open democratic system. the british were upset when that took place. there, they wanted to nationalize it. that was a major issue. they have collided with the united states. one, there was massive uprising in tehran and iran which led the shah to leave the country and go to rome. he was scared and basically took off and left. it was a possible uprising.

u.s.'s concern was at the time of the doctrine -- around the iron curtain. the green belt they used to call it at some point, to basically any advances the soviet union might want to make into iran. iran is an extremely important geo political nation. that is something at the time the u.s. was interested in protecting and preserving. the interests collided with one another. there was a british cia-hatched coup that was hatched that brought back the shah. host: in a speech made yesterday, he talk abouts

brittain. since the revolution, it might be the source for the leader when the government faces its greatest crisis in 30 years. why don't we hear more about this relationship between iran and great britain? guest: i'm going to say for those listening that were born in that culture. there has been a historic animosity between the clerics -- this goes back a century or so and the british. we're talking about the british empire and afghanistan and so on and so forth. there is a famous saying, a famous book that was a slogan that said that everything that happens in iran is work of the british. it is a well-known thing. that goes back to the interest of the british have had in that region, particularly in iran.

that is one aspect of it. the other is actually as i monitor the awnian media from state with the opposition newspapers and such. i think the fact that mr. obama has basically not gone out in support of the protestors, he voiced concern, but hoe hasn't condemned the regime has also led into the u.s. being spared this wrath right now. of course, saz we have seen before -- as we have seen before, it doesn't take much for that change. that is one thing that i noticed in the press in the last couple of days, they're saying we're glad mr. obama is not modeling in -- meddling in the system. host: republican line, your on the "washington journal." how are you doing?

caller: my key question is regarding the ayatollah. the president of iran has somebody above him. in the united states, the president is coequal person with the congress, senate, judiciary. in their country, it is a different-type system. i don't understand the interpersonal relationship between the two. that is part of it. the next thing is, i made a comment that i think obama needs to play a fidelity game here of not antagonizing the current regime, you know, because basically, all up in the air. the antagonizes the regime, it will hurt him. and at the same time, if he pushes too hard, you know, it could go against all the things he's talking about.

he's basically moving away from the imposing freedom on the world, which i think is a bad idea. so let the people choose what they want. if they want communism, let them have it. if they want democracy, let them have it. let it be their own. >> if you go online to "the washington post," you will see a flowchart that outlines the responsibilities of the supreme leader and what is related to him and how he administers his power. go ahead. guest: you are basically correct. according to the islamic constitution, iran is part of the ss atlantic sa bead. which means the rule of jurisprudence, loosely translated. the idea is in the absence of a direct descendent of muhammad to

rule this country. this is a shiite belief also. in the absence of one of those leaders, his representative will overlook the islamic state. they believe in the 12 that will come back and reappear on judgment day. so they want to make sure -- again, resolving it to some theoretical issues here that is deeper than that. they want to keep pure islamic faith ready for us. the supreme leader is the man responsible for some of those important decisions that are made in regards to the country, particularly the foreign policy, in this specific case, the nuclear issue as well. and the president is the second in command, essentially. they don't have to like one another. in fact, the former president hasami, the sum prepare leader

and he did not get along that well. the interesting thing is mr mr. hamanii -- i was in iran during the last round of elections, he doesn't necessarily like mr. ahmadinejad that much. nor does mr. ahmadinejad have that much respect for mr mr. khameni because he feels it should be led by someone who has more experience not by khameni who was pushed into that position. they're useful to each other. there is risks. i think he has used mr. ahmadinejad to push his

rival back. host: tim in davenport, iowa, welcome. caller: i believe in the president's position. i hope he stands by his guns. second of all, i can't speak enough of the admiration of the iranian citizens taking to the streets and standing up for their rights. question,io do you think our congress is taking opposition to this, what do they look to gain from it? guest: congress has to deal with constituents. the constituents that we have in this country, the iranian-americans, in particular, i think if you wanted to poll, the majority of them would probably expect something stronger from the president or from the members of the congress. the one thing that also you do have to realize is that i think there is a sense and maybe it is

known up on the hill, maybe it is not, i don't know. but iran, particularly the powers in iran, mostly look at white house and what white house says as the official policy of the united states or what the united states intents to do. they're not as much -- they don't pay as much attention to the congress as a bill. i think they're kind of maturing in that area and realizing that some of these bills that is ratified in the congress, for example, or initiated in the congress that has led to really harsh sanctions against them that has been cutting them off from a number of markets. so they're getting modern movement in that regard, but i think still they look at the white house as the official "where is the united states? what is the united states saying and what can they do with the

congress"? >> i think it doesn't have as much of the negative impact as th that. host: the iotoa has control over the outcome. guest: he doesn't go into the room and come up with a decision. he's known as someone who has difficulty making decisions. the great deal is his advisors. most of his advisors are related him by blood and marriage and so forth. also most importantly, i need to emphasize, the role that some of the members of the revolutionary guard, essentially, if you want to make translations are guardians as revolution, but known as revolutionary guards. the upper echelon of that organization that consulted with

him in regards to the nuclear. program. even though it is his word, but he works with the consensus. host: new jersey on our line for independents. jaden, you are next. caller: yes. i have a couple of comments to make. number one, other than israel, it seems to be the fairest connection in the middle east ever. hamas connection was feared, but we in the united states have chose not to accept that. to me, ahmadinejad has allowed the protest so far. the election campaign has been allowed. it seems that this election has appeared on israel to the best tank. and, you know a tank. if you take it to the confrontation, each in southern

arabia, i don't think they allow more civil rights than what the present regime of iran has allowed. [inaudible] some people have died in the end. so long, these kind of protests and fighting are not allowed. but he has allowed so far. i think it is only politically correct to condemn everything they do. the election has not been the fairest but i think the minority -- the decided majority is keeping quiet. any young men who might have been 30%, 40% who are in the opposition, they're protesting so [inaudible] so that i think what happens is there are similar movements in the united states. [inaudibl [inaudible]. host: are we looking at something that could turn into major civil unrest?

guest: it may. as far as i'm concerned, there are two or three things that need to take place for this to go beyond just these protests that we see and kind of have this sustained opposition to whatever it may be. right now, it may be for the fact that they feel cheated in the election. beyond that, if you allow it to go on and come against the regime as a whole, the islamic regime. two things that come to mind for this to sustain itself, if you want to call it a movement, meet a ledder, maybe not necessarily -- a leader, maybe not the most inspiring leader with the passionate rhetoric or speech skills, but someone who is part of the system. that is one of the reasons that mr. musavid, the challenger, has

been able to form the protests and rallies. he was a former prime minister during the iran-iraq war. he was extremely possible with ayatollah, the founder of the islamic state. he has the credentials, if you will. he is part of the system. he needs that kind of leader. that will give excuse to the authorities to pour out and say this is another revolution. we will beat you down. the second thing, i think, is it needs to expand beyond some other major cities to have some major impact. i have a feeling that some of the reports we have gotten from some of the cities in hamas and sheran, they're acting a little wit, the governmental affiliated sources are acting more brutally in other cities because there is not much report coming out of those cities as much as we see and hear out of tehran.

so these two things need to take place for this to become a major movement that would impact -- that would have such an impact to change the regime of maybe not fundamentally, but to a degree that, you know, we can say that this was the moment for us. as far as being a fair election, i'm not sure. you have a mechanism that allows for a certain people to run. there were 400-plus people who registered to be candidates for president, but only four were qualified by the garden council, which is the body. i don't know about the election. host: mike on the line from georgia for republicans. go ahead. caller: can you hear me? host: go ahead. caller: i want to piggyback on what a number of other callers said this morning inspect is

totally inappropriate for the united states to be interfering in the sovereign politics of a foreign country. one of the gentlemen that called in said most people in the united states weren't aware of what previously happened there. i think most of them are, that is why so many of them are objecting to this. they are pre -- if they weren't they should read "preparing the battlefield." it refers to the funding that went into the end of his term, to put more forces in iran. they're in there now. there is funding disruption of the country. this takes the focus off of what needs to be discussed in our country, which is ridding ourselves of the federal reserve. if we look at anything in another country we should look at palestine and not the internal politics of iran.

host: mr. yektafar? guest: i'm not sure what i have to say will relate to some of the things said by the caller, but we keep refer to this meddling of the united states and iran. there are plenty of books you can read the history of cia and other systems that have been formed to meddle as you say and other nations internal affairs. one may ask if there is all this, why is there such good will from the iranians toward americans. aside the fact that a number of iranian americans here with relatives in iran. there is the connection to the two. for a number of years, the americans that did go to iran in a number of ways helped iran become the kind of strong state that it did become in the 20th century. a member of some amazing

educational institutions were formed by americans, some very well known schools were founded by missionary and otherwise. the police system in iran was pretty much shaped by a number of americans. so on and so forth. i mean, there has been this long-term relationship. i think when president obama makes the reference to the history of iran relations, most think of the 1963 and post that in regards to the relations of the two countries. it goes beyond that and it has its ups and downs. host: mr. yektafar thank you for being on the program. guest: thank you. host: what is coming up later on "washington journal" today. next up rick rosendall with the

national gay alliance. and nelson smith with the charter schools. and the state department will be here to talk to us about human trafficking. ..