Head of the Iranian Studies department at Stanford University in California, his biography of the last monarch of the Persian nation - titled The Shah - provides a well-documented overview of the Iranian dictator whose overthrow led to a revolution, which in turn was controlled by Islamists led by Ayatollah Khomeini.
"The paradox of the Shah's fall is that almost all those who advocated modernity formed an alliance against the Shah and chose as their leader the greatest enemy of modernity," wrote Abbas Milani in that book published in 2011, during the height of the so-called Arab Spring.
Milani, born in Tehran in 1949, was imprisoned by the autocrat and later earned the animosity of the new regime, the clerical theocracy, which forced him to leave the country in 1986. The Iran specialist has authored nearly twenty books and over 200 essays on the Persian nation.
What is your opinion on the 12-day war between Israel and Iran?
It was an unnecessary war for Iran that most Iranians would not have supported. It was the result of a senseless decision by Jamenei to think that the destruction of Israel is a strategic priority for Iran, something that I don't believe the majority of Iranians share. The war didn't surprise me. Israel saw Iran at its weakest and decided to attack. The most surprising thing is to see how a regime that constantly talks about fighting against Israel, pointing out all the evils they see in that country, was completely unprepared for that attack. Although the regime claims victory, they are the ones who have suffered the most.
Following the Israeli offensive, there has been an increase in voices of Iranian politicians and leaders advocating for the need to build a nuclear bomb, precisely to prevent another similar assault. They also advocate for Iran to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. What is your opinion on these statements?
I believe for now they are just rhetorical threats. They use them as a form of deterrence but it hasn't worked. The Iranian threat to develop a bomb has been ongoing for a year and a half.
They have not decided to build it because Jamenei opposes it.How important are Jamenei's religious guidelines against the development of nuclear weapons?
Jamenei has stated that (nuclear weapons) are against religion, but religious edicts can change. Shia jurisprudence is dynamic, it evolves. There were edicts against caviar, Coca-Cola, radio. And now they are history. Jamenei has not changed his opinion, but all those statements in favor of nuclear weapons make me think he wants to use the ability to build it quickly as a deterrent.
Do you believe that Iran uses the capability that every country with a nuclear industry has to choose to build atomic weapons as a deterrent or is it really determined to acquire a nuclear arsenal?
No one doubts that the regime has studied and prepared to conduct experiments to build an atomic bomb. And develop missiles that can carry it. We can accept that they adhere to the idea of never using it (similar to the thesis of "we will never be the first to introduce nuclear weapons in the Middle East," proclaimed by Israel, which does have a nuclear arsenal), but they want to build it. When they say they can build it overnight (several figures of the regime like Ahmad Haghtalab, the head of the Revolutionary Guard's nuclear facilities, have expressed this), you have to believe them. They may do it for deterrence, but it's not just that. Israel has hundreds of nuclear bombs.
You have stated that the ayatollah regime will fall, sooner or later, but it should not be deposed by foreign intervention. Why?
Any democratic change that wants to be lasting has to come from within, from the desire of the Iranian people. The future of Iran has to be decided by the Iranians, not by (Donald) Trump (US President), (Benjamin) Netanyahu (Israeli Prime Minister), or (Emmanuel) Macron (President of France). Iranians have shown a persistent desire for a democratic Iran.
How does the perception of Iran's decades of manipulation and interference by colonial powers in previous centuries influence?
I don't believe in conspiracies but I do believe that there are countries that interfere in Iranian internal affairs. Israel, for example, has completely infiltrated the regime but I don't think Israel decides what happens in Iran.
Is there a danger that if the regime falls, the country will implode? You describe in your book about the Shah many historical episodes where the State was shaken by various separatist initiatives...
Iran has existed for 3,000 years. This regime had to face great calamities and survived. I don't believe it, but it's hard to predict.
How do you explain the antagonism between Iran and Israel, when in the past they were able to collaborate not only during the Shah era but even during the ayatollah regime, when Israel supplied weapons to the Khomeini regime?
If you review the archives, you can see that Israel tried to negotiate with the new regime (after the fall of the Shah). This regime has missed all opportunities to get off that horse (rivalry with Israel). Most Palestinians accept Israel's right to exist. Of course, they complain about the injustices they suffer in the occupied territories. And they are right. Many people criticize what Israel is doing in Gaza. But it doesn't help the Palestinians to say as Iran does that Israel must be wiped off the map and that anyone who accepts the two states is a traitor.
To what extent did Tehran's support for Bashar al-Assad's dictatorship exacerbate the antagonism between Shiites and Sunnis in the Middle East, and now explain the position of the new authorities in Damascus, who remained silent while Israel attacked Iranian territory?
No one knows yet the billions of dollars that Tehran spent on weapons for Hezbollah, but it is estimated that they lent the murderous regime of Bashar about $50 billion in oil alone. Money that Bashar never paid.
Why do you think Iran did not help the allied groups fighting against Israel, especially Hezbollah?
Because they were weak.
This is not a suicidal regime.
They have always done everything possible to survive. They did not want a total confrontation with Israel. It's not just that Israel attacked Iranian interests in Lebanon (Hezbollah), but also in Syria. They spent months bombing Iranian facilities. All Iran did in Lebanon was send more money. They sacrificed Hezbollah and could not do anything in Syria.
Do you think the famous 'Shiite Crescent' that Iran had built and where its influence was established is now part of history? Do you still believe that Iran and its allies are a key element in the region?
That's over. Iran should have realized that there is a new Middle East with the so-called Abraham Accords (the normalization of relations between several Arab countries like the UAE, Bahrain, or Morocco with Israel). If Netanyahu had recognized the two-state option, he would have had a line of regional countries eager to sign the Abraham Accords.
But the brutal actions of Israel in Gaza have distanced many countries from that possible pact, such as Saudi Arabia.
There are many people within Israel who have warned that Netanyahu does not know how to end the war.
You can't trample the entire region just because you now have military advantage.
It's a sign of arrogance. Unless Israel recognizes that it has to retreat from all those places where they are flexing their military muscle, they can never have peace.