By Shahriar Kia
During his first address to the UN General Assembly in
September, President Donald Trump offered a perspective on the people and the
regime of Iran that starkly differed from that of his predecessors. He
accurately attested that “The entire world understands that the good people of
Iran want to change.” He described the Iran nuclear deal as “an embarrassment,”
called off the Iranian regime for its export of “violence, bloodshed, and
chaos,” and underlined that “Iran’s people are what their leaders fear most.”
These remarks from the president of the United States are
a positive signal after three decades of failed appeasement toward the mullahs
ruling Iran. And the testament to the fact are the reactions of Iranian
officials, which betray their fear and consternation.
In a meeting with the Assembly of Experts, Ali Khamenei,
the Supreme Leader of the Iranian regime called Trump’s speech “foolish,
extremely ugly and hideous” and “gangster and cowboy language fraught with
sheer lies.”
“Mr. Trump said the wrong things in the wrong place to
the wrong people,” Rouhani said to the state television.
The question that remains is whether President Trump’s
remarks at the UNGA were simply a reaction to the failure of the appeasement
policy, or was it the result of the natural course of events and the
geopolitical dynamics governing the Middle East? Has the explosion in
connectivity and social media services been effective in conveying the message
of the Iranian people, who want the world to know about their desire for
freedom and human rights?
Without a doubt, all of these parameters have been
effective. But what are the real foundations of Washington’s new approach to
the desires of the Iranian people for regime change?
Uprisings
The first factor that challenges the power of the ruling
regime is the looming threat of uprisings. From an economic and social
perspective, there has always been a potential for nationwide uprisings in
Iran.
The first big occurrence of widespread protests was in
1981 when more than 500,000 people took to the streets of Tehran and demanded
the overthrow of the theocratic regime. The protest was brutally suppressed and
ruthless executions of protestors and dissidents ensued.
In the summer of 1988 alone, 30,000 political prisoners,
mostly members of the opposition group People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran
(PMOI/MEK), were executed in the span of a few months and were buried in secret
graves.
In 1999 and 2009, uprisings erupted again. While the
regime smothered both instances with a brutal crackdown, yet the potential for
another uprising remains, and the ashes wait to be stirred once again.
Presently, sporadic protests are slowly building up
across the country and gaining momentum. An example is the staged protests
against the Arman and Caspian foundations, two financial organizations run by
the Revolutionary Guards, which have been plundering the people’s wealth at an
unprecedented scale. Following the start of Rouhani’s second term as president,
social dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs has increased.
Infighting
The second factor that is weakening the regime is the
ongoing power struggle between the Supreme Leader and other factions within the
regime. So long as the country’s constitution is based on the “guardianship of
the jurist,” every key decision will be made by the Supreme Leader. The Supreme
Leader is also the commander in chief, which leaves the president with no
substantial power.
This religious dictatorship is founded on fundamentalist
interpretations of Islam and sees its survival as bound to domestic suppression
and foreign terrorism. However, the mullahs’ crimes in the past four decades
have intensified the hatred of the Iranian people toward them.
Earlier this year, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Human
Rights Situation revisited the mass execution of 30,000 Iranian political
prisoners in 1988 in her report to the Secretary-General. Moreover, activists
and international human rights organizations have called for an independent
investigation into this crime against humanity, placing the Iranian regime in
another political and social dead end.
A War of Attrition in the Middle East
The Iranian regime is stuck in three long regional wars,
involving Yemen, Syria, and Iraq. Some analysts and politicians perceive the
Iranian regime’s meddling in these three countries as a sign of power and
stability. However, contrary to what Khamenei and other regime officials have
insisted on time and again, if they abandon their intervention in the countries
of the Middle East, they’ll be fighting their wars in the streets of Tehran.
Therefore, the sole purpose of the Iranian regime’s regional forays is to avoid
its collapse. The regime’s nuclear and ballistic missile project is for the
same purpose.
The Coalition of Arab Countries and U.S. Against Iran’s
Regional Ambitions
The coalition of Arab countries and the U.S., the
imposition of further sanctions against the Iranian regime’s regional meddling,
and the end of the golden era of the Obama administration have faced the regime
of Tehran with further challenges. Officials in the new U.S. administration
rightly insist that the real threat of Iran comes not only from its nuclear
ambitions but also from its ballistic missile program, its chaos mongering in
the region and its human rights abuses. The only durable solution to those
collective threats is regime change in Iran.
The Existence of a Reliable Alternative to Replace the
Regime in Iran
What makes the replacement of a tyrannical regime viable
is the presence of a recognized alternative that has a distinct political,
social and economic platform for the future, which enjoys the support of the
international community. The existence of such a resistance and its
international recognition is one of the main parameters that will pave the way
for uprisings against the ruling dictatorship.
Iran currently has a democratic alternative, led by Mrs.
Maryam Rajavi, a Muslim woman who opposes fundamentalism and bases her faith on
tolerance. Mrs. Rajavi’s ten-point plan has been praised and acknowledged by
many political personalities, jurists, parliamentarians, and human rights
activists across the world.
Three decades of appeasement toward Tehran has not
moderated the behavior of the Iranian regime -- it has made it worse. However,
the foundations for change in Iran exist. What makes regime change in Iran
unique is the fact that it requires no foreign intervention. The people of Iran
and their organized resistance have the potential to bring about change from
Inside Iran.
Comments
Post a Comment