Maryam Rajavi’s Alternative to War and Appeasement
The West has long held that the only solutions to managing the Iranian regime are either to appease the mullahs or go to war. Since the 1979 Revolution, the prevailing strategy has been appeasement, and Western countries have gone to great lengths to feign ignorance of the regime’s acts of brutality at home and outside of its borders in order to prevent war, which has been deemed the less desirable option for a number of reasons.
Any future investment in the mullahs’ religious dictatorship is also doomed to fail.#IranDeal
— Maryam Rajavi (@Maryam_Rajavi) May 9, 2018
Maryam Rajavi, President-elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) has proposed a third option, which would end the reign of terror in Iran and restore democracy in Iran. This option has gained the support of the Iranian people and the Resistance Movement, led by the MEK.
Mrs. Rajavi has made it clear that the regime is “a medieval theocracy that lacks the capacity to reform” and that it is pointless to negotiate with the mullahs. The absolute clerical rule is enshrined in the constitution and precludes the possibility of democracy in any form. As long as the mullahs are in power, their rule will be absolute.
In regard to appeasement, Mrs. Rajavi said: “Let there be no doubt: European policies such as critical dialogue, constructive engagement, and human rights dialogue will not change anything as far as the regime is concerned. Appeasement is not the way to contain or change the regime. Nor is the path to avoid another war. Appeasement only emboldens the mullahs.”
However, a war would be disastrous for the Iranian people. It would endanger the lives of citizens and could create a power vacuum that would undermine the Iranian Resistance. In this situation, it would be easy for a corrupt group to seize control of the government.
Mrs. Rajavi proposed a third option, saying, “The equation of “either a military invasion or appeasement” is an exercise in political deception. A third option is within reach. The Iranian people and their organized resistance have the capacity and ability to bring about change.”
The people of Iran have shown their willingness to rise up against the mullahs over the past year. Since the uprisings began last December, people of all walks of life have taken to the streets to protest the regime, despite brutal acts of suppression.
Maryam Rajavi said: ”The presence of protests in society reflects the Iranian people yearning for regime change. The presence of an organized resistance with 120,000 martyrs and more than half-a-million prisoners is indicative of the depth and the intensity of society’s rejection of the regime.”
The MEK has organized most of these protests and has the power to overthrow the regime and restore democracy to Iran. The mullahs see the MEK as a threat to their very existence and have taken extreme measures to attack MEK members abroad and to suppress the uprisings at all costs.
Maryam Rajavi said: “Why in all their international interactions, the mullahs demand the exertion of pressure on the resistance movement? Are all of these not indicative of the mullahs’ paranoia over the third option?”
— Maryam Rajavi (@Maryam_Rajavi) February 22, 2018
Mrs. Rajavi explained that the NCRI represents the majority of the Iranian people and is the only viable democratic alternative to the mullahs’ rule. The NCRI offers the only real solution for the peaceful transfer of power after the fall of the regime. The NCRI is committed to setting up free elections for a constituent assembly within six months of regime change and handing over the affairs to the people’s elected representatives. Mrs. Rajavi has a ten-point plan for restoring democracy in Iran that has been endorsed by a broad coalition of international leaders.
Maryam Rajavi said: “We want to rebuild Iran, which the mullahs have ruined, through the people’s participation, the return of our experts and friendship with the rest of the world. We seek neither the West’s money nor weapons. We want them to remain neutral between the Iranian resistance on one hand and the ruling regime on the other.”