In the aftermath of the October 7 attacks, the world grapples with a pressing question: how can the international community effectively address the Iranian regime’s persistent terror-driven agenda without triggering a broader conflict in the already unstable Middle East?
Tehran’s backing of militias across the region presents a serious security concern. Yet, the belief that confronting Iran’s aggressive actions will inevitably lead to war is disputed. This narrative, promoted by Iranian lobbyists in the West, suggests that diplomatic engagement is preferable to isolation, which they argue only incites further terrorism. However, history shows that Iran retreats from its hostile pursuits only when met with resolute opposition.
Iran’s strategy in the Middle East relies heavily on creating and supporting proxy militias to extend its influence, a tactic aimed at compensating for domestic vulnerabilities like economic hardships and political unrest. By involving in the conflicts of countries like Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and Iraq through proxy groups, Iran seeks to divert attention from internal dissent and project strength internationally.
An overview of #Iran’s history of hostage-taking and how Western appeasement has fueled Tehran’s #terrorismhttps://t.co/ieaaOkZb6y
— NCRI-FAC (@iran_policy) October 19, 2023
In Lebanon, the Iran-backed Hezbollah has grown into a significant political and military entity. Similarly, Iran’s involvement in Syria supports the Assad regime militarily and financially, further destabilizing the region. This use of surrogate forces allows Iran to maintain plausible deniability, complicating international efforts to address the true sources of regional instability.
Ironically, while Tehran’s proxies wreak havoc, Iranian leaders portray their country as the pinnacle of stability in a chaotic region. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s statement, suggesting that combating external enemies prevents internal conflicts, reveals a regime deeply engaged in a battle against its people rather than foreign adversaries.
Despite the regime’s massive investment in military capabilities, including a nuclear program and ballistic missiles, its actual readiness for a direct conflict, especially with powers like the US, is limited. Tehran’s strategy focuses on using proxies rather than engaging in open war, which would jeopardize its survival.
Startling revelation by #Iran's President @HassanRouhani that the regime's concerted effort to lift U.S. sanctions isn’t about fighting the pandemic. It's about cash for the regime’s leaders. pic.twitter.com/gyDFkgdYGI
— Secretary Pompeo (@SecPompeo) March 28, 2020
Recent history, like the 2007 capture and subsequent release of British sailors, demonstrates that Iran responds to a decisive military posture without escalating to full-scale war. This indicates that Tehran understands and retreats from the language of force, contradicting claims by its proponents who argue that a firm stance invites conflict.
The narrative promoted by Iranian lobbyists, which deters aggressive international policies against Iran under the guise of preventing war, has been a key component of Tehran’s strategy. This narrative manipulates public opinion and influences policy decisions in the West, presenting the regime as an immovable force that must be appeased rather than confronted.
To effectively neutralize the threat from Iran, the international community must adopt a stance of firm resistance rather than continued appeasement. This approach should align with supporting the Iranian people and their resistance movements, advocating for a regime change that can potentially bring lasting peace to the region. Only by dismantling the dual pillars of internal suppression and external aggression can the global community hope to address the fundamental issues perpetuated by Tehran’s actions.
MEK Iran (follow us on Twitter and Facebook), Maryam Rajavi’s on her site, Twitter & Facebook, NCRI (Twitter & Facebook), and People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran – MEK IRAN – YouTu