London, 12 Sep - As the US reviews its policy towards Iran and imposes tougher sanctions on the Iranian Regime and its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), some Regime apologists have been taken it upon themselves to categorise any support of regime change in Iran to mean that all-out war is on the horizon.
This is total nonsense as human rights activist and Iranian Resistance member, Ali Safavi, point out in the op-ed for The Hill.
Safavi, a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), wrote: “Let us be clear: The real issue is not war. There has never been any suggestion of military intervention.”
He states that there are just two questions that need answering: “Should the Iranian people continue to suffer under a brutal dictatorship, which has denied them their most rudimentary rights, or do they have the right to change this suppressive regime?” and “Should the world remain silent on the destructive role of the Iranian regime in the region, including its direct participation in the carnage in Syria?”.
Those calling for regime change do not want or need foreign military intervention; instead their change would be led by the Iranian people who are deeply troubled by the Regime’s rule. The only thing that they are asking from foreign governments is that they do not appease or support the mullahs.
Safavi wrote: “Engaging with dictatorships does not necessarily avoid war. Conversely, refusing to engage or appease a dictatorship is not a harbinger to military intervention…consider the catastrophic results of appeasement so far: Emboldened by Washington's conciliatory attitude, Tehran has fanned the flames of multiple regional conflicts? Nearly four decades of engagement with the mullahs have made the situation far worse.”
The Regime has made no legitimate attempts at change or reform in the past forty years, despite promises from numerous Iranian presidents, so why should we hold out for it now?
Safavi wrote: “An underpinning premise held by the advocates of engagement is the assumed capability of the regime to reform by itself. The theocratic system in Iran, however, is not only unwilling to change, but by design, it is incapable of reforms.”
Safavi cites the Iranian takeover of Iraq, the aggressive behaviour of the mullahs following the signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the intervention in foreign conflicts, and the executions of hundreds of thousands of dissidents, as proof.
The people themselves desperately want change and are capable of achieving it, so long as the West stops appeasing the Regime.
Safavi wrote: “They have an organized resistance movement with a rich history and an even more inspirational plan for the future of Iran, one that includes the separation of religion and state, gender equality and respect for human rights under international conventions.”
So no, regime change in Iran will not lead to US military intervention and may lessen the need for US troops in the Middle East once the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism is overthrown.
Safavi wrote: “Supporting the Iranian people in their legitimate quest to uproot a warmongering terrorist theocracy is the only option that averts another conflict in the Middle East. Ironically, the alternative, engagement, is a sure recipe for more conflicts and ultimately war.”