Two Years after Nuclear Deal, #Iran Seeking Regional Dominance
New York – July marks the second
anniversary of the controversial nuclear deal between Iran and P5+1,
known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).A deal which not
only did not stop Iran’s nuclear program, but it only delayed it and at
the same time provided billions of dollars to the regime to pursue its
destructive policies in the region.
The Obama Administration and other
advocates of the appeasement policy claimed that this agreement would
bring serious changes to Iran’s behavior, including its actions in the
Middle East. Two years on, it is increasingly evident that these claims,
hollow and baseless on some levels, have fallen short.
The deal and the misguided policy that
it influenced have emboldened Iran in many areas, especially its malign
regional activities. The agreement not only failed to improve the
Iranian people’s economic status, but it actually granted the
Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) billions of dollars to pursue its
destructive policies in the region.
After spending the billions in windfall
from the nuclear deal, Iran has begun meddling with its neighboring
countries. Superficially, Iran has become a regional power, but what is
the reality? Is Iran truly a regional powerhouse, and is there an
ulterior motive behind the involvement in other countries’ affairs?
A quick look at Iran’s modern history
suggests that its current actions in the region might actually signal
that it possesses less power than is thought. Since the start of their
rule, the mullahs based their regime on two pillars: crushing any
domestic opposition and creating crises abroad. The adoption of such
polices embodies the very nature of this regime. The mullahs’ regime is a backward-minded regime belonging to the Middle Ages which opposes social liberties and developments.
The system is based on Velayat-e Faqih (custodianship
of the clergy) and it places all religious and legal authority in the
hands of the Supreme Leader. What this means, in both theory and in
practice, is that the Ali Khamenei (like Ruhollah Khomeini before him)
plays a direct role in all the country’s affairs; and no individual,
group, or committee in the country has the right to question or hold him
accountable.
By contrast, Iranian society is a
sizable demographic of young, highly educated citizens seeking increased
development and more social liberties. This regime cannot match the
contemporary society’s needs and considers force and suppression to be
the only methods of maintaining their grip on power.
To perpetuate the systematic and
widespread suppression inside the country, the mullahs rely on external
crises to divert public attention. As a result, the “export of
revolution”—more precisely the “export of terrorism”—and “creating
crises outside of Iran” became Tehran’s official policy. There are
numerous examples of the consequences of this policy.
The Iran-Iraq war, for example, lasted
eight years, leaving millions on both sides either dead or injured, and
many more displaced. Hundreds of cities and villages were destroyed,
and damages were estimated at $1 trillion for Iran alone. It also
contributed to the establishment of Hezbollah and general interference
in Lebanon’s internal affairs, the rise of Houthis in Yemen, the
ascendancy of Syrian President Bashar Al Assad and the subsequent Syrian
Civil War.
Former regime Supreme Leader Ruhollah
Khomeini described the war as “God’s blessing.” During the war, Tehran
brutally crushed its opposition through mass executions; in the summer
of 1988 alone, 30,000 political prisoners were massacred across the
country. The victims were mainly members and supporters of the People’s
Mujahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI-MEK).
Other international crises have served
the regime in the same way. Tehran has brought carnage and suffering to
thousands of innocent people in Syria, Yemen, Iraq and other Arab
countries with their attempts to maintain their power.
Senior Iranian officials argue, “One
reason we have been in Syria… and Iraq, and carried out these measures,
is that instead of fighting the enemy in the streets of Tehran,
Kermanshah, Arak, Qum, Sanandaj and Tabriz, we have taken the fight to
Deir ez-Zur, Raqqa, Aleppo, Homs and Mosul….”
Iran’s tactics and daliances in other
countries affairs are not due to the nation’s inherent
strength. supporting regime change is the only real policy to stand
against their export of terrorism.
Change to: Iran is not a regional power
and its meddling in other countries affairs is not a sign of their
dominance, but on the contrary it’s a smoke screen to hide their
internal instability and weakness. As a result, the only real policy to
stop Iran’s export of terrorism is a change in the government and regime
in Iran.
The annual Iranian Resistance gathering
on July 1 clearly demonstrated how regime change is within reach.
Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, President-elect of the National Council of
Resistance of Iran, was the keynote speaker of the conference. She
emphasized that the only way to liberate the Iranian people from
religious tyranny and to establish peace and tranquility in the region
is to overthrow the Velayat-e faqih (absolute clerical rule).
The overthrow of this regime is
necessary, feasible and within reach, and that a democratic alternative
and an organized resistance exists to topple it, she underscored.
The parties behind the democratic
alternative are working to establish freedom and democracy in Iran.
Their plans will bring harmony to various ethnic groups, end discord and
divide between Shiites and Sunnis, and eliminate tensions between Iran
and its neighbors, Mrs. Rajavi concluded.
No comments:
Post a Comment