OpinionIran in the World PressRegime Change in Iran the Real Answer

Regime Change in Iran the Real Answer

-

Townhall.com: The final debate between President Obama and Gov. Romney won’t likely change the course of the election with barely more than a week to go, but one sticking point in the debate — U.S. policy toward Iran — could well change hopes for peace in the world.

Townhall.com

The final debate between President Obama and Gov. Romney won’t likely change the course of the election with barely more than a week to go, but one sticking point in the debate — U.S. policy toward Iran — could well change hopes for peace in the world.

Although the president touted economic sanctions against Iran as the best way to stop the rogue nation from its quest for nuclear weapons, he has, from the onset of his 2008 campaign, put great faith in his own power to negotiate a solution with the mullahs. In 2008, he famously said that he would sit down with the likes of Fidel Castro, Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Of course, the talks never happened — but not because President Obama wasn’t willing. Castro is incapacitated, Kim is dead, and the mullahs who actually control Iran weren’t interested. As a result, Iran is four years closer to nuclear weapons.

Now the president would like us to believe that economic sanctions will force Iran to back off its nuclear ambitions. The international sanctions are certainly a step in the right direction, but the Obama administration dragged its feet on tougher sanctions. Only when bipartisan support emerged in the Senate and House did it change its tune.

But sanctions — or a military strike — are not necessarily the only ways to stop Iran from developing nuclear bombs. Regime change should be the ultimate goal of U.S. policy, but the president seems reluctant to embrace this option.

In 2008, candidate Obama said this of his approach to Iran: “I think it is important for us to send a signal that we are not hellbent on regime change, just for the sake of regime change, but expect changes in behavior. And there are both carrots and there are sticks available to them for those changes in behavior.”

Unlike many of his promises, President Obama kept this one. In 2009, when the people of Iran took to the streets to oppose massive election fraud by their murderous regime, President Obama largely kept quiet.

Again, however, what he did say was telling. “My understanding is … that the Iranian government says that they are going to look into irregularities that have taken place. We weren’t on the ground, we did not have observers there, we did not have international observers on hand, so I can’t state definitively one way or another what happened with respect to the election.”

It was humiliating to watch brave Iranians holding up signs in English begging America to stand with them only to have the president act as if there were two sides to this story and that he wanted to give the mullahs a chance to explain.

On Oct. 3, tens of thousands of Iranians again took to the streets to protest their government. The Iranian regime has blamed the demonstrations on the MEK, a group the Secretary of State belatedly took off the U.S. terrorist list in September after a U.S. court decision directed the state department either to show evidence that the group was a threat to American interests or delist it. But the state department continues to be hostile to the MEK and its umbrella group, the National Council of Resistance of Iran.

The demonstrations in Tehran began in response to the precipitous collapse of the Iranian economy, largely the result of international sanctions and the diversion of resources by the regime to military purposes, including direct support for the Syrian government, Hezbollah, Hamas and other terrorists. But, according to eyewitness and news accounts, chants in the streets included direct calls for regime change, as well as opposition to the mullahs’ nuclear program.

It is time the U.S. made clear our goal in Iran is regime change. We should be doing all that we can to support those who want democracy, separation of church and state, gender equality, guaranteed rights of ethnic and religious minorities and a nuclear-free Iran — the stated platform of the NCRI. Instead of joining the Iranian regime in continuing to demonize the MEK and the NCRI, our government should be encouraging Iranian dissidents, both in Iran and in exile. Without regime change in Iran, there will be no peace in the region.

Linda Chavez is chairman of the Center for Equal Opportunity and author of Betrayal: How Union Bosses Shake Down Their Members and Corrupt American Politics .

 

Latest news

The Role of Students and Universities in Iran’s Nationwide Uprising

In the national uprising of the people of Iran, which started in mid-September this year, the students played a...

Snapback Sanctions, a Must Response to Iran’s Human Rights Abuse and JCPOA Violations

The protests in Iran have been going on for more than two months, even though the regime is cracking...

Growing Disintegration Among Iran Regime’s Forces

Iran has been shaken by a wave of nationwide protests since mid-September. The trigger was the death of the...

Grim Tidings for Iran’s Regime After Approval of UN Fact-Finding Mission

After many discussions and debates, the United Nations Human Rights Council has approved a fact-finding mission to investigate the...

Iranian People’s Resistance Changed the Appeasement Policy

Soon after the new US government started its obligations in January 2021, hand in hand with the European governments...

Khamenei’s Disgraceful Campaign Against Piranshahr and Javanrud, Who Will Be the Loser?

On the 67th day of Iran’s revolution, the Iranian regime attempted to put a halt to the protests in...

Must read

U.S. sees latest Iran missile test as aggressive behaviour

Iran Focus: London, Apr. 01 – The United States...

The Future of Iran and Its Children Is in Danger

By Jubin Katiraie With the spread of the coronavirus...

You might also likeRELATED
Recommended to you