While Western foreign policy toward Iran has for decades oscillated between two poles—war and appeasement—today a louder voice has risen from within Iranian society, declaring: no foreign war, no negotiations with the regime! This third option—organized popular uprising and internal resistance—is not an emotional slogan but a political analysis rooted in Iran’s contemporary history and the realities on the streets.
The Bankruptcy of the Iranian Regime’s Negotiation Strategy
Iran’s regime is negotiating with the United States, but not from a position of strength—rather out of desperation. The Trump administration has drawn clear red lines: preventing Iran’s regime from acquiring nuclear weapons and curbing its missile program. Officials of the Iranian regime are attempting to buy time through media propaganda.
In an attempt to escape its deep internal legitimacy crisis, the regime has turned to negotiations, but the United States is no longer willing to tolerate delay tactics. U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance has explicitly stated that “we cannot sit at the table with someone who makes the final decision,” directly referring to Ali Khamenei, the regime’s supreme leader. Iran’s regime does not even know what it seeks from these talks; it only knows that prolonging the process works against it. The outcome of any negotiations in Geneva or elsewhere will not resolve the regime’s internal crisis. This is precisely where the third option comes into play: overthrow from within, not bargaining from outside.
The United States and Pressure for Comprehensive Accountability
Within the United States, the balance of power has also shifted. Senators from both parties, in a direct letter to President Trump, have warned that it is not enough to focus solely on the nuclear issue while ignoring crimes against humanity committed in Iran’s streets. Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have repeatedly stated that if a nuclear deal is possible, they will pursue it, but their policy framework is “peace through strength.” At the same time, they are tightening the military ring in the region. However, American public opinion no longer has the appetite for another war aimed at regime change. The experiences of Iraq and Afghanistan have shown that bombs and missiles do not bring democracy; they bring destruction and either puppet governments or new dictatorships.
The people of Iran understand this reality better than any Western analyst. Street slogans—”death to Khamenei,” “death to the dictator,” “no to shah no to mullahs”—are the clear cry of a nation declaring: do not entrust our fate to foreigners. Even recent proposals by the son of the former Shah inviting foreign military intervention have been met with deep public distrust, because Iran’s past 120 years are filled with interventions that delivered new forms of tyranny instead of freedom. The 1953 coup against the government of Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh is one such example. Former US Secretary of States Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton later acknowledged and expressed regret for that coup.
A foreign war would not only fail to overthrow the regime but could give it renewed life. Contemporary history has shown that foreign military intervention in Iran has either produced a puppet government or led to an even harsher dictatorship.
The Consequences of Foreign War on Popular Uprising
If Western governments are truly seeking a wise policy, they should look to Iran’s streets. Youth, women, and various ethnic communities, chanting peace, freedom, equality, and death to the oppressor—be it Shah or Supreme Leader—have demonstrated that both dictatorships, monarchy and clerical rule, are permanently rejected. Recognizing the legitimate right of the people to overthrow the regime is what the experiences of Eastern Europe and South Africa have taught us. When internal resistance was recognized, foreign policy also shifted in favor of the people.
The Third Option: The Historical Legitimacy of Uprising and Organized Resistance
The third option is the most credible because it is rooted in the blood of the people. It is embodied in the quest for justice by grieving families, in messages from political prisoners, and in organized resistance. National solidarity at demonstrations in Berlin—where Kurds, Lors, Turks, Arabs, and Baluch stood together chanting “Free Iran”—is evidence of this reality. In contrast, any demonstration marked by insults and clashes reflects not genuine resistance but the same old binary of appeasement or war.
https://www.maryam-rajavi.com/en/viewpoints/regime-change-in-iran/
Designation of the IRGC and the Global Necessity of Recognizing the Right to Resistance
When the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has been placed on terrorist lists in the United States and parts of Europe, and the regime’s institutions are widely recognized as components of a repressive apparatus, there remains no justification for silence. The international community cannot remain indifferent to the repression carried out by a regime identified with terrorism and crimes against humanity. Recognizing the organized resistance of the Iranian people is the only moral and realistic policy. The Iranian regime can no longer hide behind diplomacy.
EU Designates IRGC as Terrorist Organization Amid Escalating Repression in Iran
Iran’s regime stands at the threshold of overthrow and in a state of complete strategic deadlock. Its negotiations are futile, foreign war would be disastrous for the people, and the only remaining path is organized uprising and internal resistance.
The third option is not a wish, but a historical reality. The time has come for the world to align not with the regime, but with the people of Iran.
