Insider news & Analysis in Iran
For those fearing the consequences of regime change and the collapse of a government

by Poorang Novak

Some have suggested that the only way to curb the Iran threat or achieve regime is via military support. However, many are saying that this is completely unnecessary. The National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) – the main opposition to the Iranian regime – also agrees that it does not want or need military support to bring great change to Iran.

The main opposition points out that the biggest uprising in recent history is taking place right now in Iran. Protests have been continuing since December last year and the people are no longer protesting about the Iranian regime’s corruption and mismanagement. Now they are taking to the streets to make their desire for regime change known. The NCRI is confident that the regime will fall all by itself if the people are supported by the United States.

For those fearing the consequences of regime change and the collapse of a government, it is helpful to look to history to see how it progressed on previous occasions. The government of Iran saw major government changes in 1953 and 1979. Of course, it did not go smoothly, but it was not horrifically violent either.

Last month, Ray Takeyh of the Council on Foreign Relations and Reuel Marc Gerecht of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal. They said that regime change in Iran is nothing to fear. They too advised that looking into the history of the country can be reassuring. They wrote: “The U.S. can draw on Persian history and on experience with the Soviet Union. The Islamic Republic (. . .) is probably internally weaker than the Soviet Union was in the 1970s.”

If the people of Iran had been supported by the United States during the 2009 uprising that shook the regime to its core it is almost certain that it would have toppled. However, the previous administration lost out on a major opportunity to bring great change to the Middle East. Former President Barack Obama was adamant that his policies of appeasement would be exactly what brought the Iranian regime towards what was expected of it by the international community.

Obama conceded to the Iranian regime on countless occasions and gave into numerous demands during the negotiations of the nuclear agreement. Instead of moderating the regime’s behaviour, the appeasement policies emboldened the regime. It's interference and meddling in the region stepped up to the next level. It was unacceptable, but even faced with this the administration failed to take appropriate action. Iran enjoyed what has become known as the golden years of Obama. It knew that no matter how it acted, Obama would turn a blind eye because he did not want to jeopardise his legacy – the nuclear agreement.

A change of government should never be taken lightly, and in the case of Iran, it isn’t. The people have suffered for almost 40 years and moderation is completely impossible.

Iran Protests 2018

Free Iran 2018 Gathering - 30 June 2018 - Villepinte, Paris

latest INU tweet

GETTING TO KNOW IRAN'S REVOLUTIONARY GUARDS

THE STORY OF THE 1988 MASSACRE IN IRAN

Copyright © 2018 Iran News Update