Former U.S. Senator Robert Torricelli points to the NCRI and MEK’s organizational network, governing program, and professional personnel as evidence that a democratic alternative to Iran’s regime already exists.
In an interview with Steve Gruber on America’s Voice, Torricelli, a former Democratic senator from New Jersey and longtime supporter and legal adviser to the NCRI, discussed the prospects for political change in Iran, the condition of the regime, and the role of an organized opposition in shaping the country’s future.
Regime weakened, but change must come from the Iranian people
Assessing developments since February 28, Torricelli argued that the prolonged U.S. campaign had substantially weakened the regime’s domestic security apparatus and inflicted serious damage on its economy. In his assessment, these developments had created conditions that could facilitate political change.
However, he stressed that the decisive factor in ending the regime would ultimately be the Iranian people themselves. Any genuine change of government, he maintained, must come through the action of people inside Iran rather than being imposed from abroad.
Torricelli also reiterated his opposition to the regime acquiring nuclear weapons and emphasized that its international conduct, including attacks against diplomatic facilities and American personnel, could not be allowed to continue without consequences. He described the regime as a lawless force whose continued rule posed a serious threat.
Torricelli rejects the claim that Iran has no viable opposition
Addressing the question of whether Iran has a credible political alternative, Torricelli challenged the prevailing assumption in some U.S. policy circles that the country’s only possible futures are continued dictatorship, instability, or the restoration of the monarchy.
He argued that such a limited understanding disregards Iran’s social and institutional resources. Despite decades of repression and economic mismanagement, Iran retains a substantial professional class, military personnel, and other experienced groups capable of contributing to the country’s administration.
He also pointed to the Iranian diaspora as an important source of expertise and human resources. With approximately one million Iranians living in California alone, alongside substantial professional communities throughout Europe, the country has access to a considerable pool of educated and experienced people who could contribute to rebuilding its institutions.
For Torricelli, the existence of these resources makes the suggestion that Iran would inevitably descend into chaos following the regime’s removal particularly unconvincing.
NCRI and MEK offer organization, leadership, and governing capacity
Torricelli singled out the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK) and the National Council of Resistance of Iran as a particularly significant component of the opposition. He noted that the movement has developed an extensive international network and maintains connections with numerous former U.S. government officials and members of the Iranian diaspora.
He also pointed to the regime’s persistent efforts to target the organization as an indication of the seriousness with which it regards the opposition movement.
Highlighting the leadership of Maryam Rajavi, President-elect of the NCRI, Torricelli described the movement as possessing a depth of professional expertise and organizational capacity that he had not encountered among other Iranian opposition groups.
Unlike movements that lack a coherent political and administrative framework, he argued, the NCRI has developed a program for governing Iran and assembled a qualified pool of professionals capable of assuming administrative responsibilities. Its organizational reach also extends inside Iran, where Resistance Units operate in cities across the country.
These capabilities, in his assessment, distinguish the NCRI and the MEK from opposition currents that have neither a comparable organizational structure nor a developed plan for political transition.
The myth of an absence of alternatives
Torricelli’s central argument was that the claim that no viable alternative exists to Iran’s regime is not an accurate reflection of the political realities.
He criticized the U.S. State Department’s traditional approach to developments in Iran, arguing that its assessments have often lagged behind the realities on the ground. The assumption that there is nobody capable of replacing the current system, he maintained, ignores the opposition’s existing leadership, organization, professional resources, and presence inside the country.
His assessment reinforces a fundamental distinction between the collapse of a ruling system and the political future that follows. Ending the regime does not necessarily mean chaos or the restoration of monarchy. An organized democratic alternative, with an established political program and the capacity to administer the country, already exists.
For Torricelli, recognizing this reality is essential to understanding the prospects for democratic change in Iran and rejecting the false choice between dictatorship and instability.