I am delighted to be among you today. Even though this meeting had been postponed since June, I am nonetheless pleased that during this period many issues have come to light. Today, the European Court of Justice issued a verdict, annulling the "Council’s Common Decision" to include the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran in the European Union’s terrorist list. It also ordered the Council to compensate the PMOI for four fifth of the court costs it had incurred.
This ruling is a testament to the legitimacy of the Iranian people’s Resistance against the religious fascism and the triumph of justice over deals with and appeasement of the religious fascism ruling Iran. This is a great victory for the Iranian people and their Resistance as well as freedom-lovers and the honorable parliamentarians and jurists who worked to have this label removed.
At the same time, the mullahs have organized a conference in Tehran to deny the Holocaust. This is part of the bellicosity and the effort to set the stage for a wider war in the region. This brazen attitude emanates from the West’s indulgent attitude in respect of the mullahs’ nuclear ambitions and their meddling in Iraq. The mullahs thrive on crisis to ensure their survival.
It has become abundantly clear that negotiations with the mullahs over the nuclear issue have gone nowhere. However, the question still remains, what should be done? Mr. Solana said that for three months the EU tried in vain to convince Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment activities.
However, EU governments still hope to come to a deal with the mullahs. Why? On top of economic benefits, I believe that there is an incorrect understanding of the situation in Iran and a miscalculation on the issue of the regime’s capabilities. This is very similar to the incorrect understanding during the final years of the Shah’s rule. Let us bring to mind that one year prior to the fall of the Shah, President Carter described Iran as an “island of stability” and, despite their prevalent presence in Iran, U.S. intelligence agencies said, “Iran is neither in a revolutionary phase, nor even in a pre-revolutionary phase.”
The Iranian people today long for change even more than they did in 1979. The conditions for this change are ready. Despite absolute repression, just yesterday, the students were chanting death to the dictator in defiance of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Therefore, any policy or investment on Iran must take this reality into consideration.
These days, there is much debate over Iran’s role in Iraq. The report by the Iraqi Study Group correctly highlighted the regime’s increasing meddling in Iraq and its providing of weapons, ammunition, and training to various groups, and quoted an Iraqi Sunni political leader as saying, “If you turn over any stone in Iraq today, you will find Iran underneath.”
Nevertheless, by concluding that the mullahs’ regime seeks stability and unity in Iraq and recommending that the mullahs be involved in resolving the crisis in this country, the report is practically accepting the mullahs’ influence over Iraq. This is a dangerous error, since:
Firstly, the continuation of turmoil in Iraq is to the interest of the Iranian regime. The establishment of stability and democracy in Iraq and peace in the Middle East spells the end of the regime.
Secondly, because of its geopolitical situation, Iraq is a strategic springboard for the mullahs’ regime to export its fundamentalism.
Thirdly, as was witnessed over the nuclear issue, negotiation with the mullahs is futile. Therefore, negotiation with the mullahs over the issue of Iraq only gives them time to expand their influence there.
Fourthly, through its meddling, the mullahs’ regime is the main problem in Iraq. Therefore, as many Iraqi leaders have said and 5.2 million Iraqis have announced in a declaration, the solution lies in the eviction of the mullahs’ regime from Iraq.
The regime’s adventurous policies in Iraq and the Middle East and its insistence to obtain nuclear weapons should not be seen as signs of its strength. This is how the regime is trying to conceal its weakness. The mullahs describe this policy as “strategy to intimidate” or “balance of fear.”
Signs of the regime’s weakness are prominent in three areas:
– A purge of the different currents inside the regime, which still continues, is a sign of its weakness and lack of flexibility.
– The regime’s refusal to reach an agreement with the international community over its nuclear program stems from its weakness. Ahmadinejad said, "Retreating a single step would mean the loss of our very existence." The mullahs’ regime lacks the capacity to enter into a grand bargain with the West, and specifically the United States, in which all the disputes, including the nuclear standoff, Iraq and the Middle East, could be solved. This is while the U.S.’s critical situation in Iraq, President George Bush’s political problems back home and the eagerness of European countries in preserving their commercial ties with Iran have presented the regime with the most favorable conditions to reach a comprehensive settlement.
– The most serious sign of the regime’s weakness should be seen in its attitude towards the Iranian Resistance. The regime’s pleas to Mr. Solana and the heads of several EU states to prevent this visit last summer as well as its policy of blackmail to prevent my trips to Belgium and Norway reflect the mullahs’ weakness and fragility.
Unfortunately, the EU has given the regime its biggest reward through its conduct towards the Iranian Resistance. This has encouraged the mullahs to the extent that they want to spread their oppression to Europe as well. By labeling the pivotal force within the Iranian Resistance as terrorist, the West has enchained the force of change in Iran, thereby doing the most valuable service to the mullahs and the survival of religious fascism in Iran.
Allow me to conclude:
1. Iran’s ruling fundamentalist regime is at the heart of the Middle East’s problems – from Iraq to Lebanon. The mullahs are unable to stop their meddling in Iraq; since, they need to export their fundamentalism to ensure the survival of their regime. The mullahs are neither able to halt their warmongering in Lebanon and Palestine, nor their opposition to the Middle East peace process. They benefit from these in safeguarding their regime.
2. The mullahs are unable to reverse their nuclear policy. They need the atomic bomb as the strategic lever to ensure the survival of their regime and impose their hegemony on the region. The experience of four years of nuclear negotiations and the refusal of all incentives by Tehran prove that the mullahs’ regime lacks the capacity to reach a settlement with the international community.
3. The West’s appeasement policy has made the mullahs more aggressive. Hesitation in dealing with the mullahs is a reminder of the same wrong policy towards Hitler and can have the same dangerous consequences.
4. The time has come for a firm policy towards Tehran. The West should impose sanctions against the mullahs and evict the mullahs from Iraq and the region. It must also recognize the Iranian people’s Resistance for freedom.
I said two years ago in this very same building and repeat once again that the solution to this crisis is neither an external military intervention nor the policy of appeasement. There is another solution: democratic change by the Iranian people and their Resistance.
The Iranian Resistance seeks a pluralist republic based on the separation of church and state; gender equality; respect for individual, political and social freedoms; respect for international covenants including those on human rights, civil liberties and women’s rights; abolition of the death penalty; free market; and peaceful coexistence and relations with all countries.
I call upon you to stand with the Iranian people in the achievement of these objectives.