On the eve of the annual Free Iran rally, a group of distinguished politicians and experts gathered in Paris for a conference on the situation in Iran, the threats of the mullahs’ regime, and global policy toward Tehran. The conference, which was held in separate panels, was focused on four topics:
- Disinformation and its impact on Western policy on Iran
- The alternative to Iran’s regime
- The right U.S. policy toward Iran
- The European policy on Iran
#FreeIran2023: Onward to a Democratic Republic https://t.co/jR7BEALiXi
— NCRI-FAC (@iran_policy) June 30, 2023
In the first panel, former Member of European Parliament Struan Stevenson discussed his experience of being exposed to the regime’s propaganda against the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK) and the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI).
“This kind of demonization has been going on for years, he said, emphasizing that the regime increases its propaganda effort wherever the Iranian opposition has a presence, including in Albania, where it increased its embassy staff after Camp Liberty were relocated to that country.
“We should be aware that this demonization campaign is based on [nonsense],” he said. “But because all of us have been affected by it, we should ignore it. This is not worth the paper it’s written on. It is typical of the propaganda that emanates from this regime.”
Candice Bergen, former MP and Leader of the Canadian Conservative Party, also elaborated on her experience, including being attacked by so-called Iranian ex-pats for taking part in a women’s rights conference organized by the NCRI.
“I was attacked, not for saying anything about the Iranian regime, not for exposing what they have been doing to women, but for being part of the conference,” she said. “And that became for me a big red flag. What is really the agenda here? The agenda here is to discredit the opponents of the regime, to divide, to stigmatize, to cause disunity, to cause fear in me as an elected representative.”
Bergens stressed the importance to stand up for truth. “I believe that as we do that in our own countries and in our own institutions, we will then send the message to regimes like the one in Iran that is trying to discredit, demonize, and cause division,” she said.
Former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Louis Freeh talked about the political agenda behind listing the MEK as a terrorist organization in the U.S.
“When we were working with the State Department years ago to remove the NCRI and the MEK from the terrorist list we ran smack into embedded propaganda that people in the State Department had just automatically incorporated into official government files and findings,” he said.
Director Freeh stressed the need to encourage free speech and open dialog about the Ten-Point Plan of Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, the president-elect of the NCRI.
Ambassador Lincoln Bloomfield Jr., former Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs, spoke about his investigation into the allegations against the MEK and how every single one of them were debunked when he took a close look at evidence and documents.
“I would find differences and say, wait a minute, this, this isn’t what really happened, and these few early moments turned into one chapter after another of a different story, an untold story, and to the point where I would say two things: one, there’s an entirely wrong narrative about the resistance and about the regime, and two, it’s still believed by many people in Washington, and it’s still repeated by most of the major media,” he said.
Bloomfield stressed the responsibility of the media to shed light on the truth instead of repeating lies.
“Disinformation won’t work so well if the media keeps repeating it. So, my appeal to you and to all the journalists here is that you must stop repeating things that you now know are untrue. You must stop. And we will keep telling you to stop,” he said.
Steve McCabe, member of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, started his comments by saying that propaganda and falsehoods are “in the DNA of this regime” and the regime oscillates between misinformation/propaganda and violence/terrorism.
“I think that’s the fundamental thing that Western negotiators, Western politicians, and Western diplomats need to understand we are not negotiating with normal political beings. We’re not negotiating with people who observe any rules of diplomacy. We’re essentially interacting with a bunch of gangsters who will stop at nothing,” he said.
The second panel, focusing on the alternative to Iran’s regime, started with remarks by former U.S. Senator Robert Torricelli.
“There are a variety of groups fighting for change in Tehran,” he said. “I understand that some are well-intentioned, some are not. Some are just props for the regime. If you start on the issue of change in Tehran by believing you can reform the government, you’re not part of this movement. You’re not part of the answer. And frankly, I don’t want anything to do with you. There is no reforming Tehran.”
Torricelli also emphasized that a return to the rule of the ousted shah is not an option, as the people of Iran have made clear in their slogans in the streets of Iran.
“What does a revolutionary movement require? Dogged determination, incredible focus, and the willingness to pay any price to bring change. It requires people who are completely committed to a cause. I just defined the MEK,” he said. “It requires resources because it takes time and it takes money. It takes depth. It takes people who are willing to sacrifice their own resources. I just defined the MEK.
“It takes a leadership that will pay any price and has a vision for the future, not only what they want to destroy but what they want to create. I just defined Mrs. Rajavi and the 10-point plan.”
Linda Chavez, former White House Director for Public Liaison, highlighted the values and determination that the Iranian Resistance has shown throughout the years.
“Having watched the NCRI, having watched over the years as this great movement pulls people together both inside and outside Iran, the diaspora, as well as people who are still living in Iran and are fighting the regime from within, it seems to me that Madam Rajavi and the movement she leads offers an alternative I don’t see elsewhere,” she said. “I certainly don’t see it in the former Shah’s family. I don’t see it in those who believe that it’s possible to compromise with the mullahs, who every time there is an election are somehow looking for this new moderate leader who’s going to change everything in Iran, and then the only thing that changed is how many people are hung from the cranes in Tehran. I don’t see it in those who criticize the NCRI and its movement. I see it from the people who want to see regime change.”
Tony Clement, former Member of Parliament from Canada, said that the regime of Iran tries to send a message that there is no alternative, or that the alternative is worse than the mullah’s rule or is defective in some way.
“But of course, that’s not the case. And when I got to meet with Madame Rajavi, it was clear to me how sincere she is and we have this 10-point plan that is coming before various legislatures and parliaments around the world, I understand,” he said. “This is a democratic, pluralistic alternative. They do not want a theocratic state. They do not want a nuclear state. They want a separation of faith from the state. And they want pluralistic, democratic values. And what more can you ask from an opposition than that?”
Former U.S. Senator Joseph Lieberman, said that the regime wants to create the impression that there is no alternative so that it can force the world to compromise with them, as they did with Hitler before World War II. “History cries out to us not to repeat that again,” he warned.
“We can never acknowledge that there is no alternative to a totalitarian government, certainly not in Iran, and we know there is an alternative. It is the people of Iran. It is a Democratic Republic. A government of the people, by the people, and for the people,” he said. “And Iran is closer to that today than ever before because the regime is weaker than it’s ever been before. So, they’re at their weakest and there will be a need for an alternative. And there’s a need for an organization to lead the way to that alternative. And of course, it is the NCRI and the MEK.”
Marc Short, Chief of Staff of U.S. Vice President Mike Pence, underlined the damage caused by appeasing the regime, including undermining the efforts of the opposition.
“When America’s weak and when the West is weak and we are not standing for the principles of freedom, it undermines those who are fighting like the MEK,” he said. “And so I look forward to the day that we again return to America having a strong role in foreign policy and America having a strong role against Iran and one that enforces sanctions and enforces discipline that actually creates and continues to create a condition for an alternative like MEK to continue to thrive.”
The third panel, which discussed the U.S. policy on Iran, started with remarks by former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who reiterated the failed history of appeasement toward the regime, including the terrorist designation of the MEK in 1997, which was lifted in 2012 after a long legal battle, in which Mukasey himself played a key role.
“I guess the arc of justice, the arc of history does occasionally bend toward justice, and that was poetic justice if ever there was any,” he said. “I think the lesson to be learned is that if you keep at it the way you did here in Paris, the way we did in getting the MEK off the list, you can prevail.”
Ambassador Robert Joseph, the former Undersecretary of State, Arms Control and International Security, spoke about the Iranian Resistance’s role in exposing the regime’s illicit activities, including the revelation of its secret nuclear weapons program in 2002.
Ambassador Joseph provided four propositions for U.S. policy toward Iran:
“The first proposition is that for 44 years U.S. policy has failed. It has failed to stop Iran’s support of international terrorism. We have failed to stop Iranian support of aggression in the region. And in fact, the regime has achieved success in the region through its aggression.
“The second principle that I would apply in any national strategy toward Iran is that as long as the mullahs rule, they will never abandon their nuclear weapons program.
“Third, this is a regime that can’t reform. This is a regime that cannot be as much as we want it to be, a moderate, sort of ruled by moderate leaders.
“The fourth proposition is that it is the people of Iran that are the greatest vulnerability of the regime. The regime has alienated its people through brutality, and repression over four decades, through the mass murder of tens of thousands of their own citizens.
General Chuck Wald, Former Deputy of the United States European Command, said that the U.S. made a grave mistake in turning its back on the Middle East.
“In the Middle East, the biggest issue we still have obviously is Iran. The Middle East hasn’t gone away, he said.
General Wald also emphasized the role of the Iranian Resistance. “What happens if the Iranians go away? From a governmental standpoint, you have a backup. They’re called the MEK and NCRI. You have a viable option. The good news is there’s an alternative to it if the Iranian regime were to go away, which I hope it does, the current one, and a good alternative, which would be in our interest,” he said.
Ambassador Mitchell Reiss, former Policy Planning Director at the U.S. State Department, said that the Iranian regime is a clear and present danger to its people and the world. The regime has also proven its illegitimacy in Iran through its behavior toward protests. And finally, the regime has proven that it is not willing to change.
“The key policy question is this: What can we do to accelerate the end of this regime?” he said. Ambassador Reiss made several propositions:
- Governments and parliaments must expose the regime’s human rights violations. “Everybody should know the true nature of this repressive regime,” he said.
- Expose the corruption of the mullahs, of the IRGC, of the Basij. “They’ve all taken millions of dollars from the Iranian people, and they’ve deposited them in overseas bank accounts.”
- Increase sanctions on the regime.
- Increase the amount of news getting into Iran.
- Restore U.S. relations in the Middle East.
“And again, what can we do to accelerate the end of this regime? I have to say at the very top, is to support the opposition, especially the NCRI and the MEK,” he said.
The fourth panel, which discussed European policy toward Iran, started with the remarks of Dr. Alejo Vidal Quadras, former Vice President of the European Parliament.
Dr. Vidal Quadras said that that the policy of the executive powers of EU has been dominated by two illusions. “One is that there are moderates in the regime. We must engage with them and help them. The second illusion is that let’s try to appease the regime and negotiate to calm them down and live with them,” he said. “These two illusions have been proven completely false. They have failed miserably.”
Vidal Quadras said that EU politicians want to minimize risks by taking this approach.
“They do not realize that to defeat tyranny and dictatorships in this world, you cannot do it without risks,” he said. “The MEK and NCRI take risks every day. They risk their lives every day. But in the European Commission, they refuse absolutely to take any risks. And they don’t realize that by refusing to take risks, they in fact increase risks every year.”
Peter Altmaier, Former Federal Minister for Economic Affairs and Energy of Germany, said that big changes will be coming to Iran in the coming months.
“We have to be prepared, the Europeans and all of you. The 10-Point Plan of your president is a document that is not just a political document. It is a summary of the universal values of mankind. I’m a lawyer by profession and I’ve studied it carefully. I’ve never seen a better summary by politicians. Let’s rally around that declaration. It is not about choosing sides for one or another organization. It’s about having a basis for joint action,” he said.
Kimmo Sasi, former Minister of Foreign Trade and Minister of Transport and Communications of Finland, stressed that the EU should be more effective in implementing human rights, especially where they are most infringed.
Sasi underlined the threats posed by Iran’s regime and said, “It’s not good that one day we are soft, one day we are hard. We have to be constantly firm. And what it means is we have to ask, is there hope of change in Iran? In 40 years, we have seen there is no hope. There’s a worse government today than ever. During these 40 years, they are crueler than any government before.”
Sasi also stressed that regime change is the only viable path for a better future for Iran. “And the truth is that if Mrs. Rajavi’s 10-point plan will be implemented, Iran will change into a developed democracy. A country that indeed can have good standards of living for people,” he said.
Audronius Ažubalis, Member of the Lithuanian Parliament and former Foreign Minister of Lithuania, called for a more firm policy toward Iran, but also underlined the role that the Iranian people and their resistance movement will play in bringing freedom to Iran.
Bob Blackman, MP from the UK House of Commons, stressed the failure of the policy of appeasement. “Unfortunately, we have followed a policy of appeasement against these people for far too long. And if you deal with these people, they will just say just give, give, give. They will take more and more and more,” he said.
