Since its beginning, the Iranian Resistance recognized the need for a democratic alternative to the regime that is not beholden to the will of foreign powers. Therefore, while advancing a revolutionary and comprehensive struggle against the regime, it also established a revolutionary diplomacy that only serves the interests of the Iranian people. The Iranian resistance, by adopting a revolutionary diplomacy based on preserving principles and complete independence, has been one of the main obstacles in front of the policy of appeasement toward the Iranian regime.
This diplomacy began with the exposure of the regime’s crimes in the 1980s across the world. The hard work of the members and supporters of this resistance, spanning millions of hours of labor, in cities and countries around the world, managed to bring the people of Europe and Americas to a better understanding of the conditions in Iran. The result of these efforts in shaping the support of parliamentarians, jurists and political figures, as well as social, religious, and scientific figures, and even Nobel laureates, had a significant impact. The roots of this diplomacy are so strong and influential that we have seen resolutions by many parliaments in support of the 10-point plan of Maryam Rajavi, the President-elect of the National Council of resistance of Iran (NCR(, and advocating for the establishment of a democratic republic by many parliaments, the most recent being the Belgian Senate.
We are witnessing a new chapter in the effectiveness of revolutionary diplomacy and has the potential to change the balance of international equations in favor of the Iranian people and their organized resistance movement. Appeasement toward the Iranian regime is becoming increasingly difficult with these actions, including U.S. House Resolution 1148, which includes several key policy requirements toward Iran’s regime.
It is evident that when it comes to the interests and priorities of global powers, they prefer to pursue their own interests by maintaining the last remaining channels of communication until the very moment of a dictator’s downfall, unless continuing this policy becomes costly for them.
The determining factor in undermining this policy and encouraging the international community to support the revolution is none other than the resistance and the expansion of the uprising by revolutionary forces. Currently, within the regime, the achievements of revolutionary diplomacy and its practical impact are reflected in the intensification of the regime’s isolation and the exposure of its illicit activities across the globe. Regime experts and media outlets express their concerns about such achievements.
Mohammad Sadr, a member of the Expediency Discernment Council, expresses with concern and urgency: “In these circumstances, the diplomatic apparatus of the Islamic Republic of Iran must become significantly more active.” He added, “Current circumstances require serious diplomatic efforts to be initiated in various areas. Considering the intensified propaganda against Iran and the intention of these countries to impose sanctions on Iran, we must engage in a serious diplomatic campaign in various fields, both regionally and in Europe and the United Nations, to neutralize the actions that Western countries intend to take against Iran.”
This international relations expert goes so far as to advocate for the “resolution of unresolved issues from the past, such as the JCPOA and FATF.”
On April 27, Ebtakar newspaper wrote, “The Islamic Republic’s action against Israel has made history and created a military deterrent until further notice. In other words, according to military experts’ admission, Iran has achieved a positive balance after its recent action. A positive balance for a non-nuclear country against nuclear powers like Israel, the United States, France, and the United Kingdom is a masterpiece. However, many are now asking what its benefit is for the people’s table? The answer to this question is more important than the essence of the action itself… Has there been simultaneous political and economic deterrence alongside military deterrence? If so, the sequence of sanctions should be lifted, and the possibility of global consensus against Iran in various matters should be negated.”
