Why not to choose the Third Option as of the final solution to Iran?

Submitted by Shirin Nariman (United States), Nov 4, 2005 at 15:38

This was an excellent article to address the danger of Ahmadinejad, or in a nutshell Iran's regime, not only to the region, but also around the world. This time the Iranian regime has taken one step further to not only threaten Non Muslims, but also Muslims in general.

Now they openly threaten those Muslim countries who are looking to a peaceful resolution to settle Israel-Palestine conflicts and taking measures to recognize Israel officially by opening Embassies or talks. Furthermore, Ahmadinejad's speech was backed by the officials in Iran and his Military Commanders of Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

"Iran is in the center of three strategic and sensitive regions -- the Middle East, Central Asia and the Caucasus ," Maj. Gen. Yahya Rahim Safavi, commander of the IRGC, said. "The Islamic republic, for this reason, can play a decisive role in regional political, economic, cultural and security arrangements."

However, the solution was not clearly addressed in this article. What is the real solution? Military actions? Negotiation policy or is there a third option?

There are majority of Iranians and experts who don't believe in military option as it will have a reverse outcome, besides the fact that neither US nor its allies are in the position to support another parallel effort as Iraq. The Negotiation policy or as some put it in "appeasement policy" has also failed in the past 8 years. It proved that it only empowered the regime to pursue its nuclear ambition as quickly as it could with only short time before to achieve its a-bombs. Sooner than can it be predicted and before the world would be ready for it.

This might have not been a serious issue if it wasn't Iranian regime with its fundamentalist, terrorist ideology and their ambition to expand their foot prints with the destruction and killing innocents to attain their goals. Clearly neither the regime does differ with Nazis 50 years ago nor Ahmadinejad or Khamenai from Hitler and his associates. They indeed need to be taken seriously and promptly.

However there is a third option to consider in order to stand up to this regime.
The main opposition against this regime according to many experts and most Iranians inside and abroad is the Mojahedin E Khalq which is a member of National Council of Resistance with its Mrs. Maryam Rajavi as the president elect. Mrs. Rajavi proposed this option first time last year in addressing European Parliment. (http://www.ncr-iran.org/content/view/449/0)

Their names were unjustly, and out of appeasement policy by Clinton Administration and European countries, were listed in the terrorist list, which only empowered more, the Iranian regime and made them very happy.

By taking their name out of the list, not only an enormous energy will be free outside of Iran it also gives hope to Iranians inside the country who see this as a sign to the quick fall of the regime. This will empower Iranian inside and abroad.

Isn't the time that we (political Analysts and experts) highly recommend to this administration to take the MEK and NCRI names out of the list? They should, if they are truly concern about Iran and believe to take a tougher measurement. Let's take the names out and see how quickly the regime will fall and what they will do. It is time..

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".