By Amr Gohar
Washington DC, Ali Safavi, senior official of the NCRI’s Foreign Affairs Committee, says the current U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran may weaken the regime’s military and nuclear capabilities, but they will not bring it down. In an exclusive interview, Safavi argued that only the Iranian people and organized resistance forces can overthrow the ruling establishment in Tehran, calling for immediate international recognition of Maryam Rajavi’s provisional government and her Ten-Point Plan for a democratic, secular, and non-nuclear republic. He rejected any restoration of monarchy, warned Gulf states against continued appeasement of Tehran, and declared that the collapse of the regime would ultimately dismantle its regional proxy network and bring long-term stability to the Middle East.
1) Introduction
Amr Gohar: Mr. Ali Safavi, can you please introduce yourself?
Ali Safavi: Sure. I am Ali Safavi, an official with the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Paris-based National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), which is a democratic coalition of Iranian opposition groups and personalities committed to the establishment of a democratic, secular, non-nuclear republic in Iran.
2) What is happening in Iran after the Israeli–American strikes?
Amr Gohar: I have a straightforward question: what’s going on now in Iran after the Israeli-American strike? Is it targeting Iran’s military bases, or is it meant to take down the Iranian regime?
Ali Safavi: From the published reports I have seen—and I believe many others have seen—it has been stated by the U.S. administration that the objective is to degrade the Iranian regime’s military capabilities, its nuclear weapons sites, and its ballistic missile locations.
But the fact is, when you talk about the overthrow of the regime, that can only be achieved by the Iranian people and the organized resistance.
One point I like to stress is this: the Khamenei complex that was attacked today—actually, last Monday, 250 fighters attacked the same compound on the ground, not from the air. Some 100 of them were either killed, wounded, or arrested, but 150 withdrew safely to their bases in Iran.
So from our point of view, aerial strikes, in and of themselves, cannot bring down this regime. You need a force on the ground—one with the capacity to organize, mobilize, and be operational on the ground.
And the Mujahideen and the resistance units, which have been working around the clock since 2017, can achieve that.
Today, a few hours ago, Mrs. Rajavi announced a provisional government based upon the Ten-Point Plan that she has articulated. She also issued a message to the people of Iran that at this time of great turmoil and danger, they should stay together. “It’s time for solidarity,” she said. They should take care of civilians, the elderly, and those who have been wounded.
She basically said Iran is not the regime—Iran is the Iranian people—and the future of Iran will only be determined by the Iranian people and the organized resistance.
She also rejected any call or attempt to restore monarchy in Iran. She said the Iranian people are looking to the future, not to the past.
Screenshot
3) What does the United States want?
Amr Gohar: You served many years in Washington, D.C. Americans are leading the attacks, but I’m confused—and the media is confused—because this is the only time they say they don’t want to take the Iranian regime down, but they want to take the military and the missiles down. From your perspective, what do Americans want?
Ali Safavi: I think the United States has stated very clearly that the Iranian regime cannot have nuclear weapons; it cannot enrich any uranium. It must hand over its stockpile of 400 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium. It must dismantle its nuclear weapons program entirely. It must limit the range of its ballistic missiles. It must stop supporting proxy groups in the region like it has done for so many years.
And it must stop slaughtering the Iranian people—as we saw during the January protests in which thousands of innocent Iranians were killed by the Revolutionary Guard.
It seems to me that in the course of the negotiations between the U.S. and the Iranian regime, the mullahs were not going to back down. So the stated intent on the part of the United States—as stated this morning by the President—is to dismantle Iran’s nuclear weapons program, its ballistic missile program, and make sure that it cannot support its terrorist proxies in the region.
So that is why I said that when you talk about regime change in Iran, that task is only the responsibility of the Iranian people. Change in Iran must be from bottom up, not from the air and not by any foreign force. This has been our position in the past 20 years all along.
And of course, we have paid a heavy price for our fight against the regime: 100,000 of our members and supporters have been executed by this regime—30,000 in 1988 alone.
Now that Mrs. Rajavi has announced a provisional government that is based upon her Ten-Point Plan—which talks about free elections; freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly; equal rights for men and women; autonomy for Iran’s ethnic communities; and a non-nuclear Iran—it is time for the international community, including the United States, to publicly state that it supports this plan.
As you said, we have been fighting now for 47 years at a great cost. I think the moment has arrived. Enough beating around the bush and trying to engage the regime and offering them concessions. It is time to stand with the Iranian people.
4) Iran missile strikes and Gulf security fears
Amr Gohar: Today the Iranian regime struck—or sent missiles—to many Arab countries: Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, and Kuwait. The weak point for Americans has always been Iran striking back in the Gulf, and this is exactly what happened. We all know the Gulf area is very sensitive because of oil.
Take into consideration what happened when the Houthis—funded by the Iranian regime—struck Aramco in Saudi Arabia. They stopped producing oil for 48 hours—about half of international oil capacity—until it was fixed and production came back.
So why don’t we have the same scenario now? What’s going on between Iran and the Gulf area? Gulf countries keep saying they have nothing to do with this, but the Iranians insist on hitting them back in the Gulf. Can you explain this more?
Ali Safavi: As I’m sure you know, Khamenei—after the suppression of the January protests—spoke publicly and said, “If there’s an attack, then there will be a regional war.”
But you have to bear in mind that this regime has always tried to project power, whereas in reality, its ability—its capacity—its strategic resources to match its rhetoric with action is really not there.
Yes, it engages in saber-rattling, but when firmness and decisiveness is exercised, it cannot deliver on what it promises.
In this context, yes, the regime will exhaust all of its resources to preserve itself. But remember: this regime is on its last legs. It has already exhausted a lot of its resources. Its economy is collapsing. Unemployment is through the roof. Iranian currency is not worth the paper it is printed on.
Even now, after the killing of so many Iranians in January, people are in the streets and in universities. This past week, we saw university students chanting “death to Khamenei” and “death to the dictator,” whether the Shah or the leader. And in funerals of those killed, you saw slogans against Khamenei.
So the killing of Iranians hasn’t created grief and gloom. It has resulted in rage and resolve.
Combine that with the presence of a nationwide, structured, organized resistance movement—the MEK and its resistance units—and you have the objective conditions for the overthrow of this regime.
We think the end is very near. And with the announcement of the provisional government by Mrs. Rajavi, I think the next step should be for the international community and the United States to recognize this provisional government so it can lead Iran to a peaceful, prosperous future—bringing stability to the Middle East and the rest of the world.
5) Why doesn’t the U.S. say it is targeting the regime?
Amr Gohar: What’s stopping the United States from saying clearly that it is targeting the regime? If they strike nuclear and missile bases, they’re making the regime weak, and the next step is taking it down. We learned before they can strike high-end leaders in Iran successfully. So what’s stopping them this time from saying: “We’re coming to take the regime down”?
Ali Safavi: I think it is not the responsibility of the United States to bring down this regime. No country has that right. This is only the right and the responsibility of the Iranian people.
Obviously, when the regime becomes weak, that provides opportunity for the Iranian people to overthrow this regime themselves.
You saw in the three-week uprising of January that the Iranian people targeted many government centers. There were protests in 400 cities, in many locations across the country. In Tehran alone, hundreds of Revolutionary Guards and security forces were killed by rebellious youth in Iran.
So I think it is prudent on the part of the international community and Western governments not to talk about wanting to topple this regime. That is not their responsibility. That is the responsibility of the Iranian people.
We have the experience of Iraq. We have the experience of Libya.
So while the U.S. has said it is attacking Iran because the regime is not abandoning its nuclear program, its missile program, and not halting support for its proxies—that is the U.S. decision. But regime change is something the people of Iran and the organized resistance must accomplish—and they will accomplish it.
6) Gulf fears about militias after regime collapse
Amr Gohar: Gulf countries fear that if the regime falls, militias created by Iran—and their weapons and missiles—could be controlled by angry groups. Do you think if the regime falls, these militias will attack the Gulf? We’re already seeing rounds of missiles hitting the Gulf area.
Ali Safavi: I have two things to say.
First, the reaction by the Iranian regime—attacking Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar and elsewhere—proved that appeasing the mullahs’ regime is useless.
To be honest, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain and other countries in the region must look themselves in the mirror: for 47 years they remained silent vis-à-vis the brutal treatment of the Iranian people by this regime, accepting this regime as the legitimate government of Iran.
Now, the time is to state publicly that they support the people of Iran and the organized opposition to overthrow this regime.
Second, as to what the regime’s proxies will do: I guarantee you that when this regime is overthrown—and it will be overthrown—those proxies will fade away.
The regime in Tehran played the same role that Moscow played at the height of the Soviet Union in Europe and in Latin America. Once the Soviet Union collapsed, the ideological source that kept those movements alive ended, and those movements fizzled.
The same holds true for the Middle East. If the source of crisis and tension—the regime in Tehran—is overthrown, who is going to help Hashd al-Shaabi? Who is going to help Hezbollah? Who is going to help the Houthis? We know they were funded, trained and armed by Tehran.
The proper course of action should have been many years ago for the Persian Gulf countries to stand with the people of Iran and support the resistance of the people of Iran to topple this regime and bring peace and fraternity to the rest of the world.
In the Ten-Point Plan of Mrs. Rajavi, point number nine says the foreign policy of a democratic Iran will be peaceful coexistence with all of its neighbors—without exception.
So I think the concern about what the regime will do vis-à-vis Arab countries and Persian Gulf countries is overstated. The primary focus now for Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, the Emirates and others should be what can be done to help the people of Iran bring down this regime a day sooner.
Of course, the regime will fire a missile here and a missile there. Naturally, there might be some casualties, which is regrettable. But in the grand scale, the undeniable fact is: as long as this regime survives, there will be chaos.
Remember when they attacked Aramco a few years ago? It didn’t stop by cozying up to the regime—by having diplomatic meetings with the mullahs. The mullahs are the enemy of peace and stability in the region. They are like a cancer—you cannot put a band-aid on cancer. You have to remove it.
That is why we have said from day one that the only solution to bring peace and stability to the region is to topple this regime—not by foreign force, but by the people of Iran. It has to be homegrown. It has to be indigenous.
We have paid a heavy price. For the past 47 years, 100,000 of our members and supporters have been killed in Iran. But I think the day of reckoning is coming.
Quite frankly, if I were to give advice to the leaders of Persian Gulf countries, I would tell them: it is time for you to support the provisional government that Mrs. Rajavi has announced.
7) “Republican Iran” vs. monarchy restoration
Ali Safavi: A republican Iran is the answer to all of the problems—not the son of the Shah. He is like his father and wants to impose a fascist regime in Iran. You saw his message two days ago against Iran’s ethnic minorities, and he threatened to send the army after them. That’s not what the people of Iran want.
Thirty-five percent of Iranians are non-Persians: Kurds, Arabs, Baluchis, and others. They have every right to exercise their rights, speak their own language, and administer their affairs locally by themselves.
They have been oppressed not only by this regime, but also by Reza Pahlavi’s father and his grandfather. That is why people are chanting now: “Down with the dictator,” whether the Shah or Khamenei.
8) Does Reza Pahlavi have a chance to lead Iran?
Amr Gohar: Quick question: Do you think the Shah’s son has a chance to be the leader of Iran if this regime goes down? This is all over the place.
Ali Safavi: He doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell.
When it comes to any game plan about the future of Iran, he doesn’t even have a seat on the bench. He doesn’t have anything inside Iran—which is why he calls on the United States to attack Iran. Which genuine leader would ask another country to attack its own nation?
In June, during a 12-day war, he said “we have 50,000 IRGC signed up on a QR code.” The question is: where were they when people of Iran were slaughtered in Tehran on January 8 and 9? Now he is claiming 150,000. That is a lie, I submit—if he has even one person, I doubt it.
The slogans you saw that he claimed were calling his name were voice-overs. Many were fake. Some were even chanted by members of the Iranian Basij. As far as the mullahs are concerned, Reza Pahlavi doesn’t have any chance and poses no threat.
He has been living a lavish life in America for 47 years. When the uprising began, he was on vacation in Greece getting a suntan. He came 10 days after the uprising started and then said people should go into the street—and you saw the slaughter on January 8 and 9.
Where were his 50,000 people? Why didn’t they rise up to defend? During that uprising, many MEK resistance units were killed. We announced the names we could announce because of security precautions. One hundred Mujahideen were killed or arrested just this past Monday when they attacked Khamenei’s compound.
So this whole propaganda you hear in the West about Reza Pahlavi being an alternative is hot air—like a hot-air balloon; you press a needle into it and it blows up.
He even said when asked whether he would go back to Iran: “No, why should I go back? I have all my friends and family in the U.S.”
And what does he offer? A return to the time of his father. There was a reason the people overthrew his father—he was as repressive and as corrupt as the current regime is.
From our point of view, he has no chance whatsoever.
Let me add: the people of Iran have the experience of Khomeini—an imposter sitting in exile for many years. He went to Paris, the media went there and said he was the leader; then he came, and we saw what happened for the past 47 years. We are not going to let that happen again under any circumstances.
We have a wide network of resistance units across the country. In fact, today there were many pictures of Mrs. Rajavi posted on major streets of Iran with resistance units members carrying her pictures.
Now that the regime’s military structure has been weakened, we are going to do everything in our power to create a general uprising and bring freedom to our nation.
9) If Tehran offers concessions, would the U.S. stop?
Amr Gohar: Last question: If the Iranian regime says, “We will take down the nuclear program, stop the missile program, and be a quiet nation,” do you think America will stop? There are reports that Saudi Arabia and the Emiratis push hard to keep the situation the way it is because they’re scared of the reaction after the regime is taken down.
Ali Safavi: That’s a good question. I don’t have a crystal ball as to what will happen in the next few days.
From the public reports I have read, and what has been in the media, this operation is not going to end today and may continue for a few more days. We have to wait and see.
But what I can tell you with certainty is that the resistance units in Iran are going to do everything in their power to use this window of opportunity to bring down this regime.
I don’t know how many leaders of this regime will be killed in the next few days. Who knows? We have to wait and see. I really cannot answer a hypothetical.
But to eliminate once and for all the concern about the regime’s missiles and its Shiite proxies that you mentioned, the solution is to overthrow it—and we will do that, no question.
All that is needed is for the West—for Europe, for the United States—and for our Arab brothers across the region to say: yes, we recognize the MEK; we recognize the NCRI; we recognize Mrs. Rajavi as the alternative to this regime—not the son of the Shah, not anybody else. It is in their interest to do that.
Original article
Comments