By Shahriar Kia
June 10, 2016
As the world continues to struggle in its effort to find a solution to the ever growing threat of Islamic fundamentalism, a very simple reality is very often overlooked — and at times deliberately neglected.
In the years leading to World War II, the appeasement policy advocated by the British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain vis-a-vis the fascist regimes of Europe forced him to declare war on Nazi Germany after Hitler’s 1939 invasion of Poland, and the rest is history.
Decades later, we are literally witnessing history repeating itself as the West, spearheaded by the Obama administration in Washington, has once again embraced the appeasement/engagement policy. This time, it is with a fascist regime in Iran. The objective is to encourage the emergence of moderates from within the mullahs’ establishment. This misguided policy has unfortunately led to the de facto rise of Islamic fundamentalism.
The regime in Iran is relying on three main pillars and platforms to safeguard its ruling system: domestic oppression and harrowing human rights violations, perennial support for international terrorism, and the all-out effort to obtain nuclear weapons by any means possible.
Long before Daesh — the Arabic acronym for the self-proclaimed Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL — ever came to existence, the mullahs sitting on the throne in Iran claimed having the prophecy and manifestation to rule over all Islamic countries under such a caliphate.
For nearly four decades, Iran has literally posed the first and foremost threat for peace and security for Middle East and beyond.
The Obama administration sought to tame the regime in Iran through an outreach effort to seal an agreement over Tehran’s ongoing differences with the international community regarding its suspicious and clandestine nuclear program.
After years of overt and covert talks, the P5+1 finally closed an agreement in July 2015 for Iran to cooperate in curbing its emblematic nuclear program in return for certain concessions.
The international community expected Iran to at least principally alter previous methods, and remedy its menacing behavior.
However, the mullahs in Tehran – under pressure from their dismal base – built on this naïve expectation and continued wreaking havoc by meddling in the region, test-firing a string of ballistic missiles despite the U.N. Security Council denouncing such measures, and launching massive waves of executions in prisons across the country.
The International Institute of Strategic Studies reported on April 20th: “US Centcom commander General Lloyd Austin testified in March that Iran’s regional behavior has not changed since the nuclear deal, for better or for worse: ‘The fact remains that Iran today is a significant destabilizing force in the region.’”
Newsweek raised the question of Iran ever maturing into an appropriate neighbor, describing how Tehran has resorted to pursuing “deterrence and military power projection through means of its ballistic missiles, an alliance with Lebanese Hezbollah and the rest of its regional proxy army, and its suite of asymmetric naval capabilities designed to threaten Persian Gulf shipping and U.S. maritime dominance.”
Interestingly, despite all these undeniable facts, the West, and the Obama administration in particular, simply refuse to accept the reality that Iran will not budge to denounce its past or welcome any change whatsoever, nor will it allow its already tenuous hegemony be tethered.
American Thinker’s Rick Moran best summarized and articulated this harsh reality with reference to Iran’s approach regarding its nuclear pact with the P5+1: “I’m trying to decide what’s more jaw-dropping: Obama thinking Iran is interested in adhering to the ‘spirit’ of the treaty, or that the president actually believed the Iranians ever intended to adhere to it.”
We have to accept the fact that any talk of “moderates” and “hardliners” in Iran is merely playing into Tehran’s hands.
The mentality of all factions inside Iran is founded based on Islamic fundamentalism, denying freedoms for all and most importantly, strict gender segregation and discrimination.
Iran under its “moderate” President Hassan Rouhani is known to have executed more than 2,400 people from June 2013 onward. Recent startling reports indicate Iran sent 23 prisoners to the gallows in the span of two days of May 17th and 18th, and placed in solitary confinement 10 young inmates aged between 21 and 25, all in preparation for their executions.
Further disturbing news from Iran show how dozens of high school graduates were arrested and lashed 99 times each for throwing, and dancing at, a graduation party. This should provide a clear insight about the mullahs’ temperament.
This complex, defiant threat was first unearthed more than two decades ago by the Iranian opposition in a book titled Islamic Fundamentalism: The New Global Threat. It precisely evaluated the very foundation of this mentality.
Had these warnings been taken seriously, and received the attention they deserved, rest assured that neither al-Qaida nor Daesh would have emerged. Iraq would not have been taken hostage by Iran-backed Shiite militias sowing the seeds of “sedition and division.”
Nor would Bashar al-Assad, following the footsteps dictated by Iran, have massacred the Syrian people in a turmoil enduring for more than five years now.
Four decades of their onslaught against the Middle East and world over has proven the international community has been neglecting the mainstream solution to this major dilemma.
The National Council of Resistance of Iran, symbolized in the leadership of Maryam Rajavi and her 10-point plan for Iran, presents a democratic alternative for Iran to dislodge the mullahs.
As former New York City Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani stated at a major NCRI-sponsored gathering back in June 2015: “This is a critical time for freedom in Iran. Now more than ever, it is essential for President Obama and Secretary Kerry to keep the pressure on the Iranian Government.”
He added: “At the core of all these problems is the regime in Iran. It should be changed, it must be changed, it has to be changed…There should be support by the United States government for an opposition in Iran. The United States government should support the opposition groups, Mrs. Rajavi’s being the most prominent, and the biggest.”