Following the US strike on Iranian nuclear sites, Maryam Rajavi, president-elect of the Iranian Resistance, issued a statement: “The Iranian people welcome the end of the war and seek peace and freedom. Khamenei is responsible for an unpatriotic project that, in addition to costing countless lives, has cost the Iranian people at least two trillion dollars – and now, it has all gone up in smoke.” Rajavi once again emphasised the third option: no to appeasement, no to war – yes to regime change, the overthrow of the religious dictatorship by the Iranian people and the Iranian Resistance.
“Forward toward a free Iran and a democratic, non-nuclear republic with separation of religion and state and gender equality.”
The war between Israel and Iran: a crisis foretold, a solution long ignored
The Iranian Resistance, under Rajavi’s leadership, has consistently urged Western leaders to recognise a truth that remains as urgent today as it was two decades ago: the path to a non-nuclear Iran – and to peace and stability in the region – does not lie in war, nor in appeasement. It lies in a third option: regime change by the Iranian people and their organised resistance movement.
Had the West heeded this call when it was first raised – when Rajavi presented it to the European parliament in 2003 – history might have taken another path. Rajavi warned that appeasement would not prevent war but pave the road to it. Today, we are living the consequences she foresaw.
The present Middle East crisis
On Friday 13 June 2025, a new and deadly chapter in the region’s conflict erupted. As missiles flew and instability deepened, two questions dominated: why has it come to this, and what can be done to stop it?
The facts are stark:
- The Iranian regime commits systematic human rights violations.
- It sponsors terrorism, including attacks on European soil.
- It actively supports Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
- It fuels conflict across the region via proxy militias.
- Its nuclear programme continues in violation of International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards and the joint comprehensive plan of action (JCPOA).
The failure to take meaningful, coordinated international action before the outbreak of war has now led to the very crisis that years of warnings sought to prevent.
Roots of the crisis in Iran
For over 40 years, the Iranian regime has maintained its grip on power through two pillars:
- Domestic repression, targeting women, minorities, and political dissent.
- Exporting terrorism and extremism through groups like Hezbollah, the Houthis, and militias in Iraq and Syria.
After the Iran–Iraq War, the regime launched both the Quds Force and its clandestine nuclear programme, using both as tools to blackmail and destabilise. The West’s policy of ‘engagement’ only gave the regime more space to grow its influence and tighten its grip on power.
The third option: a viable and urgent alternative
The ‘third option’ that Rajavi presented at the European parliament, offers a clear solution:
“The only viable and lasting solution to the crisis instigated by the ruling religious fascism – both within the region and globally – is the overthrow of this regime by the Iranian people and their organised resistance.”
The NCRI – which embodies this alternative – is backed by millions of Iranians and supported by majorities in 34 parliaments. It was the NCRI that first exposed the Iranian regime’s covert nuclear weapons programme in August 2002, revealing the Natanz and Arak sites.
Since then, it has uncovered extensive intelligence on more than 130 secret nuclear and missile-related facilities and activities, demonstrating its capacity to lead a peaceful, democratic transition based on Rajavi’s 10-point plan. Thousands of resistance units affiliated with the NCRI, mostly led by women and youth, have been active across Iran, breaking the regime’s atmosphere of fear and laying the groundwork for the next uprising.
The people’s voice: no to dictatorships – old or new
The Iranian people have made their rejection of both monarchy and theocracy unmistakably clear. During the 2022 uprising, their chants echoed across cities: “Down with the oppressor, be it the Shah or the Supreme Leader!”
Yet, as the world seeks alternatives to the clerical regime, some figures abroad – such as Reza Pahlavi – have been promoted in international media as potential successors. While he presents himself as a unifying figure, many Iranians view his proposals as dangerously regressive.
Pahlavi has openly spoken of his “bilateral contacts” with Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Basij commanders – the very forces responsible for systematic repression and widespread human rights abuses. He has referred to them as “guardians of Iran” in a future transition and described them as guarantors of the country’s future security. This position has been widely condemned by Iranian civil society and opposition groups as a betrayal of the sacrifices made by protesters, activists, and families who have suffered under the IRGC’s brutality.
Unlike the NCRI, Pahlavi presents no structured democratic platform, no history of resistance, and no popular legitimacy inside Iran. His call for rapprochement with the IRGC is not only tone deaf – it risks preserving the very machinery of state violence that the people have risen against.
Responsible discourse – whether from media, policy institutions, or diaspora voices – must reflect the real demands from inside Iran: for a secular, pluralistic, and democratic republic, free from all forms of authoritarianism, past or present. The path forward lies not in rehabilitating oppressors, but in empowering those who have resisted them at great cost.
The democratic alternative: a message from Strasbourg
In sharp contrast, Rajavi’s vision is grounded in decades of resistance and the will of the people. Speaking again at the European parliament in June 2025, she warned:
“Let us not allow the Munich experience to be repeated with clerics armed with nuclear weapons,” she said, referencing her 2003 speech in the same parliament. “Today, we see appeasement has indeed led to war.”
“There is a concrete alternative – one with a clear program and a long history of relentless struggle against this religious dictatorship. That alternative is the National Council of Resistance of Iran, which turns 44 this year,” she declared.
“An alternative cannot be imposed from above, as was done a century ago when Britain installed a monarch by appointment. Nor can it be forced upon the people like the 1953 coup d’état by the United States against the nationalist government of Dr Mossadegh and through repression, executions, and torture. Had there been a legitimate nationalist and democratic government in place, the course of Iran’s history – and indeed the fate of this region – would have been profoundly different. Khomeini and the mullahs would have never seized power.”
Her words echo the demands inside Iran: for a secular, pluralistic, and democratic republic – free of authoritarianism, whether in a crown or a turban.
The lasting path to peace
- Recognise the Iranian people’s right to resist and to change their future.
- Recognise the democratic alternative of the NCRI.
- And recognise the only viable path to peace in the region: regime change by the people of Iran.
