The Failure of Traditional Diplomacy with Tehran
For more than four decades, the ruling regime in Tehran has fueled global terrorism, destabilized the Middle East through its network of proxy militias, pursued nuclear weapons capability, and brutally oppressed its own citizens. Throughout this period, successive American administrations have attempted various strategic approaches, including diplomacy, economic sanctions, and accommodation. However, none of these traditional policy tools have fundamentally altered Tehran’s hostile behavior or domestic repression.
Shifting the Strategic Landscape in the Middle East
By directly confronting the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and refusing to accept the regime’s long-held assumption that it can threaten American interests without consequence, the United States has altered the strategic landscape. Yet, military action alone does not guarantee a lasting political victory. The recent weakening of the clerical regime has created a historic strategic opportunity that requires a sophisticated, long-term political approach.
Empowering the Iranian People for Lasting Change
To capitalize on this opening, the United States must continue its maximum pressure campaign while embracing a political strategy that empowers the Iranian people, denying the regime the time it needs to regroup. This strategy begins with one simple, foundational principle: lasting democratic change in Iran cannot be imposed from the outside. Instead, it must be achieved by the Iranian people themselves through domestic resistance and organized opposition.
Defining America’s Strategic Role in Iran’s Future
America’s role is not to choose Iran’s future or engage in the costly, ineffective nation-building exercises of the past. Rather, America’s role is to stand in solidarity with those inside Iran who are risking everything for freedom. U.S. policy must be designed to strengthen, rather than overlook, these domestic forces, ensuring that international pressure aligns with the aspirations of the Iranian population.
Understanding the Regime’s Fear and Escalating Repression
The recent increase in executions, arbitrary arrests, and domestic repression by Tehran should be understood for what it truly is: not a demonstration of confidence, but clear evidence of fear. History shows that authoritarian regimes often become most brutal when they believe their grip on power is weakening. The regime itself understands where the greatest threat to its survival lies, prompting its violent crackdown on dissent.
The Threat of Organized Democratic Opposition
For decades, Tehran has devoted extraordinary resources to suppressing organized democratic opposition while investing heavily in propaganda aimed at discrediting that opposition abroad. Policymakers should ask a simple question: Why would the regime expend so much effort against an organized democratic movement if it did not regard it as an existential threat? The answer to this question must shape how Washington assesses the prospects for democratic change in Iran.
Prioritizing Strategy Over Personalities
The debate in Washington should not be about individual personalities; it must be about strategy. Some analysts continue to hope that political change can emerge around well-known individuals outside Iran or through external pressure alone. However, sustainable democratic transitions are not built on personalities or military action. They require organization, a clear political vision, networks capable of mobilizing support, and a strategy rooted in the people living under the dictatorship.
Evaluating the National Council of Resistance of Iran
External pressure remains an important instrument of foreign policy, but history suggests it is most effective when it reinforces credible, organized democratic forces inside the country rather than attempting to substitute for them. Measured against that standard, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) merits careful consideration by American policymakers as a viable partner for facilitating democratic change in Iran.
The Ten-Point Plan for a Democratic Future
For nearly 50 years, the National Council of Resistance of Iran has advanced a comprehensive democratic vision based on free elections, the separation of religion and state, gender equality, judicial independence, the protection of ethnic and religious minorities, peaceful coexistence, and a non-nuclear republic. These principles are embodied in NCRI President Maryam Rajavi’s Ten-Point Plan, which serves as a practical road map for democratic transition.
Resilience and Bipartisan International Support
The relevance of this movement is not merely theoretical. The NCRI has endured decades of executions, imprisonment, demonization, and assassination attempts while successfully maintaining organized networks inside Iran. Over the years, the NCRI has engaged with lawmakers, former senior government officials, military leaders, legal scholars, and human rights advocates across the U.S. and Europe, securing broad bipartisan support.
A Strategic Opportunity for American Policy
The issue before Washington is not whether democratic alternatives exist, but whether American policy will recognize and engage those who have demonstrated organizational resilience, a coherent democratic program, and a long-term commitment to helping the Iranian people determine their own future. The strategic opening has been created; the administration now has an opportunity to help secure a favorable political outcome.
Implementing a Comprehensive Policy of Support
Securing this outcome means maintaining maximum pressure on the regime while placing human rights at the center of America’s Iran policy. Washington must publicly condemn the regime’s accelerating executions, engage organized democratic Iranian voices, deny legitimacy to both clerical dictatorship and monarchical restoration, expand support for the free flow of information, and ensure no international agreements come at the expense of the Iranian people’s democratic aspirations.
Carla Sands is a former U.S. ambassador to Denmark (2017-2021) and a former member of President Trump’s Economic Advisory Council.
Taken from: www.washingtontimes.com
