Enter to win every day in CTNOW's 21 Days of Summer Giveaways. Click here to see today's prize.
CT Now

Back the Iranian opposition

The International Atomic Energy Agency's latest report about Iran lays bare the true nature of Tehran's nuclear agenda: an advanced, sophisticated and highly secretive program run by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps to build the bomb.

Overwhelming evidence shows a pattern dating back many years of covert activities with significant military involvement that cannot be explained away for any purpose other than building a nuclear warhead. The report contradicts the Iranian regime's claim that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. "Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device," the IAEA report underscored.

For years, Tehran has been dribbling out information only when confronted, conceding the existence of nuclear sites only after they were exposed by Iran's main opposition movement, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), and responding to IAEA inquiries only after the fact.

Speculation over what to do about Iran is the topic of the day, but the Iran policy conundrum was not ignited by this or previous IAEA reports, nor is it a matter only for Washington to decide. The West has been engaged in a policy debate for years, in the course of which Europe was pretty much given the lead to deal with Iran, but to no avail.

For three decades, Washington has acted like a pendulum, oscillating between engagement and threats of military action. Given the problematic nature of the latter, engagement has essentially held sway. This has provided the Iranian regime a golden opportunity to rapidly advance its quest for the bomb.

When the European Union started nuclear talks with Iran in 2003, Tehran had not even completed the construction of its only known uranium enrichment facility at Natanz, and it was not enriching uranium. By the time President Barack Obama was sworn in, Iran was already enriching uranium at 3.5 percent levels, thousands of centrifuges had been installed at Natanz, and work was proceeding at a number of nuclear sites.

When President Obama embarked on his campaign to unclench the fist of the ayatollahs and persuade Tehran to abandon its nuclear weapons program, Tehran's apologists were cheering the anticipated results. Nearly three years later, Tehran is enriching up to 20 percent, is installing centrifuge machines in an underground uranium enrichment facility in Qom, has been experimenting and working on building nuclear warheads, and has enough enriched uranium to make four nuclear weapons, if further enriched to weapon grade.

The moral of the story is that engagement has failed to halt Tehran's nuclear drive. Sanctions have proven patently insufficient. So can anything be done? The answer is yes.

The opposition MEK has been the source of much of the intelligence about the existence of multiple nuclear sites scattered in different parts of Iran, including the uranium enrichment facility in Natanz and the heavy water facility in Arak in 2002; the key nuclear research and development facility in Lavizan-Shian in 2003; the Qom underground enrichment facility in 2005; and other significant sites over the following years directly involved with nuclear weaponization.

Iran saw major uprisings in 2009 lasting several months before being brutally suppressed. Many MEK members were arrested, sentenced to death or hanged for organizing and/or taking part in the anti-government demonstrations.

Currently, Iran's economy is in shambles, the ruling elite are increasing fighting among themselves and internal dissent has spread.

Little can be done to stop Iran from advancing its ambitious nuclear weapons program without factoring in the Iranian people and their organized opposition committed to replacing the regime with a democratic, secular and non-nuclear republic. This option has the support of a large, bipartisan group of members of Congress who are calling on the State Department to remove the terrorist designation of the MEK, placed on the movement 14 years ago as a goodwill gesture to Tehran. (Dozens of senior former officials of the Obama, Bush and Clinton administrations have made similar calls for delisting the MEK, including a national security adviser, a Homeland Security secretary, three chairs of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, directors of the CIA and FBI, a U.S. attorney general, U.S. ambassadors to the United Nations, and counter-terrorism officials.)

Nothing has been more destructive than engagement packaged under different names. Iran's nuclear clock is ticking. However, there is no need for foreign governments to allocate money, dispatch troops or launch any kind of military action against Tehran.

This is the era of people power, arguably more deeply rooted in Iran than what we have seen in the Arab Spring. It is time for the West, the U.S. in particular, to focus on the third way: change from within, by relying on the people of Iran and their organized opposition movement.

Alireza Jafarzadeh is the author of "The Iran Threat: President Ahmadinejad and the Coming Nuclear Crisis." He exposed the nuclear sites in Natanz and Arak in 2002, which triggered the IAEA inspections of the Iranian nuclear sites. His email is jafarzadeh@spcwashington.com.

Copyright © 2015, CT Now
Related Content
  • There's good reason not to trust Iran — or Democrats

    There's good reason not to trust Iran — or Democrats

    Most people agree there is a real problem with any relationship with Iran ("Negotiating with Iran," April 3).

  • Iran deal — war now or war later

    Iran deal — war now or war later

    In its recent editorial, The Sun adopts President Barack Obama's primary argument in favor of the Iran deal — that the only choice is the deal or war ("A 'good enough' agreement," July 24). No one wants war. But the choice here is not war or no war. It is war now or war later.

  • Iran deal threatens Israel

    Iran deal threatens Israel

    It is sad to see The Baltimore Sun's editorial board acknowledge its support for this awful deal with Iran ("A 'good enough' deal," July 27). War will not be the result if the deal is not signed, but at least the sanctions would still be in place. The only countries benefiting from this deal will...

  • Iran deal falls woefully short

    Iran deal falls woefully short

    "Good enough" is not an acceptable alternative when it comes to making a nuclear deal with Iran, a government that consistently urges for "death to America and Israel" ("A 'good enough' deal," July 27). There are far too many questions left in this deal for Congress to accept it at this point in...

  • Iran deal a 'Pandora's Box'

    Iran deal a 'Pandora's Box'

    If we believe that Iran will cease its nuclear program and its support for international terrorism after the agreement is signed, we are living in a fool's paradise ("Sen. Ben Cardin says U.S. negotiators got 'awful lot' in Iran deal," July 23). The argument that Iran will no longer develop nuclear...

  • Wishful thinking about the U.S. deal with Iran

    Wishful thinking about the U.S. deal with Iran

    Regarding Ray McGovern's commentary "Is the 'military option' on Iran off the table?" (July 20), much as we'd like to believe this is a good deal for the U.S., the facts suggest otherwise.

  • Iran deal won't lead to a safer world

    Iran deal won't lead to a safer world

    In 1938, the prime ministers of the United Kingdom and France signed a agreement called the Munich Pact with Adolph Hitler. This act effectively sealed the fate of portions of Czechoslovakia.

  • Don't trust Iran deal

    Don't trust Iran deal

    In response to KAL's cartoon of July 19 depicting Republican hawks not trusting a peace dove brought by President Barack Obama under the guise of the Iran Nuke Deal, I have a two word response: Neville Chamberlain.

Comments
Loading
71°