Iran's Middle East ambitions more dangerous than nuclesar threat

Iran, chasing a strategic objective of safeguarding its very existence, sees its interests in hindering any efforts to reach a lasting peace, while canvassing its role as an effective party in the war against ISIS.
It is worth noting that hundreds of thousands of innocent Syrians seeking life under a free state are paying the price of Khamenei’s ruthless dictatorship. Iran’s meddling in the region and provoking sectarianism have rendered increasing fundamentalism and the rise of Daesh and al-Qaeda. Parallel to appeasing Iran to maintain the mullahs at the negotiating table, silence and inaction seen from the West in the Middle East, especially by the Obama administration, have further intensified the Levant inferno and complicated regional conditions, especially Syria. To this end, Iran has been the main benefactor as a result. The status quo further proves a warning issued by Iranian opposition leader Maryam Rajavi, President of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI). “Four years ago I warned the threat of the mullahs’ meddling in Iraq is 100 times more dangerous than its nuclear ambitions,” Rajavi said in a speech on June 30, 2007 in Paris. Although Iran failed to obtain nuclear weapons thanks to continuous NCRI revelations, Tehran’s destructive meddling and crimes carried out by affiliated Shiite militias in Iraq, Syria and abroad are far more dangerous. This campaign has taken the lives of hundreds of thousands of people throughout the region, leveled cities and displaced millions.
Tehran’s interventions in the Middle East have brought any and all efforts to establish peace, stability, and security to a complete halt. Of course, this is not due to Tehran’s strength and capabilities. In fact, it is all the byproduct of inaction, silence, and policy of appeasement adopted by the West vis-à-vis Iran, and 16 years of strategic mistakes by Washington in this flashpoint region of the globe.

Maryam Rajavi addresses the French National Assembly: Middle East Developments, French and European Approaches

Occupying Iraq and delivering the country in a silver plate to Iran, parallel to disarming the leading organized opposition entity, the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK), were all gifts provided by the West and U.S. to the leading state sponsor of terrorism. Without a doubt any involvement of Iran in the war against Daesh will only register as an aberration in establishing regional peace and security, forcing the international community to pinpoint resources on derivatives of Iran’s terrorism crusade.

Solution
Of course, true and lasting Middle East peace and security are only possible through regime change in Iran and the establishment of a democratic and secular government in Tehran. This is the objective set by the Iranian opposition under Mrs. Rajavi’s leadership. Her 10-point-plan for the future Iran, enjoys the support of thousands of MPs, political, religious, legal and civil dignitaries across the globe. Abi-partisan letter signed by 23 former top officeholders in the past five administrations to the president-elect urges the incoming Trump administration "to establish a dialogue with Iran's exiled resistance, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI)," which has called for free elections to establish a secular, democratic, non-nuclear republic in Iran as well as an end to what it calls Tehran's "religious dictatorship." Middle East stability can only be achieved in bringing an end to Iran’s meddling in Syria and across the region. With Iran evicted from the Middle East all forms of fundamentalism, including Daesh, will have no reason to exist. And naturally, the West will be relieved of the current wave of lethal terrorist attacks.

Iran Lobby’s Yellow and Biased Smear Campaign Against MEK

IranFreedom - Tehran has taken nearly full control over Baghdad thanks to the Obama Middle East Doctrine. One victim of such a failed policy has been the country of Iraq, as Iran gained enormous influence over it under President Barack Obama’s watch.
“Iran is taking over Iraq,” U.S. President-elect Donald Trump emphasized during the campaign back in October.
Iran has continuously meddled in all aspects of Iraqi life, be it political, social, economicand military issues. After Obama rushed to pull all U.S. troops out of the country, Tehran jumped to the occasion and took full advantage.
Baghdad has been influenced heavily by Tehran through a long list of Shiite political parties and ruthless militia groups.

Iran was also able to launch numerous deadly attacks against its legitimate and democratic opposition, the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK), stationed in Iraq at the time. The MEK is known to have first blown the whistle on Iran’s clandestine nuclear weapons program and provided accurate intelligence on Iran’s meddling in Iraq and the entire Middle East.
In its effort, the MEK has unprecedentedly gained the support of thousands of prominent politicians on both sides of the Atlantic, and amazingly both sides of the aisle in Washington politics. Following the recent U.S. presidential election results, the regime in Tehran is currently terrified over the various candidates weighed by Trump for his administration.
Congress support for Iran opposition.

Iran’s lobbyists like Dan Benjamin launching a yellow and biased smear campaign, due to serious concern about the likes of former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, former House speaker Newt Gingrich, Ambassador John Bolton and others having such close relations with the President-elect.
As a result of Obama’s failed foreign policy in the Middle East the nations of Iraq, Iran, Syria and beyond have endured enormously harsh conditions. The U.S. administration and Congress have the opportunity to correctly reverse these mistakes.
Evicting Iran from Iraq is the accurate policy that will provide the interests of all nations across the region, and the United States as well. This is the prelude for change in Iran and allowing the Iranian people decide their own fate.

It's time to change U.S Policy on Iran regime

NCRI - It would be in the Iranian people’s interests, and a pre-requisite of peace and stability in the region, for the Trump administration to adopt a firm Iran policy, argues Heshmat Alavi in The Hill. The following is the text of his op-ed which was published on November 22:
The U.S. presidential elections and the victory of Donald Trump alludes to the end to a long era. After all, Iran benefited significantly from the past 16 years of appeasement adopted by the past two U.S. administrations.
MAJOR MISTAKES UNDER TWO PRESIDENTS

George W. Bush launched a war with Iraq, shifting all attentions from Tehran to Baghdad, and opening the doors of Mesopotamia to Iran’s lethal meddling. Barack Obama extended a helping hand to the mullahs, providing a green light for the regime to severely crack down on the Iranian people. Obama’s foreign policy pillar of engagement with Iran resulted in the toughest period for the Iranian people ever since Eisenhower and the 1953 coup d'état against Iran’s sole democratically elected government. The mullahs received the ultimate life support as the Obama White House refused to implement many of the measures included in the already misguided nuclear agreement, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), to full extent.
Thus, it goes beyond doubt that an end to the Obama tenure will be considered a severe blow to Iran. In the past 16 years, Tehran was able to take full advantage of Washington’s strategic mistakes to further plunge the entire region into chaos, as we see now in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Lebanon. The U.S. policy on Iran in the Bush and Obama administrations increased the suffering of the Iranian people.
WHAT TO EXPECT

Whether Trump remains loyal to all his election campaign pledges is a legitimate question. From Tehran’s point of view, however, this new White House will be completely different from a Hillary Clinton White House. More importantly, however, are appointees of Trump’s probable administration lineup. This team has been completely against Iran. Tehran is already terrified of the likes of former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, former House speaker Newt Gingrich and Ambassador John Bolton.
FINAL THOUGHTS
A new American president with a firm stance will have a major impact on politics inside Iran. Does this mean the new American administration will completely put aside the entire appeasement policy and stand alongside the Iranian people?
Time will tell.
A new era in U.S.-Iran foreign policy began Nov. 8. With Trump’s election, a complete restructuring is in the making for Washington. The Trump administration adopting a firm Iran policy is in the Iranian people’s interests, and a pre-requisite of peace and stability in the region. The more this regime is terrified of a Trump presidency, the more it proves how Obama played completely into the mullahs’ hands.
The election of Donald Trump marks a new beginning, and the mullahs themselves understand this best.