Maryam Rajavi’s speech in Strasbourg’s seminar on Iran

Mr. Adrien Zeller, President of the Regional Council of Alsace
Mr. Prime Minister Ghozali
Hon. Lord Slynn of Hadley
Hon. Vice-President of the European Parliament
Hon. Minister, Mr. Alain Vivien
Hon. Members of the French National Assembly and Senators
Hon. Members of the European Parliament
Ladies and Gentlemen,

Allow me at the outset to pay tribute to advocates of human rights who have been executed or assassinated by the religious fascism ruling Iran. Let me also to pay homage to Aime Cesaire, who shined in literature and in defense of human rights, and whose poems I used to read during my teenage years.

He was a friend of our resistance movement and an advocate of freedom and democracy in Iran.

The Iranian Resistance shares the grief of the people of France for his loss.

Today, April 24, is the anniversary of the assassination of Prof. Kazem Rajavi, Iran’s first post-revolution emissary to the European Headquarters of the United Nations in Geneva. He was recognized among Iranians as the symbol of defending human rights. The mullahs gunned him down in Geneva on this day in 1990.

Dear friends,

It is indeed a pleasure to meet you and to discuss the Iranian problem.

Today, the crises in the Middle East represent the most important problems facing the international community.

Chaos and insecurity in Iraq and Afghanistan, crises in Lebanon and in Palestine’s autonomous territories and hindrance of peace in the Middle East are but a few of such problems.

Iran, under the rule of the mullahs, acts as the heartland of Islamic fundamentalism and is the epicenter of these crises.

I will try to address this issue by considering four key aspects.

– The mullahs’ policies are on an irreversible path of extremism.
– The policy of anticipation for the regime to change its behavior has failed.
– The key to the crisis is in the hands of the Iranian Resistance.
– And finally, these circumstances warrant a European initiative directed by France, as it assumes the EU presidency.

A turning point in the Iranian regime

Our meeting today coincides with a turning point in the Iranian regime’s policies.
I am referring to the second round of the parliamentary elections scheduled for tomorrow.

Under the religious dictatorship, elections and the parliament are nothing but a farce, and the terms “reformer” and “conservative” are truly hollow because all the regime’s factions must believe in, and be necessarily committed to, the principle of the velayat-e faqih (supremacy of clerical leadership).

The velayat-e faqih regime is a medieval system, which relies on repression at home and export of terrorism and religious fascism abroad in order to stay in power.

According to Articles 5 and 11 of the Constitution, the regime’s leader is the ruler of all Muslims around the world, and “[the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran] must constantly strive to bring about the political, economic, and cultural unity of the Islamic world.”

According to Article 110, absolute power rests squarely in the hands of the Supreme Leader who determines the policies of the state. He is the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces and appoints senior military and police commanders, the highest ranking judicial official, head of the state radio and television, and the clerics in the watchdog Guardian Council.

During the parliamentary elections last month, the nationwide network of the People’s Mojahedin Organization monitored 25,000 out of the 45,000 polling stations across the country. It found that about 95 percent of eligible voters stayed away from the vote. Even government figures prove the extensive scope of the boycott. According to official figures, candidates who won seats in the Majlis did so with only five to 12 percent of the vote.

Khamenei mercilessly purged his rivals and set up a hand-picked Parliament, most of whose deputies are former torturers and terrorists.

By appointing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as president in 2005, Khamenei had already embarked on purging other factions within the regime. This purge reached its climax during the recent elections.

In an April 9th speech, Ahmadinejad spoke about a political surgery in the regime. A day later, he proclaimed that he would not rest until “the corrupt global domination” would be completely vanished. On April 16th, Ahmadinejad announced that the building and development of Iran is a mission that would ultimately coincide with another, namely changing the dominating powers of the world. As such, he pledged further purges of internal factions, “cutting their hands,” and “uprooting” them.

This was an unprecedented turning point in the three decades of the mullahs’ rule.

Khamenei’s main target, however, were not the so-called reformist factions. The main objective was to pave the way to obtain nuclear weapons.

Khamenei sought to patch the holes within his own faction in order to confront the domestic and international implications of the regime’s rush toward the A-bomb.

After the elections, Ahmadinejad said that this session of the Majlis will serve to enable the regime to harness the entire capacity of its nuclear program.

I am pleased that the European Union described the mullahs’ Majlis election as being neither free nor fair.

The EU stated that “the Iranian people deserve a democratic and fair election.”

And a democratic and fair election is what the People’s Mojahedin and the Iranian Resistance have been fighting for from the outset.

We must therefore ask why the European Union has labeled a struggle to achieve free elections and democracy as terrorism.

Export of terrorism and fundamentalism

One manifestation of the regime’s unipolarization and extremism is the increase in its export of terrorism and instability in the Middle East region.

You are aware of the extent of the regime’s terrorist meddling in Iraq.

The repeated rocket and mortar attacks on the Green Zone are a part of this meddling.

For several years, senior US commanders and officials sought to downplay the Iranian regime’s threat.

Today, they too acknowledge that Iran poses a strategic threat to Iraq.

In Lebanon, the mullahs have strengthened Hezbollah’s missile stockpile both in terms of quantity and quality.

Following the war in Lebanon in 2006, the mullahs provided 14 billion dollars to Hezbollah.

This occurred at a time when more than eighty percent of Iranians live below the poverty line.

Lebanese political parties have warned that with the removal of political obstacles Hezbollah would take over the control of the country in a matter of days, not weeks.

All signs point to the fact that the mullahs have adopted a more extremist policy.

Failure of policy of appeasement

Those who pinned hope on behavior change on the part of the mullahs failed. Behavior change is only a mirage. This message was especially reflected in the mullahs’ Majlis election.

The mullahs ignored the 5+1 incentives package offered in June 2006.

These incentives were underscored in four United Nations Security Council resolutions

But the mullahs took the opposite road.

The EU-troika engaged in nuclear talks with the mullahs for over four and a half years. This only served to provide more time to the mullahs to complete their nuclear weapons program.

The nuclear talks amounted to a major policy mistake on the part of the West; But not the biggest one.

Unlawful terrorist designation of the PMOI

The most important mistake was committed with the crackdown of the Iranian Resistance and its main component, the People’s Mojahedin. This played into the hands of the mullahs.

The West placed the Mojahedin (and not the National Council of Resistance of Iran) in the terrorist list, and thus shackled a movement, which was fighting for democracy and free elections in Iran.

Similarly, in Iraq, the United States bombed Mojahedin camps in April 2003 at the behest of the mullahs. This was their biggest mistake and provided ample opportunity for the regime to dominate Iraq.

A declaration signed by 5.2 million Iraqis in June 2006, stressed: The bombing and disarming of the People’s Mojahedin in Ashraf, the bastion of resistance, upset the strategic balance in the Middle East in favor of the mullahs in Iran.

Of course, subsequently, seven American intelligence services screened Mojahedin members in Ashraf City during a 16-month period. As a result, according to American officials, there was no basis to charge even a single Mojahedin member with terrorism (The New York Times, July 27, 2004). Eventually, in 2004, Coalition Forces in Iraq recognized the status of the Mojahedin as “protected persons” under the Fourth Geneva Convention.

This mistake mirrored another one in France in June 2003 when our movement was the target of a major police operation on the bogus charge of terrorism. At the time, officials were openly admitting that the aim was to dismantle the Resistance.

French public opinion was enraged over this incident and the media widely reported on a deal between the government of Jacques Chirac and the mullahs in Iran.

By committing this enormous mistake, the West has deprived not only the Iranian people but also the world of being free from aggressive fundamentalists ruling Iran as well as democratic change in the country.

Placing the Mojahedin in the terrorist list had no factual basis from the outset.

In Europe, it was the British government, which first demanded the designation.

Later, UK officials admitted that the designation was in response to the demands of the mullahs.

On 12 December 2006, the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg annulled the decision by the EU Council of Ministers to include the PMOI in the terrorist list.

On 30 November 2007, a court in the UK described the British Home Secretary’s decision to proscribe the PMOI as being “perverse.”

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the European Parliament adopted resolutions in which they called for the implementation of these rulings.

Regrettably, the Council of Ministers has so far refused to abide by these rulings.

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has stated that, “The EU Council of Ministers has violated the rule of law.”

Solution to Iran problem

Let me now address the third issue: What is the solution to the Iranian crisis?

On the one hand, no one is interested in a repeat of the Iraq scenario in Iran.

On the other hand, the efforts to change the mullahs’ behavior have failed.

Therefore, the only effective solution to this crisis is democratic change by the Iranian people and the Resistance.

The National Council of Resistance and the People’s Mojahedin are the only organized movements capable of setting in motion the enormous anti-regime potential within Iran. The recent elections made it crystal clear that the Iranian society is in an explosive state and that the people desire change.

Despite increasing repression, there were more than 5,000 anti-government demonstrations by various social sectors across Iran in 2007.

The Mojahedin, as the pivotal force within the National Council of Resistance, believes in a democratic and tolerant Islam.

This movement enjoys a vast popular base and has been fighting the ruling fundamentalist regime in Iran for three decades.

For this reason, it represents the antithesis to the ominous phenomenon of Islamic fundamentalism.

For years, the movement has been an irreplaceable source of information in exposing the Iranian regime’s nuclear program and its terrorist activities in Iraq, the region and around the world.

In their statements in June 2006 and November 2007, respectively, 5.2 million Iraqis and 300,000 Shiites in southern Iraq declared that the way to confront the mullahs’ meddling in that country was to support the Mojahedin.

The Iranian Resistance seeks to establish a secular, parliamentary democracy in Iran. The National Council of Resistance is a coalition composed of 530 members with different political orientations. As part of its platform, it advocates gender equality, equal rights for all religious minorities, abolishment of the death penalty, a market economy and mutually fair relations with the rest of the world.

Recognition of the Iranian Resistance and the French role

Today, the world needs a bold initiative vis-à-vis the Iranian crisis as the classic solutions of appeasement and military action have proven to be at an impasse.

Democratic change by the Iranian people and the Resistance is the most effective and least costly solution.

Europe can embark on a historic initiative and support democratic change in Iran in order to break the deadlock.

France will assume the EU presidency in about two months.

Unlike the past, France has adopted a decisive policy towards the Iranian regime.

This decisiveness will only prove effective when it is coupled with the recognition of the Iranian people’s Resistance.

The most important step in this path is to remove the People’s Mojahedin from the EU list of terrorist groups.

Respect for the rule of law warrants this step. France has been among the founders of the rule of law in Europe.

This step would send the strongest message of friendship and solidarity to the Iranian people.

The headquarters of the National Council of Resistance, the democratic alternative to the mullahs’ regime, has been in Paris for the past 27 years.

This is an opportunity for France to find a European solution for the Iranian problem.

I would like to remind you that the NCRI is not in the terrorist list.

Recognizing the Iranian Resistance is an effective strategy in the face of the mullahs’ hegemonic designs for the Middle East.

They want to turn Lebanon into France’s Iraq.

To stop them, France must stand with the Iranian people.

This would exert maximum pressure on the mullahs.

The Iranian regime is on its way out. France’s and Europe’s political and economic ties can only be guaranteed by standing with the Iranian people as they struggle for liberty in their homeland.

I therefore call on Europe to open a new chapter in its relations with the Iranian people by recognizing the NCRI.

I call on Europe to open a new chapter by establishing friendship with the Iranian people and their Resistance in defense of freedom and human rights, and also for the sake of global peace and security.

Thank you very much.