During his speech at a conference held at the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) Headquarters on March 1, former Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Robert Joseph strongly criticized Western democracies for their ongoing support of the Iranian regime.
He condemned Western policies that bolster the regime, allowing it to pursue nuclear capabilities, sponsor terrorism, and oppress its citizens. Joseph accused Western think tanks and academia of succumbing to Iranian-sponsored disinformation campaigns, lamenting their support for a regime responsible for the deaths of thousands of Iranians.
Drawing a sharp contrast between the regime and the democratic opposition, Ambassador Joseph questioned the logic behind remnants of the Shah regime in the West expressing a willingness to cooperate with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to effect change in Iran, dismissing the idea as incredulous.
Instead, he championed the aspirations of the genuine opposition, represented by those striving for a free, democratic, and non-nuclear Iran, as outlined in the Ten-Point Plan of Mrs. Rajavi and the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI).
The full text of Ambassador Robert Joseph’s speech follows:
Thank you. Thank you. Well, good afternoon. Again, thank you.
Madam Rajavi, it’s an honor to be here today with you and other very prominent leaders of the cause of a free Iran. I’m truly in awe of the dedication determination and courage and the personal sacrifices that many, if not most of you, have made in this cause.
I think we all agree that Alejo is an example for all of us to follow. He also stands, as you said, as a warning to the regime. We will not be silenced, we will not be cowered or intimidated, and we will prevail.
Alejo is a man of honor, and I have the honor to call him my friend. Let me begin by making a very straightforward statement, and this reflects the questions that have been asked here today by previous speakers.
The international community, and especially, I would say, Western democracies, have consistently made the wrong choice in choosing in favor of the mullahs, and I think this is reflected in policies that have propped up the regime, providing the regime with the resources to conduct terrorist activities around the globe, to pursue aggressively a nuclear weapons capability, to undertake regional aggression, and to repress the people of Iran.
Alejo asked, why is that the case? Why do Western democracies, in particular, make that choice, make the wrong choice? Well, I think the reasons are clear. In part, I think it’s because of wishful thinking, particularly in terms of American policy. We Americans are, by nature, optimistic and wishful in our thinking, but how else can you explain this never-ending view that if only we make more concessions if only we give the regime more of what it wants, it will become more moderate?
Also, I think, in part, it’s mirror imaging. How else can you explain the belief that this regime will honor its commitments in nuclear negotiations, for example, or in any other context, when it has an unblemished record of failing to keep its commitments?
In part, I think it’s also the now-revealed Iranian-sponsored disinformation campaign that has been effective in shaping, in the most perverse way, the views of many so-called experts in Western think tanks and in academia.
How else can you explain their public attack on the democratic opposition and their support for a regime that has murdered tens of thousands of its own citizens? I say shame on these useful idiots, for blood is on their hands as well.
But most of all, I think the foundation of appeasement policies is bad judgment concerning national security interests and a willingness to betray the moral imperative of defending human rights. How else can one explain the failed policies over 20 years intended to constrain the nuclear weapons program that has now made Iran a virtual nuclear weapons state?
And also the acceptance of Raisi as a legitimate head of state when he personally participated in the mass murder of thousands. This is, in the words of the 17th-century English ballad, the world turned upside down.
It’s important to ask why so many governments have, through their policy, chosen the regime over the opposition, the real opposition, the democratic opposition, not the remnants of the Shah’s dictatorship, now symbolized by a pampered son with a vacuous message that envisions working with elements of the IRGC to effect change in Iran. Explain that.
Working with the revolutionary guards. It’s a concept that belies incredulity because the revolutionary guards embody the very evilness that is this regime. In contrast, the real opposition comprised of those brave women and men who have and continue to make incredible sacrifices for a free, democratic, secular, and non-nuclear Iran.
These and other goals, as others have said, are best conveyed in the Ten-Point Plan of Mrs. Rajavi and the NCRI, a plan endorsed by hundreds of government leaders around the world, including in my country.
Policies that provide legitimacy and resources to the regime are a choice for the regime. And a choice for the regime is a choice against the democratic opposition. A choice for the regime is a choice that ignores the terrorism that has defined the regime since its very inception.
For 45 years, the regime has played the role of what my former boss, Condoleezza Rice, termed the central banker of international terrorism. Iran’s proxies in Iran, in Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and Gaza have never been more engaged than they are now in attacking American interests in the region and killing opponents, including American soldiers and civilians.
And the regime’s direct involvement in terrorism over the years has killed hundreds, if not more, of Americans and others. The regime has sponsored assassinations and bombings of civilians, including the foiled plot to bomb the 2018 Free Iran Convention, a planned bombing that could have murdered hundreds.
As for the NCRI, it has denounced terrorism. In fact, it is the greatest victim of the regime’s terrorism, in the form of the murder of 30,000 of its members in a massacre now widely viewed as a crime against humanity.
There is also a clear choice between the regime and the democratic opposition on the question of respect for human rights, particularly the fundamental rights of the Iranian people. The religious dictatorship has, from the beginning, oppressed the citizens of Iran with brutality surpassing even that of the Shah.
Tens of thousands have perished in political purges. Tens of thousands more have been imprisoned. Thousands have been executed, and millions, millions have been denied their basic civil rights since the conception of the regime.
In the past five years, thousands of civilians have been killed in the streets across Iran, all while the regime has been on an execution spree. Cynical steps such as we are seeing today in the form of fake elections and show trials do not change the truth and will not save the regime from its inevitable fate.
When the Iranian people rise up and bring an end to the nightmare that they have been experiencing for far too long when that day comes, the leaders of the regime will be placed on trial, and I believe that the fate of those leaders will be the same fate that was met in Nuremberg and given to the Nazi leadership, another horrific regime.
As for the democratic opposition, Mrs. Rajavi’s Ten-Point Plan calls for the rejection of absolute clerical rule in favor of universal suffrage and pluralism. It calls for freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, as well as the other individual and societal freedoms that are contained in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.
As a movement proudly led by a woman, it’s no surprise that it also calls for complete gender equality. Again, the choice is clear between a dark, dystopian existence and a positive democratic vision for the future of the Iranian people. Both of these immutable characteristics, institutional terrorism and the repression of its own people, are supported by the bad choices of governments.
By their external funding, Russia and China, through the purchase of weapons now used in Ukraine against the Ukrainian people and the purchase of oil by China, have decided to become strategic partners with Iran, with total disregard for how the regime uses its resources for terrorism and repression.
We should expect nothing less from Putin and from Xi. But what about the West? The countries that espouse the values of human rights and have the most to lose from Iran’s rogue behavior, whether it’s regional aggression or the nuclear program? For them, the choice is clear. Continue to appease the mullahs and reap the disastrous effects, or acknowledge the failure of past policies and begin to support the democratic opposition in its principled and determined efforts to achieve regime change from within.
Thank you very much.
