Madam Speaker, on 26 June 2010 tens of thousands of pro-democracy Iranians and hundreds of parliamentarians and dignitaries from Europe gathered in Paris (Taverny), France to express their support for the Iranian dissidents based in Camp…
Madam Speaker, on 26 June 2010 tens of thousands of pro-democracy Iranians and hundreds of parliamentarians and dignitaries from Europe gathered in Paris (Taverny), France to express their support for the Iranian dissidents based in Camp Ashraf, as well as the uprising in Iran. Notable among prominent speakers was our former Ambassador to the United Nations, Mr. John Bolton. I believe his speech provides very important guidelines beyond partisan politics, for any American policymaker who is genuinely concerned about Tehran's nuclear threat and is looking for potential options as the solution to the Iranian problem.
Ambassador John Bolton's Address Before Tens of Thousands of Iranians and Hundreds of Parliamentarians and Dignitaries from Europe Held on 26
June 2010 in Paris, France
Ambassador John Bolton: Thank you. Thank you very much.
It's a great pleasure to be here today and to say thank you
for the opportunity to address the free people of Iran. I
would like you to know and all the people still inside Iran
to know how many tens of millions of Americans believe that
the policy of the United Sates government should be regime
change in Iran.
I don't need to tell anybody here today how oppressive the
regime is and the crimes it has committed against the people
of Iran. This is not a government that is loyal to the
people. This is a government that is loyal only to itself and
keeping itself in power. What is important, I think, for the
rest of the world to understand is how, in the past several
years in particular, the regime has become increasingly a
military dictatorship, and that this is an oppressive, in
fact fascist, regime that controls Iran today.
The repression that followed last year's fraudulent June 12
presidential election was an eye opener for many people in
the West and certainly in the United States. And this is
because not simply that the election itself was fraudulent
and not simply because of the brutality of the Pasdaran and
the Bassiji against the people of Iran, but because the
entire sequence of events revealed just how basic are the
flaws in the current regime and just how strong is the
opposition of the people of Iran to the regime itself.
I must say, speaking as an American, that I found the US
reaction to the repression after the June 12 election as very
disappointing. I think that the administration did not want
to speak the truth about what was going on inside Iran
because it was still focused on the open hand that it had
extended to the Iranian regime; an open hand for negotiations
particularly over the nuclear weapons program. Now, I think,
anyone familiar with the regime had to know at the beginning
that the open hand would be rejected and that there would be
no negotiation over the nuclear program and certainly no
negotiations over the freedom of the Iranian people. It
remains to this day a disappointment that the administration
in Washington has not realized that yet.
But I do want to assure you that in the United States,
among the people, in the Congress, in the media, and in
academic circles, there is an increasing realization that the
regime in Tehran is not a regime that we can negotiate with
and that the open hand policy has failed.
This meeting today is a signal both to the people still
trapped inside Iran and the democratic countries all around
the world that the people of Iran seek to have control over
their own government and to participate in democratic
elections. It is a tragedy for Iran that its best friend and
closest ally in the world is North Korea; North Korea, which
has its own nuclear weapons, which pursues ballistic missile
technology that threatens peace and security not only in Asia
but in the Middle East as well, which, financed by the regime
in Tehran, was building a nuclear reactor in Syria, and which
partners with Iran on the nuclear program. It is a regime
that is the most dictatorial on Earth today; North Korea is a
prison camp. North Korea's people are on the verge of
starving; and it still nonetheless pursues nuclear weapons
and works with the government of Iran. This is a huge tragedy
for the people of Iran. But what it reflects is the isolation
of the regime from civilized governments all around the
world. It is a fitting tribute to the free people of Iran
that so many parliamentarians, from Europe, Canada, the
United States, and around the world have begun to see the
impact of the regime on the people of Iran.
It also has to be troubling that the regime's closest large
friends around the world are Russia and China; China which
has never had on the mainland true democratic institutions;
and Russia which passed from authoritarianism into a period
of democracy and may be passing right back into
authoritarianism. This is not something that a free Iran
would tolerate.
Moreover, the regime's support for international
terrorism--some have described it as the central banker for
international terrorism, supporting terrorist groups all
around the world--have helped contribute to the isolation of
Iran and the increasing difficulty imposed on the Iranian
people. Now, I think that the United States' policy of regime
change should be a very active policy. I think the first
thing that we need to be clear on is that the United States
will not stand in the way of legitimate opposition groups of
Iranians who seek regime change in Iran.
As all of you know, in many European countries, the
designation of the MEK as a terrorist organization has been
lifted. That has not happened in the United States yet. But
there are many members of Congress who have pressed Secretary
of State, Hillary Clinton, to have the State Department
reevaluate that designation which after all was
first imposed in 1997 during the Clinton administration, many
say as a favor to the regime in Tehran. That obviously has
not produced anything in response. And I do think that it is
incumbent on this administration to make it clear if it has
evidence to bring it forward and if it does not have evidence
to remove the designation.
U.S. opposition to international terrorism is unwavering
but it is an opposition that has to be based on facts and not
ideology and that is what we need to see. In the short term I
believe the United States has a responsibility for the safety
of people at Camp Ashraf. At an absolute minimum, the US
presence inside Ashraf has to be continued and perhaps
expanded back to something like its previous level. I think
the UN mission inside Ashraf has to be extended and I think
we need to make it clear to the government of Iraq that we
will not tolerate interference in the camp and certainly not
the kind of assaults that have occurred on the inhabitants of
the camp before. This is again something, I think, of a very
high priority in the American Congress.
I think going beyond simply getting out of the way of
legitimate democratic opposition to the regime in Tehran that
the United States should be prepared to provide assistance to
the opposition; resources and information continuing and
expanding, for example, the work of Radio Farda, and other
ways to get information to the people still inside Iran. I
think the utility of this kind of support has been
demonstrated throughout history, such as Solidarity in
Poland. Obviously we do not want to do anything that would
give the regime the ability to say that the opposition was
anything other than fully independent. But, I think our
support and the support of other western democracies should
go beyond the merely rhetorical.
In recent weeks we have seen the UN Security Council impose
the fourth set of sanctions against the regime because of its
nuclear weapons program. Sanctions are useful to put pressure
on the regime and will bring us closer to the day when the
regime will fall and there will actually be a democratic
Iran. But I do not think that the sanctions unfortunately
will be enough to stop the regime's continued pursuit of
nuclear weapons. And I worry very much that the Obama
administration and our western European friends believe that
there is now nothing more that can be done to prevent the
regime and the Revolutionary Guards from obtaining nuclear
weapons. Their fallback position is that the mullahs and the
Revolutionary Guard can be contained and deterred once they
achieve a nuclear weapons capability. I think this is a huge
mistake for the region and the world but mostly for the
people of Iran. The fact is that once this regime gets
nuclear weapons it will be immeasurably strengthened and the
power of Revolutionary Guards, already considerable, will be
strengthened even further. This regime with nuclear weapons
is not simply an external threat to its neighbors and
stability in the region and the world as a whole, but an even
greater threat to the people of Iran. It is the trump card
for the regime to stay in power.
I think it is very significant here that the position of
the democratic opposition is that it does not want an Iran
with nuclear weapons. Commentators in the West are
continuously telling us that opposition to the nuclear
program helps bring the people of Iran into closer support
for the regime in Tehran. We know that that is simply not
true and I think it is very important that in Maryam Rajavi's
platform for the future Iran it says in point 10 very
explicitly, (let me quote it so that the media can hear it,
this is Mrs. Rajavi's own platform), ``We want the free Iran
of tomorrow to be devoid of nuclear weapons and weapons of
mass destruction.'' Mrs. Rajavi's position is exactly the
right position, because an Iran with nuclear weapons will be
a less secure Iran. If this regime gets nuclear weapons, you
can count on Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey and perhaps others
getting nuclear weapons. So in a very brief period of time,
five to ten years, you can have a multi-polar nuclear Middle
East that will make everybody less secure and particularly
Iran. This is why it is so important that we support the
democratic opposition in Iran to see regime change at the
earliest possible date.
Now, some people in the West, although they do not like to
put it this explicitly, basically do not think Iran is ready
for democracy. I think they are flatly wrong. Iran is more
than ready for democracy. This is something that we feel very
deeply about in the United Sates.
I would offer to all of you the great insight of our
President Abraham Lincoln, who gave us the inspiration that I
hope will be of assistance to you, that what we want for the
people of Iran is what Lincoln wanted for the people of the
United States: government of the people, by the people and
for the people.