Regime Change at the Cost of Destroying Iran
Their main goal is regime change at the cost of destroying Iran. They have named the man who insists on waging war against Iran as Saeed Ghasseminejad and his assistants who work at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and have a publication called Fereydoun, which advocates for the restoration of the monarchy.
It is said that the profiteers of sanctions and opponents of the revival of the JCPOA are an interconnected international network with one foot inside and the other outside. If inside, groups like the Stability Front and Saeed Jalili hinder the agreement, their foreign counterparts are the anti-JCPOA sanction-seekers who have no qualms about military attacks on Iran and lobby against Iran with all centers and institutions of power to achieve their goals.
In one of his latest statements opposing the nuclear deal, Saeed Ghasseminejad said that this agreement would lead to the release of blocked funds and an increase in Iran’s revenues, but none of this money would reach the people, so it should be opposed.
Meanwhile, during the short period of opening after the Rouhani JCPOA, very positive events occurred in terms of foreign investment and purchasing the country’s needs, the direct or indirect impact of which on people’s lives cannot be denied. The foundation for which Ghasseminejad works is known for its unconditional support of the Israeli government.
However, what few people know about is the measures and actions of this foundation to involve the United States in a war against Iran, of which Ghasseminejad is the most prominent advocate. Some incorrect and overly exaggerated reports by this institution are considered the basis for Trump’s administration’s decision to withdraw from the JCPOA and even threaten war against Iran.
The Foundation for Defense of Democracies, which played a key role in imposing banking sanctions against Iran, had recommended to Trump’s administration to sanction Iran Khodro and Saipa and their subsidiaries, which control about 90% of Iran’s car market. This foundation claimed close ties between these two automakers and Iranian military enterprises and said that sanctioning these two would be another major step towards completing the maximum pressure policy.
A Liberal Supporting Pinochet
Ghasseminejad considers himself a liberal and a freedom-seeker, but the path he follows, that is, supporting economic sanctions and military pressure against Iran, is in stark contrast to the policies of genuine critic groups within the Islamic Republic, from labor activists to teachers, women, human rights groups, women’s rights activists, social activists, reformists, nationalists, and they claim that there is no opposition against power in Iran, and therefore only economic sanctions and war can lead to the regime’s downfall.
They claim that every critic and opponent inside is a puppet, and that’s why they have enmity with all critical movements within the regime and seek to discredit and distrust the people towards them by using various tools, especially bullying in cyberspace, aiming to eliminate them from the scene.
Ghasseminejad supports the 2003 US military attack on Iraq and, in an article titled ‘Why America Will Attack Iran,’ implicitly encourages the country to conduct military operations against his homeland. In an article in Telangor titled ‘What Lenin Teaches Us,’ he praises Vladimir Ilyich Lenin and his theory of democratic centralism, and at one point, he described Augusto Pinochet, the Chilean dictator, as better than Salvador Allende.
He supported the killing of Egyptian protesters after the 2013 coup by Abdel Fattah el-Sisi and wrote on his Facebook page that he thought it was his duty to thank the Egyptian army for cleansing the streets of criminal Islamic fundamentalists.
The End Justifies the Means
Over the past decade, Ghasseminejad has often displayed his warmongering views in articles, relying on blatantly incorrect arguments. For example, in various articles before the signing of the JCPOA, he repeatedly stated that Iran has a military nuclear program, and therefore military conflict is inevitable. What this movement doesn’t consider is the human, financial, and crippling costs of sanctions that have weighed heavily on the Iranian people in recent years, to the point that if the agreement doesn’t come to fruition, it is not far from failure.
More importantly, when such a movement defends the intensification of sanctions and does everything to continue them, how can one expect them not to support military attacks, the result of which would undoubtedly be the loss of hundreds or even thousands of innocent civilians and deadly human and economic damages? They deliberately avoid mentioning the inhumane aspects of military attacks and cunningly bypass them to avoid being questioned for it.
They say sanctions should be intensified so that public dissatisfaction increases and regime change occurs, or the country reaches a deadlock situation that collapses with a military attack. Their level of hostility towards the Islamic Republic is so high that they don’t see anything called the people and Iran, and they have no qualms about using any tool and pressure, even at the cost of crushing the people and destroying the homeland. It is said that the tangible result of Saeed Ghasseminejad and his associates’ efforts, in addition to accessing high-paying jobs and huge budgets, is fabricating false stories about Iran in the service of pressure to create a military confrontation.
