What is the best path forward for regime change in Iran? - opinion

Reports are circulating that Defense Minister Israel Katz supported the idea of Israel helping the Kurds lead a ground invasion of the Islamic Republic of Iran, providing the Kurds not only with a no-fly zone but constant backing from the sky as they advanced.

Apparently, various reports claim that the only reason why the deal was not implemented was due to opposition from the Trump administration.

It is critical to note that Iran is a multi-ethnic country, populated by Persians, Azerbaijanis, Kurds, Turks, Lors, Baloch, Ahvazis, and a variety of other ethnic groups.

If the Iranian regime is going to be successfully toppled, all of the ethnic minority groups together with the Persians opposed to the regime need to unite and fight together.

However, up until now, unity has not happened because there is no unified opposition leadership.

Indeed, most Iranians opposed to the regime would like to see Iran blossom as a liberal, secular, and decentralized federal democracy, and have zero desire to resurrect the monarchy. However, just because most Iranians reject the idea of Pahlavi returning does not mean that most Iranians want to see the Kurds take over, either.

Pinar Shaker, head of the National South Azerbaijan Statehood Council, stated in an interview that there have been tensions between Kurds and South Azerbaijanis, thus creating infighting which harms the goal of regime change.

“Relations between South Azerbaijani movements and certain Kurdish political organizations have been marked by persistent challenges,” she said.

“In my assessment, the principal source of these tensions lies in territorial claims advanced by some Kurdish groups concerning areas regarded by South Azerbaijani activists as part of the historical territory of South Azerbaijan.

“This issue has significantly constrained the development of mutual trust and long-term cooperation between the two sides.”

She continued: “Differences in methods of political struggle constitute another major source of disagreement. South Azerbaijani political actors have predominantly emphasized civil, political, and nonviolent forms of mobilization.

“By contrast, numerous Kurdish organizations have historically incorporated armed struggle into their political strategies.

“According to the perspective of many South Azerbaijani activists, this approach has, at times, resulted in harm to Azerbaijani civilians and has adversely affected relations between the two communities.”

Shaker noted, “It may be argued that the reliance of certain Kurdish organizations on armed methods has contributed to their receiving greater political and media attention from some Western governments, including the United States, Israel, and several European countries, than the predominantly civil and political movements of South Azerbaijan.

“Nevertheless, recent regional developments suggest that the practical influence of these groups does not necessarily correspond to the level of international attention they receive.”

In fact, up to 40% of the Iranian population is of either South Azerbaijani or Turkic descent. For centuries, Iran’s rulers were of Turkic origin. Only since the ascent of the Pahlavis did the Persians take over the country.

Thus, it is impossible to have a conversation about Iran without considering South Azerbaijanis, Turks, and other Turkic peoples that live in the region.

Sadig Isabeyli, head of the Savalan Research Center and Member of the Board of Directors of the South Azerbaijan National Liberation Front, proclaimed: “South Azerbaijan is not just a geographical name; it is a deep-rooted bearer of statehood memory, political organization tradition, and historical continuity, and has always been the protector of contemporary, human values.”

“The influence of South Azerbaijan is reflected not only in its demographics or geographical location, but also in the political consciousness and contemporary experience of statehood it has developed over the past hundred years,” he said.

“South Azerbaijan has never been passive spectators of historical processes during these periods but has repeatedly been the driving force that changed the political course of the region,” he continued.

“The Constitutional Movement that took place at the beginning of the 20th century (1905-1911) is the most vivid proof of this force.

“This fact alone proves that South Azerbaijan played a structuring role in historical processes,” he said.

According to Isabeyli, “This political tradition became even more concrete during the National Government established under the leadership of Sayyed Ja’far Pishevari in 1945.

“Although short-lived, this government created a real, lived example of local governance, socio-political representation, and national-cultural rights – proving, not in words, but in deeds, that self-government of nations on democratic grounds is entirely possible in the political geography called Iran.”

“As Pishevari repeatedly emphasized in his statements and speeches, the result of the Azerbaijani freedom movement was not limited to the salvation of one province – he saw it as a manifesto of freedom and an exemplary model for other nationalities living there,” Isabeyli continued.

“In his opinion, the establishment of Azerbaijani provincial and regional councils and the achievement of internal freedoms not only decided the fate of Azerbaijani regions but also showed a practical way for other nationalities living in Iran to escape from the chains of tyranny,” he said.

“Pishevari, the leader of the South Azerbaijan National Government, viewed the liberation of South Azerbaijan from the reactionary pressure of the Tehran-based government as a gateway to freedom not only for Azerbaijan but also for other nations,” he continued.

“While explaining the concept of democratic power and freedom, he firmly stated that the nations living in Iran should not accept centralized forms of slavery and oppression,” he said, “and that the goal of the Azerbaijani National Government is to stop the oppressive policy of centralized forces and restore the political representation of nations based on the principle of self-determination.

“The principle underlying this approach was clear: the Azerbaijani National Government wanted to set a precedent with the democratic self-government structure it had created, so that other nations living in Iran’s political geography would be inspired by this model and achieve socio-political freedoms, thus forming a unified, democratic alternative to centralized politics in Tehran,” Isabeyli concluded.

What Pishevari envisioned should be the model of successful regime change. All of Iran’s ethnic groups, together with the Persian opposition, must join forces, work together, and fight against this regime together, despite their differences in outlook.

Instead of having one leader, like Pahlavi, imposed from the outside, there should be a coalition of leaders working jointly from the inside to topple the regime.

Rather, all of the Iranian ethnic groups, including the Kurds, should be leading an uprising and fighting to topple the regime from within, to create a secular, liberal, decentralized, and federal Iran, which respects minority rights, women’s rights, and human rights.

Some nations can also have the option of breaking off and forming their own country after the dust settles, but they should put that aspiration aside for now so they can work jointly with all of the peoples of Iran to topple this regime.

Of course, Israel can support them from the sky, but one ethnic group should not be preferred over another. Rather, everyone must work together as a team to ensure that the regime falls once and for all.