But he has a unique opportunity to push the reset button on Iran policy.
There is no doubt that the calamity the world is facing over Iran is the direct consequence of the ayatollahs and their malicious conduct, but it is time to see the reality as it is: we cannot and should not ignore the direct consequences of Western policies that normalized appeasement of the Iranian regime and emboldened the ayatollahs.
The 2015 nuclear agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, was a prime example, providing the Islamic Republic with vast sums in unfrozen assets and sanctions relief, with no expectation of reciprocal changes in its behaviour in any area.
The agreement sought to manage, but not halt, the regime’s progress toward a nuclear weapon, while doing nothing whatsoever to address its appalling human rights record or its support for international terrorism. Its consequences included expanded financing for Iran’s regional proxies, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, as well as massive investment in its arsenals of ballistic missiles and drones.
All of this has had a substantial impact on the course of the ongoing military conflict. Let there be no doubt that the war has certainly weakened the Iranian regime, but at the same time, that weakness will likely make the regime even more dangerous than it has been up to this point.
The United Kingdom and other Western powers have a shared responsibility to address that danger in ways that correct and compensate for earlier appeasement. But they have been largely derelict in that responsibility up to this point, often turning a blind eye to the escalation of Tehran’s malign activities, including its killing of thousands of protesters during the nationwide uprising in January.
Western policymakers routinely discuss the prospect of finding solutions to the Iranian problem. I am quite familiar with these discussions. But now is the time to put aside diplomatic nuances and face the stark reality:
There is only one solution to the Iranian problem, and that is regime change. Internal reform of the existing regime is impossible, because any serious change in its behaviour would depend on a change in its core identity as a theocratic dictatorship beholden only to the will of a ruling cleric whose guiding principle is the global export of an “Islamic revolution.”
There will be no peace in the region or the world until that regime is removed and replaced. In the meantime, there is considerable danger that Iran’s obstruction of the Strait of Hormuz and indiscriminate attacks on its neighbours will expand to the Red Sea through the involvement of the Houthis.
The international community has a duty to respond to these actions, especially if Tehran’s current interference with international trade expands to the Red Sea.
Andy Burnham’s Iran policy should be built around this reality.
But Western powers cannot hope to bring about the necessary regime change on their own. What they must do instead is help lay the groundwork for the inevitable moment when the Iranian people rise up to free their country from decades of oppression.
Toward that end, it is vital that we avoid returning to the habit of appeasement and instead commit to consistent, comprehensive pressure on the regime through diplomatic isolation, public awareness campaigns, the effective use of international legal systems, and targeted sanctions.
While we cannot be naïve about the potential impact of those sanctions, we must also understand that the Iranian people have repeatedly shown the world that they are willing to make tremendous personal sacrifices for the cause of freedom. They did so in the uprising that was underway at the start of this year, and in three other uprisings dating back to the end of 2017. They have continued to do so in its aftermath, expressing open contempt for the ruling system despite the clear danger of violent and deadly reprisals.
The Western world should not be weak in its resolve when the Iranian people are so strong in theirs. Its leaders should be willing to take the political risk of openly promoting regime change and endorsing the opposition movement that is already poised to guide the country through its transition to democracy, following the ten-point plan laid out by the National Council of Resistance of Iran and its President-elect for the transitional period, Maryam Rajavi.
Furthermore, since we already know what this plan entails, future discussions of Iran policy should aim not only to facilitate regime change but also to plan how to help a newly freed Iran thrive, both economically and socially. In doing so, we can make it clearer than ever to the youth of Iran that a better future lies ahead, one that the world’s established capitalist democracies will help them build.
At the same time, we in the West must bear in mind that all we can do is help. Freedom does not fall from the skies, and it cannot be delivered through foreign invasion. It can only come from the ground up. Only the Iranian people can reclaim their birthright of freedom and self-determination. Only the Iranian people can create a non-theocratic legal system that empowers rather than subjugates its people.
Still, there is much that the international community can do to support them in these endeavours, if we first acknowledge the mistakes we have made by appeasing the Iranian regime so many times in the past.