By Emilie Haljas

The Iranian regime poses a threat not only to its own people but to the entire world, supporting Russia’s war in Ukraine, pursuing nuclear weapons, and spreading terrorism in Europe, according to Ali Safavi, the U.S. representative of the Iranian resistance movement.

During his visit to the Estonian Parliament, Safavi aimed to rally international support for Iran’s democratic opposition. He emphasized that Iranians need neither weapons nor money but a clear political message from Western nations affirming their right to overthrow the regime themselves. He believes the regime’s collapse could come far sooner than expected.

You’ve been part of the Iranian opposition for much of your life. How did this journey begin?

I studied in Iran and, after high school, went to the United States, to California, to continue my education. My father was a judge in Iran and wanted me to become a doctor. When I arrived in the U.S. in 1971, it coincided with the moment when opposition to the Shah (Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, ruler of Iran from 1941–1979) began to surface publicly. Until then, all opposition groups operated underground.

In 1971, the Shah’s secret police arrested the leadership of the main opposition movement, the People’s Mojahedin of Iran (MEK). Seventy-two people were detained, including the entire top leadership and many key members. Over the next two to three years, 11 of them were executed.

When we, young Iranians, learned about this opposition, we began spreading awareness. My life changed as well. I felt that studying medicine wasn’t my path—it wouldn’t lead me to a place where I could influence Iran’s situation. So, I switched my major to sociology and began studying social change and revolutions. Once I became familiar with the movement, I actively opposed the Shah, participating in protests and giving media interviews.

Your brother was executed by the Khomeini regime. What did that mean for you?

In January 1979, my brother, with whom I lived in Los Angeles, returned to Iran. The revolution was about to erupt. I continued my doctoral studies at the University of Michigan, while he became politically active in Iran. He was an excellent writer and editor, publishing a magazine critical of the regime.

In July of that year, Khomeini banned political parties, ushering in a period of bloodshed. My brother was arrested. A few months later, he was offered freedom if he would go on television and denounce his comrades. He refused, saying he couldn’t betray his conscience. In September 1981, he was executed. He was 29 years old.

That moment was a turning point for me. I realized I could no longer focus on an academic career while dabbling in politics on the side. This was a full-time mission. I took a leave from academia and joined the movement full-time. Here I am, over 40 years later, still at it. We’ve made tremendous progress—our movement is now internationally recognized.

Iran faces an economic crisis and mass executions. What has led the country to this state?

During the Shah’s time, the mullahs were not politically active. On the contrary, they collaborated with his secret service to depoliticize the youth. Even Khomeini, in exile, did not act against the Shah until the revolution became unstoppable by 1979.

His and other mullahs’ opposition wasn’t progressive but rooted in a regressive worldview. They opposed reforms and hijacked the revolution. When it came to addressing Iran’s problems, they had no solutions. They were anti-women from the start, forcing women to wear hijabs on day one. They opposed education and an educated populace, expelling scholars and professors from universities and replacing them with loyal but unqualified individuals.

Unable to solve any problems, they turned to repression and executions. They also prolonged the Iran-Iraq War for eight years to export their ideology across the region. The war killed an estimated one million Iranians and caused $1 trillion in economic damage, destroying 3,000 towns and villages.

Because the regime couldn’t address issues, it resorted to violence. About 100,000 members and supporters of our movement have been executed, including 30,000 in the 1988 massacre alone. This regime doesn’t belong in the 21st century—it uses repression to cling to power.

They’ve also backed Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria with an estimated $50 billion, supported Hezbollah, and funded Houthi rebels in Yemen. Why? Without exporting terrorism and suppressing their people, they wouldn’t survive. In the last Iranian calendar year, ending in March, 1,153 executions were carried out, including 38 women and seven minors.

This shows the regime relies on repression, nuclear ambitions, and terrorism to survive. But as I said, we’ve come far. The people of Iran are highly active. Since 2017, resistance movements have emerged, with young men and women fighting the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

Two-thirds of the resistance movement’s members are women. Why is that?

Women’s involvement in the fight against the regime didn’t arise overnight or spontaneously—it has a 40-year history. From the moment the mullahs seized power, women were at the forefront of resistance. Of the roughly 100,000 MEK members and supporters executed by the regime, tens of thousands were women.

In 1988, during the massacre of 30,000 political prisoners across Iran, few women survived. For example, in Tehran’s Evin Prison, not a single woman was spared—the regime killed them all. Today’s Iranian women identify with and are inspired by those earlier generations.

Since 1992, our movement has been led by women. Our entire leadership consists of women. Our elected president is a woman, and all her deputies are women. It’s not just one woman leading—there are thousands.

This is a point of pride. Iranian women see how active women are in the opposition, and it inspires them, giving them confidence and belief in their capabilities. That’s why women led the uprisings in 2019 and 2022. The slogan has evolved from “Woman. Life. Freedom.” to “Woman. Resistance. Freedom.”

How much support does the Iranian resistance have internationally?

We have significant international backing. About 140 former heads of state have endorsed our plan. In February 2024, the U.S. Congress passed a resolution, supported by 184 representatives, affirming support for our vision of Iran’s future.

We also have strong support in the European Parliament, and the majority of parliaments in 34 countries, including Estonia’s, back our plan. Our program calls for the separation of religion and state, gender equality, free elections, a nuclear-free Iran, and the abolition of the death penalty.

We believe change is coming, and I wouldn’t be surprised if, after what happened in Syria, change in Iran arrives sooner than many expect. Countries like Estonia can play a vital role by offering moral and political support to our movement.

What makes you believe the regime is unstable now? Many analysts say it has survived sanctions and recent uprisings.

Recent developments have been significant. Hezbollah has effectively been decapitated. Lebanon elected a president and prime minister without Iran’s influence. Assad is no longer in power. The Houthis are retreating. The regime’s strategic depth is collapsing.

Assad was a cornerstone of that strategy, yet it collapsed in just 11 days, despite Russia’s and Iran’s support. Iran invested heavily, sending 70,000 Revolutionary Guard fighters, plus African and Pakistani recruits. In the Syria war, 6,000–15,000 IRGC members died, including 34 generals. Despite this massive investment, it all crumbled. This has sparked immense discontent within the regime—not just among ordinary people but within its ranks.

Most critically, Iran’s economy is collapsing. The rial has lost 60% of its value since the new president took office. Corruption is rampant, with new scandals emerging daily. Iran faces water shortages, with 40% of dams nearly empty. Widespread power outages in several provinces have shut down public offices, schools, and factories in 22 provinces.

Inflation and unemployment are out of control. The average salary is 100 million rials, while the minimum cost of living for a family of three is 300 million. Twenty-five million Iranians live below the poverty line.

Meanwhile, the organized resistance is growing. MEK members conducted 3,000 operations against the IRGC in the past Iranian calendar year and carried out 39,000 acts of resistance. This gives us reason for optimism.

We believe the regime won’t survive. It won’t collapse on its own—it must be brought down. But this doesn’t require American boots on the ground. The Iranian people are ready, capable, and have already proven they’re willing to pay the price for freedom. That’s why we believe change in 

Iran is not only possible but will come sooner than people think. Who would’ve thought Assad would fall in 11 days? It happened. Iran is no exception.

Europe is focused on the Ukraine war. Why should events in Iran concern Europeans?

Europeans are increasingly worried about Iran’s nuclear program. In fact, Iran is now closer to developing a nuclear weapon than before the JCPOA nuclear deal was signed.

Moreover, Iran’s terrorism poses a growing threat in Europe. The UK has reported foiling dozens of Iran-backed plots. Iranian ambassadors have been expelled from Albania and the Netherlands.

In 2018, an Iranian diplomat in Vienna planned a bomb attack on the National Council of Resistance of Iran’s (NCRI) annual summit in Paris. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison but later released in a prisoner swap after the mullahs took a Belgian aid worker hostage.

In November 2023, an Iranian-hired assassin shot Alejo Vidal-Quadras, a former vice president of the European Parliament for 15 years, in the face. He miraculously survived. This shows Iran’s terrorism no longer targets just dissidents but European politicians as well.

What would it mean for Ukraine if Russia lost Iran’s support, given their close cooperation?

A change in Iran—overthrowing the current regime and establishing a democratic republic—would have a profound impact not only in the Middle East but globally. First, Russia would no longer receive drones or missiles from Iran, as a democratic Iran wouldn’t supply them.

Russia would also lose access to a massive gas field recently discovered in the Persian Gulf, which the regime essentially gave away for free. China would no longer receive discounted oil, and Venezuela would lose Iran’s support. The axis of authoritarian regimes we see today would collapse.

Iran’s regime’s terrorism is already operating on European soil.

While it’s crucial for Europe to focus on Ukraine, as it’s in their backyard, we believe the threat posed by Iran deserves equal attention. Iran is no longer “a few thousand kilometers away”—it’s already here in Europe. Their missiles can reach southern Europe. Iran’s regime’s terrorism is already operating on European soil.

That’s why we believe overthrowing the regime in Tehran would directly support the Ukrainian people’s efforts in this war, which has claimed so many lives. The two are closely intertwined—very closely. They cannot be separated.

The U.S. presidential transition hasn’t been ideal for Ukraine. What does the new administration mean for Iran?

From our perspective, Western policy in general—and U.S. policy in particular—has significantly influenced Iran’s situation. Broadly, there have been two approaches: one seeks to change the regime’s behavior through appeasement and concessions, while the other uses pressure. All soft policies have failed. The mullahs take the money and keep it for themselves. We saw this under Clinton, under Obama when he lifted sanctions, and under Bush when the U.S. toppled Saddam Hussein, which was America’s biggest strategic mistake in the region—it gave Iran greater influence in Iraq. We welcome any shift away from such policies.

As for the current administration, they’ve only been in office for two months, so we must wait and see what they do. Their domestic policy isn’t our concern—that’s for Americans. But their Iran policy differs from the previous administrations. They’ve reinstated the so-called maximum pressure policy, aiming to cut Iran’s oil revenues. While we welcome the tougher tone and rhetoric, it must be paired with a clear, public stance: the Iranian people have the right to overthrow this regime.

But I want to stress that even the toughest policy won’t work if its goal is merely to change the regime’s behavior. We have a Persian saying: a viper doesn’t give birth to a dove. This regime must go—there’s no question. If they wanted to change their behavior, they would’ve done so in the past 45 years. If they can’t engage in honest dialogue with their own people, how can they be expected to do so with foreign partners?

How can foreign governments design sanctions and pressure to target the regime without harming ordinary citizens?

Let’s be honest—economic sanctions generally affect the Iranian people as well. I won’t pretend otherwise. But even when there were no sanctions, Iranians lived in misery. Let me give an example.

During [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad’s presidency, oil revenues reached $600 billion. What happened to that money? When [Hassan] Rouhani became president, he said at his first press conference that the treasury had a $50 billion deficit. Where did the money go? Did it help Iran’s workers or the poor? It went to Lebanon, Yemen, Iraqi and Syrian militias, rockets, drones, and weapons—that’s where it goes.

The Iranian people have the right to overthrow this regime.

I vividly remember the winter of 1979 when Iran’s oil workers went on strike, leaving people without heating in their homes. Yet the people supported them because the Shah was selling oil to South Africa’s apartheid regime. The people suffered, but they understood it was part of the struggle.

Some of that money lines the pockets of the elite. Today, the IRGC controls about 70% of Iran’s economy—aviation, transportation, medicine and food imports, construction, real estate—all under their grip. So, frankly, the narrative that sanctions punish ordinary Iranians is partly true but largely used as an excuse to avoid tougher policies against the regime.

That’s why we support maximum pressure. We’ve said all UN Security Council sanctions lifted after the 2015 JCPOA nuclear deal must be reinstated, and new sanctions should be imposed.

That money never benefits the people—it enriches the regime. Shutting off the mullahs’ financial tap would help the Iranian people.