Dr. Sofey Saidi, International Relations, Geneva School of Diplomacy & International Relations
Abstract. Maryam Rajavi, President-elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), proposes a “Third Option” for Iran. This strategy rejects both foreign military intervention and appeasement of the ruling theocracy, calling instead for democratic change led by the Iranian people. This article examines the “Third Option” through four key international relations theories: realism, liberalism, constructivism, and democratic peace theory. It argues that Rajavi’s vision blends elements from these paradigms into an integrated approach to regime change in authoritarian contexts. The analysis suggests that her framework offers both theoretical coherence and practical viability, while aligning with non-interventionist principles and long-term democratic stability.
Keywords: Maryam Rajavi, Third Option, NCRI, Iran, regime change, international relations theory, realism, liberalism, constructivism, democratic peace theory, non-intervention.
Introduction
Maryam Rajavi’s “Third Option” emerges from decades of unsuccessful binary policies toward Iran. Foreign approaches have oscillated between military intervention and diplomatic engagement with the regime. Both have failed to produce lasting democratic change. Rajavi offers a third path: empowering domestic democratic forces without foreign military involvement. This approach respects the principle of state sovereignty while maintaining a commitment to democratic transformation.
The “Third Option” situates itself at the intersection of political realism, liberal democratic ideals, and normative international movements. It calls for sustained, organized resistance within Iran, supported diplomatically and morally by the international community. It does not rely on external imposition of governance models, which have historically failed in other authoritarian contexts.
In the following sections, this article examines how the “Third Option” reflects principles found in realism, liberalism, constructivism, and democratic peace theory, as well as how it aligns with non-intervention norms. It argues that Rajavi’s approach synthesizes these perspectives into a distinct strategic vision.
Realism: Strategic Autonomy Without Military Overreach
Realist theory focuses on state sovereignty, the balance of power, and the avoidance of costly entanglements. Rajavi’s rejection of foreign military intervention reflects a realist concern for the instability that such actions often bring. Large-scale regime-change wars can create security vacuums, shifting power dynamics in unpredictable ways. The wars in Iraq and Libya have shown the dangers of dismantling a regime without ensuring a stable replacement.
The “Third Option” addresses these concerns by promoting internal, organized opposition. Change comes from within, reducing the risk of foreign manipulation and external power struggles. This approach minimizes the possibility of a collapse into chaos, which is a consistent warning in realist literature such as Posen and Mearsheimer.
By focusing on internal capacity building and domestic legitimacy, the strategy maintains Iran’s autonomy. It also ensures that any post-regime order emerges from national consensus rather than external imposition. This balance between non-intervention and proactive resistance offers a unique adaptation of realist principles.
Liberalism: Democracy Promotion Through Domestic Agency
Liberal internationalism emphasizes democracy, the rule of law, and human rights. Rajavi’s vision strongly supports these values. She calls for democratic institutions, women’s rights, civil liberties, and religious freedom. Yet her model differs from top-down democracy promotion, which has often been criticized for ignoring local conditions.
The “Third Option” is rooted in bottom-up liberalism. It builds democratic capacity through local actors and civil society. This avoids the legitimacy problems faced by externally imposed democratic projects, which can be perceived as foreign interference. It also creates a foundation for sustainable governance that is accountable to the people.
International support remains important in this framework. However, it comes in the form of diplomatic recognition, economic assistance, and moral solidarity rather than armed intervention. This aligns with the liberal emphasis on cooperation, international institutions, and human rights advocacy.
Constructivism: Norm Entrepreneurship and Identity Transformation
Constructivist theory highlights the influence of norms, ideas, and identity in shaping political change. The NCRI, under Rajavi’s leadership, acts as a norm entrepreneur. It reframes the Iranian struggle as one for democratic values and human rights rather than as a purely geopolitical contest.
Rajavi’s platform promotes a national identity rooted in secularism, gender equality, and pluralism. This challenges the ideological legitimacy of the ruling regime, which bases its authority on religious doctrine. Changing collective identity is a powerful way to erode authoritarian control, as seen in past movements in Eastern Europe and South Africa.
Internationally, this identity shift builds networks of solidarity. By positioning Iran’s democratic struggle within a global framework of rights and justice, the “Third Option” strengthens its appeal across borders. This soft-power dimension complements the hard realities of political resistance.
Democratic Peace Theory: Institutionalizing Long-Term Stability
Democratic peace theory holds that democracies are less likely to engage in conflict with one another. A democratic Iran would be more likely to integrate into the global community, fostering stability in a volatile region. This could contribute to a wider “zone of peace” in the Gulf and beyond.
Rajavi’s plan envisions a post-theocracy Iran committed to democratic governance, respect for international law, and peaceful regional relations. These commitments would help reduce tensions with neighboring states and limit the appeal of militarized foreign policy.
In the long term, institutionalized democracy could act as a safeguard against future authoritarianism. This is essential not only for internal freedoms but also for regional security. The “Third Option” thus connects domestic democratization with broader peace and stability objectives.
Non-Intervention and Popular-Led Regime Change
The tension between sovereignty and human rights intervention is a recurring challenge in post-Cold War international relations. Rajavi’s model seeks to resolve this by avoiding foreign military action while encouraging international support for domestic democratic movements.
This approach resembles successful transnational solidarity movements such as the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa and the democratic revolutions in Eastern Europe. In both cases, change came through a combination of internal resistance and external diplomatic, economic, and moral backing.
By adhering to non-intervention principles, the “Third Option” avoids the pitfalls of occupation and externally imposed governance. It respects Iran’s territorial integrity while making space for legitimate international involvement in the form of human rights advocacy and sanctions against regime abuses.
Conclusion
Maryam Rajavi’s “Third Option” blends the caution of realism, the democratic values of liberalism, the norm-driven strategies of constructivism, and the stability promise of democratic peace theory. It offers a coherent, pragmatic, and normatively compelling framework for political transformation in Iran.
This strategy avoids the extremes of military intervention and passive appeasement. It builds on the strengths of internal agency, international solidarity, and long-term democratic vision. In doing so, it not only addresses the immediate challenge of regime change but also lays the groundwork for a stable and peaceful post-authoritarian Iran.
Bibliography
Carothers, T. (2007). Aiding Democracy Abroad: The Learning Curve. Carnegie Endowment.
Finnemore, M. (2003). The Purpose of Intervention. Cornell University Press.
Krasner, S. (1999). Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy. Princeton University Press.
Mearsheimer, J. (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. W.W. Norton.
Posen, B. (2013). “Pull Back: The Case for a Less Activist Foreign Policy.” Foreign Affairs.
Russett, B., & Oneal, J. (2001). Triangulating Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations. Norton.