The cancellation of Haddad Adel’s visit to Strasburg and his expected speech to the European Council provided a picture of the clerical dictatorship’s new international isolation and its political defeat in the face of the just positions of the Iranian Resistance. This matter warrants special attention especially since the ridiculous posture of the Iranian regime to underestimate this degrading flee became immediately evident and signs of rabies and hysteria engulfed the whole regime. State-run radio, television and publications, parliamentarians, Haddad Adel and government spokesman Mottaki, one by one, cried out and displayed their agony because of European Council’s reception of the president-elect of the Iranian Resistance. They woe painfully asking why criticizing the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran went on for the whole duration of the session” and why representatives from Holland, Sweden, Georgia, Denmark and others, with uncommon diplomatic language, spoke of the intrusion of the mullahs on the “moral conscience of mankind” and why Litany’s representative concluded his speech by asking for the removal of Iran from the assembly of Asian parliaments. They all concluded that “this is the second harsh reaction of western officials to the statesmen of Iran which followed the hot-tempered speech by University of Columbia ’s president” (Etemad, state daily, October 7). In an interview with the Iranian state television Mottaki gave away the international isolation of the clerical regime. And Haddad Adel, by stating that they were trying to create a certain atmosphere in Strasburg, disclosed regime’s apprehension of him ending up with the same faith as that of Ahmadinejad’s blunder in New York and the University of Columbia.

This question remains though that a regime that spent great sums of money on its lobbyists to arrange for Ahmadinejad’s last week speech at the University of Columbia why is it that it forwent a speech as the president of Asian parliaments and was forced to run off – an act that demonstrated to everyone the power of the Iranian Resistance as the alternative to the regime and an act that blew up the balloon of stability and omnipotence of the atomic mullahs? The explanation is provided by Mrs. Maryam Rajavi in her message of December 2006 where she was calling for the boycott of the election of the Assembly of Experts: “Through ultra contradictory signs regarding issues of nuclear bomb, Iraq, terrorism and suppression inside Iran, the clerical regime strives to depict itself as stable and as region’s superpower. Towards this end, it uses what it calls the opportunities in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine. However, when it comes down to the Mojahedin and the Iranian Resistance or when there is talk of free elections, human rights or freedom in Iran the Achilles’ heel or to put it simpler, the weak point of the monster, becomes evident.”