Rudy Giuliani says women key to overthrow of Iran dictatorship (Image: Getty)

“I thought he was dead!” offered a colleague when I told him I was going to interview Rudy Giuliani. But I’m here to tell you the former tough-guy mayor of New York and best buddy of Donald Trump is very much alive and, at 88, has lost not one iota of his forthright, robust, and occasionally shocking, world view. I met Giuliani in Rome where he was helping an Iranian pro-democracy group called the National Council for Resistance of Iran. The NCRI wants to bring down the Ayatollah and end almost 50 years of religious dictatorship, with a view to transitioning Iran to a modern secular democracy, where religion and state are separate and women’s rights are paramount.

Their leader Maryam Rajavi (a woman!) has drawn up her “10-point-plan” — a sort of Iranian Bill of Rights — which promises among other things free and fair elections within six months of attaining power, the end of the death penalty, and no nuclear weapons. Ever. (The main components of NCRI are known, slightly confusingly, as the MEK and PMOI, which stands for the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran, stay with me…)

Talking to senior NCRI members it is awfully hard to deduce whether President Trump’s current multi-billion-dollar bombing raids on Iran are helping or hindering regime change, with most of those I spoke to preferring to keep their powder dry.

Giuliani has no such misgivings. “Terrorists can smell bullshit,” he says, “and they are smart enough to know when they see appeasement. Words do not combat terrorists, they encourage terrorists.”

Giuliani considers the NCRI as the very best hope for Iran. Given their decidedly left-wing roots, at first blush it seems an odd fit for the arch Commie-hater. But he explains: “Back in 2010, 16 years ago, I gave a speech at the UN protesting about Mahmud Ahmadinejad (former Iran President and strong proponent of Iranian nuclear weapon) being allowed to speak at the UN. I had previously thrown out Arafat and my basic position was if you are a murdering dictator you don’t get to speak.

“After I gave my speech I met with some members of the MEK who I was told were the best hope for Iran. Some of my friends told me it was a communist organisation and I mentioned it to late US Republican Senator, John McCain who gave me a few books to read and told me the communist thing was just propaganda.

“I have not met an American general who doesn’t support the MEK, the support at the top of our military is overwhelming. So I worked with a large group of Democrats and Republicans and eventually forced Hillary Clinton to overturn the ruling that the MEK were terrorists. Hillary was basically onside so it wasn’t so difficult in the end. I don’t know why they were designated in the first place but I am pretty convinced we had Iranian spooks in the administration.”

 

Rudolph William Louis Giuliani was born in Flatbush, a suburb of New York City, to Italian parents as World War 2 was drawing to a close in 1944. A lawyer by trade, he rose to prominence in 1994 becoming mayor of NYC and immediately imposing a very effective “zero tolerance” policy on crime, which saw get-tough police treating even minor felonies as serious offences. When his mayoralty came to an end in 2001 murders, robberies and burglaries were down almost 70 percent.

He was named Time magazine’s Person of the Year for 2001 and hailed as “America’s Mayor” for his response to the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers. Giuliani has now directed his considerable energies to Iran and the NCRI, becoming in the process the most unlikely of revolutionaries. He says: “If the West embraced regime change without putting troops in, the natural group to select would be the MEK.

“I think Ms Rajavi is perfect. She has been at this for 40 years, she has a process, a 10-point plan, which is basically an Iranian Bill of Rights but with more rights for women.

“Women are absolutely key to this. I see so many videos of women defying the Iranian regime, to the point of risking death.

“And not just like poor Masha Amini who was murdered just for having a hair out of place, these women are not wearing the head covering at all, and baring their arms and even their cleavage. And that is protest, they are challenging the regime — that is really brave, and that is why we should help them.”

“The MEK is the only game in town.”

He is adamant that the twin threats to the Iranian dictatorship will come from harnessing the power of women and the 10-point plan.

He said: “It would have been presumptuous to have written a constitution but Madam Rajavi has constructed a 10-point plan which is the basis of one, guaranteeing the Iranian people’s rights, with particular emphasis on rights of women… which is vital because this regime is the worst and most brutal attack on women in the modern era. They do not care if Iran’s women are murdered, slaughtered, raped… And yet, inexplicably, some of our major feminist groups remain silent.”

And he is. Iran is the world’s second-most prolific executioner after China, putting at least 2,159 people to death in 2025 alone. Its regime also stands accused by United Nations investigators of widespread extrajudicial killings, torture and crimes against humanity.

“People are being executed on an almost daily basis. They talk of expedited trials which just means they sign the death warrant faster.” They killed thousands of people in January this year, and they have attacked the USA and killed our marines, and for too long we replied with words when we needed an army. We cannot defeat them with words. We can only defeat them if there is a brave group of people who are prepared to do what is necessary.”

Guliani, right, with Vice-President JD Vance at 25th anniversary of 9/11 in September (Image: Getty)

His frustration with the response to the Islamic Republic extends to Europe and the wider West and is palpable. “We are in a battle for western civilisation and Europe is even further behind the US where that fight is concerned. Obama and Biden spent years apologising for America. I am massively disappointed in Europe — we all know what is necessary to get rid of them,” he says, referring to the Islamic Republic.

“We need to destroy the regime the way we destroyed the Japanese empire. But the ability of the world and Europe to support that has been a great disappointment to me. I see western civilisation as very weak right now.”

As we end, he swings the conversation back to Iran and the NCRI, concluding: “I believe the most noble thing you can do with your life is fight for freedom, and it is rare that you find an organisation which is perfectly aligned with that, but that is what I found in Maryam Rajavi and the NCRI.”

‘Iranian Terrorists Can Smell Bulls**t – Words Aren’t Enough’, Says Rudy Giuliani

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani has issued a fierce warning over the growing threat posed by Iran, arguing that strong statements and diplomatic promises will not be enough to deter Tehran or its regional allies. In a hard-hitting intervention, Giuliani insisted that Iranian-backed militant groups understand strength and determination, not political rhetoric.

His comments have reignited debate over how the United States and its international allies should respond to Iran’s increasingly controversial role in the Middle East. At a time of heightened regional tensions, concerns about nuclear ambitions, missile capabilities and attacks involving Iranian-backed organisations remain central to international security discussions.

Giuliani’s message is particularly blunt: governments cannot simply make speeches condemning terrorism and expect their opponents to change their behaviour. He believes that declarations of support for national security must be accompanied by credible policies, effective intelligence cooperation and a willingness to defend national interests.

The former mayor’s remarks reflect a wider frustration among conservative politicians and national security commentators who believe that Western governments have sometimes relied too heavily on diplomacy without establishing clear consequences for hostile actions.

Rudy Giuliani Delivers a Blunt Warning About Iran

Giuliani has long maintained a hard-line position towards the Iranian government and organisations that receive support from Tehran. His latest comments reflect his belief that Iran’s leadership carefully examines the political resolve of Western governments before deciding how far it can push regional tensions.

According to Giuliani’s argument, aggressive statements from politicians are meaningless unless they are supported by consistent policies and credible action.

He believes that Iranian leaders and militant organisations understand when governments are divided, uncertain or unwilling to follow through on their warnings.

His criticism is directed particularly at political leaders who announce firm positions but subsequently fail to establish consequences when those positions are challenged.

For Giuliani, the central issue is credibility. If governments repeatedly issue warnings without demonstrating that they are prepared to defend their interests, their opponents may become increasingly confident.

However, his position also raises an important question: how can Western countries demonstrate strength without creating an even more dangerous military confrontation?

Why Iran Remains a Major International Security Concern

Iran has been one of the most influential and controversial actors in Middle Eastern politics for decades.

The country has developed extensive relationships with regional organisations and armed groups, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and several Iran-aligned militias operating in Iraq and elsewhere.

Tehran describes many of these relationships as part of its regional security strategy. Its critics argue that Iranian support for armed organisations has contributed to instability and increased the risk of conflict.

The Iranian government’s nuclear programme is another major source of international concern.

Western governments have repeatedly expressed fears that Iran could develop the capacity to produce nuclear weapons. Tehran insists that its nuclear programme is intended for peaceful purposes, although questions about uranium enrichment and international inspections have remained contentious.

Iran’s missile capabilities have also attracted attention. The country possesses a substantial arsenal of ballistic and cruise missiles, which it considers an important element of its national defence.

For the United States, Israel and several Gulf countries, these developments create significant security challenges.

Giuliani’s comments reflect the belief that these threats cannot be addressed through political declarations alone.

Diplomacy Versus Deterrence: A Difficult Balance

One of the central disagreements in Western foreign policy concerns the balance between diplomacy and deterrence.

Supporters of diplomatic engagement argue that negotiations provide opportunities to prevent conflict, establish limits on dangerous activities and create mechanisms for international monitoring.

They point to previous nuclear negotiations as evidence that diplomatic agreements can produce meaningful restrictions and reduce immediate tensions.

However, critics argue that negotiations are ineffective when governments believe their opponents are using diplomacy simply to gain time or avoid meaningful concessions.

Giuliani’s position belongs firmly within the deterrence-focused side of this debate.

He believes that Western governments must establish clear consequences for hostile actions and demonstrate that threats against their allies and interests will not be ignored.

Nevertheless, deterrence does not necessarily mean military confrontation. It can also involve economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, intelligence cooperation, defensive capabilities and coordinated international action.

The challenge for policymakers is to ensure that these measures are credible while avoiding unnecessary escalation.

The United States Faces Pressure to Maintain Its Leadership

Giuliani’s intervention also highlights the wider debate about America’s international role.

For decades, the United States has been the principal security partner for several countries in the Middle East. Its military presence, diplomatic influence and intelligence capabilities have played an important role in regional security.

However, American policy has frequently changed between administrations, creating uncertainty among allies and opponents.

Some conservative commentators believe that inconsistent messaging can weaken American deterrence.

They argue that adversaries may interpret political disagreements and changes in policy as signs of weakness.

Others warn that an excessively confrontational approach could draw the United States into another prolonged conflict in the Middle East.

This is particularly important given the economic, military and humanitarian consequences of previous regional wars.

The United States must therefore balance its commitment to protecting allies with the need to avoid unnecessary military escalation.

Israel and the Wider Middle East

Iran’s relationship with Israel remains one of the most serious sources of regional tension.

Israel considers Iran’s nuclear programme, missile capabilities and support for armed groups to be major national security threats.

Iran, meanwhile, has consistently opposed Israeli policies and maintains relationships with organisations that challenge Israel’s regional position.

This confrontation has contributed to repeated periods of instability, including missile attacks, military operations and threats against shipping and strategic infrastructure.

For countries across the Middle East, the possibility of a wider conflict is a major concern.

Any escalation could affect international energy markets, shipping routes and global economic stability.

The consequences would not necessarily remain confined to the region. Higher energy prices and disruptions to international trade could affect businesses and households around the world.

Giuliani’s remarks therefore touch on an issue that extends far beyond American domestic politics.

Why Words Alone Cannot Guarantee Security

The strongest element of Giuliani’s argument is the distinction between political language and practical security policy.

Governments regularly issue statements condemning terrorism, threatening sanctions or promising to defend their allies.

However, the effectiveness of those declarations depends on whether they are supported by consistent policies.

Credibility requires clear objectives, effective intelligence, cooperation with allies and a realistic understanding of the consequences of different decisions.

At the same time, political leaders must recognise that military action can produce consequences that extend far beyond its original objectives.

A strategy that appears strong in the short term may create new security problems if it fails to consider the wider regional situation.

This is why many foreign policy experts argue that deterrence and diplomacy should operate together rather than being treated as completely opposing approaches.

Conclusion: A Warning That Raises Serious Questions About Western Policy

Rudy Giuliani’s blunt comments have reignited a familiar but increasingly important debate about Iran, terrorism and the credibility of Western foreign policy.

His argument is that hostile governments and militant organisations cannot be deterred by speeches alone. Political leaders must demonstrate consistency, determination and the ability to protect their national interests.

The warning reflects wider concerns about Iran’s regional influence, its nuclear programme and the security challenges facing the United States and its allies.

However, demonstrating strength does not automatically require military confrontation. Effective deterrence can involve diplomacy, economic pressure, defensive cooperation and clearly defined consequences.

For Washington and its international partners, the challenge is to develop a strategy that prevents aggression without triggering a wider conflict.

Ultimately, Giuliani’s message is a reminder that international security depends not only on what governments say but also on the credibility and consistency of their actions.

As tensions involving Iran continue to shape the Middle East, Western leaders will face increasing pressure to prove that their promises of security are supported by policies capable of delivering meaningful results.