Just as top officials from Europe, North Africa and the Middle East were meeting in Paris this week to establish a “Union for the Mediterranean” – including a commitment to rid the Middle East of weapons of mass destruction – Iran was continuing its belligerent rant. On Sunday, Brigadier General Seyyed Mohammad Hejazi savored recent Iranian missile tests for their demonstration of “intense destructive power, great accuracy and speed, and the possibility for extensive use.” His comments followed threats by Tehran to attack Israel and U.S. bases in the region, should it feel at risk.

Clearly, the time has come to move against Iran’s leaders. No, I am not recommending military action by the United States or Israel that would precipitate a hot war with Tehran and greatly broaden tensions in the Middle East, not to mention terrorism worldwide. Rather, I believe that the people of Iran, having witnessed extraordinarily reckless behavior by their rulers, should declare that enough is enough.

Iran’s leadership has been out of synch with most of the country’s citizens for years – and virtually the entire world since it came to power three decades ago. Sure, many Iranians expressed support in the early days; they despised the former Shah so thoroughly that they would have welcomed almost anyone else. In addition, the new regime cleverly draped itself in religion, and promised positive change and prosperity. What was there for Iranians not to like?

Well, they soon found out that the revolution’s uncompromising, disruptive zeal – which had raised concerns throughout the Persian Gulf because of its transnational ambitions – was especially forceful and unpleasant at home. Many Iranians came to realize that they had merely traded one repressive system for another.

The 1980s Iran-Iraq war, which Baghdad instigated, provided some cover for the Iranian leadership’s shortcomings and boosted nationalism. But I strongly suspect that, even in the conflict’s absence, Tehran’s rulers would have found a way to squander significant national resources for self-serving interests. Meanwhile, the Iranian people, as before, continued to rank last.

Their sad lot did not, however, keep them from opening their eyes to global realities; by the 1990s, most Iranians were eager to explore and forge new ties with the West. Sensing the potential for boiling discontent, Iran’s leaders feigned interest in sharing power and – to the surprise of the outside world – experimented with democratic elections. Various moderate political figures, including the president at that time, accompanied the openness.

It was too good to be true, though. Tehran’s rulers, worried about losing control, later pulled the plug on democracy and engineered the rise of current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his cronies. In addition to taking public nastiness to a new level, Ahmadinejad has poured money into military equipment and a mysterious nuclear-research program that has raised the specter of nuclear weapons.

Such gestures – especially the testing of missiles that can reach throughout the region and into Europe – hardly contribute to safety or security. At the same time, viable options for Tehran to negotiate on its nuclear-research program and otherwise improve relations with the outside world are going begging. With each delay, Iran’s position becomes more precarious. Unless the Iranian people stand up and stop their country’s confrontational slide, their future will remain a question mark, and the “Union for the Mediterranean” will face almost impossible odds.