THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT MUST NOT BECOME A STAGE FOR REZA PAHLAVI

I spent fifteen years as a Member of the European Parliament. I know its corridors, committee rooms and political intrigues. I also know what the institution represents. Whatever criticisms may be levelled at the European Union, its elected Parliament remains a powerful symbol of democracy, freedom and the rule of law. That is why I was appalled to learn that some MEPs apparently intend to welcome Reza Pahlavi, son of Iran’s deposed Shah, this week.

Of course, MEPs have every right to meet whomever they choose. I met countless politicians, dissidents and opposition figures during my years in Brussels and Strasbourg. But there is a world of difference between listening to someone and lending them the prestige of a parliamentary platform.

Pahlavi is a troubling candidate for such an honour. His father, Mohammad Reza Shah, presided over a dictatorship whose notorious SAVAK secret police imprisoned and tortured political opponents. Political parties were crushed, freedom of expression strangled and minorities subjected to discrimination. The royal family enjoyed fabulous wealth while ordinary Iranians endured repression and inequality.

The Iranian people overthrew that regime in 1979. Tragically, their hopes for freedom were hijacked by Ayatollah Khomeini, who replaced one tyranny with another, even bloodier dictatorship. Yet Pahlavi continues to speak proudly of his father’s reign, without offering the unequivocal condemnation of its repression that one might expect from a champion of democracy.

He has also advocated foreign military action against Iran, arguing that external pressure could hasten the clerical regime’s downfall. Having witnessed the disastrous consequences of Western intervention in Iraq, I find such enthusiasm deeply disturbing.

For five years I was President of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations with Iraq. I travelled extensively there and witnessed the aftermath of the 2003 invasion. I saw sectarian violence, shattered institutions and Tehran’s growing influence through armed militias. I learned a painful lesson. Removing a dictator by force is one thing. Building a functioning democracy from the wreckage is quite another.

One name from that period should send a shiver down the spine of European politicians contemplating an embrace of Pahlavi. Ahmad Chalabi.

Chalabi was an Iraqi exile who cultivated powerful friends in Washington and presented himself as a credible alternative to Saddam Hussein. Intelligence he supplied helped bolster the case for invasion, although much proved disastrously unreliable. Iraq descended into chaos, countless lives were lost and Iran’s mullahs emerged among the principal beneficiaries.

Now we encounter another well-connected exile, another would be political saviour, another figure apparently convinced that foreign intervention offers a shortcut to political transformation. Have we learned absolutely nothing?

Pahlavi has never won an election in Iran. He possesses no democratic mandate from its people. His supporters may be vocal, particularly within sections of the diaspora, but demonstrations in European capitals and avalanches of social media messages cannot replace the ballot box. Cybersecurity researchers have also raised questions about coordinated online campaigns and manipulated content promoting his image. MEPs should distinguish publicity from genuine popular legitimacy.

There is also the uncomfortable matter of Pahlavi’s reported contacts with individuals linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Basij militia. These organisations have helped sustain the dictatorship and brutally suppressed dissent. Pahlavi argues that engagement can encourage defections. That explanation deserves scrutiny rather than unquestioning acceptance.

I have spent more than twenty years working with Iranian opposition figures, human rights campaigners and former political prisoners. I have met victims of torture under the Shah and others who suffered under the mullahs. Their experiences underline a fundamental principle. Iran’s future must belong to its people, free from both clerical dictatorship and hereditary rule.

Iranians deserve a secular democracy, equal rights for women, protection for ethnic and religious minorities, freedom for political prisoners and genuinely competitive elections. These are the principles the European Parliament should defend.

The controversy surrounding Pahlavi has already spread elsewhere in Europe. In Germany, the Friedrich Naumann Foundation’s decision to award him its 2026 Freedom Prize prompted objections from prominent political figures and Iranian campaigners. In Belgium, a proposed parliamentary reception reportedly collapsed following protests. Such opposition demonstrates how divisive his claim to political leadership remains.

There is another danger. Tehran has spent decades portraying its opponents as monarchists, foreign agents or advocates of another dictatorship. Giving Pahlavi the appearance of European endorsement risks handing the regime a propaganda victory. It could claim that the West seeks restoration of the Shah’s dynasty rather than democratic self-determination. What a gift to the mullahs.

In my book Dictatorship and Revolution: Iran – A Contemporary History, I explored the tragedy of successive Iranian generations struggling against tyranny, only to see their aspirations betrayed. The revolution of 1979 promised freedom but delivered executions, torture and the fanaticism of the ayatollahs. Surely the lesson is obvious. Iran’s future must be determined through democratic institutions and free elections, rather than hereditary entitlement or foreign sponsorship.

I urge my former colleagues to think carefully before lending their institution’s dignity to Pahlavi. Listen to him if you wish. Ask about his father’s dictatorship, his political ambitions, his contacts with elements of the regime and his support for military intervention. Above all, ask what democratic mandate he possesses and how he intends to obtain one.

The European Parliament should stand with the Iranian people and their right to choose their own destiny. Its prestige must never become a substitute for popular legitimacy. I was proud to serve there for fifteen years. I would hate to see it make such a monumental error of judgement.