IRAN’S FUTURE IS NOT FOR BRUSSELS TO DECIDE

I write as someone who opposed the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union and who has always believed that the EU’s isolation is not an inevitable feature of the balance of power. On the contrary, if the Union adopts the right policies, it can play a significant role in regional and global developments and enhance its own credibility.

At a moment when the stakes for Iran could scarcely be higher, the European Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee (AFET) has managed to send precisely the wrong signal. At a hearing convened this week under the banner of “Iran Freedom,” chaired by David McAllister MEP, we were told at the outset that thousands of letters and emails had poured in on the subject. That fact alone should have guaranteed a serious, representative and credible panel of speakers. Instead, what unfolded raised troubling questions about judgment, balance and legitimacy.

With the exception of two speakers from different Kurdish groups, one of whom opposed the restoration of the monarchy, the other three represented nothing of substance, serving merely as megaphones for Reza Pahlavi, the son of the deposed Shah. Apart from Dr Shirin Aebadi, these speakers were unknown figures, individuals with little standing, visibility or recognised constituency within Iran’s complex and courageous opposition. One in particular, S. Behzadi, delivered an extended intervention advocating not merely democratic change, but the installation of Reza Pahlavi as the focal point of a future transition. She referenced his so-called “Iran Prosperity Prospect,” presenting it as a credible roadmap for Iran’s future.

This is where alarm bells should ring loudly in Brussels and beyond. The European Parliament is not a casting agency for Iran’s future leadership. It has neither the mandate nor the moral authority to anoint successors to a regime that millions of Iranians themselves are struggling, often at the cost of their lives, to challenge and ultimately replace. To give prominence, in such a forum, to advocacy for Reza Pahlavi was a serious mistake. It was a political signal, whether intended or not. It risks reviving the ghosts of Iran’s past, memories of autocracy, repression and inequality under the Shah, that many Iranians have not forgotten and will not easily forgive. The notion that Iran’s future lies in a return, however repackaged, to hereditary rule is historically tone-deaf, and politically reckless. All the more so at a time when the Shah’s son, bound by his allegiance to his father’s dictatorship, is openly calling for continued war and foreign attacks on Iran’s infrastructure to pave his return to the throne, and is visibly unsettled by the prospect of a ceasefire.

Even more troubling is the absence of voices that genuinely reflect organised, sustained resistance within Iran and across its diaspora, as well as representatives of other oppressed nationalities, including the Baloch and Iranian Arabs. Elevating unknown and ineffective advocates of a contested monarchic revival raises serious questions about a selective and skewed approach. The Iranian people are not passive spectators in their own history. From the streets of Tehran to the prisons of Evin, they have demonstrated extraordinary courage in confronting tyranny.

As someone familiar with the inner workings of the European Parliament and the EU, it is evident that decision-makers, by platforming ineffective, pro-monarchist figures, sought to steer clear of the regime’s ultimate red line, the only organized resistance within and beyond Iran, so as not to incur the wrath of the mullahs in Tehran. In doing so, they have sent a clear message of weakness to a regime that has little time left.

Indeed, history teaches us that when external actors attempt to shape the internal political trajectory of nations, the results are rarely benign. We should have learned that lesson by now. From Iraq to Afghanistan, the imposition, implicit or explicit, of preferred leaders or political models has too often led to instability, disillusionment and, ultimately, failure. Iran, with its deep civilization, proud nationalism and sensitive political fabric, is even less likely to accept what could be perceived as external interference or endorsement. Every word spoken in such a forum is heard not only in Brussels but in Tehran, Shiraz and Mashhad. When the European Parliament appears to favour one narrative, particularly one tied to a deeply divisive historical legacy, it risks undermining its own credibility as a defender of universal rights and democratic principles.

So, what should have been done? If the Foreign Affairs Committee had genuinely intended to take a meaningful step with regard to Iran, first, the selection of speakers should have reflected the diversity and depth of Iran’s opposition landscape. That means including voices from inside the country where possible, as well as established representatives of organised movements in exile. It means prioritising legitimacy over convenience, substance over spectacle. Second, it should have firmly distanced itself from promoting the Shah’s dictatorship. Our role is to uphold core principles, human rights, the rule of law, and democratic governance, not to act as kingmaker. Third, If thousands of citizens took the trouble to write in, there should have been a better line-up than that which attended, which was at best, unrepresentative and, at worst, politically skewed. The struggle for a free Iran is one of the defining moral challenges of our time. It deserves seriousness, integrity and respect. By giving the floor to unknowns and by allowing the implicit promotion of Reza Pahlavi, the European Parliament has risked falling short on all three counts.

The message to Brussels should be clear: stand with the Iranian people, not above them. Support their right to choose their own future, whatever form that may take, without interference, favouritism or illusion.