𝓤𝓷𝓲𝓽𝓮𝓭 𝓝𝓮𝔀𝓼

At a critical juncture for Iran, Europe must resist the temptation of easy narratives. The Iranian people are demanding a democratic future of their own making, not a return to discredited systems.

Having served for years in the European Parliament, including within its leadership structures, I have followed Iranian affairs closely. The European Parliament reflects the values and aspirations of the peoples of Europe—freedom, human rights, and the rule of law. We expect those rights for ourselves, and we believe they should be universal.

Nowhere is that conviction more urgently tested than in Iran.

Over recent years, the Iranian people have repeatedly demonstrated their willingness to stand up for their rights. The nationwide uprising of January 2026 was yet another stark reminder. The regime responded with brutal force, killing thousands and arresting tens of thousands. Since then, it has resorted to a wave of executions targeting political dissidents, particularly activists associated with the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK), in a bid to prevent further uprisings.

On 15 April, the European Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee (AFET), in cooperation with the Delegation for Relations with Iran, convened a meeting to assess the situation. The session was presented as an exchange of views with representatives from diverse Iranian opposition groups.

In his opening remarks, the Chair emphasized that the committee’s political groups had agreed to organise such a discussion and had sought to ensure diversity among the invitees.

Even a cursory review suggests that several invitees are aligned with the same political current advocating a return to the Pahlavi monarchy. This calls into question whether the meeting truly reflected the diversity of Iranian opposition voices.

As expected, those supportive of the Pahlavi dynasty did not focus on the central issue of a free and democratic Iran. Instead, they used the platform to promote Reza Pahlavi, repeating unsubstantiated claims—most notably that the Iranian people have called upon him to lead their struggle.

Such claims do not withstand scrutiny. They are largely based on manipulated narratives, including doctored video clips and slogans that were fabricated or amplified in misleading ways. Numerous social media accounts linked to Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) have actively promoted this narrative.

Some speakers even claimed to speak “on behalf of the Iranian people,” despite having no such mandate or recognition within Iran or among the diaspora. It was further alleged that the January protests were sparked by calls from Reza Pahlavi. In reality, his first public reaction came only when he returned from holidays, ten days after the protests had already begun.

Several Members of the European Parliament raised critical questions that went largely unanswered. Concerns were expressed about the use of the title “Crown Prince,” which implicitly contradicts the principle that Iran’s future political system should be determined by its people. Others pointed to the absence of key opposition voices and called for a more balanced and representative discussion. Some also expressed concern about his and his associates’ repeated calls for further attacks on Iran, including strikes on infrastructure, and regarded him as a representative of those powers.

These concerns are not abstract; they go to the heart of how Europe engages with Iran.

In this context, it is worth recalling the remarks of Italy’s former Foreign Minister and current Chair of the Senate European Affairs Committee, Senator Giulio Terzi, who warned against legitimizing figures associated with authoritarian legacies. He highlighted Reza Pahlavi’s own statements expressing admiration for his father’s rule, as well as his willingness to cooperate with elements of Iran’s current security apparatus, including the IRGC, an organization designated as terrorist by the European Union.

Pahlavi’s recent statements in Sweden further reinforce these concerns. When asked about his father’s record of repression, he dismissed the question as irrelevant, stating that he was “proud” of his heritage and refusing to engage with documented abuses.

The record of the Shah’s regime is well established: systematic torture, widespread repression, political executions, and the imposition of a one-party state. These are not peripheral issues; they are central to any honest assessment of Iran’s political future.

What is clear is that Reza Pahlavi has increasingly become a divisive figure within the Iranian opposition.

There is a deeply held belief among the Iranian diaspora that the opportunistic, divisive, and hegemonic approaches of the Shah’s son during the 2022 and 2026 uprisings gave the regime a much freer hand in suppressing them. As a result, some remnants of the former system have distanced themselves from Reza Pahlavi and have expressed concern about his current associates, many of whom have come from Iran in recent years, and about their connections to the Iranian regime. Not to mention that he himself has repeatedly spoken about having contacts with commanders of the IRGC.

Europe must therefore proceed with clarity and caution. Supporting the Iranian people does not mean selecting or promoting a single individual as their representative. It means standing firmly with their aspirations for freedom, pluralism, and democracy.

The Iranian people have made their position unmistakably clear in their slogans and sacrifices. They reject both the current theocracy and any return to monarchical rule, demanding instead a democratic future of their own making.

Europe should stand with them, not choose for them.

Jim Higgins was a member of the European Parliament from 2004 to 2014.