It has been very difficult, as an Iranian expatriate in Europe, to watch from afar as my homeland is devastated by war, writes Dr. Masoud Kasshefi.
That hardship has been somewhat mitigated by recognition of the progress the Iranian people have made in 2026, particularly during the January uprising, toward removing the theocratic dictatorship and establishing a system of popular sovereignty in its place.
Following three decades of disastrous appeasement, and with growing signs that the theocratic regime is nearing its end, one would expect European leaders to support this push for democratic change. The weakening of the regime and intensifying internal popular pressures present a historic opportunity for the international community to align with the aspirations of the Iranian people.
Yet, at this critical juncture, Europe’s response has been hesitant and, at times, misguided. While the urgency of supporting democratic change has never been clearer, there is a growing risk that European policymakers may misread the political landscape and lend support to actors who do not reflect the will of the Iranian people.
Recent reporting suggests that some members of the European Parliament are considering convening a meeting of Iranian opposition figures in April. In principle, encouraging dialogue is constructive. However, concerns arise when such initiatives disproportionately elevate figures like Reza Pahlavi, the son of Iran’s last Shah, who was overthrown in the 1979 revolution after decades of authoritarian, one-party rule enforced by the notorious SAVAK secret police.
Following this path risks ignoring a central and consistent message expressed by Iranians over years of protest. Since 2017, four nationwide uprisings have shown that large segments of the population reject both the current theocratic system and any return to monarchy. Protesters from diverse backgrounds have repeatedly voiced opposition to all forms of authoritarian rule, encapsulated in the slogan: “Down with the oppressor, be it the Shah or the Supreme Leader.”
The challenge, therefore, is not simply identifying opposition figures, but understanding the political transformation Iranians seek. What has emerged is not a call to restore past systems, but a demand for a genuinely democratic order grounded in pluralism, accountability, and equal representation for all citizens.
In this context, proposals that concentrate power in the hands of any single individual should be treated with extreme caution. Public statements and policy proposals associated with monarchist currents raise legitimate concerns about centralized authority, divisive attitudes toward other opposition forces, and the marginalization of ethnic and political minorities.
These concerns are not theoretical. Iran’s modern history offers a clear reminder of the consequences of authoritarian rule. The pre-1979 period was marked by severe restrictions on political freedoms, widespread repression of dissent, and the use of security apparatuses to silence opposition. For many Iranians, these memories remain vivid and reinforce their rejection of any return to similar structures.
Moreover, rhetoric that frames ethnicities as security threats risks deepening divisions at a time when unity around democratic principles is essential. Iran is a diverse, multi-ethnic society, and any sustainable political future must reflect that diversity rather than suppress it.
A careful reading of recent developments points to a growing convergence among Iranian political forces around a shared rejection of authoritarianism in all its forms. For many, legitimacy will depend not on historical claims or external recognition, but on adherence to democratic principles and the ability to represent the full spectrum of Iranian society.
European policymakers must also consider how their actions are perceived within Iran. Given the history of disastrous foreign interventions, any attempt to shape or endorse leadership risks being viewed as interference. The most notable example remains the 1953 coup by the United States and the United Kingdom, which overthrew Iran’s only democratic government in modern history.
The legacy of such interventions continues to shape public perception. Their consequences have left deep scars and fostered enduring skepticism toward Western intentions. Repeating such patterns, whether intentional or not, risks undermining Europe’s credibility at a decisive moment.
Recent efforts to construct opposition coalitions abroad, as seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, including support for figures such as Ahmad Chalabi, underscore the dangers of promoting alternatives that lack broad-based legitimacy. Such approaches, often described as “Chalabi-style projects,” which are pursued without genuine backing and inclusive support from across Iranian society, can lead to deepening divisions and could even trigger civil conflict. The experiences of Iraq and Afghanistan clearly demonstrated how externally engineered political arrangements could lead to chronic instability, the rise of extremism, and far-reaching security threats, consequences that have also impacted Europe, including Belgium, in the form of large waves of refugees and mounting security challenges. Initiatives detached from internal realities risk exacerbating fragmentation and can ultimately weaken the broader movement for democratic change.
History offers valuable lessons, if policymakers are willing to learn from them. Europe’s most constructive role is not to select or elevate leaders for Iran, but to support the Iranian people in determining their own future.
At this pivotal moment, European policy should be guided by a clear principle: the future of Iran must be decided by its people. Providing consistent support for democratic values, while avoiding the mistakes of the past, remains the most responsible and effective course.
The European Parliament would be well advised to shelve its current plans and follow this path.
Author: Dr. Masoud Kasshefi
Member of International Alliance of Health Professionals for Free Iran (IAHP.org), Belgium
