Europe should not promote a preferred leader for Iran’s Future

For Europe, which has consistently articulated its support for democratic principles and self-determination, involvement in any initiative perceived as selecting or promoting a preferred leader would carry significant reputational costs, write Alejo Vidal Quadras, Struan Stevenson and Paulo Casaca.

Prof. Alejo Vidal Quadras, President, International Committee in Search of Justice (ISJ), EP Vice President (1999 – 2014);

Struan Stevenson, Chair ISJ Committee on the Protection of Political Freedoms in Iran, President of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations with Iraq (2009 -2014), Member of the European Parliament (1999 – 2009);

Paulo Casaca, Former Chair of European Parliament’s delegation for relations with the NATO Parliamentary Assembly,

At a moment when Iran stands at a critical juncture, reports that efforts may be underway within the European Parliament’s Foreign Affairs structures to assemble a preferred configuration of the Iranian opposition should give policymakers pause.

The notion that Iran’s future can be shaped by elevating a particular figure from outside the country, especially one as polarizing and contested as Reza Pahlavi, is not only misguided, it risks actively undermining the Iranian people’s struggle for democratic change.

The question of political unity in Iran is, fundamentally, an Iranian one. History offers a sobering warning about attempts to manufacture leadership from abroad. The experience of Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress, promoted externally as a ready-made alternative, ultimately contributed to a disastrous intervention whose consequences continue to reverberate across the Middle East. Repeating such an experiment in Iran would be far more dangerous.

Iran today is not a blank slate awaiting external design. It is a complex society of over 90 million people, with a long history of political mobilization and a deeply rooted aspiration for self-determination. Any attempt to impose or “assemble” leadership from outside will be perceived not as support, but as interference, an echo of past interventions that Iranians across the political spectrum remember all too well.

Those bitter memories are not abstract. The legacies of the 1921 and 1953 coups, the former backed by Britain, the latter orchestrated by MI6 and the CIA, remain deeply embedded in Iran’s national consciousness. They were not only later exploited by Ruhollah Khomeini to fuel anti-Western sentiment and, under that cloak, suppress his democratic opposition, the true heirs of the 1979 revolution, but they continue to shape how Iranians view foreign involvement in their political affairs.

To disregard this history is to risk repeating it.

It is also important to examine the specific figure at the center of these discussions. Reza Pahlavi is not a neutral or unifying presence. He is the heir to a political legacy marked by authoritarian rule, widespread repression, and the systematic marginalization of ethnic minorities, including Kurds, Arabs, Turks, and Baluchis, communities that together constitute a substantial portion of Iran’s population.

More importantly, his own positions raise serious concerns. He has presented himself as both a prospective leader and a monarch-in-waiting, even designating his daughter as his successor. He has not distanced himself from the dark record of his father’s rule; rather, he has at times openly advocated a return to that era. His rhetoric toward ethnic minorities, frequently framed in terms of “separatism,” suggests a continuation of policies that many Iranians associate with repression rather than inclusion.

Moreover, his professed commitment to secular democracy begins to fade under closer scrutiny of his proposed roadmap for change. It offers little clarity on how the existing system would actually be transformed or replaced. More troublingly, it appears to concentrate significant executive and judicial authority in a single, unelected office, effectively vesting such powers in himself, raising serious questions about accountability, separation of powers, and whether such a model would genuinely break from Iran’s long history of centralized, unaccountable rule.

Unsurprisingly, this has contributed to a growing consensus among a wide range of Iranian political currents, particularly those committed to democratic change, that association with monarchist restoration is neither legitimate nor desirable. In this context, efforts to elevate such a figure risk deepening divisions rather than fostering unity.

The broader consequences of such a course would extend beyond Iran.

For Europe, which has consistently articulated its support for democratic principles and self-determination, involvement in any initiative perceived as selecting or promoting a preferred leader would carry significant reputational costs. It would undermine the credibility of European institutions and weaken their ability to engage constructively with the Iranian people.

More fundamentally, it would send the wrong signal at a decisive moment.

The developments of recent months have demonstrated that the Iranian people are not seeking a return to past forms of governance, nor are they looking for externally anointed leaders. They are demanding a future shaped by their own will; one that breaks decisively with all forms of authoritarianism, whether rooted in religion or monarchy.

Any attempt to bypass this reality and construct an alternative from above will not only fail – it will align, however unintentionally, with the very forces inside Iran that seek to suppress genuine democratic change.

Europe should resist the temptation to engineer outcomes in a country whose people have repeatedly shown their capacity to define their own path.

The lesson of history is clear: durable change cannot be manufactured from abroad.

It must be earned – and it must come from within.

Disclaimer: EUalive doesn’t necessarily share the opinion of the guest authors and is open to publishing other views on the same topic.

Caption: Supporters of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) and its leader Maryam Rajavi on a demonstration in Berlin. Photo by Siavosh Hosseini, The Media Express