As someone who has dealt with European politics for decades, I understand that ambiguity is, at times, an even necessary tool in policymaking. But ambiguity has no place when confronting pressing, life-and-death situations. Iran today presents precisely such a moment, writes Alejo Vidal Quadras.
At a time when the country stands at a potential turning point, Europe cannot afford hesitation or misjudgment. The future of Iran will have direct consequences for regional stability, energy security, and the credibility of Europe’s commitment to democracy and human rights. The choices we make today, especially about whom we engage, will shape that future.
Reza Pahlavi, the self-described “crown prince of Iran” whose father was deposed as the country’s last Shah in 1979, is currently on a European tour aimed at raising his profile as a presumptive opposition leader. The scrutiny and criticism he has faced during that tour suggest that a growing number of Western political and media figures are beginning to question the narrative that presents him as a credible democratic alternative.
At his stop in Sweden, Pahlavi was questioned by reporters about his father’s legacy of corruption and human rights abuses. His response was to declare that he remains “proud” of his heritage and family name, while dismissing the repressive conditions that existed in the years leading up to the Iranian Revolution. During a press conference, he went so far as to criticize a reporter for being “fixated” on events from decades ago when asked whether he disagreed with any of his father’s actions while in power.
Such questions are not distractions; they are essential. Reza Pahlavi’s stance on his father’s record is directly relevant to any assessment of how he might exercise power if given the opportunity. Dismissing these concerns is no less troubling than defending that legacy outright, and in practice, he and his supporters have done both.
“There is a generation that has never even seen my father with their own eyes, yet they have fallen in love with him and with what he did for Iran,” Pahlavi claimed, attempting to contrast the monarchy with the current theocracy. Yet such assertions ring hollow, especially in the wake of the regime’s violent crackdown on nationwide protests earlier this year, in which thousands of unarmed civilians were killed. Even such atrocities do not justify romanticizing a past defined by repression and political violence.
A lesser record of bloodshed would not justify a return to authoritarian rule, nor should it prompt the international community to endorse those who advocate for it. Reactions to Pahlavi’s European tour suggest that many observers are aware of this reality. His father’s regime was responsible for widespread human rights abuses, including systematic torture and politically motivated killings carried out by the notorious secret police, SAVAK—facts that cannot be dismissed as relics of a distant past.
Much of his perceived support inside Iran has been amplified by coordinated influence campaigns. During the recent uprising, social media accounts—many later identified as inauthentic—circulated videos purporting to show crowds chanting slogans such as “Long live the Shah” or calling for Pahlavi’s return.
These claims quickly unraveled. Investigations revealed manipulated audio tracks and coordinated disinformation efforts designed to create a false impression of support.
The reality on the ground in Iran tells a very different story. The dominant slogans of the uprisings in 2018, 2019, 2022, and most recently in 2026 have consistently rejected both the current regime and the former monarchy. The chant “Death to the dictator, whether Shah or Supreme Leader” encapsulates a widely held aspiration: not a return to the past, but the creation of a democratic future free from all forms of authoritarianism.
This sentiment is not marginal; it is central to the identity of the protest movement. It reflects the determination of a population that has experienced both systems and rejects them alike. It also underscores the risks of misreading Iran’s political landscape by projecting outdated or externally manufactured narratives onto it.
Against this backdrop, Pahlavi’s conduct during his European tour has further reinforced concerns about his suitability as a democratic leader. His decision not to attend a meeting of Iranian opposition figures at the European Parliament this week, reportedly because he did not wish to share a platform with Kurdish representatives, raises serious questions about his commitment to inclusivity and pluralism.
Europe must take these realities seriously. Engagement with Iran is not optional; it is a strategic and moral necessity. The regime’s ongoing repression, including its continued use of executions against political opponents, requires a clear and principled European response in line with the Union’s core values.
At the same time, prudence is essential. Supporting democratic change does not mean elevating individuals whose positions have contributed to fragmenting the very society they claim to represent. Europe should avoid the temptation to simplify Iran’s complex political landscape into a single face or figure and instead remain attentive to the broader spectrum of democratic forces, including movements such as the National Council of Resistance of Iran.
The trajectory of Iran will ultimately be determined by its own people. Europe’s responsibility is to ensure that its policies align with those aspirations and do not inadvertently lend credibility to divisive or misleading narratives.
Getting Iran right starts with rejecting false alternatives.
Professor Alejo Vidal Quadras is the president of the International Committee in Search of Justice (IS). He was the vice president of the European Parliament from 1999 to 2014).
