German lawmakers, former diplomats, legal experts, religious figures and civil-society advocates discuss Iran’s political crisis, human rights, organized resistance and prospects for democratic change.
An online conference held in Germany on August 31, 2026, brought together German lawmakers, former diplomats, legal experts, religious figures and civil-society advocates to examine Iran’s political crisis and the prospects for democratic change.
Organized with the participation of the Union of Iranian Communities in Germany and members of the German Solidarity Committee for a Free Iran, the conference focused on the situation inside Iran, the role of organized opposition forces, human rights violations and the direction of German and European policy toward Tehran.
A recurring theme throughout the conference was that neither foreign military intervention nor renewed accommodation with the Iranian regime could provide a lasting solution to the country’s crisis. Instead, speakers emphasized the importance of supporting domestic protests and organized forces inside Iran, particularly the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK) and its network of Resistance Units.
Auf der Hybrid-Konferenz „Iran: Der Weg zur Demokratie“ diskutierten 🇩🇪Iran-Experten & Politiker über Folgen der jüngsten Entwicklungen & zunehmende innere und regionale Krisen. Im Mittelpunkt standen die Rolle des organisierten Widerstands im Land sowie die Frage, wie ein… pic.twitter.com/yXKkgyGR2D
— Javad Dabiran (@JavadDabiran) September 2, 2026
The NCRI’s Ten-Point Plan was also repeatedly presented as a framework for a secular and democratic republic following a political transition. Several speakers rejected the restoration of the monarchy and questioned the political credentials of Reza Pahlavi as an alternative to the current system.
Executions, political imprisonment, repression, accountability and the need for a tougher European response to the Iranian regime and its coercive institutions were among the conference’s other central themes.
Maryam Rajavi: The Central Confrontation Is Between Iranian Society and the Regime
In a message to the conference, Mrs. Maryam Rajavi described the fundamental confrontation in Iran as a struggle between Iranian society and what she termed “religious fascism.” She argued that external military conflict had not displaced the deeper confrontation taking place inside the country.
According to Mrs. Rajavi, the regime’s strategy for survival depends on executions, repression and the permanent deployment of security forces, while the opposing force is represented by continuing protests and what she described as the “unrelenting operations of Resistance Units.”
Mrs. Rajavi said the PMOI had spent years building a nationwide social and operational structure despite intense repression. She stated that Resistance Units carried out 630 operations during the December 2025–January 2026 uprising, particularly targeting the apparatus responsible for suppression by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
She described the significance of the Resistance Units as their ability to transform what she called the “explosive, protesting energy of Iranian society” into an organized force capable of confronting the regime.
On the political future of Iran, Mrs. Rajavi rejected both continued accommodation with the clerical establishment and a return to the Shah’s dynasty, describing monarchist restoration as “a mirage.”
She argued that European and international policy has failed to recognize what she considers the principal force for change inside Iran. In her view, continued attempts by foreign governments to reach an accommodation with Tehran have produced flawed strategies.
Mrs. Rajavi also accused remnants of the former Shah’s system of serving the interests of the current regime by dividing the opposition, disrupting uprisings and promoting what she characterized as fascist slogans.
Citing Massoud Rajavi, the leader of the Iranian Resistance, she said the experience of the two wars and the 2025–2026 uprising demonstrated that a return to “puppet monarchical fascism” was not a viable solution.
Mrs. Rajavi presented the NCRI’s transition plan, free elections and Ten-Point Plan as mechanisms designed to prevent a power vacuum following the fall of the current regime and to establish a democratic republic.
Carsten Müller: Germany Must Recognize the Forces Working for Freedom in Iran
Carsten Müller, a member of the German Bundestag and chairman of its Legal Affairs Committee, said Western governments had repeatedly failed to identify and engage with the forces genuinely working for freedom inside Iran.
Müller argued that months of military attacks had neither liberated the Iranian people nor brought democracy closer. Instead, he said, they had coincided with intensified repression inside Iran.
He pointed to the continued targeting of PMOI members as evidence of the importance the Iranian authorities attach to the organization.
According to Müller, a more credible approach would involve supporting democratic forces that possess both international connections and “the corresponding infrastructure in Iran itself.”
He said the conference was intended in part to make this perspective more prominent in Germany and contribute to a change in Berlin’s Iran policy.
Müller also criticized what he described as the penetration of Iranian regime narratives into official German debate, arguing that German institutions had too often repeated arguments originating with Tehran.
“That must come to an end,” he said, calling for a fundamental change in German and European policy rather than reliance on military intervention or previous approaches to engagement with Tehran.
Leo Dautzenberg: Iran Needs No Transition From One Dictatorship to Another
Leo Dautzenberg, a former member of the Bundestag, expanded on the argument for supporting organized resistance inside Iran.
He contrasted the organized resistance with both the clerical regime and Reza Pahlavi, arguing that executions, arrests, security-force deployments and propaganda campaigns against the PMOI and Resistance Units should not be interpreted as signs of regime strength.
Instead, he said, these measures demonstrated the authorities’ fear of another uprising and of an organized force capable of challenging the system.
Dautzenberg rejected both appeasement of the religious dictatorship and foreign military intervention. He called instead for political, moral and practical support for Iranians organizing inside the country.
Addressing the debate over the monarchy, he argued that Pahlavi’s media visibility and lobbying activities could not substitute for democratic legitimacy, an organized domestic presence or a clear break with the repressive legacy associated with the Shah and SAVAK.
“Iran needs no transition from one dictatorship to another,” Dautzenberg said.
By contrast, he argued that the NCRI possesses an organization, an in-country presence and a roadmap for political transition. He described Mrs. Rajavi’s Ten-Point Plan as compatible with European democratic values and called for structured and public political dialogue between Berlin, Europe and the NCRI.
Joachim Rücker: Human Rights Must Not Be Sacrificed to Geopolitics
Ambassador Dr. Joachim Rücker, former president of the UN Human Rights Council, urged Germany and Europe to reject what he described as a false choice between war and appeasement.
“Human rights must not be sacrificed to geopolitics,” Rücker said, identifying an immediate halt to executions and protection for political prisoners as key priorities.
He argued that the Iranian regime’s survival after external military blows should not be confused with genuine stability. Instead, he pointed to economic decline, social discontent, declining legitimacy and growing divisions within the ruling elite as signs of continued vulnerability.
Rücker proposed a third approach: active support for Iranian society’s struggle for secular democracy, equality, the rule of law and a non-nuclear state.
In assessing Iran’s political alternatives, he said media visibility, a famous family name or access to Western capitals should not be the principal criteria. Instead, he identified organization, a verifiable political program, roots inside Iran and a credible mechanism for democratic transition as key measures.
He warned against what he called the “glorification of the monarchy” and nostalgia for SAVAK, while identifying the Ten-Point Plan as a concrete democratic benchmark through its emphasis on free elections, separation of religion and state, equality and abolition of the death penalty.
Amb. Dr. Joachim Rücker sagte auf der Hybrid-Konferenz „Iran: Der Weg zur Demokratie“: „Krieg & Appeasement sind nicht die einzigen beiden Optionen.“ Die dritte Option sei die aktive Unterstützung des iranischen Volkes im Kampf für säkulare Demokratie, Menschenrechte,… pic.twitter.com/9hllPgN48z
— Javad Dabiran (@JavadDabiran) September 2, 2026
Hans-Ulrich Seidt: Europe Should Not Decide Iran’s Future From Outside
Hans-Ulrich Seidt, a former German ambassador and former inspector general of the Foreign Office, approached Iran’s crisis from a geopolitical and institutional perspective.
He warned that military confrontation around the Strait of Hormuz could have consequences far beyond Iran, including the possibility of a severe global energy shock.
At the same time, Seidt cautioned against interpreting the regime’s ability to maintain order through force as evidence of durable stability.
He identified economic crisis, war, uncertainty over leadership and persistent public unrest as pressures that could reinforce one another.
According to Seidt, a decisive internal shift could occur if nationwide protests were accompanied by sustained strikes in sectors such as oil, transportation, banking and the public sector, combined with fragmentation or defections within the security apparatus.
Seidt stressed that Europe should not attempt to determine Iran’s political future from outside, saying that “the Iranian people are the masters of their destiny.”
Nevertheless, he argued that Germany and the European Union could support democratic and capable Iranian forces.
Among the opposition forces, he singled out the NCRI under Maryam Rajavi for having presented a concrete Ten-Point Plan. He described the plan as “not a utopia” but “a realistic approach,” while suggesting that it could be strengthened by a detailed economic program.
Martin Patzelt: Europe Must Distinguish Criticism From Disinformation
Martin Patzelt, a former member of the Bundestag and board member of the German Solidarity Committee for a Free Iran, examined why European policy remains hesitant despite the Iranian regime’s conduct at home and its activities in Europe.
Patzelt warned that democratic societies are not immune to disinformation and alleged that Iranian intelligence structures systematically attempt to discredit reporting about Iran, introduce competing narratives and create uncertainty over the reliability of sources.
He therefore argued that allegations directed against the PMOI should be carefully examined rather than accepted without scrutiny.
Patzelt said the conference had helped answer a question he had repeatedly raised: who inside Iran could assume political responsibility if the clerical system were to collapse?
He said the information presented about PMOI-linked resistance demonstrated that forces were operating “on the ground” under life-threatening conditions and were seeking to implement the alternative outlined in the Ten-Point Plan.
Patzelt called on Europeans to establish direct engagement with representatives of the opposition.
He concluded with a distinction he considered essential: “Criticism is legitimate; disinformation is dangerous.”
He called for broader networks to expose what he described as Tehran’s intelligence operations and strengthen support for democratic change.
Thomas Lutze: Reza Pahlavi Lacks Democratic Mandate and Domestic Organization
Thomas Lutze, a former member of the Bundestag, focused on whether Reza Pahlavi could credibly form part of a democratic solution for Iran.
His answer was categorical. Lutze argued that Pahlavi was neither the product of a democratic process nor an elected representative of the Iranian people and lacked an organized network inside Iran.
He attributed Pahlavi’s increased visibility since 2022 primarily to media activity, social networks, lobbying and what he described as artificial amplification rather than demonstrable roots in Iranian society.
Lutze also referred to reports of intimidation of critics, disputes within monarchist networks and concerns surrounding SAVAK symbolism as issues that should be taken seriously in European democratic discourse.
“Iran does not need a transition from one dictatorship to another,” he said.
Lutze argued that European governments should assess political alternatives according to their programs, accountability, respect for Iran’s diversity, transparency and genuine domestic presence.
He warned that promoting Pahlavi could weaken democratic opposition forces and reinforce Tehran’s narrative that the only alternative to the clerical dictatorship is a restoration of the monarchy.
Instead, he called on Europe to listen to forces seeking a secular democratic republic through free elections.
Nina Pesian: Resistance Inside Prisons and on the Streets Are Connected
Nina Pesian, spokesperson for the Association of German-Iranians, focused on political prisoners, executions and the expansion of organized resistance inside Iran.
She said the regime continues to rely on fear, terror and executions, but argued that repression had strengthened rather than broken the determination of young Iranians.
Pesian highlighted prisoners whom she said face execution because of alleged membership in the PMOI and praised those who continue to resist despite severe pressure.
She also discussed the “No to Executions Tuesdays” campaign, saying it had expanded beyond individual prison hunger strikes. According to Pesian, 61 prisons had joined the campaign, with families and sections of the wider public also taking part.
She presented resistance inside prisons and resistance in the streets as part of a single political continuum, arguing that both contributed to the expansion of Resistance Units throughout Iran.
“The only way to freedom is organized resistance led by the Resistance Units,” Pesian said.
She rejected what she characterized as empty hopes and purely rhetorical responses, portraying the organized resistance network as a domestic force rather than a phenomenon limited to the Iranian diaspora.
Pesian called on international supporters to amplify the voices of Iranians facing imprisonment and execution and to stand with those engaged in resistance inside the country.
Reza Musavi: Iran’s Economic Crisis Is Rooted in the Political System
Reza Musavi examined Iran’s economic crisis as a structural consequence of the country’s political system rather than a temporary result of sanctions or poor economic management.
He cited rising consumer and food inflation, increases in taxes and electricity prices, a sharp decline in the value of the currency and growing military expenditure as evidence of what he called a deepening “super-crisis.”
Musavi described Iran as a rentier, limited-access economy in which oil and gas revenues and strategic sectors are controlled by regime-aligned elites, particularly the IRGC, religious foundations and entities linked to the ruling establishment.
He argued that genuine market liberalization and effective anti-corruption measures would threaten the economic foundations of these elites and therefore that meaningful reform from within the existing system was not viable.
Musavi then connected the economic crisis to political mobilization. He argued that spontaneous public anger alone would not be sufficient to confront a heavily armed state.
In his analysis, the Resistance Units provide an organizational bridge between widespread unrest and coordinated action by “channeling” public anger and giving it strategic direction.
He described the organized Resistance Units as the structural backbone capable of turning an unorganized mass movement into a force for fundamental political change, linking Iran’s economic breakdown to the conference’s broader argument for an organized domestic alternative.
Marion Böker: Europe and the UN Should Strengthen Engagement With Iranian Civil Society
Marion Böker, director of a consultancy specializing in human rights and gender issues, called for broader European and United Nations engagement with the NCRI and Iranian civil society.
She welcomed existing support for Maryam Rajavi in European institutions but argued that such support remained insufficient and should be strengthened, alongside additional sanctions against Iranian authorities.
Böker called for greater use of UN forums in Geneva and New York, including Human Rights Council mechanisms, to document abuses, facilitate civil-society participation and address executions and other alleged violations of international law.
She also proposed making greater use of documentation collected by the resistance regarding alleged crimes against humanity and discussed possible international accountability mechanisms.
At the same time, Böker encouraged NCRI participation in international discussions concerning women, peace and security.
She stressed that peace negotiations should include women and civil society, arguing that the war had produced “no gain for freedom and democracy in Iran.”
Böker described a democratic Iran as a potential contributor to broader regional stability and minority rights and called for international diplomacy to move beyond expressions of sympathy toward sustained institutional support, accountability and a political role for organized Iranian civil society.
Der ehem. Präsident des UN-Menschenrechtsrats Amb. Joachim Rücker sagte auf der Konferenz „Iran: Der Weg zur Demokratie“: „Der Westen darf dem iranischen Volk keinen Führer präsentieren.“ Über die Zukunft Irans dürfe ausschließlich das iranische Volk selbst entscheiden.… pic.twitter.com/mNfGz4sCXu
— Javad Dabiran (@JavadDabiran) September 2, 2026
Margot Käßmann: Iran’s People and Their Dignity Must Be at the Center
Margot Käßmann, former chair of the Council of the Evangelical Church in Germany, called for placing the Iranian people rather than geopolitical calculations at the center of discussions about Iran.
She argued that public debate too often reduces Iran to questions surrounding its nuclear program, regional conflicts or military confrontation while overlooking people fighting for “their dignity, their freedom, their right to life.”
Käßmann described the death penalty not simply as a form of punishment but as an instrument of intimidation and political control.
She argued that expressions of concern must be translated into practical measures aimed at stopping executions, securing the release of political prisoners and ensuring accountability for perpetrators.
Käßmann also criticized what she viewed as the limited attention given by German media to repression inside Iran and to the impact of war on Iranian society and opposition forces.
Supporting Iranians, she emphasized, “does not mean support for war or foreign intervention.” Instead, she called for strengthening voices inside Iran seeking freedom and democracy.
Käßmann specifically endorsed elements of the Ten-Point Plan, including separation of religion and state, equality for women and abolition of the death penalty, linking these principles to universal religious freedom and respect for human life.
Christoph Degenhart: Iran’s Judicial Crimes Should Be Documented for Accountability
Christoph Degenhart, professor of constitutional law and a former judge of the Constitutional Court of Saxony, examined what he described as “judicial crimes” and their potential classification as crimes against humanity.
Drawing on the legacy of the Nuremberg trials and Article 7 of the Rome Statute, Degenhart argued that state courts and judicial institutions can be transformed into instruments of systematic murder, imprisonment, torture and political persecution.
He said the 1988 massacre in Iran and the current wave of executions should be documented case by case as potential crimes against humanity, particularly where judicial institutions are allegedly used to destroy organized political opposition.
Degenhart emphasized the principle of universal jurisdiction and said German courts can, under appropriate circumstances, prosecute grave international crimes committed outside Germany.
He made a practical appeal to human-rights organizations and the resistance: preserve facts, identify those involved and collect usable evidence before records disappear.
Degenhart also directly rejected the previous policy of accommodation toward Tehran, saying that “the policy of appeasement that we had in the past is no longer permissible.”
For Germany, he argued, the principle of “never again” requires scrutiny, documentation and accountability rather than denial or political convenience.
A Common Call for a Different European Approach
Taken together, the speeches presented a broad critique of both military intervention and policies based on accommodation with Tehran. Speakers instead emphasized support for Iranian civil society, organized domestic resistance, human rights and mechanisms for accountability.
The NCRI’s Ten-Point Plan emerged as a recurring reference point in the discussions, particularly in relation to free elections, separation of religion and state, equality, abolition of the death penalty and the establishment of a secular democratic republic.
The conference also repeatedly urged Germany and the wider European Union to reassess their approach to Iran, engage more directly with democratic opposition forces and give greater attention to executions, political prisoners and alleged crimes against humanity.
While the speakers differed in emphasis—from geopolitics and economic crisis to human rights, constitutional law and religious freedom—the central message was that Iran’s political future should ultimately be determined by the Iranian people and that international policy should support, rather than substitute for, that process.
