International lawmakers and former officials argued that decades of concessions and engagement have neither improved human rights nor moderated the Iranian regime’s behavior.

Throughout the Free Iran 2026 conference in Paris, speakers directed sharp criticism not only at Iran’s ruling establishment but also at Western policies that they argued have enabled the regime to survive and expand its influence.

Lawmakers, former ministers, and political leaders from Europe and North America repeatedly warned that decades of engagement, concessions, and diplomatic accommodation have failed to produce meaningful change in Iran. Instead, they argued, policies aimed at moderating the regime have coincided with increased repression at home and continued destabilizing activities abroad.

For many participants, the debate was no longer about whether appeasement had succeeded. It was about how long Western governments would continue pursuing a strategy they described as demonstrably ineffective.

A Policy Under Increasing Scrutiny

Several speakers argued that successive Western governments hoped that dialogue, economic engagement, and diplomatic outreach would encourage more moderate behavior from Tehran.

According to conference participants, those expectations have not been fulfilled.

They pointed to Iran’s continued use of executions, the suppression of political dissent, restrictions on civil liberties, and the persecution of opposition activists as evidence that engagement has failed to improve the regime’s human rights record.

At the same time, they argued that regional tensions, support for proxy groups, and the expansion of Tehran’s military influence have continued despite years of diplomatic efforts aimed at changing the regime’s conduct.

For many speakers, these developments raised fundamental questions about the assumptions that have guided Western policy for decades.

Human Rights Cannot Be Secondary

German parliamentarian Carsten Müller argued that democratic governments must place human rights at the center of their policy toward Iran.

He criticized approaches that separate diplomatic engagement from concerns about political prisoners, executions, and state repression, warning that silence on such issues risks emboldening those responsible for abuses.

Müller maintained that international relations should not come at the expense of fundamental democratic principles and called for greater accountability for officials involved in human rights violations.

His remarks reflected a broader theme throughout the conference: that human rights should be treated as a central component of foreign policy rather than a secondary concern.

The Cost of Looking Away

Several participants suggested that the international community has too often underestimated the consequences of inaction.

Italian parliamentarian Naike Gruppioni argued that neutrality in the face of repression effectively benefits those carrying out the repression.

She pledged continued efforts to expose human rights abuses, support political prisoners, and advocate for stronger measures against individuals responsible for violations.

Her message resonated with many conference attendees who viewed silence and passivity as forms of political acquiescence.

According to this perspective, democratic governments face a moral and political responsibility to respond when fundamental freedoms are systematically violated.

Calls for Greater Pressure

Although speakers proposed different policy approaches, many agreed that stronger pressure on Tehran is necessary.

Recommendations included targeted sanctions against officials involved in human rights abuses, increased diplomatic isolation of those responsible for repression, and stronger support for international investigations into executions and political persecution.

Participants argued that accountability measures should focus on those directly involved in implementing repressive policies rather than on ordinary Iranian citizens.

Several speakers also called for greater international attention to political prisoners and individuals facing execution because of their political beliefs or alleged links to opposition movements.

These proposals reflected a broader conviction that pressure, rather than accommodation, offers a more effective means of influencing the regime’s behavior.

Support for the Iranian People, Not the Regime

A recurring distinction throughout the conference was between Iran’s rulers and the Iranian people.

Speakers repeatedly emphasized that opposition to appeasement does not mean opposition to Iran itself.

On the contrary, they argued that stronger support for democratic values, civil society, and human rights represents a form of solidarity with the Iranian population.

Former Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird argued that Western governments should place greater emphasis on the aspirations of ordinary Iranians rather than on maintaining relationships with those who suppress them.

Several participants similarly urged policymakers to recognize the role of protesters, political activists, and Resistance Units as legitimate voices in discussions about Iran’s future.

Lessons from Past Experience

Some speakers drew comparisons with previous authoritarian regimes that benefited from international hesitation or excessive optimism.

Former Romanian Prime Minister Petre Roman recalled the final years of communist rule in Eastern Europe, arguing that democratic governments sometimes underestimate the resilience of opposition movements while overestimating the stability of authoritarian systems.

Others pointed to historical examples where dictatorships exploited diplomatic engagement without implementing meaningful reforms.

These comparisons were used to support the argument that Western governments should evaluate Tehran based on its actions rather than its promises.

A Different Approach to Iran

Beyond criticizing past policies, speakers also sought to outline an alternative approach.

Rather than viewing Iran solely through the lenses of nuclear negotiations, regional security concerns, or diplomatic engagement, they argued that policymakers should pay greater attention to democratic aspirations inside the country.

Supporters of this view contended that lasting stability cannot be achieved by strengthening authoritarian institutions. Instead, they argued, stability will ultimately depend on the emergence of a government that enjoys popular legitimacy and respects fundamental rights.

For many conference participants, this principle should guide future relations between democratic nations and Iran.

The End of an Era?

One of the strongest messages to emerge from Free Iran 2026 was that the policy debate surrounding Iran may be entering a new phase.

Speakers from different political traditions and countries repeatedly reached the same conclusion: decades of engagement have failed to moderate the regime’s behavior, reduce repression, or address the grievances driving repeated waves of unrest.

Speakers at Free Iran 2026 argued that the Iranian opposition offers not only resistance to the current regime but a detailed vision for a democratic future.

For years, discussions about Iran’s future have often centered on a single question: if the current clerical regime falls, what comes next?

At the Free Iran 2026 conference in Paris, speakers from across Europe and North America repeatedly pointed to Maryam Rajavi’s Ten-Point Plan as an answer to that question, describing it as a comprehensive roadmap for democratic transition and national reconstruction.

While much of the conference focused on repression, human rights abuses, and resistance to the ruling establishment, participants also emphasized the importance of presenting a clear political alternative. According to many speakers, the Ten-Point Plan demonstrates that Iran’s opposition is not simply organized around opposition to the current regime but around a vision for a democratic future.

A Vision Beyond Regime Change

Several speakers argued that successful democratic movements require more than resistance. They must also offer a credible political program capable of uniting citizens around a common future.

Former European Council President Charles Michel emphasized that Iran’s democratic opposition has developed a political platform based on freedom, pluralism, and popular sovereignty. He described the Ten-Point Plan as a framework capable of guiding the country through a democratic transition after the end of clerical rule.

Similarly, German parliamentarian Carsten Müller praised the plan as a modern democratic program that reflects universal principles rather than ideological extremism.

For many participants, this distinction was important. The conference repeatedly stressed that the goal is not merely replacing one form of authoritarianism with another but establishing democratic institutions capable of protecting individual freedoms and political rights.

Free Elections and Popular Sovereignty

At the heart of the Ten-Point Plan is the principle that political legitimacy must come from the ballot box rather than religious authority or hereditary rule.

Speakers highlighted the plan’s call for free and fair elections under universal suffrage, arguing that the future government of Iran should be determined solely by its citizens.

This emphasis on democratic choice was frequently contrasted with both the current theocratic system and other forms of authoritarian governance.

Participants argued that Iran’s future should be decided through democratic institutions, competitive elections, and respect for the will of the people.

Separation of Religion and State

Another pillar of the plan that received significant attention was the commitment to separating religion from government.

Speakers described the current political system as one in which religious authority dominates every aspect of public life, often at the expense of civil liberties and political freedoms.

Under the Ten-Point Plan, they noted, all citizens would enjoy equal rights regardless of their religion or beliefs, while political institutions would operate independently of clerical control.

Several participants argued that this principle is essential for ensuring both religious freedom and democratic governance.

Equality for Women

The prominent role of women at the conference underscored another key component of the plan: gender equality.

Lawmakers and former officials repeatedly praised Iranian women for their leadership in protests and resistance activities, while emphasizing that a future democratic Iran must guarantee equal rights in political, economic, and social life.

Speakers highlighted provisions supporting equal participation in government, equal opportunities in employment and education, and legal protections against discrimination.

Many argued that the position of women under the current regime demonstrates why gender equality must be a central element of any democratic transition.

Abolishing the Death Penalty

One of the most frequently cited provisions of the Ten-Point Plan was its call for the abolition of capital punishment.

This issue resonated strongly with conference participants, many of whom had spent much of their speeches condemning Iran’s high execution rate and the use of death sentences against political prisoners.

Supporters of the plan argued that ending the death penalty would represent a decisive break from decades of state violence and political repression.

They described it as a necessary step toward building a justice system based on human rights and the rule of law.

A Non-Nuclear Iran

The plan’s commitment to a non-nuclear Iran also received considerable attention.

Speakers stressed that the Iranian people should not be held responsible for the nuclear ambitions of the ruling establishment and argued that a democratic Iran could become a source of stability rather than tension in the region.

By rejecting nuclear weapons and supporting peaceful international relations, they said, a future democratic government could help reintegrate Iran into the global community.

Several speakers described this commitment as evidence that the opposition’s vision extends beyond domestic reform to include a fundamentally different approach to foreign policy.

Addressing Questions About the Future

One of the recurring themes throughout the conference was the need to counter claims that there is no viable alternative to the current regime.

Participants argued that the existence of a detailed political platform, combined with decades of organized opposition activity, challenges that narrative.

Former Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird and several European lawmakers emphasized that the National Council of Resistance of Iran has spent years preparing not only for resistance but also for democratic transition.

In their view, the Ten-Point Plan demonstrates that discussions about Iran’s future no longer need to be limited to the question of whether change is possible. They can also address what kind of political system should emerge afterward.

A Blueprint for Democratic Transition

By the conclusion of the conference, speakers had presented the Ten-Point Plan as far more than a collection of policy proposals.

For supporters, it represents a blueprint for building a democratic republic founded on free elections, gender equality, religious freedom, judicial reform, and peaceful international relations.

The convergence of military conflict and diplomatic agreement has exposed the limits of both foreign intervention and appeasement, reaffirming that democratic change in Iran can only be achieved by the Iranian people themselves.

The recent convergence of war and diplomacy has brought an important chapter in Iran’s political crisis to a close. A period of uncertainty-suspended between military confrontation and negotiations-has ended. What lies ahead will reveal the calculations of regional powers, international actors, and competing Iranian political currents.

Yet one conclusion is already becoming clear.

Just as the war altered political and social dynamics inside Iran, the subsequent diplomatic developments may prove equally consequential. The implications extend beyond the ruling establishment and touch the future aspirations of millions of Iranians seeking freedom, democracy, and national sovereignty.

The Collapse of the Illusion of Liberation Through War

Among the clearest political losers of this period are those who viewed war as a vehicle for regime change.

For months, some voices promoted the notion that freedom could arrive in Iran through foreign military action. This argument was particularly embraced by monarchist circles surrounding Reza Pahlavi, many of whom openly encouraged a military confrontation that they believed would create a pathway back to political relevance.

The premise was always flawed.

Iran is not a nation waiting for salvation from abroad. For more than a century, generations of Iranians have fought for constitutional government, political freedoms, and independence from both domestic tyranny and foreign domination. The struggle against dictatorship has deep roots in Iranian society and cannot be outsourced to foreign governments, military campaigns, or geopolitical calculations.

The outcome of recent events has underscored this reality.

Rather than producing democratic transformation, war brought additional suffering to ordinary Iranians while leaving the fundamental structures of repression intact.

The Regime Exploited the Crisis

While international attention focused on military developments and diplomatic negotiations, the Iranian regime continued to pursue one of its oldest survival strategies: repression.

During the conflict and its aftermath, authorities intensified executions and crackdowns against political prisoners, dissidents, and activists. The regime sought to exploit the crisis to eliminate opponents and intimidate society at a moment when global attention was directed elsewhere.

Equally revealing was the muted reaction from much of the international community.

Despite extensive concern over military escalation, far less attention was devoted to the regime’s ongoing human rights violations. Once again, the pattern that has characterized decades of Western policy toward Tehran became visible: strategic considerations often take precedence over the rights and aspirations of the Iranian people.

This approach has survived successive governments and international crises. Whether under the banner of engagement, diplomacy, or regional stability, the result has frequently been the same-a reluctance to confront the regime’s domestic repression.

Neither War Nor Appeasement

The lessons of recent months challenge two failed approaches that have long dominated discussions about Iran.

The first is the illusion that foreign military intervention can deliver democracy. The second is the belief that accommodation and concessions can moderate a regime whose survival depends on repression and regional aggression.

Both strategies have repeatedly fallen short.

In a recent statement, Maryam Rajavi emphasized that any development capable of ending war and reducing the suffering of the Iranian people should be welcomed. At the same time, she argued that support for continued conflict has largely come from two camps whose political futures depend on crisis and confrontation: the ruling theocracy and those seeking a restoration of monarchy.

She also reiterated a longstanding assessment of the regime’s behavior-that external conflicts have often served as a protective shield against domestic unrest, while genuine peace and de-escalation create conditions that expose the regime’s internal weaknesses.

Whether one agrees with every aspect of this analysis or not, recent events have strengthened a broader conclusion: neither bombs nor negotiations can substitute for the organized struggle of a people seeking democratic change.

The Real Agent of Change

The end of this phase of conflict has reinforced a historical lesson that many Iranians have learned repeatedly over the past century.

The fate of Iran will ultimately be decided inside Iran.

Neither foreign capitals nor military alliances will determine the country’s democratic future. Lasting change requires a social force capable of confronting dictatorship, mobilizing public support, and offering a democratic alternative.

This reality has become even more relevant as the regime faces growing internal pressures.

The absence of stability at the top of the political system, escalating factional rivalries, economic deterioration, and public dissatisfaction continue to deepen the regime’s vulnerabilities. Internal tensions that were temporarily overshadowed by war are likely to re-emerge with greater intensity.

For the Iranian people, these developments create opportunities as well as challenges.

The Path Forward: Neither Shah Nor Mullah

The political horizon emerging after the war points toward renewed social unrest, public protests, and demands for democratic change.

The aspirations that fueled previous uprisings have not disappeared. Economic hardship, political repression, corruption, and the demand for fundamental freedoms remain central concerns for millions of Iranians.

In this context, the most important task is the expansion of a democratic front that rejects all forms of dictatorship.

The choice facing Iran is not between competing authoritarian models. It is not a choice between theocracy and monarchy. It is a choice between democratic self-determination and the return of systems that deny the people’s sovereignty.

The experience of war, diplomacy, and decades of international maneuvering has demonstrated a simple truth: no foreign power can liberate Iran, and no dictatorship can reform itself into a democracy.

The attempted ban on the Iranian Resistance gathering in Paris became a political scandal that revealed the convergence of interests between Tehran's ruling regime, monarchist networks, and a Western policy of appeasement.

The sudden decision to block the Iranian Resistance's planned June 20 gathering in Paris was supposed to silence a growing movement for democratic change in Iran. Instead, it produced the opposite result. What was intended as a security measure became an international scandal that exposed uncomfortable truths about the forces aligned against Iran's democratic alternative.

The controversy surrounding the Paris gathering revealed more than a bureaucratic dispute. It exposed the extent to which the Iranian regime, remnants of the former monarchy, and advocates of Western appeasement share a common objective: preventing the emergence of a credible, organized, and independent democratic opposition.

A Ban That Raised Serious Questions

Questions began to emerge when the timing of the French authorities' decision came under scrutiny.

According to Reuters, the prohibition was imposed only hours after a telephone conversation between French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot and his Iranian counterpart Abbas Araghchi. The sequence of events inevitably raised concerns about political pressure and the influence of Tehran over decisions affecting Iranian dissidents in Europe.

More troubling revelations followed.

The Associated Press reported that documents submitted before the Paris Administrative Court indicated that activists linked to networks associated with the former Shah’s security apparatus had allegedly threatened disruptive actions, including bomb threats, should the demonstration proceed. At the same time, reports cited security threats attributed to Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

The implications were striking. The official justification for banning the event rested on threats allegedly originating from two forces that publicly present themselves as enemies of one another: the clerical dictatorship and elements associated with the former monarchy.

Two Opposing Camps-or Two Sides of the Same Coin?

For years, many observers have viewed the Iranian regime and monarchist groups as political opposites competing for Iran's future. Yet the events surrounding June 20 suggest a different reality.

When faced with an organized democratic alternative capable of mobilizing large numbers of Iranians, both camps appeared to benefit from the same outcome: the suppression of the Resistance's public voice.

The irony is impossible to ignore. Those who claim to represent opposing visions for Iran found themselves, intentionally or otherwise, contributing to the same political objective.

This is why the Paris affair matters far beyond a single gathering. It revealed that the principal divide in Iranian politics may not be between monarchy and theocracy, but between dictatorship in all its forms and the democratic aspirations of the Iranian people.

The Resistance Refused to Be Silenced

What happened next demonstrated the limits of repression.

Despite the ban, thousands of Iranians and their supporters traveled to Paris from across Europe. Reports indicated that participants had organized transportation from numerous countries and had planned for months to attend the event.

Rather than disappearing from public view, protesters gathered at multiple locations throughout Paris, including Place de la République, Bastille, and Trocadéro. Their message remained unmistakable.

According to media reports, demonstrators chanted slogans rejecting both the ruling clerics and the return of monarchy. They carried photographs of political prisoners and victims of execution while demanding freedom, democracy, and human rights for Iran.

The attempt to silence the movement ultimately amplified its message.

The images that emerged from Paris did not show a defeated opposition. They showed a movement adapting, persevering, and continuing to make its presence felt despite significant obstacles.

The Failure of Appeasement

The controversy also reignited criticism of Western governments that continue to prioritize engagement with Tehran despite the regime's record of repression, executions, and regional destabilization.

Several prominent political figures condemned the events.

Former European Parliament Vice President Alejo Vidal-Quadras argued that Western governments have become enablers of the Iranian dictatorship through policies of accommodation and hesitation. Others pointed to what they viewed as an alarming willingness to restrict democratic voices while citing threats originating from the very forces responsible for those threats.

Such criticism highlights a broader problem. Appeasement often claims to preserve stability, but it frequently achieves the opposite. By rewarding coercion and intimidation, it encourages further pressure from authoritarian actors.

The Paris episode demonstrated this dynamic in stark fashion.

A Lesson From Paris

The most important lesson from June 20 is that democratic resistance cannot be contained by administrative orders, political pressure, or intimidation.

The attempt to prevent a large-scale gathering succeeded only in drawing greater international attention to the cause it sought to suppress. It exposed contradictions within the policy of appeasement, raised questions about the role of monarchist networks, and underscored the enduring determination of Iranians seeking democratic change.

Paris became more than the site of a prohibited gathering.

Speakers at Free Iran 2026 argued that Iran’s democratic transformation must come from within, led by protesters, Resistance Units, and supporters of the organized opposition.

One of the clearest messages emerging from the Free Iran 2026 conference in Paris was that the future of Iran will not be determined by foreign military intervention or diplomatic bargaining, but by the Iranian people themselves.

Across speeches delivered by lawmakers, former ministers, and political figures from Europe and North America, participants repeatedly emphasized that the driving force behind democratic change is the network of protesters, Resistance Units, political activists, and supporters of the organized opposition operating inside and outside Iran.

Rather than portraying Iranians as passive victims of repression, speakers described them as active participants in a sustained struggle that has continued despite executions, arrests, torture, and decades of state violence.

Change Must Come from Within

Former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson argued that recent military operations had demonstrated an important lesson: freedom cannot be delivered from abroad.

Johnson described Iran’s population as young, educated, and increasingly determined to choose a different future, comparing the current movement to the popular uprisings that helped bring down apartheid in South Africa and communist regimes in Eastern Europe.

His assessment was echoed by former European Council President Charles Michel, who said that military confrontation and diplomatic appeasement had both failed to address the roots of Iran’s political crisis.

According to Michel, the real alternative lies in an organized democratic resistance capable of empowering the Iranian people against tyranny.

Resistance Units as the Front Line

Many speakers highlighted the role of the Resistance Units, small networks of activists operating inside Iran despite the risk of arrest and execution.

Charles Michel praised their willingness to continue organizing even under intense repression, describing them as evidence that the demand for freedom remains alive across the country.

Canadian parliamentarian Judy Sgro similarly pointed to the persistence of resistance activities after the January 2026 uprising, arguing that the regime’s harsh treatment of political prisoners reflects its fear of organized opposition.

John Baird went further, saying that the resistance demonstrated on Iran’s streets has greater political legitimacy than the clerical establishment itself.

Ashraf 3 and the Continuity of the Movement

Several speakers addressed supporters of the resistance gathered in Ashraf 3, the Albanian community that houses members of the Iranian opposition.

Robert Torricelli described Ashraf 3 as a symbol of endurance during some of the darkest periods of Iran’s modern history.

He told residents that future generations of Iranians would remember those who refused to compromise when hope appeared nearly lost.

Carsten Müller, who recently visited Ashraf 3, also praised what he called the movement’s extraordinary resilience and emphasized that its supporters had not been forgotten by the international community.

For many conference participants, Ashraf 3 represented more than an exile community; it symbolized the continuity of a resistance movement that has survived repeated attempts to eliminate it.

Women at the Center of the Resistance

Another recurring theme was the central role of women in the struggle for democratic change.

Naike Gruppioni paid tribute to Iranian women who have transformed “pain into strength” and “fear into courage,” while Judy Sgro described women as leaders of the current protest movement.

Speakers argued that the prominence of women in demonstrations, resistance activities, and opposition leadership distinguishes the present movement from many previous political struggles in the region.

For them, the participation of women is not simply symbolic but a defining characteristic of the democratic alternative being proposed for Iran’s future.

A Movement That Has Survived Decades of Repression

Supporters of the resistance also stressed the movement’s longevity.

Carsten Müller noted that the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK) has paid a heavy price over six decades of struggle, while John Baird argued that the National Council of Resistance of Iran has demonstrated the determination necessary to confront the regime over more than forty years.

This history of survival, speakers said, is itself significant.

Authoritarian governments often rely on the assumption that sustained repression will eventually destroy organized opposition. The continued existence of resistance networks, political prisoners willing to defy the regime, and activists operating inside Iran was presented as evidence that this strategy has not succeeded.

The Central Message of the Conference

Despite differences in political background, nearly all speakers converged on one conclusion: the Iranian people are not waiting for others to secure their freedom.

From protesters in Tehran to Resistance Units operating clandestinely across the country, conference participants argued that the foundations of change already exist inside Iran.

The role of the international community, they said, is not to impose a future on Iran but to recognize and support the democratic aspirations of those already risking their lives for it.

As former Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba told the audience, authoritarian regimes may possess weapons, prisons, and propaganda machines, but history repeatedly shows that determined people can outlast them.

International lawmakers and former officials argue that executions, repression, economic decline, and recurring uprisings reveal a regime increasingly fearful of its own people.

For decades, Iran's ruling clerical establishment has sought to project an image of strength and permanence. Yet speakers at the Free Iran 2026 conference in Paris delivered a markedly different assessment, arguing that the regime's escalating repression, economic failures, and reliance on fear reveal a government increasingly vulnerable to the demands of its own people.

Addressing the gathering on June 20, lawmakers, former ministers, and political figures from Europe and North America repeatedly emphasized that authoritarian regimes often appear strongest shortly before they begin to unravel. Drawing on historical examples from Eastern Europe, Ukraine, and other democratic movements, speakers argued that Iran may be approaching a similar turning point.

Repression as a Sign of Fear

Several speakers pointed to the regime's response to the nationwide protests of January 2026 as evidence of growing insecurity within the ruling establishment.

German parliamentarian Carsten Müller rejected Tehran's efforts to portray itself as stable and confident, arguing that the true measure of a government's strength lies in the support it receives from its people.

He noted that Iran continues to experience widespread censorship, torture, executions, and political repression, adding that the high number of executions carried out each year reflects fear rather than confidence.

Müller also referenced the January uprising, during which dozens of protesters were reportedly killed, arguing that governments secure in their legitimacy do not resort to such levels of violence against their own citizens.

Canadian parliamentarian Judy Sgro echoed that assessment, describing the regime's response to the January protests as unprecedented repression. She cited reports of thousands of arrests, killings, torture, and enforced disappearances, while emphasizing that resistance activities have continued despite the crackdown.

According to several speakers, the regime's increasing reliance on executions and intimidation demonstrates concern about the persistence of organized opposition and public unrest.

Economic Crisis Undermining Regime Stability

Beyond political repression, participants highlighted Iran's deteriorating economic conditions as another indicator of systemic weakness.

Former Romanian Prime Minister Petre Roman argued that Tehran's claims of victory and stability are contradicted by economic realities facing ordinary Iranians.

He described an economy in crisis, noting that millions of citizens struggle with declining living standards and growing hardship. Rather than demonstrating resilience, he suggested, these conditions expose the regime's inability to provide even basic economic security for large segments of the population.

Speakers linked these economic pressures to broader public dissatisfaction, arguing that years of corruption, mismanagement, and costly regional interventions have eroded public confidence in the ruling establishment.

The result, they said, is a widening gap between the regime's official narrative and the realities experienced by ordinary citizens.

Lessons from Other Dictatorships

A recurring theme throughout the conference was the comparison between Iran's current situation and the final years of other authoritarian systems.

Roman drew on his experience during the Romanian Revolution of 1989, recalling how the dictatorship of Nicolae Ceaușescu appeared firmly in control even as public anger mounted beneath the surface.

He recounted how security forces opened fire on demonstrators before the regime suddenly collapsed, arguing that authoritarian governments often fall far more quickly than observers expect.

A similar perspective was offered by former Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba, who compared Iran's struggle to Ukraine's democratic movements and resistance against Russian aggression.

Kuleba reminded attendees that many international observers believed Ukraine could not survive either the 2014 revolution or the full-scale invasion launched in 2022. Yet Ukrainians defied those expectations.

His message to Iranians was that freedom movements frequently succeed despite predictions of failure and despite overwhelming state repression.

"Regimes vanish. People prevail," he told the audience.

Organized Resistance and Public Defiance

Another factor cited by speakers was the continued existence of organized opposition networks despite decades of repression.

Judy Sgro argued that Tehran's harsh treatment of political prisoners and opposition supporters reflects concern about the growth of organized resistance.

She pointed specifically to the case of political prisoners facing execution because of alleged ties to opposition movements, arguing that such prosecutions reveal the regime's fear of political alternatives.

John Baird, Canada's former foreign minister, similarly argued that the resistance demonstrated during the January protests has provided greater political legitimacy than the ruling establishment itself.

Several speakers praised Resistance Units operating inside Iran and residents of Ashraf 3 in Albania, describing them as evidence that opposition to the regime remains active and organized despite sustained efforts to eliminate it.

A Regime Facing Growing Challenges

While speakers differed in their political backgrounds and nationalities, they shared a common conclusion: Tehran's increasingly aggressive tactics should not be mistaken for strength.

Instead, they argued, executions, censorship, mass arrests, and violent crackdowns reveal a leadership concerned about its future and increasingly dependent on coercion to maintain control.

Bread Prices Officially Rise in Tehran

Bread prices have officially increased in Tehran, marking the latest stage of a nationwide wave of price hikes that has already affected several Iranian provinces.

Mohammad Javad Karami, head of the Flour and Bread Working Group at Iran's Chamber of Guilds, announced the new prices for traditional bread varieties in the capital.

Under the new pricing structure:

• Lavash bread now costs 2,700 tomans.
• Barbari bread has risen to 10,000 tomans.
• Sangak bread now sells for 15,500 tomans.

According to local media reports, the price of lavash bread alone has increased by approximately 100 percent. The new rates were reportedly activated on bakery payment systems beginning Tuesday, June 23.

Price Increases Spread Across Provinces

The increase in Tehran follows similar developments in other parts of the country.

In Mazandaran Province, citizens have faced near-doubling of bread prices. Local reports indicate that lavash bread is now priced at 1,700 tomans, taftoon at 2,600 tomans, barbari at 6,500 tomans, and sangak at 7,500 tomans.

In Mashhad, the head of the Bakers' Union announced an average increase of approximately 49 percent in bread prices throughout Razavi Khorasan Province.

Meanwhile, authorities in Hamadan issued a new price list setting lavash bread at 2,000 tomans, sangak at 8,000 tomans, and standard barbari bread at 6,500 tomans.

Government Denials Contradicted by Market Reality

The latest official increases come after repeated government denials that bread prices would rise.

For months, reports from across Iran indicated that many bakeries had already increased prices informally due to rising operating costs, shrinking profit margins, and growing economic pressures.

The formal approval of higher prices now confirms what many consumers had already experienced in practice.

Subsidy Reform Debate Raises New Concerns

The bread price increases coincide with ongoing government discussions about changing the country’s bread subsidy system.

Gholamreza Nouri Ghezeljeh, the regime’s Minister of Agriculture, recently stated that approximately 500 quadrillion rials (500 hemats) have been allocated for bread subsidies in this year's budget.

According to the minister, the government purchases wheat from farmers at around 48,500 tomans per kilogram but supplies flour mills and bakeries at roughly 1,000 tomans, absorbing the difference through subsidies.

Nouri Ghezeljeh said authorities are studying various options for reforming the subsidy system, including transferring subsidies directly to households or distributing them through electronic food vouchers rather than supporting the flour and bakery supply chain.

No final decision has yet been announced.

Critics Warn of Greater Pressure on Households

Economic analysts and critics argue that any gradual liberalization of bread prices combined with changes to subsidy payments could shift a substantial financial burden from the government to ordinary families.

Such concerns are particularly acute given the deteriorating purchasing power of many Iranians.

Years of high inflation, currency depreciation, and declining real wages have significantly reduced household consumption. Previous studies and reports have documented falling calorie intake among low-income families and the removal of meat, dairy products, and fresh fruit from the diets of many households struggling to cope with rising prices.

Bread Remains the Last Affordable Staple

For millions of low-income Iranians, bread remains one of the few essential food items that has retained some degree of affordability.

As access to other nutritional sources becomes increasingly limited, bread has become a cornerstone of food security for vulnerable families.

Economists and social welfare experts warn that rising bread prices therefore carry consequences far beyond a simple increase in the cost of a single product.

Iran's Economy Shows Minimal Growth Amid Deepening Crises

New figures released by the Statistical Center of Iran on Monday, June 22, reveal that the country’s economy effectively stagnated during the Iranian year 1404 (March 2025-March 2026), highlighting the severe impact of war, domestic unrest, sanctions, and structural economic problems.

According to the report, Iran's economic growth reached only 0.2 percent when oil revenues are included, while the economy contracted by 0.3 percent excluding oil, indicating that non-oil sectors continued to weaken despite government claims of economic resilience.

The Statistical Center reported that Iran's gross domestic product (GDP) exceeded 100 trillion rials when calculated with oil revenues and stood at approximately 75 trillion rials without oil.

Wars, Protests, and Sanctions Intensify Economic Pressures

The disappointing growth figures come after a turbulent year for Iran. During 1404, the country experienced a 12-day war with Israel in the summer, followed by the nationwide January protests and a subsequent 40-day conflict involving the United States and Israel during the winter.

Economists point to these developments, alongside years of severe international sanctions, chronic corruption, mismanagement, and declining investment, as major factors behind the sharp slowdown in economic activity.

Agriculture and Industry Register Negative Growth

The latest data shows significant weakness across key productive sectors.

The agricultural sector recorded a 2.9 percent contraction, while industrial output declined by 1.5 percent.

According to figures cited by ISNA, the broader industries and mining sector grew only 0.5 percent, including:

• Oil and natural gas extraction: 1.8%
• Other mining activities: 4.1%
• Manufacturing industry: -1.5%
• Natural gas distribution: 2.0%
• Water and electricity supply: -6.5%
• Construction: 1.4%

Meanwhile, the services sector, which constitutes a large share of Iran's economy, expanded by only 0.3 percent, reflecting weak domestic demand and declining consumer purchasing power.

Economists Warn of Deeper Recession and Triple-Digit Inflation

Several Iranian economists have warned that economic conditions could deteriorate further during the current year.

Among them, Hojjatollah Mirzaei, former head of Iran's pension funds organization, stated in June that new economic scenarios project Iran's growth rate could fall to between negative 8.5 percent and negative 10 percent.

Mirzaei warned that such a downturn could push an additional 4.5 million people below the poverty line, significantly worsening social and economic conditions across the country.

Some analysts have also cautioned that continued economic contraction could drive inflation into the triple-digit range, further eroding the value of the national currency and increasing economic uncertainty.

Long-Term Growth Trend Continues to Decline

The latest figures are consistent with a longer-term slowdown identified by international institutions.

According to a World Bank report published in January 2023, Iran's GDP growth rate declined from 4.7 percent in 2021 to 2.9 percent in 2022.

The decline occurred after the administration of former president Ebrahim Raisi took office in August 2021.

World Bank projections at the time estimated Iran's growth would continue slowing, forecasting GDP growth of 2.2 percent in 2023 and 1.9 percent in 2024, trends that now appear consistent with the country's current economic stagnation.

Recent War Cost Iran Hundreds of Billions of Dollars

The economic consequences of recent military conflicts continue to emerge.

Mohammad-Reza Bahonar, a member of the regime’s Expediency Council, said in an interview published on last Saturday that the recent war caused approximately $30 billion in direct physical damage.

However, he argued that the broader impact on investment and economic development was far greater.

"The war caused at least a $200 billion setback for our country," Bahonar said, referring to lost investment opportunities and long-term economic damage.

He also highlighted the inflation crisis, stating that Iran has experienced roughly 1,000 percent inflation over the past eight years, meaning average prices have increased tenfold during that period.

"A large portion of our economic middle class has fallen into the lower-income class," he added.

Growing Public Despair Over Economic Conditions

The worsening economic outlook is increasingly reflected in public sentiment.

The regime’s judicial authorities report thousands of protest-related cases, while human rights groups warn of mass arrests, political executions, and an expanding campaign of repression across Iran.

Regime Expands Judicial Crackdown Following Nationwide January Protests

Iranian regime judicial authorities have disclosed new details about a sweeping crackdown on participants in the January 2026 nationwide protests, revealing that thousands of judicial cases have been opened across multiple provinces as the regime intensifies efforts to suppress dissent.

Officials in Sistan and Baluchestan, Qazvin, Mazandaran, Zanjan, and West Azerbaijan provinces have collectively reported more than 2,500 legal proceedings related to the January protests, as well as cases connected to the recent conflict involving the United States, Israel, and the Iranian regime.

The disclosures provide a rare glimpse into the scale of the regime's ongoing repression campaign, which has included mass arrests, security prosecutions, allegations of espionage, property confiscations, and the increasing use of capital punishment.

Hundreds Convicted in Sistan and Baluchestan

Mehdi Shamsabadi, the regime's prosecutor in Zahedan, announced that courts have already issued verdicts against 111 individuals arrested during the January protests.

According to Shamsabadi, some of the sentences have already been carried out, while additional cases remain under judicial review. He also stated that indictments have been issued against individuals accused in cases linked to the recent military conflict involving Iran, the United States, and Israel.

However, authorities provided no information regarding the identities of the defendants, the nature of the charges, or the sentences imposed.

Serious Charges Filed Against Protesters in Qazvin

In Qazvin province, Prosecutor Asghar Askari confirmed that judicial proceedings continue against citizens detained during the January demonstrations.

The charges reportedly include "assembly and collusion against national security," "intentional murder," and "destruction of property with the intention of confronting the regime."

Askari further stated that some defendants face accusations of involvement in incidents that led to fatalities, while others have been charged with "corruption on earth," one of the most serious offenses under Iran's penal code and a charge frequently used against political opponents.

Despite outlining the accusations, officials again declined to disclose the number of detainees, their identities, or their locations.

Mazandaran Authorities Report Hundreds of Cases

The scale of repression appears particularly extensive in Mazandaran province.

Ali Akbar Alishah, the prosecutor of Sari, announced that approximately 700 judicial cases were opened in connection with last year's protests. Of these, 450 have reportedly been referred to Revolutionary Courts following the issuance of indictments.

Some of the defendants face charges of "enmity against God" (moharebeh), an accusation that can carry the death penalty.

Alishah also revealed that authorities, working alongside the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the Ministry of Intelligence, and police forces, had identified 139 individuals allegedly linked to what he described as "hostile governments."

According to the prosecutor, many of those targeted are Iranians residing in Europe who have publicly opposed the regime. He added that efforts are underway to identify and seize their assets.

The official also referenced Iran's recently enacted law on the "Intensification of Punishment for Espionage," noting that some offenses under the legislation can result in execution and confiscation of property.

Property Confiscations Expand in Zanjan

Judicial authorities in Zanjan reported dozens of cases related to the recent conflict with Israel and the United States, along with more than 1,000 protest-related files opened during the January unrest.

Ali Faraji-Barhaq, head of the province's judiciary, said that 65 war-related cases are currently under review.

He further disclosed the opening of 92 separate cases aimed at identifying and confiscating the assets of individuals accused of cooperating with Israel. Fourteen of those cases have already been referred to courts responsible for authorizing property seizures in favor of the state.

Faraji-Barhaq also stated that some protest-related cases have already resulted in final verdicts, while others have been sent to the Supreme Court for further review.

Hundreds Arrested in West Azerbaijan

In West Azerbaijan province, judicial officials reported the detention of 480 individuals during the recent conflict period.

According to Nasser Atabati, head of the provincial judiciary, ten detainees were identified as alleged Mossad operatives and have already received judicial sentences.

Atabati also confirmed that three individuals accused of spying for Israel were executed after completing judicial proceedings.

The executions reflect a broader pattern of increasingly severe punishments under newly expanded national security legislation.

Judiciary Chief Orders Tougher Measures

The latest disclosures follow directives issued by the regime’s Judiciary Chief Gholam-Hossein Mohseni-Ejei after military strikes against Iran.

Mohseni-Ejei publicly ordered the seizure of assets belonging to individuals accused of "cooperating with the enemy" and warned that those found guilty could face severe punishments, including execution.

His remarks signaled the regime's determination to use both the judicial system and security apparatus to deter dissent during a period of heightened domestic and international tensions.

Thousands Prosecuted Under New Espionage Law

The new figures come on top of statistics previously released by judiciary spokesperson Asghar Jahangir.

On June 8, Jahangir announced that judicial authorities had prosecuted 3,121 individuals and arrested 2,406 people in cases related to alleged espionage and cooperation with Israel.

Those prosecutions have been carried out under the recently adopted law intensifying punishments for espionage-related offenses, legislation that authorizes both capital punishment and asset confiscation for a broad range of charges.

Jahangir had earlier disclosed that by February 2026, authorities had already issued more than 10,000 prosecution orders and approximately 9,000 indictments against individuals detained during the January protests.

Human Rights Groups Warn of Massive Repression

Human rights organizations paint an even darker picture of the scale of the crackdown.

According to estimates by rights groups, more than 60,000 people were arrested during and after the January protests. Independent sources have suggested that over 100,000 individuals may have been summoned, detained, interrogated, or subjected to other forms of security pressure in connection with the demonstrations.

The regime has simultaneously intensified the use of executions.

Since March 17, 2026, Iranian authorities have executed at least 44 political prisoners, while hundreds more have reportedly received death sentences, lengthy prison terms, or orders for the confiscation of their assets.

Fears Grow Over Accelerated Trials and Death Sentences

The continuing issuance of indictments, expansion of national security cases, and public threats of rapid implementation of sentences have fueled growing concerns among human rights advocates.

PMOI Resistance Units display messages supporting popular sovereignty, fundamental freedoms, gender equality, judicial independence, environmental protection, and a non-nuclear Iran.

Resistance Units Highlight Vision for a Democratic Iran

On June 21, 2026, PMOI Resistance Units in Tehran and Shiraz carried out a series of public activities promoting the principles of a democratic republic and expressing support for Mrs. Maryam Rajavi's Ten-Point Plan for Iran's future.

Through coordinated photo displays and public messaging campaigns, the activists emphasized key democratic values, including popular sovereignty, free elections, human rights, freedom of expression, gender equality, social justice, judicial independence, environmental protection, and the separation of religion and state.

The activities coincided with the Free Iran 2026 gathering and reflected growing support among resistance supporters for an alternative based on democracy and pluralism.

Shiraz: Calls for Popular Sovereignty and Fundamental Freedoms

In Shiraz, Resistance Units displayed a series of messages advocating democratic governance and individual liberties.

One display declared:

"No to Velayat-e Faqih. Yes to the sovereignty of the people in a republic based on free and pluralistic elections."

Other messages emphasized freedom of expression, political parties, public assembly, independent media, and unrestricted access to cyberspace.

The activists also called for the protection of individual and social rights in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, while highlighting the importance of separating religion from the state and guaranteeing freedom of religion and belief.

The campaign underscored the demand for a political system founded on free elections, pluralism, and the will of the people.

Tehran: Equality, Justice, and a Non-Nuclear Future

In Tehran, Resistance Units focused on additional aspects of Maryam Rajavi's democratic platform, including gender equality, judicial reform, minority rights, economic justice, environmental protection, and peaceful international relations.

One display called for:

"Full equality between women and men in political, social, cultural, and economic rights, and equal participation of women in political leadership."

Other messages advocated an independent judiciary based on international standards, the presumption of innocence, the right to legal defense, public trials, and judicial independence. The campaign also called for the abolition of laws imposed under the regime's interpretation of religious rule and the dismantling of Revolutionary Courts.

The activists further highlighted the rights of Iran's ethnic communities and nationalities, supporting autonomy proposals outlined by the National Council of Resistance of Iran for Iranian Kurdistan and calling for an end to discrimination against ethnic groups.

Promoting Social Justice and Environmental Protection

The Tehran campaign also stressed equal opportunities in employment and business for all Iranians, presenting economic justice as a central component of a future democratic republic.

In addition, Resistance Units drew attention to the environmental crisis facing the country, calling for the protection and restoration of ecosystems that have suffered decades of mismanagement under the clerical regime.

One of the displays stated:

"Protection and restoration of the environment devastated under the rule of the mullahs."

Advocating a Non-Nuclear Iran

Another prominent theme of the campaign was the call for a non-nuclear Iran committed to peace and international cooperation.

The activists displayed messages supporting:

"A non-nuclear Iran, free of weapons of mass destruction. Peace, coexistence, and international and regional cooperation."

This position reflects one of the central principles of Maryam Rajavi's Ten-Point Plan, which advocates a democratic, secular, and non-nuclear republic living in peace with its neighbors and the international community.

Continuing Resistance for Democratic Change