SerpApi.Org
For decades, Western policy toward Iran has been built on a flawed assumption: that the Islamic Republic is a permanent fixture of the Middle East and that the West's task is simply to manage its behavior. Successive governments in Washington and Europe have alternated between pressure and engagement, and sanctions and negotiations, hoping that diplomacy or economic incentives might gradually moderate Tehran's conduct.
Instead, the opposite has occurred.
The Iranian regime has intensified domestic repression, expanded its regional proxy network, accelerated its missile and nuclear programs, and continued to use hostage diplomacy and terrorism as instruments of state policy. Yet despite repeated failures, much of the Western debate still revolves around how to deal with the existing regime rather than how to support the Iranian people's aspirations for democratic change.
Last week, Rome offered a refreshing alternative.
Three significant meetings — held at the Italian Chamber of Deputies, the Human Rights Commission of the Italian Senate, and the Luigi Einaudi Foundation — brought together senior Italian and international political leaders, diplomats, parliamentarians, legal experts, and human rights advocates to discuss a question that Western policymakers have too often avoided: What should come after the Islamic Republic?
At the center of all three events was Maryam Rajavi, the president-elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, whose message challenged a long-standing assumption in Western capitals. Rather than accepting the regime as an unavoidable reality, she argued that democratic governments should recognize the Iranian people's right to determine their own future and engage seriously with a credible democratic alternative.
The breadth and stature of participation underscored the significance of the discussions. Among those taking part were Fabio Rampelli, first vice president of the Italian Chamber of Deputies; Giulio Terzi di Sant'Agata, Italy's former foreign minister and former ambassador to the United States; Senator Andrea Cangini, president of the Luigi Einaudi Foundation; and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Their participation reflected growing recognition that four decades of Western policy toward Tehran deserve fundamental reassessment.
These meetings were not simply another conference on Iran.
They reflected a broader shift in thinking — one that recognizes the debate should no longer be limited to choosing between military confrontation and endless accommodation. There is a third option: democratic change led by the Iranian people themselves.
That possibility has become increasingly difficult to ignore.
Over the past several years, nationwide protests have repeatedly demonstrated that millions of Iranians reject both dictatorship and political stagnation. Women demanding equality, students calling for freedom, workers protesting corruption, pensioners seeking dignity, and members of ethnic and religious minorities have all challenged the legitimacy of the ruling establishment despite enormous personal risk.
The regime's response has been brutally consistent. Executions have increased dramatically. Political prisoners continue to face arbitrary detention, torture, and lengthy prison sentences. Independent journalists are silenced, civil society organizations dismantled, and internet shutdowns routinely used to suppress dissent.
These are not signs of a confident government. They are the actions of a regime that fears its own population.
For too long, however, Western governments have concentrated almost exclusively on managing relations with Tehran rather than investing political attention in Iran's democratic future. Every new round of negotiations has been accompanied by hopes that the regime might moderate its behavior. Experience has repeatedly shown otherwise.
Diplomacy remains an indispensable tool of international relations. But diplomacy without leverage — and without acknowledging the ideological character of the Islamic Republic — has consistently failed to produce lasting change. The question today is not whether diplomacy should continue, but whether it should remain the West's only strategic framework.
One of the most striking aspects of the Rome discussions was that they focused not merely on criticizing the regime but on examining what a democratic transition could realistically look like.
Throughout the meetings, Rajavi presented the NCRI's 10-point plan as a framework for a future democratic republic based on free elections, political pluralism, separation of religion and state, gender equality, judicial independence, the abolition of the death penalty, respect for ethnic and religious minorities, peaceful coexistence with neighboring countries, and a non-nuclear Iran.
A democratic transition in a country as large and strategically important as Iran will inevitably present enormous challenges. No serious observer believes that change will be simple or risk-free. But acknowledging those challenges should not become an excuse for ignoring the existence of a democratic alternative altogether.
This is where Western policy has too often fallen short. Discussions about Iran have frequently assumed that the only realistic choices are preserving the status quo or risking instability. That assumption overlooks the resilience of Iran's organized democratic opposition and, more importantly, the repeated determination of the Iranian people themselves to reject authoritarian rule.
Supporting democratic aspirations does not require foreign governments to choose Iran's future leaders. That decision belongs exclusively to the Iranian people through free and fair elections. What democratic governments can — and should — do is recognize that the Iranian people's struggle for freedom deserves political legitimacy rather than strategic neglect.
Italy's initiative deserves attention precisely because it moved the conversation beyond tactical diplomacy. By opening its parliamentary institutions and policy forums to a serious discussion about democratic change, Rome acknowledged that Iran's future should not be viewed solely through the prism of nuclear negotiations or regional security. Human rights, political freedom, and democratic governance must once again become central elements of Western policy.
The United States has long presented itself as a champion of democratic values. Yet in practice, policy toward Iran has often been dominated by short-term crisis management rather than long-term strategic thinking. Washington has understandably sought to prevent nuclear escalation and regional conflict. Those objectives remain important. But they should not eclipse support for the Iranian people, who have repeatedly demonstrated extraordinary courage in demanding freedom at tremendous personal cost.
The Rome meetings offered an important reminder that democratic change in Iran is not merely an aspiration voiced by exiles abroad. It is rooted in the demands of millions of Iranians who continue to challenge repression despite executions, imprisonment, and systematic intimidation. Western governments should pay closer attention to those voices instead of defining Iran exclusively through the actions of its rulers.
History shows that authoritarian systems often appear stable until they suddenly are not. Policymakers who fail to prepare for democratic transitions frequently find themselves reacting to events rather than shaping them. The prudent course is not to assume that the Islamic Republic will endure indefinitely, but to begin serious engagement with those committed to building a democratic future.
Last week's discussions in Rome reflected that strategic realism. They demonstrated that influential political leaders, legislators, diplomats, and policy experts are increasingly willing to ask a question that has been absent from Western policymaking for far too long: If the Iranian people succeed in bringing about democratic change, is the democratic world prepared to stand with them?
BRITAIN FINALLY CAUGHT UP TO WHAT IRANIAN DISSIDENTS KNEW ALL ALONG
That is the question Rome has begun to ask.
Washington should not ignore the answer.
Nasser Razii is an Iran-born independent analyst and writer based in London. Over the years, he has worked extensively with British and European parliamentarians on issues relating to Iran, human rights, and democratic governance. He is also associated with the democratic Iranian opposition and has been actively engaged in advocating a democratic, secular, and non-nuclear future for Iran.
