Amid the rapid political development in the region and the changing geopolitical dynamics in international relations, Iran’s opposition in the West has become one of the most controversial topics. After years of seeking asylum in Western countries, many of these dissidents began to realize that the West was no longer the safe haven they ever wanted. Instead, they became merely tools in a larger political game aimed at securing Western interests at the expense of their national issues.
For years, many Western countries have hosted Iranian opposition under the pretext of supporting human rights and freedom of speech. However, the reality shows that these countries were primarily interested in using Iran’s opposition as a tool of pressure on the Iranian government rather than truly supporting them. Iran’s nuclear program and the role of the region have always been at the heart of Western attention as the West pursues its own interests for the region. The West, led by the US and European countries, sees Iranian opposition as tips for negotiations with Tehran on the nuclear program. Furthermore, the West is trying to curb the growing influence of Iran in the region, particularly in its support for the Palestinian cause and its role in strengthening resistance to Zionist occupation.
The 2022 protests in Iran served as a true test of the strength of Iranian opposition both at home and abroad. These demonstrations saw a widespread and popular move, but ultimately failed to achieve the declared objectives. The failure revealed the weaknesses of Iranian opposition and the inability to mobilise sufficient support for the change of government. As a result, it has revealed that Iran’s confidence in the opposition has declined both domestically and internationally, and that while the West has not taken seriously to support them, it is merely exploiting them to achieve its own goals.
Following the 2022 failures of protests, as many political analysts have pointed out, Western Iran’s opposition is said to be a “valuable card.” Western countries have not seen Iran’s opposition as an effective tool to put pressure on Iran, especially after Tehran has shown resilience to both international and domestic pressures. Furthermore, the West has begun to realize that continuing support for Iran’s opposition parties could further complicate relations with Iran.
Trump’s second season: The end of the US to the Persian media
Amid these recent political changes, Trump’s second term new US administration has announced the end of funding for American Persian media outlets such as “American Voice” and “Radio Falda.” The decision is seen as a serious blow to Western Iranian opposition, as these platforms were important in spreading the opposition narrative and influencing Iranian public opinion. The US decision to cut funding for these outlets clearly shows that the West no longer views Iran’s opposition as an effective tool to achieve political objectives. It also reflects changes in the US strategy towards Iran, focusing on direct negotiations with Tehran, rather than relying on the opposition as a means of pressure.
In recent years, many Iranian opposition leaders living in Western countries have been handed over to Iran as possibly part of a political agreement between Tehran and the Western government.
These individuals are on trial in Iran and face charges such as “terrorism” and “foreign espionage” and are eventually executed.
One of the most notable cases was the case of Ruhollah Zam, an Iranian opposition who lives in France and managed the “Amad News” website. In 2020 he was accused of Iranian authorities and later sentenced to execution on charges of “inciting agitation.” His case sparked international controversy, accusing human rights groups of accusing Iran of luring him overseas.
Another famous case was the case of Khabib Ashud, a former leader of the separatist “Arab Struggle Movement” that was lured from Turkey and moved to Iran. Asyoud was considered “the ringleader behind the terrorist attacks on the military parade in September 2018,” killing at least 25 people, including a four-year-old child, and injuring 70 people.
During the attack in September 2018, terrorists disguised by soldiers fired at the annual military parade in Ahvaz, the oil-rich capital of Fuzestan province. According to media reports, his abduction was under the orders of Iran’s Intelligence News, with the support of a well-known drug trafficker named Nasser Sharifi Zandesti. Asyoud was seduced by Turkey from Sweden by a woman identified as “S. Saberine”, where he was lured and handed over to Iranian authorities.
These cases highlight that the West is currently not providing adequate protection for Iranian opposition figures facing the risk of extradition or abduction. It is clear that such work could not have occurred without coordination with the local government of the host country. In many cases, Western governments work with Iran under political agreements, effectively handing over Iran’s opposition in exchange for securing political or economic benefits. This proves that the West is not serious about supporting Iran’s opposition, but they simply used them as negotiation tips for negotiations with Tehran.
Return to Iran: the only way to advance?
Given these circumstances, returning to Iran has emerged as a viable option for many Iranian opposition figures in the West. Living in exile no longer provides the security and support they once wanted. Instead, it has become a source of frustration and despair. Many dissidents also came to recognize that the West simply supported them in order to serve their own interests for Iran’s human rights and democracy.
Furthermore, many analysts believe Iran’s prominent role in the region, particularly his support for the Palestinian cause, is one of the main reasons why the West has sought to capitalize on Iran’s opposition. Through support of Palestinian resistance, Iran has become a key player in the Arab-Israel conflict, raising concerns in the West and prioritizing the protection of Zionist interests in the region. As a result, using Iranian opposition parties was part of a broader Western strategy aimed at mitigating Iran’s regional impact.
Eventually, the opposition from Western Iran reached a crossroads. They must continue to live in exile. There, they no longer receive the support and protection they once provided, or return to Iran and actively participate in shaping the country’s future from within. Experience shows that the West misused them for their own agenda rather than a truly safe haven for them. So, returning to Iran may be their best option, especially given the major challenges facing the region.
Najah Mohammad Ali