Iran is facing the most serious challenge to the regime in years. Unprecedented protests, a collapsing economy, and a brutal crackdown are pushing the system to its limits. What is happening on the ground, why this protest cycle is different, and what Europe must now do: we asked three questions to Hannah Neumann, Green MEP and Chair of the European Parliament’s Delegation for relations with Iran.
1. What makes the current protests in Iran different from previous ones?
What distinguishes the current protests is their clarity and persistence. They are not driven by specific policies or short-term grievances, but by a profound and enduring rejection of repression, exclusion, and state violence. This time, the protests began with the bazaar. Traders and small business owners traditionally seen as part of the regime’s local support base, pushed to the brink by inflation above 40 per cent, a collapsing currency, and empty shelves, turned economic breakdown into open political defiance. Many Iranians no longer see meaningful change as possible within the existing system. This erosion of trust marks a decisive turning point. The regime’s response underlines this shift. The authorities are not attempting to contain unrest, but to eliminate it. It reflects a fear of losing control. Protesters are fully aware of the risks, shaped by the crackdowns of 2019 and 2022, yet they continue. That combination of awareness and determination fundamentally distinguishes this moment from previous protest cycles.
2. How are international actors shaping this moment, especially the United States?
International actors are shaping this moment largely through restraint. The United States has taken steps, including targeted sanctions and public statements, but overall, it is pursuing a cautious approach focused on avoiding regional escalation. That calculation is understandable, yet it also limits the level of political pressure exerted on the Islamic leadership. From the perspective of those protesting inside Iran, international reactions are closely observed. When responses appear fragmented or hesitant, the regime concludes that repression will not carry serious consequences. This is therefore not only a question of foreign policy, but of credibility. International actors shape this moment less through direct intervention than through the signals they send. Whether violations of fundamental rights are treated as acceptable costs, or as clear red lines that entail political consequences.
3. What should the European Union do, and what should it avoid?
The European Union should be clear, consistent, and focused on protection. Violence against protesters must carry consequences. This includes targeted sanctions against those responsible, sustained diplomatic pressure, and continuous political attention at EU level. It also requires moving forward with the listing of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organisation. If this step continues to be blocked, there must be full transparency about which Member States are preventing it. I expect Kaja Kallas to clearly disclose where this obstruction lies. It is difficult to believe that citizens in those Member States would support shielding a force responsible for systematic violence. The EU must also prioritise concrete protection measures, as an immediate halt to deportations to Iran, facilitated humanitarian pathways for activists, journalists, and others who are risking their lives on the streets. At the same time, there can be no diplomatic normality with a regime that massacres its own people. Iranian ambassadors and regime representatives cannot claim legitimacy in Europe under these conditions.
The views and opinions in this article do not necessarily reflect those of the Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung European Union | Global Dialogue.
