From Appeasement to Accountability: Recognising Iranians’ Right to Change the Regime — Without Foreign War

In recent remarks aired by Fox News and widely echoed in Persian-language coverage on 7 Bahman 1404 (January 27, 2026), former U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo argued that Tehran retreats only when confronted with real pressure, not with concessions or optimistic diplomacy.

Whether one agrees with Pompeo’s framing or not, the larger point is now visible across Western capitals: appeasement is losing ground. The European Parliament adopted a resolution condemning the violent repression of protesters and urging tougher measures, including expanding sanctions and tying engagement to human rights and democratic benchmarks. The EU is also preparing additional sanctions in response to the crackdown, while several member states—Italy among them—are pushing to tighten the net around the IRGC. At the UN, the Human Rights Council has condemned Iran’s “brutal repression” and moved to extend documentation efforts for future accountability.

This moment matters because it reframes the central question. The debate should no longer be limited to “deal or no deal”. It should focus on the Iranian people’s right to self-determination—and on practical steps that help an Iranian-led transition. The Iranian opposition and many activists have repeatedly stressed a clear line: they do not seek a foreign war, nor external military intervention. They argue that change must come from Iranians themselves, while the international community should stop propping up the regime through political and economic lifelines. (A parallel dynamic can be seen in ongoing tensions around diplomacy and coercion on both sides.)

A credible “post-appeasement” policy therefore has three pillars:

Sustained pressure and accountability: targeted sanctions on repression apparatuses, expanded export controls on dual-use items, and coordinated legal pathways for documenting crimes and prosecuting perpetrators.

Political recognition of legitimacy: explicitly affirming that Iranians have the right to change their government, and ending policies that treat the regime as the only interlocutor.

Protection of the resistance and the right to self-defense: opposition figures also point to a concrete, non-interventionist step—returning defensive equipment and assets confiscated from Iranian dissidents in Iraq under documented arrangements, and recognising their lawful right to self-protection, rather than leaving them exposed while the regime and its proxies retain overwhelming firepower.

If the West is serious about moving beyond appeasement, it should stop oscillating between empty statements and risky escalation. The alternative is an Iranian-led path: maximum political and legal pressure on the regime, coupled with recognition that the people—and their organised resistance—are entitled to decide Iran’s future.