February 8 saw a pivotal conference convened in Berlin focused on the situation in Iran. Held on the anniversary of Iran’s 1979 anti-monarchial revolution, the gathering took place under the shadow of a tectonic shift in Iranian politics: the nationwide uprising of late December 2025 and January 2026.

Distinguished political figures from the United States, the European Union, and Germany gathered to assess the situation. The consensus among the speakers—ranging from former heads of state to senior diplomats and military experts—was stark and unified. They concluded that the religious dictatorship in Iran has entered its terminal phase following the regime’s brutal massacre of thousands of protesters during the recent January uprising. The conference focused on the failure of appeasement, the illegitimacy of the clerical regime, the rejection of a return to monarchical dictatorship, and the recognition of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) as the viable democratic alternative.

The event, occurring shortly after a massive rally by freedom-loving Iranians in Berlin, served as a policy roadmap for Western governments grappling with the reality of a regime that can now only sustain itself through mass slaughter.

Maryam Rajavi: A Roadmap for the “End of the Ending”

Opening the conference, Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, President-elect of the NCRI, delivered a determined address. Paying tribute to the late Professor Rita Süssmuth, a steadfast supporter of the Iranian Resistance, Mrs. Rajavi framed the recent events in Iran not merely as protests, but as a “profound transformation” and an “earthquake” that has shaken the foundations of the theocracy. She argued that the sheer scale of the January uprising—spanning all 31 provinces and involving the active disarmament of Revolutionary Guards by rebellious youth—proved that the overthrow of the regime is now “inevitable.”

Mrs. Rajavi emphasized that the regime’s resort to mass killings, including the shooting of unarmed civilians and children, demonstrated that Ali Khamenei has lost the capacity to govern. Addressing the fear of post-regime chaos, she pointed to the NCRI’s extensive network and the plan for a provisional government to hold elections for a Constituent Assembly within six months of the regime’s fall.

“The January uprising,” Mrs. Rajavi stated, “demonstrated that the process of overthrowing this regime is both irreversible and inevitable.” She outlined six specific demands for the international community:

Recognizing the struggle of the rebellious youth against the IRGC.

Immediate UN action to halt executions.

Facilitating internet access for Iranians.

Prosecuting regime leaders for crimes against humanity.

Closing regime embassies and expelling its agents.

Severing the regime’s financial lifelines.

Mrs. Rajavi concluded with a definitive message to world leaders: “Now that world leaders have heard the voice of Iran’s bloodstained uprising, it is expected that they also heed the legitimate demands of the Iranian people.”

The January Uprising: A Point of No Return

A central theme of the conference was the analysis of the recent uprising, which speakers described as fundamentally different from previous protests in 2017, 2019, or 2022. The involvement of the Tehran Bazaar and the merchant class was highlighted as a critical indicator that the regime has lost its last remaining pillars of economic and social support.

Ambassador Robert Joseph, former US Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, provided a historical context to the unrest. He assessed the current state of the theocracy. “In today’s Iran, this is not the end of the beginning, or even the beginning of the end. This is the end of the ending for the religious dictatorship,” Joseph declared. He noted that the turning of the merchant class against the regime was a “tell-tale indicator that the regime was doomed,” adding that the revolution is now fueled by a population willing to pay the ultimate price for freedom.

Charles Michel, former President of the European Council, echoed this sentiment, pointing out the economic collapse that fueled the dissent. “It is not acceptable that one of the richest countries in the world is absolutely incapable of meeting the basic needs of the population,” Michel stated. He noted that the uprising began with merchants in the Grand Bazaar, a demographic usually characterized by caution, signaling a total rupture between the state and society.

The sheer brutality of the crackdown was also a focal point. Ambassador Andreas Reinicke, former German Ambassador to Syria, noted that while the uprising was stifled with “the most brutal violence,” the regime’s reliance on such measures confirms its lack of legitimacy. The speakers agreed that the “wall of fear” has been permanently breached.

“No to the Shah, No to the Mullahs”: Rejecting the False Alternatives

A significant portion of the discourse in Berlin was dedicated to clarifying the political landscape of the opposition. Speakers systematically dismantled the narrative—often amplified by suspicious social media activity—that the son of the deposed Shah, Reza Pahlavi, represents a viable alternative.

Lincoln Bloomfield, former US Assistant Secretary of State, delivered a scathing critique of the media manipulation surrounding the Pahlavi remnant. He described Pahlavi and Khamenei’s son, Mojtaba, as “two men of no personal distinction or accomplishment, each enriched by the stolen wealth of the nation.” Bloomfield argued that the amplification of the monarchy is a deliberate tactic by the regime’s information machine to distract from the democratic resistance.

Joachim Rücker, former President of the UN Human Rights Council, was equally blunt regarding the compatibility of the monarchy with democratic values. Citing a Harvard observer, he noted that Pahlavi’s platform was classified as a “roadmap to neo-fascist rule.”

Charles Michel warned European leaders not to be “trapped” by illusions created by artificial intelligence and bots. “We are not naive,” Michel said. “This is an attempt to manipulate and steal the future of the Iranian people once again.”

The consensus was that the Iranian people, having overthrown a monarchical dictatorship in 1979, have no desire to return to the past. As Dr. Rudolf Adam, former Vice President of Germany’s Federal Intelligence Service (BND), stated, “The future of Iran cannot lie in returning to a nostalgically glorified past… No one may claim special powers based on their dynastic origin.”

The Failure of Appeasement and the Need for Decisive Action

The conference criticized the Western policy of appeasement toward the regime, which speakers argued has not only failed to contain the regime but has actively emboldened it. The speakers talked about the destructive results of decades of diplomatic engagement that ignored human rights abuses in favor of nuclear negotiations.

Günter Nooke, former Human Rights Commissioner for the German government, said, “We did not just follow false narratives… but we also tried to negotiate this nuclear deal and used it as a distraction.” He criticized the courting of Iranian officials at events like the Munich Security Conference, stating, “This is something we cannot be proud of, but rather something for which we should apologize.”

Ambassador Joachim Bitterlich, former advisor to Chancellor Helmut Kohl, reflected on 40 years of European mistakes. “We have no more time to lose,” Bitterlich warned, cautioning that Iran’s stalling tactics in nuclear negotiations are intended to reach a point of immunity.

The speakers welcomed the European Union’s recent move to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organization—a step long advocated by the NCRI—but demanded more. “If such declarations are not followed by visible and tangible actions, they ultimately remain symbolic,” warned Dr. Rudolf Adam.

Demands for action included the expulsion of regime diplomats and the complete severance of financial ties. Martin Patzelt, former member of the Bundestag, passionately argued for hitting the regime where it hurts most: their finances. “Why do Revolutionary Guards shoot at their own fathers, brothers, husbands, and lovers? … It is the money,” Patzelt said. “Therefore, the money tap must be turned off.”

The NCRI and the Ten-Point Plan: The Democratic Alternative

In response to the recurring question of “what comes next,” the conference highlighted the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) and Mrs. Maryam Rajavi’s Ten-Point Plan as the only credible, organized, and democratic roadmap for the transition period.

Joachim Rücker praised the Ten-Point Plan for its commitment to a secular, constitutional republic, gender equality, and the abolition of the death penalty. “I know of no better one on the market,” Rücker stated.

Charles Michel described the plan as “the best recipe to move from tyranny to democracy,” emphasizing its focus on the separation of religion and state and the independence of the judiciary. He urged the international community to actively promote these proposals so that the world understands that a “more hopeful future is possible.”

Lincoln Bloomfield dismantled the decades of propaganda levied against the MEK and NCRI, explaining that the regime views this movement as its only existential threat precisely because it offers a democratic interpretation of Islam compatible with modern political rights. “For 47 years, the clerical regime has feared nothing so much as the NCRI and MEK,” Bloomfield explained.

Ambassador Andreas Reinicke drew parallels to the Syrian conflict, noting that the lack of a unified alternative exacerbated that crisis. He commended the NCRI for providing a clear organizational structure, noting, “You are showing that you can also represent an alternative… and we are also organizationally capable of it.”

Human Rights, Accountability, and Ending Impunity

The harrowing human rights situation in Iran, particularly the mass executions and the legacy of the 1988 massacre, was a somber undercurrent of the proceedings. Speakers underscored that the regime’s survival strategy relies entirely on terror and that the international community has a moral and legal obligation to intervene.

Lincoln Bloomfield reminded the audience of the “untold story” concealed from the West: the systematic imprisonment and execution of tens of thousands of young, educated men and women in the 1980s. “The survivors of that campaign of genocide are our hosts today. They are in this room,” Bloomfield noted, referring to the NCRI members present.

Günter Nooke proposed concrete measures to combat impunity, suggesting the establishment of a registry for human rights violations, similar to West Germany’s documentation of East German crimes. “The rift between the population and the regime has deepened further. This gap can no longer be closed,” Nooke observed, stressing that systematic impunity encouraged the security forces to escalate mass murder during the January uprising.

Prof. Dr. Christoph Degenhart, a renowned German jurist, highlighted the regime’s use of disinformation to whitewash its crimes and vilify the resistance. He called for a clear recognition of the nature of the regime by Western states. “We owe a certain debt to the Iranian people. We have tolerated this regime for a very long time and actually actively promoted it,” Degenhart said.

Supporting the Resistance Units: The Third Option

A recurring theme was the rejection of the binary choice between a devastating foreign war and the failed policy of appeasement. The “Third Option”—regime change by the Iranian people and their organized resistance—was championed as the only viable path forward.

Ambassador Robert Joseph was explicit that the solution must come from within. “This is a revolution of, and by, the Iranian people. It is led by the people and the organized resistance on the ground,” he stated, rejecting external military imposition. However, he clarified that this does not absolve the international community of responsibility, calling for the recognition of the Iranian people’s right to self-defense.

Mrs. Maryam Rajavi highlighted the role of the “rebellious youth” who have moved beyond peaceful protest to active confrontation with the IRGC. She noted that the January uprising proved that “even under relentless and brutal repression, it is possible for a mass uprising to emerge in conjunction with an organized force.”

Dr. Rudolf Adam added a strategic dimension, noting that regimes fall when the selfishness of their supporters outweighs their loyalty. He argued that the resistance must target the resolve of the IRGC. “The leadership cadres of the opposing forces must be eliminated… Those designated as leaders of a terrorist organization should be treated as such,” Adam argued, suggesting that pressure must be applied until the regime’s enforcers realize there is no future in the old system.

The Berlin conference marked a watershed moment in the international understanding of the Iranian crisis. The diverse speakers sent a unified message: the era of the mullahs is over, shattered by the courage of the Iranian people during the January uprising. The “End of the Ending” has arrived.

© Eurasia Review