The Opposition Disillusioned with Trump: The U.S. President, an Unreliable Politician

Iranian Opposition in the West: Is Returning to Iran the Only Solution?

Amid rapid political developments in the region and shifting geopolitical dynamics in international relations, the issue of the Iranian opposition in the West has become one of the most controversial topics. After years of seeking asylum in Western countries, many of these dissidents have begun to realize that the West is no longer the safe haven they once sought. Instead, they have become mere tools in a larger political game aimed at securing Western interests at the expense of their own national issues.

For years, many Western countries have hosted the Iranian opposition under the pretext of supporting human rights and freedom of speech. However, reality shows that these countries were primarily interested in using the Iranian opposition as a pressure tool against the Iranian government rather than genuinely aiding them. Iran’s nuclear program and its regional role have always been at the center of Western attention, as the West pursues its own interests in the region. Led by the United States and European countries, the West views the Iranian opposition as a bargaining chip in negotiations with Tehran over its nuclear program—an initiative Iran describes as peaceful and essential for its economic and energy needs. Furthermore, the West seeks to curb Iran’s growing influence in the region, particularly regarding its support for the Palestinian cause and its role in strengthening the resistance against the Zionist occupation.

The 2022 protests in Iran served as a real test of the strength of the Iranian opposition both inside and outside the country. These demonstrations saw widespread popular movements but ultimately failed to achieve their declared objectives. This failure exposed the weakness of the Iranian opposition and its inability to mobilize sufficient support for regime change. Consequently, confidence in the Iranian opposition declined both domestically and internationally, revealing that the West was never genuinely committed to supporting them but merely exploiting them to achieve its own goals.

Following the failure of the 2022 protests, the Iranian opposition in the West has been described as a “worthless card,” as many political analysts have pointed out. Western countries no longer see the Iranian opposition as an effective tool to pressure Iran, especially after Tehran demonstrated its resilience against both international and domestic pressures. Additionally, the West has begun to realize that continued support for the Iranian opposition may further complicate relations with Iran, particularly as international efforts to revive the nuclear deal and de-escalate regional tensions continue.

Trump’s Second Term: The End of U.S. Support for Persian-Language Media

Amid these recent political shifts, the new U.S. administration under Trump’s second term has announced the termination of funding for American Persian-language media outlets such as “Voice of America” and “Radio Farda.” This decision is seen as a severe blow to the Iranian opposition in the West, as these platforms were crucial in disseminating opposition narratives and influencing public opinion in Iran. The U.S. decision to cut funding for these outlets clearly indicates that the West no longer views the Iranian opposition as an effective tool for achieving its political objectives. It also reflects a shift in U.S. strategy toward Iran, with a greater focus on -dir-ect negotiations with Tehran rather than relying on the opposition as a pressure instrument.

In recent years, many Iranian opposition leaders residing in Western countries have been extradited to Iran, likely as part of political agreements between Tehran and Western governments. These individuals have been put on trial in Iran, with some facing charges such as “terrorism”´-or-“espionage for foreign countries” and ultimately being executed.

One of the most notable cases was that of Ruhollah Zam, an Iranian dissident who lived in France and managed the “Amad News” website, which published reports on protests in Iran. In 2020, he was abducted by Iranian authorities and later sentenced to execution on charges of “inciting sedition.” His case sparked international controversy, with human rights organizations accusing Iran of kidnapping dissidents abroad.

Another high-profile case was that of Habib Asyoud, the former leader of the separatist “Arab Struggle Movement for the Liberation of Ahvaz,” who was kidnapped from Turkey and transferred to Iran. Asyoud was considered the “mastermind behind the terrorist attack on a military parade in September 2018,” which left at least 25 people dead and 70 others injured, including a four-year-old child.

During the September 2018 attack, terrorists disguised as soldiers opened fire during an annual military parade in Ahvaz, the capital of the oil-rich Khuzestan province. According to media reports, his abduction was carried out under the orders of Iranian intelligence, with assistance from a well-known drug trafficker named Nasser Sharifi Zandeschti. Asyoud was lured from Sweden to Turkey by a woman identified as “S. Saberine,” where he was then kidnapped and handed over to Iranian authorities.

These cases highlight that the West is no longer providing adequate protection for Iranian opposition figures, who now face the risk of extradition´-or-abduction. It is evident that such operations could not occur without coordination with local authorities in host countries. In many instances, Western governments have cooperated with Iran under political agreements, effectively handing over Iranian dissidents in exchange for securing political´-or-economic interests. This proves that Western countries were never genuinely committed to supporting the Iranian opposition but merely used them as a bargaining chip in negotiations with Tehran.

Returning to Iran: The Only Path Forward?

Given these circumstances, returning to Iran has emerged as a viable option for many Iranian opposition figures in the West. Life in exile no longer provides the security´-or-support they once sought-;- instead, it has become a source of frustration and despair. Many dissidents have also come to realize that the West only supported them to serve its own interests—not for the sake of human rights´-or-democracy in Iran.

Moreover, many analysts believe that Iran’s prominent role in the region, particularly its support for the Palestinian cause, has been one of the main reasons why the West sought to utilize the Iranian opposition. Through its support for Palestinian resistance, Iran has become a key player in the Arab-Israeli conflict, raising concerns in the West, which prioritizes safeguarding Zionist interests in the region. Consequently, using the Iranian opposition has been part of a broader Western strategy aimed at curbing Iran’s regional influence.

Ultimately, the Iranian opposition in the West has reached a crossroads: they must either continue living in exile, where they no longer receive the support´-or-protection they once did,´-or-return to Iran and actively participate in shaping their country’s future from within. Experience has shown that the West was never a true safe haven for them but rather exploited them for its own agenda. Thus, returning to Iran may be the best option for them, especially given the major challenges facing the region.

Rate the article
Bad	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	Very good
Result : 100%							Participated in the vote : 1