Berlin – February 8, 2026
On the anniversary of Iran’s 1979 anti-monarchic revolution, a markedly different vision for the country’s future was presented in Berlin. Policymakers, former senior U.S. and European officials, diplomats, legal scholars, and human rights advocates convened on February 8 against the backdrop of Iran’s nationwide uprising in late December 2025 and January 2026—an uprising that spread across all 31 provinces and was met with a violent crackdown that reportedly claimed thousands of lives.
The gathering centered on a single question: what comes next?
At the heart of the conference was Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, President-elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI). Her address set the tone for a day in which speakers returned repeatedly to the themes of organized resistance, the failure of Western appeasement policies, and the existence of a structured alternative to Iran’s clerical establishment—outlined in the NCRI’s Ten-Point Plan.
“The End of the Beginning”
Mrs. Rajavi framed the January uprising as a decisive political development rather than a fleeting episode of unrest. She described it as the “end of the beginning” for the ruling clerical system, arguing that recent events had answered three essential questions: whether change in Iran is inevitable, how it can be achieved, and how stability can be maintained afterward.
She emphasized that the uprising was neither spontaneous nor leaderless. From its earliest hours, she noted, protesters directed their chants at Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and openly called for the overthrow of the system. According to Rajavi, the demonstrations differed from previous waves of protest in two significant respects: their level of organization and the active role played by rebellious youth who confronted the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), in some instances disarming them.
Rajavi described the state’s response in stark terms—shooting unarmed civilians, executing the wounded, and storming hospitals. Such actions, she argued, reflected a system that has “lost the capacity to govern” and now relies on mass repression for survival.
Rejecting both reformist narratives and monarchist alternatives, Rajavi warned against what she described as “false alternatives” that would return Iran to autocratic rule. She criticized efforts to promote the son of the deposed Shah as a political solution, stating that a return to dynastic governance would only reconstruct another form of dictatorship.
Instead, she presented the NCRI’s Ten-Point Plan as a roadmap for a transitional period. The plan envisions a provisional government following the regime’s fall, tasked with organizing elections for a Constituent Assembly within six months. Rajavi concluded with specific calls to the international community: recognition of the struggle of rebellious youth, activation of the UN sanctions “trigger mechanism,” and legal accountability for regime leaders.
A Regime “Factually at an End”?
Ambassador Joachim Rücker, former President of the UN Human Rights Council, offered a blunt assessment of Tehran’s international standing. He stated that there is now a “broad, almost complete consensus in the international community that the regime is factually at an end.”
Tens of Thousands Rally in Berlin in Support of Iran’s Uprising and Democratic Change
Rücker cited both internal unrest and the weakening of Iran’s regional proxies as indicators of decline. Domestically, he described a leadership that maintains control only through “unfathomable violence.” Internationally, he called for conditioning relations with Tehran on concrete human rights benchmarks, including abolition of the death penalty and release of political prisoners.
He endorsed the NCRI’s Ten-Point Plan as “an excellent platform” for transition, adding that he knew of “no better one on the market.” At the same time, Rücker emphasized that regime change must come from within Iran and not through external military intervention.
Charles Michel, former President of the European Council, echoed the sentiment that European policy toward Iran has failed. He described the regime as “weaker than ever,” pointing to economic mismanagement and regional setbacks. Michel drew parallels between Tehran and Moscow, arguing that both rely on internal repression, regional destabilization, and global intimidation.
Reflecting on the 2015 nuclear deal, Michel concluded that appeasement had not delivered improvements in human rights or regional stability. Silence, he argued, had proven ineffective, and neutrality was no longer tenable. He characterized the NCRI’s Ten-Point Plan as the “best recipe” for moving from tyranny to democracy, particularly highlighting its commitments to secular governance and gender equality.
Historical Parallels and Strategic Warnings
Ambassador Robert Joseph, former U.S. Under Secretary of State for Arms Control, described the current moment as “the end of the ending” for the religious dictatorship. He drew attention to the participation of Iran’s merchant class and bazaar community in the January protests, calling it a historically significant development. “If you lose the bazaar, you lose your power,” he observed.
Joseph dismissed the prospect of reform within the existing system, stating that repression is embedded in its “DNA.” He also rejected the restoration of monarchy, asserting that Iran’s future should not be defined by a return to dynastic rule. Instead, he called for intensified economic sanctions, closure of regime embassies in Europe, and comprehensive financial isolation.
Ambassador Lincoln Bloomfield, former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State, focused on what he described as Tehran’s “information war.” He argued that Western governments have at times downplayed the regime’s human rights record to preserve nuclear negotiations, including overlooking the 1988 massacre of political prisoners.
Bloomfield defended the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK) against longstanding allegations, attributing many accusations to regime propaganda. He asserted that the clerical establishment fears the NCRI and MEK because they present an ideological alternative to the doctrine of Velayat-e Faqih. He also referenced Section 312 of Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence, describing its mission as targeting exiled Iranians abroad.
The Question of Transition
Several speakers addressed the mechanics of political transition.
Ambassador Andreas Reinicke, former German Ambassador to Syria and Tunisia, warned of the risks posed by fragmented opposition movements, drawing parallels to Syria. He described the Ten-Point Plan as an essential “signal and symbol” that a coherent alternative exists.
Joachim Bitterlich, former advisor to Chancellor Helmut Kohl, acknowledged European missteps over four decades. He expressed concern that renewed negotiations could serve as a stalling tactic for Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. If Iran were to acquire a nuclear weapon, he warned, it could become “untouchable.”
Dr. Rudolf Adam, former Vice President of Germany’s Federal Intelligence Service, cited historical precedents to argue that dictatorships collapse when internal loyalties erode. He rejected both dynastic restoration and externally imposed democracy, emphasizing unity among opposition forces as critical. He described the Ten-Point Plan as the only credible program to escape what he called the cycle of repression embodied by both the Shah’s SAVAK and the clerical regime’s IRGC.
Günter Nooke, former German Human Rights Commissioner, offered one of the most pointed critiques of past German policy. He characterized the nuclear deal as something Germany “should apologize” for. Nooke proposed establishing an “International Human Rights Observatory,” modeled after West Germany’s Cold War-era documentation center, to systematically record regime crimes and signal future accountability.
Professor Christoph Degenhart, a constitutional law expert, addressed the role of media and disinformation. He accused Tehran of influencing narratives in German outlets and highlighted legal victories overturning terrorist designations of the PMOI. He called for more proactive engagement in countering disinformation campaigns.
A Rallying Moment
Martin Patzelt, former member of the German Bundestag, spoke of a recent rally in Berlin that drew large crowds despite freezing temperatures. He described it as a “paradigm shift,” citing visible unity among Kurds, Baluchis, and other ethnic groups as evidence of a shared national aspiration.
Patzelt framed support for Iranian democracy as a test of Western values. Practical measures, he suggested, should include cutting financial channels to the regime and denying visas to IRGC members.
Letting the Facts Speak
Across ideological lines and national backgrounds, the speakers in Berlin converged on several observable realities: a nationwide uprising that spanned all provinces; a crackdown that resulted in mass casualties; a clerical establishment facing economic crisis and regional setbacks; and an organized opposition presenting a detailed transition framework.
Whether these developments mark the beginning of systemic change remains to be seen. But in Berlin, the message was unmistakable: the debate is no longer about whether alternatives exist. It is about which path—continued engagement with the current authorities or support for a structured democratic transition—will shape Iran’s future.
For the participants gathered on February 8, the answer lay in recognizing both the scale of domestic unrest and the organized political platform presented by the NCRI. The events in Iran have altered the conversation. The conference in Berlin sought to define what comes next.
