On February 21, 2026, just weeks before International Women’s Day, a conference in Paris gathered Iranian opposition figures and former ministers, parliamentarians, and international officials around a single proposition: that women’s leadership is not an adjunct to political change in Iran, but its precondition.
Hosted by Maryam Rajavi, President-elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), the event brought together speakers from Europe and North America who returned repeatedly to three elements: the centrality of women in Iran’s protest movement, the NCRI’s Ten-Point Plan as a governing framework, and the role of organized Resistance Units inside the country. The rejection of both clerical rule and a return to monarchy formed a steady refrain.
Framing the Uprising
Opening the conference, Sarvnaz Chitsaz, chair of the NCRI’s Women’s Committee, tied International Women’s Day to what she described as the bloodshed of the January uprising. She said the NCRI had identified 2,411 dead, including women and children, and stressed that regime authorities are obscuring the scale of the crackdown through internet blackouts.
Maryam Rajavi on X: "Women’s leadership, an imperative for a free Iran, a democratic republic #IWD2026 https://t.co/rUDs1vCQNw" / X
— Iran Focus (@Iran_Focus) February 21, 2026
Quoting a slogan heard in protests — “Death to the oppressor, whether Shah or Supreme Leader” — Chitsaz presented the uprising as a verdict not only on the current establishment but on dictatorship in all forms. Iran’s future, she argued, “does not lie in a return to a monarchy,” but in “freedom, equality, and a republic based on the will of the people.” She pointed to the Ten-Point Plan advanced by Rajavi as a practical political roadmap.
“No to Compulsion”
In her keynote address, Rajavi defined women’s leadership as the “litmus test” separating democratic change from recycled authoritarianism. “No to compulsory hijab, no to compulsory religion, and no to compulsory governance,” she said, summing up the movement’s rejection of state-imposed conformity in both public and private life.
Rajavi described the NCRI as an organization with a women-majority structure and decades of women in command roles. The alternative she outlined included free elections, separation of religion and state, gender equality, abolition of the death penalty, and a non-nuclear republic. On the question of monarchy, she was explicit: Iranians want “neither the crown nor the turban.”
Her remarks set the tone for a conference in which international speakers frequently tied their endorsement of democratic change to the prominence of women in the organized opposition.
International Endorsements
Former French minister Michèle Alliot-Marie linked democracy directly to women’s participation in power. “There is no democracy without the presence of women in all decision-making bodies,” she said, describing the freedoms outlined in Rajavi’s plan as the substance of a democratic Iran that European supporters should defend.
Former U.S. Ambassador to Denmark Carla Sands challenged what she described as nostalgia for the Shah’s era, arguing, “A dictatorship, by definition, cannot offer gender equality.” She framed the Ten-Point Plan as the route to a secular democratic republic “whether crowned or turbaned.”
Former Prime Minister of Finland Anneli Jäätteenmäki focused on sustained repression and international responsibility. She warned of rising executions reported by rights groups and cited European measures targeting the IRGC as evidence of a firmer approach, urging continued support for “Iran’s civil society, independent media, and human rights and women’s rights.”
Colombian former senator Ingrid Betancourt framed women’s rights as inseparable from democratic legitimacy. “Lineage is not legitimacy,” she said, arguing that equality postponed until after political change would remain fragile. She contrasted that with what she described as the NCRI’s internal structure, built around women’s leadership.
Across interventions from lawmakers in Spain, Italy, Canada, Ireland, Malta, the Netherlands, and Portugal, a similar pattern emerged. Speakers described women as “organizers, leaders, and the political engine of the mobilization,” emphasized that democratic change requires institutional preparation, and endorsed Rajavi’s Ten-Point Plan as a structured alternative.
Organization and Preparedness
References to “Resistance Units” inside Iran surfaced repeatedly. Canadian MP Judy Sgro described the prominence of women and youth in recent protests as the result of decades of organizing rather than a sudden development, calling the Ten-Point Plan “a constitution ready to go.”
Former White House official Linda Chavez said the current moment had shifted from whether change would come to “when and how.” She described the NCRI as an organized political movement rather than a single personality and defended the Ten-Point Plan as a practical program.
Italian MP Naike Gruppioni recounted a visit to Ashraf 3, describing it as “not a theoretical abstraction, but a concrete organization,” marked by discipline and long-term planning. Former Portuguese defense minister Helena Carreiras drew a parallel with her country’s post-authoritarian transition, saying “democracy does not rhyme with dynasty” and insisting that legitimacy must rest on democratic choice.
Legal and Multilateral Dimensions
The conference also incorporated a legal framework. Karen Smith, former UN Assistant Secretary-General and Special Adviser on the Responsibility to Protect, warned that the recent crackdown fits a decades-long pattern of systematic state violence. Citing a U.N. fact-finding mission, she said women activists have been specifically targeted and that investigations into possible crimes against humanity should remain on the international agenda.
Spanish senators detailed a unanimous resolution condemning executions, torture, arbitrary detention, and repression of women and minorities in Iran, endorsing Rajavi’s Ten-Point Plan and supporting stronger measures against the IRGC. They framed the cross-party backing as evidence that support for women’s rights and democratic standards transcends political divisions.
Dominique Attias, former president of the European Bars Federation, described Iranian women as “not spectators of history” but its actors, linking the slogan “Woman, Life, Freedom” to what she characterized as a long-standing and organized resistance.
Personal Accounts
Personal testimony punctuated the proceedings. Historian Azadeh Akhbari described being imprisoned as a child after the 1979 revolution and losing relatives executed for ties to the opposition. She referred to her family’s experience as spanning “a century of oppression, first by monarchy and then by the religious dictatorship.”
Vida Niktalean of the Women’s Association for Democracy in Iran traced her activism in exile to arrests and executions among classmates and relatives, crediting Rajavi with building a generation of women trained to lead collectively.
Zinat Mirhashemi invoked images of families singing and dancing in mourning as acts of defiance, arguing that discrimination against women has been a central pillar of the ruling system and that its erosion signals structural change.
A Consistent Message
Across ideological and national lines, the rejection of both clerical rule and monarchical restoration surfaced repeatedly in the phrase: “No to the Shah, no to the Mullahs.” The Ten-Point Plan functioned as the conference’s connective framework, described as a “democratic roadmap” and a “practical political program.”
By the conference’s close, the tone was declarative. Speakers spoke of timing and transition rather than possibility. They invoked parliamentary resolutions, international investigations, organized networks inside Iran, and a leadership structure centered on women.
As International Women’s Day approaches, the Paris gathering presented a coordinated message: that in the view of the Iranian Resistance and its international supporters, the credibility of any democratic future for Iran will be measured by whether women stand at the center of political power — and whether a secular republic replaces both “the crown” and “the turban.”
