A conference held at the European Parliament in Brussels on April 22, 2026, brought renewed attention to the escalating use of executions in Iran and the European Union’s response to the crisis. Titled “Iran: Take Action to Stop Executions — Where Does the EU Stand?”, the event gathered a cross-party group of Members of the European Parliament (MEPs), political figures, and international representatives to address what participants described as a critical moment in Iran’s internal and external trajectory.
The meeting unfolded against the backdrop of a reported increase in executions in Iran, particularly targeting political prisoners. Speakers repeatedly referenced recent cases, including the execution of individuals identified as members of the opposition, as well as broader figures indicating a surge in capital punishment over the past month.
Iran: Take Action to Stop Executions Where Does the EU Stand?https://t.co/TAwhiUNVGL
— Iran Focus (@Iran_Focus) April 22, 2026
Maryam Rajavi, President-elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), delivered the keynote address. She framed the current situation as a decisive confrontation between Iranian society and the ruling system. According to her remarks, the authorities in Tehran view internal dissent and organized opposition as a greater threat than external conflict. She pointed to ongoing resistance activities inside Iran, including a reported attack on a key leadership site earlier in the year, as evidence of intensifying domestic tensions.
Mrs. Rajavi also referred to recent executions as part of a broader pattern of repression, describing them as measures aimed at maintaining control amid growing unrest. Her speech included calls for a shift in European policy, including recognition of a provisional political framework announced by opposition groups and the closure of Iranian diplomatic missions in Europe.
Opening the conference, Spanish MEP Javier Zarzalejos emphasized that support for democratic principles in Iran has been a longstanding position within the European Parliament. He described the recent wave of executions as part of a systematic pattern, suggesting that the scale and timing of these actions reflected a broader strategy by Iranian authorities. He stated that such developments raise questions about the adequacy of the EU’s current stance.
Lithuanian MEP Petras Auštrevičius, who chaired the session, connected the situation in Iran to European security concerns. He noted that developments in Iran, including military capabilities and regional activities, have implications beyond its borders. He also cited figures indicating that multiple political prisoners had been executed in recent weeks, presenting this as an indicator of the regime’s internal dynamics.
Several speakers addressed the EU’s policy approach directly. Portuguese MEP Francisco Assis referred to what he described as a “moral crisis” in European political responses, suggesting that existing engagement strategies have not adequately addressed human rights concerns. He called for any future agreements with Iran to be conditioned on measurable improvements in human rights, including a halt to executions.
Other participants reflected on the historical context of EU-Iran relations. Spanish MEP Antonio López-Istúriz White pointed to decades of engagement with successive Iranian administrations, arguing that expectations of reform had not materialized. He noted that different political factions within Iran had been approached as potential partners, but the overall trajectory of repression had persisted.
Italian MEP Leoluca Orlando focused on the broader ideological framework of the Iranian regime, particularly the relationship between religion and state. He suggested that this structure has contributed to both political and social constraints, including limitations on civil liberties and political participation.
Italian MEP Carlo Ciccioli provided a historical perspective on repression in Iran, referencing estimates of casualties from past crackdowns on protests. While acknowledging that exact figures remain contested, he cited accounts suggesting large-scale violence against demonstrators over time. He described the current situation as part of a longer pattern rather than an isolated development.
The issue of alternative political futures for Iran was also discussed. Multiple speakers referred to the NCRI’s Ten-Point Plan, which outlines proposals for governance based on democratic elections, separation of religion and state, gender equality, and a non-nuclear policy. Supporters at the conference described this framework as a structured alternative to the current system.
At the same time, some participants addressed competing narratives about Iran’s political future. References were made to discussions within European institutions involving figures associated with Iran’s former monarchy. Critics at the conference argued that such engagements risk overlooking the perspectives of groups currently active within Iran.
Former Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt delivered one of the more direct critiques of EU policy, describing it as ineffective in addressing both regional conflicts and internal repression in Iran. He pointed to what he characterized as a gap between stated European values and practical policy measures, particularly in relation to executions.
Other speakers highlighted the human dimension of the issue. Anna Strolenberg, a representative from the Netherlands, shared accounts of Iranian women affected by recent events, including those who had lost family members. Her remarks focused on personal experiences and the persistence of activism despite losses.
Herta Däubler-Gmelin, Germany’s former Federal Minister of Justice, drew parallels with historical experiences, recalling opposition to the previous monarchy and warning against revisiting earlier political models. She emphasized the importance of pluralism and legal frameworks in any future system.
Throughout the conference, calls for specific actions were repeated. These included proposals to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organization, reassess diplomatic relations, and place greater emphasis on human rights conditions in policymaking.
While no formal policy decisions were announced during the event, the range of perspectives presented reflected an ongoing debate within European institutions about how to respond to developments in Iran. The discussion highlighted both the urgency of the issue and the diversity of views on the appropriate course of action.
