Panelists at the Free Iran Convention 2025 Detail the Emancipatory Framework and Historical Struggle of Women as the Decisive Force for Change in Iran
Defining the Decisive Force for Change
The second session of the Free Iran Convention 2025, titled “Iranian Women and the Legacy of Resistance,” focused on women as “one of the most transformative forces driving change in Iran”. The panel was moderated by Dr. Ramesh Sepehrrad, a scholar-practitioner. She emphasized that the enduring legacy of resistance dates back “more than one hundred years,” noting that in the 1906 constitutional revolution, women were marginalized and “did not gain full citizenship”.
The 2022 uprising, triggered by the killing of Mahsa “Jina” Amini, brought global attention to women’s critical role. Dr. Sepehrrad stressed that it is “extremely important that we understand how Iranian women have become a decisive force for change,” leading a movement that is truly inclusive of all nationalities, including Azeri, Turk, Kurd, Baluchi, and Lur. Despite the violence they endure, Dr. Sepehrrad stated: “There is no other country in the world that has executed more women than the Iranian regime. That is a fact, ladies and gentlemen”.
The panelists for the discussion included Hannane Amanpour, an attorney and women’s rights activist; Dr. Azadeh Sami, a board-certified pediatrician; and Dr. Azadeh Zangeneh, an internal medicine physician.
Misogyny as State Doctrine
To understand the resistance, Dr. Azadeh Sami set the historical context by explaining that violence against women evolved, but the clerical regime “converted misogyny into state doctrine”. This institutionalized oppression, including the compulsory hijab and discriminatory family laws, became “tools of political control”. Dr. Sami argued that the regime feels threatened because they knew that “women’s emancipation means the end of tyranny”.
Hannane Amanpour further detailed this institutionalized inequality, noting that the Islamic Republic is “founded on gender-segregated law”. This is enshrined in the constitution, ensuring women are denied equal rights in their personal lives (marriage, divorce, inheritance, custody) and in the public sphere, where “women are not allowed to be president, they’re not allowed to be judges”. Ms. Amanpour concluded that this denial of rights is “completely by design”.
The Emancipatory Leadership Framework
Despite this state-level oppression, Iranian women joined resistance organizations, especially the MEK, in large numbers. Dr. Azadeh Sami explained that the MEK was critical because it “formulated and formally implemented an emancipatory leadership framework that put qualified, committed women in senior strategic and operational roles”. This structure has made the MEK the “longest-running women-led movement in the region”.
This framework was neither incidental nor symbolic, but a “strategic correction to male-dominated norms” and a “revolutionary necessity”, according to Dr. Azadeh Zangeneh. She noted that the MEK model involves “real leadership—not symbolic, but in practice—in operational roles, strategic roles, roles that require a lot of discipline, sacrifice, and vision”.
Hannane Amanpour pointed out that this structural change became visible starting in 1985, culminating in Mrs. Maryam Rajavi becoming the “president-elect of the NCRI in 1993”. This model is considered the “secret sauce behind the movement’s multi-generational appeal”.
Targeted Demonization and Resilience
Because the MEK’s egalitarian model demonstrates the potential for a democratic Iran, the regime aggressively demonizes the organization, especially its female members. Ms. Amanpour explained that women members of the MEK are “most targeted for the sacrifices that they’ve made”. The regime’s cynical attacks portray these women as abandoning their essential family roles, painting them as cult-like, which is “entirely untrue”.
Ms. Amanpour contrasted this treatment with women activists in other anti-authoritarian movements (South Africa, French Revolution, Ukraine), who are “propped up as doing what needs to be done,” highlighting a “double standard” against Iranian women.
The Core Issue of Choice
The panelists also addressed the often-misconstrued issue of the hijab. Dr. Ramesh Sepehrrad framed the conversation by stating his belief that it is “nobody’s business what women wear because it is the women’s choice”.
Dr. Azadeh Sami clarified that the debate over the hijab is not about the fabric itself, but “the question of choice and political agency”. She explained that women’s bodies have historically been a battleground: under Reza Shah (1936), women were “forced to unveil,” and under the clerical regime, women are “forced to veil”. Both scenarios “deny women the right to choose”.
The NCRI position, articulated by Mrs. Rajavi, is clear: “No to compulsory hijab, no to compulsory religion, no to compulsory government”.
Hannane Amanpour emphasized that making the hijab compulsory is “equally insulting and equally oppressive” to both the woman who chooses to wear it and the woman who does not, because choice is removed from both. The revolutionary unity is perfectly encapsulated by the slogan: “With hijab, without hijab, let’s march to a revolution!”.
An Unwavering and Fearless Legacy
When asked to define the legacy of Iranian women’s resistance, the panelists offered powerful descriptors:
- Hannane Amanpour chose the word ‘unwavering’, citing the “miraculous ability… to find themselves on the front lines despite the repression they face”.
- Dr. Azadeh Sami chose ‘fearless’, explaining that Iranian women “have confronted a system that was built to control their bodies, silence their voices, and erase their identities”. She concluded that their fearlessness has “shattered these cultural barriers and proved that courage is in fact contagious”.
This combination of clarity about the present and confidence in a different future is what keeps the women of Iran moving forward.
Analogy for Institutionalized Misogyny:
The Iranian regime’s use of mandatory gender-segregated laws and the compulsory hijab is like a state-designed uniform. The uniform isn’t meant to be protective or expressive; it’s a political straitjacket imposed to visually enforce the idea that women are not full citizens with individual agency, making their bodies the physical boundary of the regime’s political control.
