As executions surge and global silence deepens, Iranians call for a decisive shift from passive diplomacy to principled pressure
What constitutes the most urgent and defining issue for the Iranian people in the realm of international relations? What do they expect from the global community—particularly from Europe and the United States, actors with decisive influence over international policy?
At the core of Iran’s national interest lies a fundamental question: what strategy should these powers adopt toward a ruling establishment imposed on the Iranian people? Should the path forward be war, or a decisive end to appeasement?
To frame the issue plainly, consider the wave of executions carried out in Iran between March 30 and April 25, 2026. What responsibility did European countries and the United States bear in responding to these events? Notably, these governments largely refrained from issuing strong condemnations. This silence demands scrutiny. Does it reflect calculated diplomacy, or does it reveal a troubling prioritization of short-term strategic interests over fundamental human rights?
There is little ambiguity about the consequences of such inaction. Decades of experience demonstrate that when systematic human rights violations in Iran are met with muted or inconsistent responses from the international community, the ruling establishment grows more emboldened. Repression intensifies. Executions increase. The cost is borne by Iranian society, particularly by those who advocate for freedom and reform.
Against this backdrop, the notion that war could serve Iran’s national interest is deeply flawed. Military confrontation, in practice, tends to reinforce the most hardline elements within the ruling system. It expands the security apparatus, justifies broader crackdowns, and often leads to an escalation in executions—especially of political prisoners. War, rather than weakening repression, risks entrenching it.
What the Iranian people demand is not external military intervention but a coherent and principled shift in international policy. This begins with ending the longstanding pattern of appeasement toward a system that derives its durability from suppression and the elimination of dissent.
Such a policy shift requires more than rhetoric. It necessitates alignment between declared values and concrete actions. Governments cannot credibly champion human rights while simultaneously overlooking systematic abuses. The contradiction undermines both moral authority and political effectiveness.
A strategy centered on ending appeasement would involve coordinated political, legal, and diplomatic measures. These could include targeted restrictions on institutions responsible for repression, explicit support for the Iranian people’s demands, and formal recognition of their right to determine their own political future. Unlike war, this approach leverages international pressure in a way that complements, rather than constrains, domestic movements for change.
From the perspective of many Iranians, continued silence in the face of recent executions amounts to indirect complicity. It signals tolerance for ongoing abuses and obstructs the possibility of meaningful transformation. This perception, whether acknowledged or not, shapes how international actions—or the lack thereof—are interpreted within Iran.
The conclusion is neither abstract nor ambiguous. For the Iranian people, the decisive issue is not war, but the unequivocal end of appeasement. If influential global actors adopt this priority with seriousness and consistency, there remains a credible path toward resolving not only Iran’s internal crisis, but also the broader regional and international tensions linked to it.
