In his recent commentary, John Bercow argues that the international community must stop treating Iran’s clerical regime as an immovable monolith. He contends that decades of appeasement and negotiation have reinforced a false narrative of invincibility, while in fact dissent and demand for change within Iran have only grown.
Bercow opens by recalling the post-World War II “special relationship” between the United Kingdom and the United States—rooted in shared principles and moral duty. He suggests that today those same principles should guide Western strategy toward Tehran.
He notes that Western policy for nearly fifty years has assumed the Iranian regime’s permanence—prioritising diplomacy over accountability, and sidelining the aspirations of Iranian democrats. That assumption, he says, was deeply flawed.
Specifically, Bercow highlights three nationwide uprisings (2018, 2019 and 2022) as proof that the Iranian people continue to challenge the regime—and that opposition does exist, contrary to prevailing Western perceptions.
He recalls the massacre of approximately 30 000 political prisoners in 1988—the worst repression of the early years of the regime—as an event meant to extinguish organised opposition, but which ultimately failed to do so.
The writer argues that by assuming the regime was unshakeable, Western policymakers inadvertently accepted its narrative of strength—and in doing so ignored the very real demands for democratic change inside Iran.
Bercow calls for a concrete shift in policy: Western governments must recognise the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) as a credible alternative to the regime, hold Tehran’s leaders accountable for crimes against humanity, and designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organisation.
He underscores that stability is not achieved through appeasement, but rather through clarity, courage and solidarity with the Iranian people’s aspirations for freedom.
In conclusion, Bercow stresses that the illusion of Iran’s permanence must be shattered—not by wishful thinking, but by recognising and supporting the strong undercurrent of democratic change already present inside the country. The international community should therefore recalibrate its policy to reflect reality, not rhetoric.