Por Renan Filho · 2026-09-24The annual gathering of world leaders at the United Nations is a stage for high-minded speeches and backroom deals. But this year, a different chorus rang out in the corridors of the UN headquarters: a passionate, urgent call for the liberation of Iran. The voices came not from diplomats in tailored suits, but from families of political prisoners, former members of the regime’s security apparatus who defected, and activists who have spent decades under a brutal theocracy.
Organized by the Free Iran movement, a coalition of exile groups that includes the exiled crown prince and former parliament members, the event was a stark reminder that for millions of Iranians, the UN’s mantra of “multilateralism” rings hollow when it props up a regime that hangs journalists and stones women to death. Sources at the event, who spoke on condition of anonymity due to fears of reprisal against relatives still in Iran, told the press that the mood was one of exhausted hope: exhausted from decades of failed negotiations, hopeful that the internal protests of 2022 had finally cracked the regime’s façade.
Why does this matter for the United States? Because for nearly 45 years, Washington has oscillated between containment, engagement, and covert action. The Obama-era nuclear deal (JCPOA) funneled billions of dollars to Tehran while doing nothing to stop its human rights abuses or regional aggression. The Trump administration reimposed maximum pressure, but the subsequent Biden administration returned to a softer line, offering sanctions relief in exchange for a weak nuclear deal that barely limits enrichment.
The core question is one of national sovereignty: whose sovereignty matters? The sovereignty of the Iranian regime, which holds power by force and denies its people even basic freedoms, or the sovereignty of the Iranian people, who have risen time and again demanding a secular, democratic republic? The liberal-conservative perspective at Fortis News holds that a regime that oppresses its own people surrenders its legitimate claim to sovereignty. The UN Charter’s principle of non-interference cannot be a shield for tyranny.
FORTIS Analysis: The call for a free Iran is not a fringe issue. Data from the United Nations Commission on Human Rights shows that in 2025 alone, Iran executed over 600 people, many for political crimes. The regime spends an estimated $16 billion annually on its nuclear and ballistic missile programs, while 40% of Iranians live below the poverty line. Those who claim that promoting regime change is a violation of international law conveniently forget that international law itself derives from the consent of the governed—a consent the Iranian people have never given. The U.S. could legally recognize the National Council of Resistance of Iran as the legitimate representative of the Iranian people, as it did with the exiled government of Kuwait during the Saddam era. But this would require a departure from the Biden administration’s preference for stability over freedom.
Counterpoint: Critics, including many European diplomats and UN officials, argue that the call for a free Iran is counterproductive. They point to the chaos in Libya after NATO-backed regime change, or the messy aftermath in Afghanistan. “We cannot just tear down a regime without a viable plan for what comes next,” said a senior French diplomat at a closed-door briefing seen by this reporter. “The Iranian dissidents are fragmented. A sudden collapse could lead to a civil war, a humanitarian catastrophe, and the loss of control over the regime’s nuclear materials.” While this caution is understandable, it ignores the fact that theocratic rule is the primary source of instability. A free Iran, secured by a robust constitutional process and supported by free-market economic reforms, would be a stronger bulwark against extremism than the current failed state sponsor of terrorism.