Reza Pahlavi accuses European media of ignoring Iranian victims under regime

Reza Pahlavi stood at the podium in Berlin and accused European journalists of abandoning their duty to the Iranian people, saying they had failed to ask about the thousands killed by the regime in January or the recent executions of political prisoners.

His frustration was not just with the questions asked, but with those left unasked. Speaking at the Bundespressekonferenz, he said journalists in Stockholm and Berlin had shown no interest in the victims of state violence, instead focusing their attention on criticizing the United States and Israel for targeting what he described as a 47-year-long campaign of slaughter by the Iranian dictatorship.

In his view, the media had surrendered their moral objectivity in the heart of a continent that claims to uphold human rights, justice and dignity. He accused them of silencing Iranian voices by refusing to center the suffering of ordinary people under the clerical regime.

The criticism came after visits to both Stockholm and Berlin, where he said he encountered a press corps more inclined to debate foreign intervention than to document domestic repression. He framed this as a moral failure, not merely a professional one, suggesting that editors and reporters had abandoned their ethical obligations.

Yet in the same appearance, when a reporter attempted to follow up on his defense of U.S. And Israeli strikes on Iran — strikes he said were necessary to dismantle the regime’s repression and protect civilians who had been “massacred in the streets” — he cut her off sharply: “You are asking too many questions.”

The contradiction was stark. He condemned journalists for not asking about Iranian victims, then rejected further inquiry when the topic turned to the consequences of the very actions he endorsed.

Pahlavi, who has lived in exile since before the 1979 revolution, presents himself as a secular alternative for Iranians disillusioned with both the monarchy and the theocracy. While he acknowledges his limited base inside Iran, he remains a symbolic figure for many in the diaspora who spot him as a potential bridge to a post-clerical future.

His reception in Europe, however, reveals a deeper tension: exile figures often seek amplification of their message, yet resist scrutiny when that message includes controversial endorsements of military action. The expectation of solidarity can clash with the journalistic imperative to question assumptions, especially when those assumptions involve claims of necessity and proportionality.

He did not apologize for civilian casualties in the strikes, expressing regret only for those caught in “collateral damage,” while insisting that the targeting of military and infrastructure targets was justified. This framing — distinguishing between regrettable harm and legitimate strategy — is one he expects others to accept without challenge.

His complaint about being asked too many questions, is not merely about tone or timing. It reflects a broader discomfort with accountability, particularly when the narrative shifts from victimhood to agency. For Pahlavi, the role of the press seems to be to amplify his critique of the regime, not to examine the implications of his own positions.

The episode underscores a recurring dilemma in covering exile opposition: how to balance solidarity with skepticism, especially when the speaker invokes human rights to justify positions that may undermine them. Journalists are not expected to parrot dissent, but to test it — a function that, in this case, was met with resistance.

Did Reza Pahlavi apologize for civilian casualties in the U.S. And Israeli strikes on Iran?

No. He stated that he would not apologize for the strikes, which he said were necessary to target the regime’s repression apparatus and infrastructure, though he expressed regret for those caught in collateral damage.

What specific accusations did Reza Pahlavi develop against European journalists during his visit to Berlin and Stockholm?

He accused them of failing to ask about the thousands of Iranians killed by the regime in January or the recent executions of political prisoners, claiming they had abandoned their professional and moral responsibility to amplify Iranian voices under repression.