Promise of Safe Return to Iran, a Bitter Reality with Arrest and Punishment

The promise of safe return to Iran by the Islamic Republic government stands in contradiction with a bitter reality; a return that upon entry, leads to arrest and severe punishments.

In recent years, officials of the Islamic Republic have repeatedly attempted to present a new image of the government’s view toward Iranians abroad; an image that, based on official claims, shows that the regime has not only abandoned its past security-oriented perspective, but now considers Iranians living abroad as “valuable assets.”

The painful experiences of many returnees, from airport arrests to the formation of security files and issuance of severe sentences, bear witness to a serious contradiction between claims and reality. In recent remarks by the Deputy of Human Rights and International Affairs of the Ministry of Justice, it was emphasized that “Iranians abroad are not threats” and according to research, “less than 1.8 percent” of them have security files. He claims: “Iranians abroad are viewed as valuable opportunities and precious assets.”

One could say these remarks gain credibility only when, in practice, the security, dignity, and freedom of movement of Iranians abroad are guaranteed, something that the current reality clearly violates.

Government officials, in introducing the “Law on the Protection of Iranians Abroad,” present it as an unprecedented law, progressive and guaranteeing the peace of returnees. “Askar Jalalian,” Deputy of Human Rights and International Affairs of the Ministry of Justice, said about this law: “This law has a message: to facilitate the movement of Iranians abroad to their motherland.”

But the real question is: “If 98 percent of Iranians have no file at all, and if the law has provided such capacity for entry without worry, then why have we repeatedly witnessed the arrest of students, civil activists, grieving mothers, dual-nationality citizens, and even those who merely returned to visit family or conduct personal affairs?

Why do airport arrests continue? Why does return for many equate to ‘the beginning of a nightmare’ rather than returning home?”

The notable point is that officials themselves acknowledge that many problems stem from the past security-oriented approach. Jalalian has repeatedly emphasized that: “The security-oriented view toward Iranians abroad should be removed.”

When officials emphasize this view should be removed, it means it still exists. When the law deems “advance notice of the possibility of arrest” necessary, it means arrest is basically possible. When legal clauses and articles are written to prevent “arrest without warning,” it means this has happened repeatedly in the past.

One of the main pillars of this law is establishing systems for “filing complaints from abroad, notifying of the possibility of arrest upon entry, obtaining judicial certificates, legal consultation, requesting amnesty under Article 96.”

On the surface, these facilities can be reassuring. But for many Iranians abroad, the issue is not merely “assurance against arrest,” the issue is “trust in an institution that has a history of sudden arrests and creating security files.”

If arrests are based on vague charges such as “propaganda against the system,” “contact with media,” or “activity on social networks,” how can one believe that a system can address these concerns?

In another part of the deputy minister’s remarks, there is a sentence that unintentionally reveals a clear picture of the depth of contradiction: “We cannot tell Iranians abroad that you have no complainant or file, but upon entry, arrest them. This is neither ethical nor consistent with management policies.”

This sentence points precisely to a problem that many families have faced for years and continue to suffer from. The fact that such a statement is being made shows this behavior has occurred repeatedly in the past and there remains fear of its recurrence.

Despite all these claims, dual-nationality individuals are arrested, former student or civil activists who have had no activity for years are interrogated upon entry, many who merely left the country but through unauthorized means or without proper documents, were promised amnesty under Article 11, yet still face fear of arrest. Christian Iranians and religious minorities are also among groups with the greatest concerns about return; because arrests due to religious belief have been repeatedly reported.

So the issue is not merely law passage, the issue is its implementation. A law is valuable only when the power of suppression does not loom over it. Officials’ emphasis on “Iranians abroad being assets” may sound pleasant at the level of public diplomacy, but in practice, the government has deprived itself of these assets for years.

Restoring public trust requires “ending arbitrary arrests,” “transparent and practical guarantees against persecution for peaceful activities,” “respect for freedom of religion and speech, even for those who have changed their faith,” “publishing reports on files related to returnees,” and “complete elimination of security charges based on civil, media, or religious activities.” Without these steps, even the best laws will only exist on paper.

The Islamic Republic apparently wants Iranians abroad to return home, bring their assets, participate in the country’s development, and create important opportunities alongside the nation. But the same government, through security and legal proceedings, through arrests without prior notification, and through treatment of dissidents and religious minorities, not only fails to smooth the path of return, but transforms it into one of the most dangerous decisions in an Iranian’s life.

As long as the promise of “safe return” contradicts the reality of “punishment and arrest,” no law, however beautifully written, can address the concerns of millions of Iranians living abroad.