Appearing on Semicolons and Teardrops in the Middle East, Iranian human rights researcher Saeede Mokhtarzade discussed the legal difficulties facing migrant women and the failure of international media coverage to centre the lives of ordinary Iranians.
Iranian researcher Saeede Mokhtarzade has highlighted how women’s pursuit of justice can be complicated by conflicting family laws, insecure immigration status and the pressures of living under an authoritarian regime.
Mokhtarzade appeared on Semicolons and Teardrops in the Middle East, a podcast about “living in, and reflecting on, human lives across division”. The programme is hosted by Nathan J. Brown, Professor of Political Science and International Affairs at George Washington University.
In a wide-ranging and deeply personal conversation, Mokhtarzade discussed her doctoral research on Iranian migrant women’s access to justice. She also reflected on Islamic feminism, authoritarianism, the importance of distinguishing a country’s people from its government, and the disproportionate character of international media coverage.
Mokhtarzade studied law and Islamic jurisprudence in her native Iran before moving to Europe in 2019. After continuing her education in Germany, she moved to Galway, Ireland, where she is now pursuing a PhD in human rights. Her research examines how Iranian migrant women navigate the contradictions between Iran’s Islamic family law and the secular legal systems of European countries.
At the centre of her work is a difficult question: what happens when a marriage established under Iranian law must be addressed within a markedly different secular jurisdiction?
Mokhtarzade explained that obtaining a civil divorce in Europe may not necessarily end a woman’s marriage under Iranian law. Women can consequently remain subject to legal obligations or restrictions in Iran, even after their marriages have been formally dissolved in their countries of residence.
One particularly serious concern involves freedom of movement. Under Iranian law, a husband may, in certain circumstances, prevent his wife from leaving the country. An Iranian woman living abroad may therefore fear that returning to Iran to visit her family could leave her unable to travel back to Europe.
Similar contradictions arise in relation to child custody and mahr, the financial entitlement established through an Islamic marriage contract. Migrant women may therefore have to navigate two legal systems with very different understandings of marriage, divorce and women’s rights.
Immigration status and domestic violence
Mokhtarzade’s interest in these questions developed partly through her experience as an interpreter for asylum seekers in Germany. While assisting women who had experienced domestic violence, she observed that their immediate concerns often extended beyond leaving an abusive relationship.
Some feared that reporting their partners or seeking formal assistance could threaten their right to remain in the country and expose them to deportation to Iran. Others wanted protection from abusive partners but did not want those partners to be deported.
Mokhtarzade emphasised that these women should not be represented simply as passive victims. Despite confronting violence, linguistic barriers, insecure immigration status and social isolation, they carefully evaluated the choices available to them.
“They had very strong agency,” she explained. “They were conscious of their situation and were actively exploring what kinds of support and solutions were available.”
Their experiences demonstrate that justice does not always have a single or straightforward meaning. A response that appears appropriate to the police or courts may not correspond to what a woman considers safest for herself and her children.
The limitations of Islamic feminism
During the conversation, Mokhtarzade also reflected on her changing relationship with Islamic feminism. While studying in Iran, she had been inspired by attempts to challenge patriarchal interpretations of Islamic law and develop more egalitarian readings of religious sources.
She nevertheless underlined that these efforts had not brought sufficiently transformative changes to the lives of Iranian women. Although Islamic feminist scholarship may challenge interpretations historically dominated by male religious authorities, she argued that its gradual approach remains inadequate in the face of systematic gender inequality.
Her position was shaped by her experience of legal education in Iran, where she found limited space to question the religious foundations of the country’s legal system. Studying human rights subsequently introduced her to an academic environment in which gender equality, religious freedom and the relationship between law and political authority could be examined more openly.
Separating Iranian people from their government
The conversation eventually moved from women’s legal rights to the international representation of Iran. Mokhtarzade argued that foreign media often discuss the country through the interests and domestic debates of other states, particularly the United States.
Such coverage may concentrate on governments, political leaders and geopolitical confrontation while overlooking the experiences of ordinary Iranians living with the consequences of both authoritarian repression and international conflict.
“Sometimes I feel that real people are absent from these narratives,” she said. “Their experiences are neglected, even though millions of people are living through pressure from their own government and the effects of war.”
At the same time, Mokhtarzade criticised accounts that oppose Western policies by minimising repression within Iran. Criticising war or external intervention, she suggested, should not require commentators to soften or “sugar-coat” the realities of life under authoritarian rule.
Her intervention underlined the importance of separating Iranian people from the government that rules them. Iranians should not be treated as extensions of the state or reduced to passive subjects of geopolitical competition. They have their own political demands, experiences and disagreements.
This distinction is especially important for Iranian women. Their struggles for legal equality, personal autonomy and political freedom can easily disappear from international narratives dominated by military strategy and relations between states.
Throughout the interview, Mokhtarzade connected intimate experiences with wider structures of power: marriage and divorce, migration and domestic violence, authoritarian rule and international conflict. She conveyed these experiences thoughtfully and delicately, without concealing their emotional and personal weight.
Her central message was that Iranian women must be heard on their own terms, not simply portrayed as victims, symbols of oppression or supporting characters in political debates taking place elsewhere. Understanding their lives requires recognising both the restrictions imposed upon them and the agency with which they continue to pursue justice and freedom.