Nournews : The return of Mohsen Namjoo, an Iranian musician, to Iran after nearly two decades abroad is one of the symbolic developments in post-war Iran following the 12-day and 40-day wars. The significance of his return lies in the message it sends to both Iranian society and the country’s system of governance: Has Iran entered a new phase in which “return” can replace “exclusion and elimination”? This question is more strategically important today than ever before.
Recent remarks by Seyyed Abbas Salehi, Iran’s Minister of Culture and Islamic Guidance, about compiling a list of more than 100 Iranian artists, writers, university professors, and other cultural figures living abroad in order to facilitate their return—or even allow them to make short-term visits to Iran—along with comments by the government spokesperson and one of the vice presidents, suggest that the government does not view the issue merely as a cultural matter. Rather, it has defined it as part of a broader effort to rebuild national unity and restore social capital. If this approach develops into a sustained policy, it could become one of the most important signs of a shift toward good governance in Iran and help strengthen that strategy.
For many years, the dominant narrative among some political and cultural decision-makers regarding Iranians living abroad was based on distance, suspicion and, at times, confrontation. Regardless of why they had left the country, many cultural and artistic figures effectively found themselves in a position where a high wall had been built between being “Iranian” and living “abroad.” The result was the loss of part of Iran’s cultural and human capital—capital that carried Iranian language, art and culture not only within the country but also on the international stage.
But the second and third imposed wars, and the response of many prominent Iranians living abroad, changed the equation. During those conflicts, something happened that few had anticipated: a significant number of Iranians abroad, from very different political and intellectual backgrounds, took positions in defense of Iran’s territorial integrity and condemned foreign aggression. Some even paid a price for taking such positions in the media and political environments of the countries where they lived.
This experience revealed an important reality: there is a profound difference between being critical of a government and being opposed to Iran. Many people may criticize the political system while considering their homeland more important than any political disagreement. The government now wants to bring this capital closer to Iran, and if implemented properly, the decision could prove to be one of the most strategically sound choices of the 14th administration.
The principles of good governance emphasize a key point: a successful government is not one that represents only its supporters; it is one that can harness the capacities of the entire society, including its critics, in pursuit of the national interest. Good governance rests on participation, trust, transparency, the rule of law and the effective use of human capital. No country has achieved development by sidelining its intellectuals and cultural figures.
That is why the important remark by the Minister of Culture—that the government does not even expect these individuals to remain in Iran and that it would be enough for them simply to come, see their homeland and then return—carries a meaning far beyond a cultural invitation.
It suggests a potential shift in the government’s relationship with Iranians abroad: from “demanding loyalty” to “building mutual trust.” It means Iran can be a home for all Iranians, even if they do not all think alike.
Today, Iranian society needs to rebuild trust more than ever. In such circumstances, the policy of encouraging Iranians to return home is not merely a cultural initiative; it is a policy of social repair. The return of figures such as Mohsen Namjoo, or of other artists who returned before him, carries a symbolic message for millions of Iranians: the door to returning home is not closed.
A society that has spent years hearing mostly about emigration now needs to hear stories of return as well. Changing that narrative is itself part of rebuilding social hope.
But this is precisely where the government’s most important test begins. Trust is not built through news reports; it is built through experience. If the return of any cultural figure is accompanied by legal uncertainties, contradictory treatment, unclear cases or arbitrary decisions, the message of this policy could quickly disappear. Good governance cannot be based on exceptions; it must be based on rules.
The project of encouraging Iranians abroad to return requires legal security, transparency, predictability and coordination among all relevant institutions. Every Iranian living abroad should know that if they are invited to return, their rights and responsibilities are clearly defined—not that they will face unpredictable circumstances after entering the country.
This is precisely where cultural policy becomes a matter of governance. At the same time, the project should not be reduced to a partisan issue. Its success depends on making Iran, rather than an individual’s political orientation or cultural preferences, the central criterion. Social capital can be restored when society feels that attachment to the homeland comes before political divisions.
Iran today needs a gradual process of national reconciliation—a reconciliation built not through statements and slogans, but through tangible decisions.
Inviting artists, professors, writers and other Iranians living abroad, if accompanied by respect for their dignity and guarantees for their rights, could mark the beginning of such a process. In this sense, the return of artists represents the return of a possibility: the possibility that governance in Iran can move toward a logic of inclusion and attraction, rather than simply managing divisions and deepening them.
Perhaps the greatest achievement of this policy would not be the presence of a few artists in Iran, but the return of a measure of trust among Iranians.
The most important asset of any government is neither natural resources nor hard power, but the trust of its citizens. If that trust can be rebuilt, the return of artists will be only the beginning—a path toward a more cohesive, more hopeful Iran, better able to draw on its own human capital.
Nournews