Honestly, it’s rather appalling for you to go off theorizing about the Finns originating from Huns, as if there hasn't been solid work by archaeologists and linguists for a long time (well over a century now) on these matters. There is really no room any more for the proverbial man on the street to contribute any insights based on his own intuition. It is rather like when laymen post on discussions about dark-matter physics "Hey, what if...?", when actual scientists have long since considered the possibility and rejected it.
The Uralic languages (namely the Finnic and Saamic branches of the family) were already spoken in what is now Finland, northwestern Russia and Estonia in the centuries BC. The Uralic languages had spread gradually over the area both through migration of a hunter-gathering population from Central Russia and language shift to Uralic from substrate populations around the eastern Baltic Sesa.
The Huns, on the other hand, were a federation of steppe pastoralists pushed into migrating west by climate and demographic factors. They spoke different languages entirely, and as steppe pastoralists, they were not very interested in the areas where Finnic and Saamic were spoken. They were hardly even interested in areas of Central Russia just north of their path of migration.
And most other languages in Europe belong to the Indo-European family, not the "Indo-Iranian group" (though there is a Central Asiatic and Indian-subcontinent top-level branch of the Indo-European family known as Indo-Iranian).