By: Professor Hossein Saiedian
1 Introduction
For over 45 years, the Iranian people have fought to achieve democracy, freedom, and liberation from the grip of tyranny—whether monarchical or theocratic. Reza Pahlavi, the son of Iran’s last Shah, relying on the name and legacy of a former dictatorial regime, has presented himself as a leader of the Iranian people’s freedom-seeking struggles. Many of his current advisors are individuals with known connections to the current Iranian regime, which further discredits his claims. Farsi-language media, backed by the financial support of foreign governments whose interests conflict with those of the Iranian people, shamelessly promote him and fuel this illusion with selective, nostalgic references to his father’s era—deliberately ignoring the systemic corruption, political repression, and human rights violations of that time.
Reza Pahlavi’s leadership claims, however, are riddled with contradictions that not only undermine his credibility but reveal an anti-democratic and anti-national character. From his indefensible support for repressive military institutions like the IRGC, which embodies the current tyranny, to his overt endorsement of foreign military interventions, his positions lay bare a betrayal of the Iranian people’s aspirations. This article explains why Reza Pahlavi’s leadership claims are not only at odds with the Iranian people’s freedom struggle but constitute a blatant insult to the Iranian people’s desire for a free, sovereign and independent government.
2 Exposing Reza Pahlavi’s Deceptions
2.1 Discrediting Democratic Claims
Reza Pahlavi’s claims to lead a transition from the current regime are utterly discredited by his overt support for the military institutions of the Iranian regime, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), an entity designated as a terrorist organization by the United States and several other countries, with a long history of oppressing the Iranian people and fueling regional conflicts. Any connection or endorsement of the terrorist IRGC not only signals an egregious moral failure but clearly disqualifies him from any democratic leadership aspirations. Democracy cannot be built by relying on hereditary privileges, the tattered robes of monarchy, or affiliations with authoritarian elements.
2.2 Lack of Qualification
Reza Pahlavi lacks any genuine qualifications to lead Iran’s democracy-seeking movement. His only claim to leadership is his familial tie to a toppled dictatorship, a connection that not only grants no legitimacy but binds him to the sinister legacy of his father’s regime—a regime that, through systematic suppression of dissent, human rights violations, and fostering cultural foundations of authoritarianism, sowed the seeds for the establishment of the current theocracy. If his claim to democracy is sincere, the following minimum expectations must be met:
- Explicit Rejection of Hereditary Legitimacy: Reza Pahlavi must publicly and unequivocally renounce any claim to monarchy or hereditary leadership. True democracy and dynastic entitlements are fundamentally incompatible.
- Unconditional Condemnation of the Pahlavi Atrocities: Reza Pahlavi is obligated to explicitly and without reservation condemn the crimes of his father’s dictatorial regime, which included systematic torture, political executions, censorship, and structural corruption. General statements, vague acknowledgments, or belated expressions of regret are neither acceptable nor sufficient. Silence in the face of such documented crimes amounts to tacit endorsement. Failure to unequivocally condemn human rights abuses not only erodes public trust but raises serious concerns that such violations could recur. History shows that silence in the face of human rights atrocities paves the way for their repetition.
- Complete Severance of Ties with Repressive Institutions: The “Shah’s son” must sever all ties, in both rhetoric and action, with remnants of SAVAK, the IRGC, and known enablers of authoritarianism, including advisors with a history of collusion with the current religious dictatorship. These connections are not only an insult to the Iranian people’s struggle for freedom but demonstrate a lack of genuine commitment to democratic and freedom-seeking ideals.
2.3 Support for Foreign Military Interventions
Beyond his disgraceful affiliations with authoritarianism, Reza Pahlavi’s shameful support for foreign military attacks on Iran, alongside his advisors, has completely obliterated his credibility as a political figure. This overt support for foreign war by Pahlavi and his supporters has made a mockery of their claims to patriotism, revealing their nationalist rhetoric as utterly hollow. Their endorsement of operations that endangered civilian lives and devastated some of civilian infrastructure not only reflects complete ignorance of the harsh realities of the Iranian people’s lives but constitutes a blatant betrayal of the sentiments of those he claims to represent.
While many Iranians inside the country and in the diaspora welcomed the elimination of key IRGC commanders responsible for decades of brutal repression and regional warmongering, they never called for the bombing of their homeland. The pain of seeing civilian neighborhoods under threat, the harrowing scenes of explosions and vehicles hurled into the air, the loss of innocent passersby and compatriots, and the humiliation of national pride run deep—even among those who seek regime change. Patriotism cannot be built on the ashes of a foreign war, and true opposition never celebrates the suffering of its own people.
Foreign powers naturally prioritize their own interests, which is precisely why genuine and lasting change in Iran will be realized by the Iranian people themselves. Foreign-induced regime change, even with the best of intentions, often falls short due to self-interest and a lack of understanding of the country’s culture, social dynamics, and history. Such intervention, as history has shown, have had disastrous consequences, as witnessed in Iraq and Libya.
3 Concluding Remarks
Reza Pahlavi’s vision for Iran’s future collapses under the weight of his glaring and treacherous contradictions—from clinging to the legacy of a corrupt monarchy, aligning with remnants of authoritarianism, to openly supporting war and foreign interventions that directly harm the Iranian people. The path to a democratic Iran does not lie with dynastic figures or foreign powers but is rooted in the resilience and unwavering resolve of the Iranian people. Their struggle, manifested in grassroots movements and independent resistance, demands leaders who reflect their sacrifices and aspirations—not those who inherit familial privileges or endorse foreign wars. True change must come from within, driven by the collective will of dedicated forces and a people standing firm to reclaim their sovereignty and dignity.