Shirin Nariman: Iran Analyst and former political prisoner
A new uprising in Iran has injected fresh energy and hope into Iranian society and once again placed the country at the center of global attention. As with every major popular movement, questions quickly arise about leadership. Many observers ask who might emerge as the face of change and who could guide Iran in a post-regime future.
One narrative, promoted by a specific political camp, centers on the former Iranian crown prince, the son of the deposed shah who was overthrown nearly half a century ago. His supporters portray him as a unifying figure. For observers outside Iran, especially those unfamiliar with the country’s internal dynamics, this claim may appear appealing at first glance.
Iran, however, is not a monolithic society. It is a deeply diverse country composed of numerous tribes, ethnic groups, and communities spread across a vast geography. Turks or Azeris, Lurs, Kurds, Arabs, Gilaks, Mazanis, Baluch, Turkmen, and many others live alongside religious and cultural minorities such as Armenians, Assyrians, Jews, Georgians, Circassians, and Tats.
These communities have long memories. Many were suppressed and marginalized during the rise and consolidation of the Pahlavi dynasty, beginning with Reza Khan. From 1925 to 1941, power was imposed through violent centralization. His son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, ruled from 1941 until 1979 and continued many of the same repressive policies.
During this period, numerous patriotic and regional leaders were eliminated. Mirza Kuchik Khan of the Jangal Movement died in 1921. Simko Shikak was killed in 1930. Qazi Muhammad was executed in 1947. Ja‘far Pishevari died the same year. Khosrow Khan Qashqai was executed in 1963 under Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. These names represent only a fraction of a much longer list.
Historically and culturally, many of Iran’s tribes are politically conscious and, in some regions, traditionally armed. Among them exists a deep rooted distrust of monarchy in general and of the Pahlavi dynasty in particular. Elevating a Pahlavi figure as a national leader is therefore not merely unrealistic. It is potentially dangerous.
Beyond ethnic and tribal dynamics, other forces must also be considered. Labor movements and independent syndicates were brutally suppressed under both Pahlavi monarchs. That repression has continued under the Islamic Republic. These constituencies do not view monarchy as a path to justice, dignity, or representation.
Public opinion data reinforces this reality. A recent survey by the GAMAAN Institute in the Netherlands, while not without methodological limitations, found that nearly seventy percent of respondents opposed the restoration of monarchy and favored a republican system. Monarchism lacks broad popular legitimacy inside Iran.
Taken together, these factors point toward a dangerous outcome if Reza Pahlavi were to position himself as Iran’s leader. Certain political camps appear eager to push scenarios that risk fragmenting the country by provoking internal conflict. His return would likely ignite unrest rather than unity, accelerating separatist pressures and encouraging some regions to seek independence.
Such a trajectory would plunge Iran into another violent conflict, with inevitable spillover across the region. This is not a hypothetical concern. It is a foreseeable and preventable disaster.
Moreover, over the years, Reza Pahlavi has repeatedly shifted political positions. At critical moments, his interventions have redirected attention away from grassroots movements inside Iran. Many Iranians believe these actions weakened momentum against the regime during periods when unity, clarity, and courage were most needed.
Iran’s future must be decided by Iranians themselves. They will choose leaders and movements that have stood shoulder to shoulder with them, endured repression alongside them, and paid a real price in the struggle against authoritarian rule. Iran does not need figures imposed from abroad or recycled from a painful past. It needs a future built from within, grounded in lived resistance, social plurality, and collective legitimacy.