As protests rage across Iran, with thousands estimated to have been killed by the regime in nationwide demonstrations, debate continues over Reza Pahlavi’s role in a post-Islamic Republic Iran.
The crown prince has drawn heightened attention after having emerged as a visible and outspoken leader of the protests, directing Iranians to take to the streets. As explained by the Post’s Alex Winston, the crown prince has sought to shape the demonstrations’ momentum, calling for mass demonstrations last week as part of his transition from supporter to leader.
Since Thursday, Pahlavi has continued to direct the protests from exile. On Monday, an address shared on Pahlavi’s social media stated that any institutions responsible for regime propaganda should be regarded as “legitimate targets” for protesters, in remarks that can be interpreted as an attempt to further escalate pressure against the regime.
While such rhetoric underscores his willingness to confront the Islamic Republic and lead the charge, it also drew scrutiny from those concerned about the authorities’ brutal and violent crackdown against protesters.
However, Pahlavi’s role in the protests was legitimized by Iranians themselves, who reinforced his calls with expressions of support.
Crowds shouting 'long live the shah' as protests rage
Crowds have been heard chanting “Javid shah” (long live the shah) in support of a resurgent Pahlavi dynasty. Protesters were also heard chanting, “This is the final battle! Pahlavi will return,” and “The shah will return to the homeland, and [the] zahhak [despot] will be overthrown,” across several demonstrations. These chants suggest that, despite the complex nature of the shah’s position in Iranian culture, there is a tangible base of Iranians willing to openly call for Pahlavi to take the reins.
In addition to street chants, the crown prince’s statements and interviews in international media have increased his visibility among Iranians both inside the country and abroad, shaping perceptions of him as a credible alternative to the Islamic Republic.
Those decrying Pahlavi’s involvement in protests claim his support largely emanates from outside Iran, mainly from within the diaspora and international supporters. Critics argue that Pahlavi’s support in the country is not significant enough to warrant calls for him to lead a transitional government should the regime collapse.
However, as Iran enters its third week of protests, the sentiment is clear: There is a significant group inside Iran that is actively and publicly calling for Pahlavi’s return.
Pahlavi’s reach on social media also paints a similar picture, reinforcing his domestic support. View counts on Pahlavi’s statements on Instagram have dropped dramatically since the regime blocked Internet access throughout the country as part of attempts to stifle unrest.
Pahlavi’s videos, which previously garnered tens of millions of views, have dropped by 80% since Thursday. This signals that a substantial portion of Pahlavi’s audience was tuning in to his addresses from inside Iran.
At the same time, critics argue that elevating Pahlavi risks reviving the very dynamic that helped fuel the 1979 Islamic revolution. While the Pahlavi monarchy did attempt to pursue modernization and pluralistic reforms, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi’s rule was also marked by authoritarian governance and the suppression of political dissent at various periods of his reign.
Pahlavi himself has repeatedly stressed that he does not seek power by inheritance, and that Iran’s future system must be decided through a free referendum, adding that he intends to lead a transitional government that will lay the foundations for a free, democratic Iran.
Ignoring Pahlavi’s role in the conversation about Iran’s future would be disingenuous. His visibility, both abroad and inside the country, demonstrates that he is a figure of significance within the broader Iranian opposition.
Yet, it would be unwise for external observers to rush toward crowning him as Tehran’s future ruler, literally or symbolically. Doing so risks undermining the credibility of the protests, alienating segments of Iranians, and reinforcing narratives propagated by the regime that the protests are controlled by foreign-backed actors.
Pahlavi could, and perhaps should, play a role in the process of establishing a new system of governance. But that decision, as it should be, rests in the hands of the Iranian people.