Latest news with #Pahlavi
United News of India
3 days ago
- Politics
- United News of India
Iranian exiled crown prince Reza Pahlavi says over 50,000 government officials have joined him to topple Islamic regime
Tehran, July 26 (UNI) At least 50,000 officials from within Iran's government and military have registered with a secure opposition platform aimed at toppling the Islamic Republic, according to Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of Iran's last monarch. Pahlavi, the son of Iran's last monarch overthrown in the 1979 revolution, has long positioned himself as a potential transitional figure in a post-theocratic regime in Iran launched the platform last month, offering defectors from all branches of service- from politics to law and military - a channel to connect and coordinate and formulate strategies for the ouster of the theocratic regime. Speaking to Politico, he said the figure — though still under verification — points to a growing movement from within Iran's own power structures, who are now seeking regime change. 'These are not just numbers — they are signals,' Pahlavi said. 'We are prioritising key figures in the military and intelligence community. Every week, more join. It's a rigorous process, but the response has been tremendous.' 'We estimate over 50,000 so far — and that number continues to grow each week,' he said. 'It's a complex process of verification, but the signals we're receiving are clear. We're prioritising engagement with key individuals in the military and security forces.' Pahlavi also confirmed that a separate site will soon be launched for ordinary citizens to register their support for the opposition campaign. The interview comes ahead of a major opposition summit in Munich today, where the exiled crown prince will convene more than 500 exiled dissidents, including activists, artists, intellectuals, and former athletes. He called the event as one of the most diverse gatherings of Iranian opposition groups outside the country since the revolution. 'This conference is about unity,' he said. 'It shows the emergence of a broad, committed coalition working toward a democratic, secular Iran.' Participants in the event titled 'Convention of National Cooperation' have endorsed three core principles: preserving Iran's territorial integrity, ensuring equal rights and freedoms for all citizens, and establishing a clear separation between religion and state. Despite his attempts at projecting himself as a transitional figure should the Islamic Republic collapse, Pahlavi has received a lot of criticism over the years, owing to his perceived failure to unite the fractured opposition during his decades abroad, while some also view his royal heritage as a liability in the establishment of a democratic Iran. During the conference, he said that he aims to address the concerns of all parties and boost the morale of Iranians inside the country, who are expected to watch the event through smuggled satellite networks such as Starlink. The development comes as Iran has resumed negotiations over its nuclear program with European powers in Turkey, following the US-Israeli airstrikes on Iranian military and nuclear facilities in June. Pahlavi has dismissed the talks, warning that they are merely a stalling tactic for Tehran to buy more time. 'This regime is not negotiating in good faith,' he said. 'Change has to come from within — and we're beginning to see the first signs.' UNI ANV GNK
Epoch Times
3 days ago
- Politics
- Epoch Times
At Munich Convention, Iran's Crown Prince Declares Opposition to Islamic Regime
Iran's Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi declared on July 26 that 'a united opposition' to the Islamic dictatorship that has held power for more than 40 years was finally coming together as hundreds of people gathered in Munich on July 26 for the Convention of National Cooperation to Save Iran. Pahlavi's communications team described it as 'the largest, most diverse gathering of Iranian dissidents united for a democratic Iran,' with more than 500 people attending to create 'the most diverse coalition ever established against the regime.'
Memri
11-07-2025
- Politics
- Memri
Afghan Media Outlet: 'Will Israel Become Depopulated?'; Israel Assumed Iran War Would Be A Short-Term Conflict That Would Conclude With A Lightning-Fast Collapse Of The Islamic Republic
Recently, a Dari-language Telegram channel Bazgasht News published an article titled "Will Israel Become Depopulated?" arguing that the 12-day war with Iran has severely strained Israel's economy, infrastructure, and public morale, with military spending reaching up to $300 million per day. The article asserts that Israeli military doctrine presumed that the 12-day war would quickly cause the collapse of the Iranian regime. "On the contrary, Israel's attack on Iran caused the overwhelming majority of the Iranian people to oppose Israel, except for a minority of supporters of the Pahlavi monarchy who are optimistic about Israel, because usually a foreign war brings internal cohesion," the article reads. The piece seems to have been written when the Iran-Israel war was yet to end. Following is a translation: "The [October 7, 2023] Hamas Jihadist Attack... That Killed More Than 1,200 Israelis, Further Reinforced The Perception That Israel Will Never Be A Safe Place To Live" "Will Israel Become Depopulated? "Author: Shafiqullah Shafiq "While both sides of the war (the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Israeli regime) are facing detrimental economic consequences, according to media estimates, Israel's military spending is estimated at $200 to $300 million per day. In addition to the huge costs of the war, the destruction of infrastructure, the closure of economic ports and businesses have caused the severe devastation of the Israeli economy and situation. "On the other hand, Iran, while also suffering from crippling sanctions, will experience more problems as the war continues. But what weakens Israel's ability to continue the war are its rootless social and human structures. "On the one hand, Israel has a small population and a very limited geography; on the other hand, almost all of its citizens are dual citizens. The continuation of the war and the increasing dangers create the impression: Is a secret living [in bunkers] and violence worth staying there [in Israel]? "The Hamas jihadist attack... [of October 7, 2023], which killed more than 1,200 Israelis, further reinforced the perception that Israel will never be a safe place to live, even though the Israeli regime has brutally killed more than 50,000 Palestinian women, children, and civilians in retaliation." "With The Escalation Of The War With The Islamic Republic Of Iran And The Resulting Devastation, The Question Has Become Even More Serious: How Can Israel Become A Safe Place?" "However, the main source of Israeli anger so far stems from the serious question of survival, because sufficient guarantees for the survival and lasting trust of a secure Israel cannot simply be reversed. In recent days, with the escalation of the war with the Islamic Republic of Iran and the resulting devastation, the question has become even more serious: How can Israel become a safe place? "Security has not been achieved with anger and blood, fire and gunpowder, for 70 years; security has not been guaranteed with advanced military equipment and the Iron Dome. Therefore, in the first days of the war, the Israeli government symbolically tried to highlight its main political and national weakness with extensive media coverage in order to return its citizens from Cyprus so that the enemy would not use this gap to launch psychological warfare. "However, the reality on the ground, albeit censored, when reflected in the English-language media, shows that the motivation to live in Israel exists only among the religious and military elite. Once Israel's borders are opened, the land will be severely emptied as the recent wars continue. "For this reason, in most cases, Israeli military doctrine emphasizes strong and decisive attacks in the early days. Even the perception of the war with Iran, like Israel's six-day attack on the Arab states and Egypt in 1967, was analyzed as a short-term [conflict] that would come to a lightning-fast conclusion, that is, the Islamic Republic would collapse due to a military leadership vacuum, internal disputes, and pressure from the Iranian people, or, as President [Donald] Trump put it, 'unconditional surrender.'" "The Winner Of A War Is The One Who Endures It The Longest – Typically, Non-Democratic Governments, Which Are Less Subject To Public Opinion, Are More Patient And Persistent Than Democratic Governments" "On the contrary, Israel's attack on Iran caused the overwhelming majority of the Iranian people to oppose Israel, except for a minority of supporters of the Pahlavi monarchy who are optimistic about Israel, because usually a foreign war brings internal cohesion. "On the other hand, it is understood that the military intervention of the United States of America alongside the Israeli military can be interpreted more as aiming to rebuild the morale and collective psyche of the residents of Israel. And on the other hand, it may pave the way for an end to the war, unless the Islamic Republic launches more widespread attacks on U.S. regional bases. "Finally, there is a famous adage in international relations: The winner of a war is the one who endures it the most. Typically, non-democratic governments, which are less subject to public opinion, are more patient and persistent than democratic governments." Source: Telegram, June 24, 2025.
Yahoo
07-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The hit that wasn't: When Saddam Hussein offered to kill Khomeini and the Shah said no
This decision, made quietly, cautiously, and with the best of intentions, reshaped the fate of a nation and the entire region. Saddam Hussein could have changed everything. In an ironic twist, the Iraqi dictator responsible for countless deaths across the Middle East once had the chance to eliminate the leader of the Iranian Revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, and potentially save the region from 46 years of the Islamic Republic, the Iran hostage crisis, and even the Iran-Iraq War. In the complex world of Middle Eastern power politics, there are moments that fade into silence, left unrecorded except in the memories of spies, ministers, and monarchs. One such moment came in the 1970s when Saddam Hussein, then Iraq's vice president but already the regime's dominant power, is believed to have made an extraordinary offer to the shah of Iran: to assassinate Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the exiled cleric agitating against the Pahlavi regime from a dusty corner of Najaf. The shah declined. According to Iranian exiles, intelligence veterans, and biographers of the period, the offer was made discreetly, possibly even during a backchannel encounter at the United Nations. The message was clear: Saddam, already suspicious of Khomeini's influence among Iraq's Shia population, was willing to 'solve' Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi's Khomeini problem permanently. The shah, however, refused to engage in political assassination, reportedly saying: 'We are not in the business of killing clerics.' It is a moment lost to official archives but remembered in the margins of memoirs and whispered by those who lived through the dying days of Iran's monarchy. Conflicting timelines make it impossible to construct a direct timeline. However, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the fundamental points are accurate. It is also a story with enduring consequences, one of those rare 'what if' moments where history is balanced on the edge. KHOMEINI HAD been exiled from Iran since 1964 after delivering a searing denunciation of the shah's 'White Revolution,' which he accused of betraying Islam and serving Western imperialists. After a brief refuge in Turkey, he was granted asylum in Iraq, where he settled in the Shia holy city of Najaf, a center of clerical learning. While the shah likely hoped Khomeini would fade into obscurity, the opposite happened. From a modest home near the shrine of Imam Ali, the Ayatollah recorded sermons on cassette tapes that were smuggled across the border into Iran. These tapes, often distributed in bazaars and mosques, became political dynamite. As his reach grew, so too did Saddam Hussein's concerns. The Ba'ath regime in Iraq was secular, Arab nationalist, and increasingly authoritarian. Khomeini's pan-Shia rhetoric posed a direct threat to Iraqi control over its Shia majority. It was only a matter of time before Saddam concluded that harboring Khomeini wasn't worth the trouble. One version says that the offer was conveyed by an Iraqi diplomat to an Iranian envoy at the United Nations in the context of warming relations after the Algiers Agreement, which resolved a territorial dispute between the two regimes. The shah's last ambassador to the United States, Ardeshir Zahedi, remembered, 'I was at the UN. Iraq's foreign minister brought us a message from Saddam. Saddam offered us a choice. He would expel Khomeini or eliminate him.' In his book, The Spirit of Allah, Amir Taheri, former editor of the daily newspaper Kayhan, describes a dramatic moment in September 1978: An unscheduled Iraqi Airways Boeing landed in Tehran with a single passenger, Barzan al-Tikriti, Saddam Hussein's half-brother and head of Iraqi intelligence. He was driven directly to the Shah's Niavaran Palace, then dimly lit amid rolling blackouts ordered by Khomeini's followers. Barzan delivered a message from Saddam: 'His Majesty must stand firm. Iraq is prepared to help in every way.' He strongly hinted that Iraq could arrange the 'physical liquidation' of the troublesome mullah. 'The shah, expressing his gratitude for President Hussein's concern and offer of help, ruled out any suggestion of organizing an unfortunate accident for Khomeini,' Taheri wrote. 'Instead, however, he asked the Iraqis to force the ayatollah to leave their country. Barzan instantly agreed.' THE SHAH, though deeply threatened by Khomeini's growing influence, rejected the offer. His reasoning has been the subject of debate. Some believe it was moral restraint, a belief that political murder, especially of a revered cleric, was unthinkable. Others argue it was a matter of optics and legacy: the shah wanted to be seen as a modernizing monarch, not a mafioso. The shah's widow, Queen Farah, who has spent 46 years living in exile, told the BBC in an interview, 'In those days, we thought if someone would get rid of Khomeini, he would become a martyr or someone greater.' Taheri concurred, writing, 'The reason why the shah refused to have Khomeini murdered was plain enough: such a move would have inflamed passions in Iran beyond all possible control.' Whatever his motivation, the decision proved fateful. While the archives of SAVAK, the shah's feared intelligence service, were largely destroyed after the revolution, former officers have confirmed that they monitored Khomeini's every move. Parviz Sabeti, a top SAVAK official, has admitted in interviews that the agency was aware of Iraq's frustrations with Khomeini and that Saddam 'might have been willing to go further.' But, he said, the shah was firm: Iran did not engage in assassinations abroad. There were certainly other ways the shah pressured Iraq. Diplomatic cables suggest that Tehran pressured Baghdad to restrict Khomeini's access to the press and his students. The Ba'ath regime, always transactional, obliged for a time. However, the shah never followed through on a permanent solution. In October 1978, under growing internal unrest and renewed Iranian pressure, Saddam expelled Khomeini from Iraq, hoping it would end the problem. Instead, it amplified his reach beyond anything seen before. Khomeini fled to Neauphle-le-Château, just outside the French capital of Paris, where he had unfettered access to the press, telephone, and international media. There, his daily statements were faxed and broadcast into Iran, and he gave between five and six interviews a day to foreign media. Young Iranians spread across the diaspora poured into Neauphle-le-Château to join Khomeini and became a part of history. Najaf's whispers became a roar in Tehran. Within four months, the shah was gone. WHY WAS Khomeini, then an elderly cleric, with his spartan way of life, such a threat? On paper, he was just a religious scholar in exile, with no army, no political party, and no territory. But in reality, he had something far more powerful that appealed to those disaffected with the shah's regime: an ideology, based on Islamic purity, and a message that resonated across all classes and regions of Iran. He fused Shia martyrdom theology with anti-imperial revolution, offering a worldview that cast the shah as both a heretic and a puppet. He didn't need to be charismatic, as his austerity and refusal to compromise became his strengths. Saddam recognized this threat earlier than most. So did SAVAK. But the shah, whether from pride or principle, failed to act decisively. When Saddam invaded Iran in 1980 to begin the Iran-Iraq War, he believed the new Islamic Republic was weak and divided and would fall within weeks. He was wrong. The war dragged on for eight brutal years, killing over a million people and involving the use of child soldiers and chemical weapons. Saddam would eventually execute scores of Shia clerics inside Iraq, trying to stamp out the ideological fire Khomeini had helped ignite. As for the shah, he died in exile of cancer in 1980, never returning to the country he ruled for nearly four decades. Had he accepted Saddam's offer, would things have been different? Would Iran have taken a different path? Perhaps one toward democracy, a constitutional monarchy, or at least a less theocratic state? It's impossible to know. However, what is certain is this: One decision, made quietly, cautiously, and with the best of intentions, reshaped the fate of a nation and the entire region.
LeMonde
05-07-2025
- Politics
- LeMonde
The opportune return of Reza Pahlavi, Iran's crown prince, following US airstrikes
A discreet activist Reza Pahlavi, 64, always reemerges on screens whenever the mullahs' regime in Iran appears close to collapse. The crown prince of Tehran's last royal dynasty – the Pahlavis, ousted by the 1979 revolution – has ridden the shockwave of the June 21 US airstrikes on Iranian nuclear sites. Although caught off guard by the ceasefire declared by Donald Trump on June 24, the prince, who is based in the United States, has not given up preparing for what comes next. On June 30, Pahlavi was in London to meet with British lawmakers. On social media, he promoted an online mailbox for members of the Islamic Republic's security services who might consider switching sides. In Washington, his lobbyists have been championing a bill in Congress known as the Maximum Support Act for the Iranian people. This activism aims to support the next wave of protests. A polite democrat Wearing a black suit closely fitted across his chest and a tie in the signature blue of the former regime – shimmering and textured in the American style – Pahlavi offered his services on the eve of the ceasefire between Iran and Israel on June 23 in Paris. Before dozens of international media outlets, including Le Monde, gathered at a Maison de la Chimie, an international conference center, event, he declared himself "ready to lead the political transition" in his country.
