Latest news with #RezaPahlavi
Time of India
21 hours ago
- Politics
- Time of India
The 'Iran-Israel' war; Russia's intensified attacks on Ukraine: The week that was in international affairs
Welcome back to another edition of My Take 5, your roundup of top international news. It has been a week of heavy geopolitical developments centred on the 12-day Iran-Israel war. So let's get to it: Iran-Israel war: After an intense 12-day conflict between Iran and Isreal that saw the US bomb Tehran's nuclear sites, a tentative ceasefire appears to be holding. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now But the big question everyone is asking is: What was it all about? Israel claims Iran was weeks away from making a nuclear bomb. Hence it had to act quickly and destroy Iran's capabilities. Thus, it launched Operation Rising Lion by hitting Iranian military assets and nuclear sites. Note, however, that Netanyahu has been making statements about how close Iran is to a bomb for years. Nonetheless, the US joined him this time to hit Iran's nuclear programme. Now there's a big debate whether the strikes on Iranian nuclear sites actually served their purpose, especially the targeting of the facility in Fordow buried deep below a mountain. Some initial assessments say the damage was something that can be repaired by the Iranians within months. Add to this reports that Iranians may have moved critical equipment and uranium stockpiles much in advance of the strikes, and the whole 'degrading Iran's nuclear programme' narrative begins to look iffy. Plus, the Ayatollahs in Tehran are still in their place, negating any talk of regime change for the time being. So what did this short war achieve? Will Iran give up its nuclear programme? No. Will it give up its proxies in the region? No. Has Iran taken a hit? Yes, but so has Israel. Can Iran recover its nuclear project? Yes, knowledge and tech expertise can't be destroyed. Are the Ayatollahs still in charge? Yes. Will Iran continue to support the Palestinian cause? Yes. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now So, all that the war has done is given a brief preview of what a full-scale war in West Asia involving Israel, US and Iran may look like. Strategically, however, there are two points to be noted. First, in this conflict Israeli jets were able to freely fly from their home base through Syria and Iraq to Iran, establishing aerial dominance. This means that Syria allowed the Israeli flyovers and Iraq, though complained, couldn't or wouldn't stop the Israeli jets on their way to bombing Iran. This represents a fundamental strategic re-alignment in West Asia that increases Israel's military leverage. Second, it is my analysis that since the Assad regime's fall in Syria last December, US and Israel appear to be keen on strategically remaking West Asia. The objective here is to drag in Russia and China. If the latter take the bait, they will be bogged down here for years. So far they have resisted the temptation. But if there is a push for regime change in Iran via proxies or local opposition forces, Russia and China are unlikely to stay away. With the former Crown Prince of Iran Reza Pahlavi calling for Ayatollah Khamenei to step down, this story isn't over yet. But if Moscow in particular does get involved at some stage, it would mean pulling its military resources away from Ukraine and Europe. The Washington establishment then would have killed two birds with one stone. Russia intensifies attacks on Ukraine: Russia continues to intensify its attacks on Ukraine with huge numbers of drones and missiles targeting Ukrainian cities and civilian infrastructure. After the devastating images of the Russian attacks on Kyiv in recent days where residential buildings were targeted and turned to rubble, this week the city of Dnipro was hit, killing at least 19 and injuring more than 300. A Ukrainian passenger train travelling from Odesa to Zaporizhzhia was also struck in the Dnipro strike, but luckily there were no fatalities. Russia is no longer hiding the fact that it is targeting Ukrainian civilians. The recent intensity of its barrages shows that the aim is not only to inflict damage but also to break the spirits of the Ukrainian people. The latter, however, will not happen. Through more than three years of war, Ukrainians have proved themselves to be really resilient. And they will fight for their country and freedom every inch of the way. That said, the fight has certainly become tougher for Kyiv given that American military aid has practically stopped. There is a serious crunch of air defence ammunition. The Ukrainians will be forced to improvise – which they have anyway done throughout the course of the war – but Russian attacks will slip through the gaps in the meantime. Meanwhile, at an Economic Forum, actually said that all of Ukraine belongs to Russia. It's clear, therefore, that Moscow has no intention of ending this war on its own. It feels no pressure to negotiate. So the US strategy – as evidenced by the Nato summit this week where the summit declaration was perceived to be relatively weak on Russia – of negotiating an end to the war isn't working. Moscow is just taking Washington for a ride and making maximalist demands that can never be agreed to – it has also been suggested in recent days that Nato should withdraw from the Baltics to end the war in Ukraine. Washington would do well to see through Moscow's tactics. Baltics prepare: As a direct result of the Russian threat, construction of the Baltic Defence Line has begun in south-eastern Estonia with the digging of anti-tank ditches. This comes on top of the Baltic states, Poland and Finland already withdrawing from the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention. The Baltics are clearly cognisant of the threat posed by Russia. In fact, on a trip to Estonia last month, this writer witnessed first hand Estonia's solidarity with Ukraine, not just in words but through actions such as supply of key defence platforms, dual-use tech and training to Kyiv. Estonia is facing relentless Russian – and Chinese – cyberattacks from which it has to defence itself constantly. It is also at the receiving end of Moscow's intimidation and grey-zone tactics. Therefore, Europe as a whole should coordinate more with Eastern Europe, specifically the Baltics, to monitor the security challenges posed by Russia. Raising defence spend to 5% of GDP by 2035, as agreed to at the latest Nato summit, is no longer an academic exercise. It is an imperative for the continent to meet its 21st century defence needs. India-China border: India's defence minister called on China to permanently settle the border dispute between the two countries. This is significant because it shows intent on New Delhi's part to bury this long-pending thorn in India-China ties. After the 2020 Galwan clashes between the two militaries, India has been clear that it cannot be business as usual in bilateral ties unless the border issue is addressed. While some progress has been made on disengagement and patrolling at the contested sites in eastern Ladakh that had become flashpoints in 2020, the Indian military is not lowering its guard. The truth is China doesn't want to resolve the border issue. Politically, this helps the Chinese Communist Party because it can use the border issue to put pressure on India whenever it wants. This is Beijing's way of keeping a check on New Delhi and making sure it doesn't get too far ahead in South Asia. There is no reason why India should play along here. We need to call out Beijing's strategy and force it to clear its intentions. If It is not interested in solving the border issue, then it's a clear sign that China will never accept India as an equal partner. China can't have its cake and eat it too. It must choose between positive ties with India after a border settlement, or no meaningful business with New Delhi. Full bilateral ties can't be realised without settling the border question. Myanmar elections: Myanmar's junta administration has hinted at elections in December this year and January next year. This is an extraordinary proposition. The junta has locked up and executed a huge number of people associated with the previous civilian administration, it has lost vast tracts of territory to armed rebel groups, and most democratic opposition groups will boycott the polls under these circumstances anyway. Therefore, even if the polls go ahead, it is difficult to see how they will be free and fair, or truly representative of the will of the people of the country. The junta is simply trying to attain some legitimacy for itself through these polls. It won't work.
India Today
2 days ago
- Politics
- India Today
From Shah to Supreme Leader: Iran's Islamic revolution unfolds
This is the final instalment in a series exploring the complex history of US-Iran relations. Part 1 examined the geopolitical context leading to the 1953 coup, and Part 2 detailed the CIA's role in ousting Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, paving the way for Shah Reza Pahlavi's we trace the Shah's modernisation efforts, the rise of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, and the 1979 Islamic Revolution that reshaped Iran and its ties with the United by the CIA (see parts 1 and 2) in ousting his rival, the nationalist Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, Shah Reza Pahlavi started a reign of reform and social revolution. Under him, Tehran, the capital, became a modern cosmopolitan centre modeled on cities of the West. But, the Shah's secular, modern vision antagonised the clergy, pitting him against his greatest adversary, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Khomeyn, 1902 Born in 1902 in Khomeyn, a historic city in Iran's Markazi Province, Ruhollah Mostafavi Musavi Khomeini grew up in a fertile plain 160 km from Qom, a key religious center. Khomeini's father, a cleric, was murdered when he was an infant, leaving him to be raised by his deeply religious mother. Her influence shaped his devout outlook, which he deepened through Islamic scholarship in distinguished himself as a scholar, earning the prestigious title of Ayatollah ('Sign of God'), the highest rank for a Shia cleric. Under the Shah's secular regime, conservative Islam was marginalised, with modern laws replacing Islamic jurisprudence and secular education overshadowing religious studies. Without the Shah's missteps, Khomeini might have remained a respected but obscure teacher in Qom.1963, The White RevolutionLeveraging Iran's position in the OPEC, the Shah played a pivotal role in driving oil prices up during his reign. With the coffers overflowing, he pumped money into infrastructure, believing that development will bring prosperity to urban citizens. Simultaneously, he started the White Revolution, a series of bold reforms that broke up large estates owned by feudal landlords and redistributed land to peasants, aiming to reduce rural poverty and weaken the traditional landowning elite. The Shah also granted women the right to vote, access to education, and greater participation in public life, aligning Iran with Western gender reforms alienated powerful groups. Landowners resented the loss of their estates, and the clergy, particularly conservative Shia scholars, opposed the Shah's secular policies, which sidelined Islamic law and emerged as a vocal critic, denouncing the Shah's policies as un-Islamic and a betrayal of Iran's cultural and religious identity. He delivered fiery sermons in Qom, accusing the Shah of kowtowing to Western powers, particularly the United States and Israel, and undermining Iran's rhetoric resonated with the disgruntled landowners, the urban poor, and devout Muslims. His outspoken criticism led to his arrest in June 1963, and eventually exile. Banished by the Shah, Khomeini first settled in Turkey but soon moved to Najaf, Iraq, a major Shia religious Shah was to pay a huge price for turning Khomeini into a pillar of Man of the WestIn Washington, DC, 1972, President Richard Nixon saw Iran as a linchpin in the Cold War. Under the Nixon Doctrine, Iran became America's proxy in the Persian Gulf, a counter against Soviet influence. Nixon told advisors, 'The Shah's our man,' arming Iran to the teeth with jets, tanks, missiles, and military technology. In return, Iran's oil fueled Western economies, and its markets opened to American firms. The Shah's pro-Western stance, however, deepened domestic resentment, with many Iranians viewing him as a US the late 1970s, the Shah's reforms had created a paradox: economic growth alongside social unrest. Oil wealth enriched elites but left the urban poor and rural communities struggling. Inflation and unemployment soared, and the regime's SAVAK secret police crushed dissent, fuelling anger. Dissent was muzzled, rivals were jailed without trial, and the unlucky ones were summarily amplified the resentment with his fiery sermons. His recorded speeches were smuggled via cassette tapes into Iran. Played in mosques, bazaars, and homes, his messages condemned the Shah's secularism, Western influence, and perceived betrayal of Islamic values. Khomeini's vision of an Islamic government, rooted in Velayat-e Faqih (Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist), promised justice and sovereignty, uniting disparate groups: devout Muslims, disenfranchised workers, students, and even secular nationalists opposed to the Shah's from the masses, unaware of ground realities, the Shah was busy in his palace, holding grand parties with celebrities and receptions for visiting leaders. 'A modern nation like Iran will never accept the medieval ideology of mullahs,' he told his followers. Unbeknownst to him, a volcano was waiting to 1978: The SparkThe spark came in January 1978, when a government-backed newspaper published an article slandering Khomeini, calling him a traitor and questioning his piety. Outraged, theology students and clerics in Qom protested, only to be met with lethal force from security forces. Dozens were killed, igniting nationwide demonstrations. The protests followed a Shia tradition of mourning the dead on the 40th day, creating a cycle of demonstrations, killings, and further mourning that swelled public mid-1978, strikes paralysed key industries, including oil production, Iran's economic lifeline. Workers, bazaar merchants, and intellectuals joined the movement. Khomeini's calls for the Shah's ouster grew louder, amplified by BBC Persian broadcasts and Western media. In September, the Black Friday massacre in Tehran, where security forces killed scores of protesters in Jaleh Square, marked a point of no return. Public opinion hardened, and even moderate Iranians turned against the Shah, increasingly isolated, vacillated between concessions and crackdowns. In a televised broadcast, he promised free elections and loosened press censorship, but these gestures were too late. His stuttering speech and frail demeanour emboldened his opponents, convinced that the autocratic leader's resolve and hold was October 1978, under pressure from Iraq, Khomeini had relocated to Paris. At his modest apartment in Neauphle-le-Chateau, where he was welcomed by the French government and elite, the global media gave him a megaphone. His image—stern, bearded, cloaked in black—became a symbol of Shah Flees, Khomeini ReturnsBy January 1979, the Shah's regime was crumbling. Strikes crippled the economy, and mass protests, often led by women and students, filled the streets. One afternoon, the fresh fragrance of sangak, the traditional Persian bread, made with hot stones in a blazing oven, mingled with the air. Standing in long queues, customers discussed the Shah's fate when a Molotov cocktail shattered the silence. Within minutes, an angry crowd burst through the smoke, pulling Major General Taghi Latifi, a ranking officer of the Shah's police, from his car. He was dragged through the streets and beaten by a huge crowd near Tehran University. On January 16, 1979, Shah Reza Pahlavi left Iran for Egypt, officially for a 'vacation,' hoping to return. But it was to be his departure left a power vacuum. A provisional government under Prime Minister Shapour Bakhtiar, a moderate nationalist, took over. But real power now vested in February 1, 1979, Khomeini returned to Iran after 15 years in exile. His Air France flight, carrying journalists and supporters, landed in Tehran to a rapturous welcome. Over a million Iranians flooded the streets, chanting his name. Khomeini, settled in a school in northern Tehran, refusing to negotiate with Bakhtiar's government and declaring it February 11, 1979, after clashes between loyalist troops and revolutionary militias, the military declared neutrality, and Bakhtiar's government collapsed. Khomeini appointed Mehdi Bazargan, a liberal Islamist, as interim prime minister to oversee a transition to an Islamic Republic. A referendum in April 1979, with 98% approval, established the Islamic Republic of Iran, with Khomeini as its Supreme Final StrawKhomeini spewed poison on the US, calling it the 'Great Satan' with Israel as its regional stooge. His agenda of hate triggered the biggest showdown between Islamist forces and Washington. On November 4, 1979, college students, most of them in their teens, stormed the US Embassy in Tehran, saying they would stage a peaceful sit-in. But they took the embassy staff hostage, sparking a 444-day and bound, diplomats were paraded before cameras. In Washington, Carter's presidency was tested through the crisis. Nightly news broadcasts counted the days, America's pride bruised with each passing crisis strained US-Iran relations, and reshaped international diplomacy, positioning Tehran as Washington's biggest adversary in the Middle East.- EndsMust Watch
India Today
2 days ago
- Politics
- India Today
Iran executes 'spies', widens espionage definition to include social media
Following days of conflict with Israel, Iran has turned its attention inward, intensifying a domestic crackdown framed as a response to foreign infiltration. The government has sharply widened its definition of espionage to include even basic social media activity, warning that following, liking, or commenting on accounts linked to Israel could now be treated as a criminal June 25, Iran executed three Kurdish men accused of collaborating with Mossad, just a day after passing a new law expanding the definition of legislation labels collaboration with "hostile governments" like Israel and the US as "corruption on Earth," punishable by death. It also criminalises activities such as cyber warfare, weapons trafficking, and sharing content with foreign media, targeting activists and citizen journalists with harsh now even social media have been added to the directives from the Justice Ministry of Ministry issued a nationwide warning that merely following or interacting with social media accounts "affiliated with the Zionist regime" could be prosecuted as a criminal mass messages to citizens, the ministry threatened legal action against those who follow, like, or comment on such decades, Israel's spy agency has built an extensive espionage network in the Islamic Republic, the depth of which was on display in the recent Israeli offensive on June as Israeli jets bombed Iran at will, precision weapons and armed drones smuggled into the country were used to shoot down Iranian anti-aircraft missiles from inside the Iranian regime uses its action against alleged spies as a cover to crack down on critics and CUT, FREEDOMS CURBED BY IRANIAN REGIMEDuring the war with Israel, the Iranian government cut off internet access nationwide, claiming that Israel was using the network for military to local sources cited by The Guardian, only correspondents affiliated with state-approved foreign media were granted limited domestic messaging apps remain functional, many young Iranians say they don't trust their media also reported that the intelligence services uncovered a group allegedly trying to contact supporters of Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of Iran's last those arrested were civil rights activist and former political prisoner Hamid Dastvaneh and Feizollah Azarnoush, whose teenage son Pedram was killed by security forces during the 2022 arrests were reported in Lorestan, Kermanshah and other provinces, where authorities claimed to have exposed "cyber activists supporting Israel."To enforce the crackdown, militia units have established inspection checkpoints at the entrances and exits of major cities, searching mobile phones for messages, images, or apps deemed CITIZENS AND ACTIVISTS LIVE UNDER FEARadvertisementThe clampdown has drawn sharp criticism from human rights advocates and legal experts, who warn that the law's vague and expansive definitions could lead to the prosecution of ordinary citizens under charges of espionage."The definitions of espionage it provides are very broad," Hussein Raisi, a legal scholar at Carleton University told Iran Wire. "Classifying many of these cases as corruption on Earth is inappropriate from both Islamic and common law perspectives.""There's a great danger that this law will become a tool to prosecute ordinary people at the bottom of society, instead of dealing with actual agents with access to classified information," Raisi fear the regime will use this moment to secure its grip through fear, as it did during the mass executions of the 1980s."We are being extremely cautious right now," said a Tehran-based activist who was jailed during the 2022 protests. "There's a real concern the regime might use this situation as a pretext. Dozens of people I know have already been summoned."As arrests rise and checkpoints multiply, human rights groups warn that even passive online behaviour-liking a post, following a page can now be a matter of life and death.- EndsTune InTrending Reel
NDTV
3 days ago
- Politics
- NDTV
An Exiled Prince, Can Reza Pahlavi Bring About Iran's "Berlin Wall" Moment
New Delhi: Reza Pahlavi waited nearly five decades in exile for a moment like this. With Iran under military pressure and its regime shaken by foreign strikes, the former crown prince declared the country ripe for change. "This is our Berlin Wall moment," he said Monday, positioning himself as a voice of opposition and also as the man to lead Iran's next chapter. The collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989 ended decades of division in Germany and led to the swift disintegration of communist control in Eastern Europe. In a crisp suit with an Iranian flag lapel pin, Pahlavi painted a picture of a future free from clerical rule. "Imagine this new Iran," he said. "A free and democratic Iran, living at peace with our neighbours, an engine of growth and opportunity." He sounded every bit like a campaign candidate. That was no accident. "I am stepping forward to lead this national transition," he declared. "I have a clear plan." For decades, Reza Pahlavi, son of the last Shah, has been a vocal critic of Iran's Islamic regime. From exile, he was now calling on Iranians, including military, police, and civil servants, to abandon the Islamic Republic and embrace a new national vision. Pahlavi's proclamation came on the heels of the largest foreign assault on Iran in decades. Over twelve days, Israel struck nuclear infrastructure, IRGC bases, energy facilities and even civilian areas. Iran retaliated. Days later, the US joined, hitting three nuclear locations with stealth bombers and bunker-busting missiles. US President Donald Trump issued open threats suggesting a regime change was within reach. "If the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!" he posted on social media. In a separate briefing, he said that US intelligence knew where Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei was. Calling him "an easy target," Trump warned that any Iranian retaliation would face "force far greater than what was witnessed tonight," though he said he was sparing Khamenei "for now". Pahlavi, already a fixture on international media, seized the moment. "Do not fear the day after the fall of the Islamic Republic," he said that same day. "Iran will not descend into civil war or instability." If Iran's regime collapses, Reza Pahlavi stands to benefit more than any other opposition figure. As the exiled son of the last Shah, he carries both name recognition and a legacy that appeals to parts of the Iranian community and segments of the domestic population disillusioned with clerical rule. Pahlavi urged Khamenei step down. "Ali Khamenei and his crumbling terrorist regime have failed the nation. As Khamenei considers how to respond from his underground bunker, I say to him: For the sake of the Iranian people, respond by stepping down," he wrote on X. On Monday, Pahlavi repeated that credible intelligence suggested Iran's ruling elite was preparing to flee. "Credible reports indicate that Ali Khamenei's family, and the families of senior regime officials, are making preparations to flee Iran," he said. "The regime is on its last legs." "Join your fellow Iranians and stand on the right side of history," Pahlavi urged. "This is your final chance." Reza Pahlavi's exile began during the 1979 Islamic Revolution, when his father, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, was deposed. As a teenager training in the US military, Reza never returned. Instead, he grew into the role of activist-in-exile, issuing statements after crackdowns, appearing on talk shows, and slowly building a following among the Iranian community abroad. But despite the fanfare, the moment may not be his after all. The Israel-Iran conflict ended with a US-brokered ceasefire on Tuesday. Speaking to reporters, Trump suddenly reversed course saying he didn't want to see "regime change" in Iran, adding that it would cause "chaos." "If there was, there was, but no I don't want it. I'd like to see everything calm down as quickly as possible. Regime change takes chaos, and ideally, we don't want to see so much chaos," he said. With the immediate threat of war receding, Iran's government is reportedly willing to return to negotiations with the United States. On Wednesday, Trump went a step ahead, saying the US could end up "having somewhat of a relationship with Iran". "I see it. Look, I've had a relationship over the last four days. They agreed to the ceasefire, and it was a very equal agreement. They both said that's enough," he said.
Politico
4 days ago
- Politics
- Politico
The Son of the Last Shah Wants to Be the Next Leader of Iran
On Monday, Reza Pahlavi — the son of Iran's last shah — gave a speech proclaiming the Islamic Republic's end was near. 'This is our Berlin Wall moment,' Pahlavi declared. He was dressed in a white shirt, a blue tie and a crisp suit with an Iran-shaped lapel pin. The future, he said, was bright. Together, Iranians would build a better country, free of tyranny. 'Imagine this new Iran,' he said. 'A free and democratic Iran, living at peace with our neighbors, an engine of growth and opportunity.' If Pahlavi sounds a little like a presidential contender giving a campaign speech, that is because, in a sense, he is: Reza Pahlavi is running to be Iran's next leader. The erstwhile crown prince has been criticizing the country's Islamist autocracy since he went into exile almost five decades ago. But in recent years, he has become increasingly vocal — and increasingly insistent that he should lead any pivot. 'I am stepping forward to lead this national transition,' Pahlavi said. 'I have a clear plan.' It is easy to see why Pahlavi has chosen this week to boldly promote his candidacy. Over the last 12 days, Israel bombed Iranian military, energy and political facilities in the biggest attack on the country since the 1980s. On Saturday, the United States joined in, striking three Iranian nuclear sites. According to U.S. President Donald Trump, the various parties have now agreed to a ceasefire. But tensions remain high, and it is unclear whether there will be a lasting peace. Trump, for example, has signaled that he is open to taking down the entire regime. '[I]f the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!' he wrote in a Sunday social media post. Left unclear was how Trump would want that regime change to occur — by further American military involvement or by an organic uprising of disaffected Iranians. Over the course of his time abroad, Pahlavi has built up a sizable following in Iran's diaspora. These backers believe that, should the regime fall, the former crown prince is perfectly positioned to take charge. 'He is a very strong leader who is very trusted, very popular, and who has principles that are deeply respected by the Iranian people,' said Maryam Aslany — a sociology fellow at Yale who has studied Iran and is a Pahlavi backer. She spoke glowingly of his professed commitment to democracy and his personal character. She also reminisced fondly about his father's and grandfather's tenure and said Pahlavi might be able to wind back the clock. And thanks to the Israeli and American attacks, she was feeling especially hopeful right now. 'It's just a matter of time before [the regime] collapses,' Aslany said. But the Iranian diaspora, like Iran itself, is diverse and highly divided. It features plenty of Pahlavi critics. Opposition seems to be especially intense among Iranian analysts who study Iran, many of whom see the former crown prince as, at best, a weak carpetbagger. 'He's so deeply detached from the facts on the ground,' said Sanam Vakil, the director of the Middle East and North Africa program at Chatham House. Pahlavi, she pointed out, had not been to Iran since he left. He has spent most of the last 50 years in the United States, and he gave his most recent remarks from Paris. When he tried to help create a diasporic opposition coalition in 2023, during Iran's last wave of anti-regime protests, it quickly collapsed. Polling within Iran, meanwhile, is scarce and unreliable. As the son of the former shah, Pahlavi's name is famous. But the country is a police state, and the surveys that try to work around Tehran's surveillance use experimental techniques. 'I don't think that he has the capability to bring people together,' Vakil said. Vakil and other Pahlavi critics may not think the former crown prince will ever lead Iran. But they are still worried his campaign itself will damage the country — or that it already has. Many analysts fear the ultimate fallout of the bombings will not be a free Tehran but a nuclear one, a more repressive one or one that can no longer control all its territory. And while Pahlavi did not outwardly endorse the attacks, he was perhaps the most prominent Iranian arguing they were paving the way for democracy. He made that case, repeatedly, on American television, international television and to various political leaders. 'Do not fear the day after the fall of the Islamic Republic,' Pahlavi said on June 17. 'Iran will not descend into civil war or instability.' If Pahlavi is right, he could be remembered for helping free Iran from its Islamic leaders. He might become the hero he clearly wants to be. But if he is wrong, he could be something far less flattering. He might be remembered for helping create a Tehran even more dangerous than it is today — both to its people and its region. From its inception, the Pahlavi dynasty has leaned, at least to some extent, on foreign backing. When Reza Khan Pahlavi — Reza Pahlavi's grandfather — marched his troops on Tehran in 1921, he did so with British support. Khan then ruled until 1941, when the British and the Soviet Union invaded Iran and deposed him, replacing Khan with his son, Mohammad Pahlavi. At first, the new shah ruled alongside a democratic parliament. But after the parliament nationalized Iran's oil, the United Kingdom intervened once more, this time with the help of Washington. Together, Mohammad, the British and the Americans took down Iran's prime minister. The shah gained far more authority. Both Reza Khan's and Mohammad's governments have complex legacies. They built a modern state. They set up a modern economy. But both were authoritarians. They locked up opponents and banned various political parties. Mohammad had a formidable secret police. This repression was a part of why, in the 1970s, millions of Iranians rose up to depose him. After he fell, Mohammad's main political opponent, the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, returned and took charge of the country. He renamed it the Islamic Republic of Iran. Mohammad, meanwhile, fled overseas. Reza Pahlavi — the shah's teenage son — was already abroad during the 1979 revolution, training with the U.S. military. His father's fall prevented him from returning. Instead, the younger Pahlavi remained in America, where he quickly became a critic of the Islamic regime. When the Iranian government engages in particularly notable forms of oppression, Pahlavi issues denunciatory statements and videos. 'He has been quite consistent,' said Saeed Ghasseminejad, a senior Iran and financial markets adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies — and a Pahlavi supporter. The onetime crown prince, Ghasseminejad told me, has been among the most reliable voices calling for Iranian freedom. 'He has been very consistent in saying, 'I am not advocating for monarchy or for a republic,'' Ghasseminejad said. 'It's a decision for the Iranian people.' Still, many Pahlavi supporters seemed in favor of the former. They were wistful for his family's reign, even if they had not experienced much of it. 'The Pahlavi dynasty was much better than what we've got right now,' Aidin Panahi, an assistant research professor in chemical engineering at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, told me. It was authoritarian, yes. But it was secular. Ghasseminejad, for his part, was very approving of what nearby states had accomplished under royal governance. 'Iranians look at other countries, like the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait' — four oil-rich monarchies — 'and how they were left behind,' Ghasseminejad said. Under Pahlavi, he thought, Iran could have become similarly wealthy. Panahi and Ghasseminejad both have skin in the game. They are part of the Iran Prosperity Project: an attempt by various experts to map out what kinds of economic, energy, security and foreign policies Tehran should adopt if the Islamic Republic falls. The project's staff have produced various white papers and held multiple events. Pahlavi is not an employee, but he is very much at the project's center. According to its website, the project was 'inspired by the vision of Prince Reza Pahlavi.' In March, Pahlavi wrote its foreword, which he mentioned during his Paris speech on Monday. (Pahlavi declined to comment for this piece.) But the project's staff are almost all from the Iranian diaspora. The rest seem to be from other countries. No one listed on the website appears to live in Iran. That's not by itself a problem: It would, after all, be extremely dangerous for an Iranian in Iran to join such an initiative. Still, could Pahlavi really lead the country if his political project and backers are concentrated abroad? I asked Ghasseminejad, who cut me off mid-question: 'It's not the diaspora,' he said. Pahlavi's name came up frequently at protests or other mass events, Ghasseminejad told me. Iranians in Iran were calling for him. In fact, given his name recognition, Pahlavi was not only Iran's best opposition candidate. He was the only one. 'There's no one else that has support,' Ghasseminejad said. There are, indeed, Pahlavi supporters inside of Iran. In video clips taken from within the country, people do call out Pahlavi's name, as well as the name of his father and grandfather. According to both his supporters and his opponents, this backing is at least partially the result of the Islamic Republic. 'It is so awful and oppressive that even an oppressive regime like the shah's is now favorable,' said Majid Zamani, an Iranian opposition figure who left the country in 2022 — and a Pahlavi critic. But most of the experts I spoke with were skeptical that Pahlavi had an enormous base of support in the country. 'There's no armed or non-violent civil resistance movement for him inside Iran,' said Shervin Malekzadeh, a political scientist at Pitzer College who studies Iran's history. (Other analysts echoed Malekzadeh's and Vakil's critiques, but declined to speak on the record, citing online harassment by Pahlavi's backers. 'I like my neck,' one expert told me when I asked why he didn't want to be identified.) The chants in favor of Pahlavi, Malekzadeh said, were scattered and discrete. At other anti-regime protests, people have chanted against both the shah and the supreme leader. In 1979, by contrast, millions of Iranians took to the streets in support of Khomeini. They read his books, and they smuggled tapes of his speeches into the country. Ultimately, Zamani, Vakil and Malekzadeh all thought that Pahlavi's primary constituency is the diaspora. It is a fact that makes sense: Pahlavi, after all, is a part of it. He does talk to Iranians inside Iran, and he claims that potential regime defectors have reached out to him. But after 46 years of living internationally, Pahlavi's most important political contacts are in the United States and Europe. On June 18, he delivered a virtual address to a group of American congresspeople and their staffers, where he declared the regime was unraveling and that he had 'been entrusted by millions of Iranians, inside and outside the country, to help lead this transition.' He has toured European capitals. He has gone on ABC, BBC and Fox News. In these appearances, Pahlavi has avoided calling for the United States to put boots on the ground. But in Paris, he implied that Washington had not done enough. 'The destruction of the regime's nuclear facilities alone will not deliver peace,' he said. Pahlavi has even forged ties with Israel. In April 2023, the former crown prince traveled to the country and met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli President Isaac Herzog, Israeli Intelligence Minister Gila Gamliel and a variety of other top officials. He expressed warmth for the country's government, and his wife expressed support for the Israeli Defense Forces. Israel hasn't forgotten. On June 13, after the bombs started falling, the Israeli minister of diaspora affairs, Amichai Chikli, posted a photo of himself shaking hands with Pahlavi. 'Soon in Tehran,' Chikli wrote. Pahlavi's trip to Israel caused no shortage of controversy within the diaspora. Experts told me that the visit — and Pahlavi's refusal to condemn Israel's and Washington's bombings — almost certainly undermined his standing within Iran, as well. But that is no matter for Israelis or Americans hoping the strikes destabilized the Iranian regime, or who hope to attack Iran in the future. After all, Pahlavi's argument is extremely convenient: If bombing the Islamic Republic has set the country on course for a democratic revolution, then the war had minimal risks and could result in huge rewards. 'Credible reports indicate that Ali Khamenei's family — and the families of senior regime officials — are making preparations to flee Iran,' Pahlavi said during his Monday speech. 'The regime is on its last legs.' But there are reasons to think Pahlavi is mistaken. Bombing campaigns alone rarely topple regimes. Should this one survive the fallout of the last couple weeks, it will be heavily incentivized to dash for a nuclear weapon as soon as is feasible (including if it is led by someone other than Khamenei). The bomb is now the best option the Islamic Republic has for deterring attacks. And even if the regime does fall, Iran is a very divided country — including by ethnicity — and could face secessionist insurgencies. Some analysts thought that both outcomes were plausible. The regime could be weakened enough for breakaway insurgents and terrorists to begin taking off, but strong enough to pursue nuclear weapons and brutally repress most Iranian territory. What comes next, then, really could be worse. 'What would a Libya or Syria or Yemen, orders of magnitude larger, sitting on the Persian Gulf, mean?' Vali Nasr, a professor of international affairs and Middle East studies at Johns Hopkins University, told me in an email. 'What will happen to the IRGC, Iran's missile and nuclear technology? Iran could become enough of a headache that it requires active U.S. babysitting, if not boots on the ground.' The monarchists are aware of such concerns. But they were sure the regime would fall and confident that, with Pahlavi back, the odds of state failure were minimal. 'Iran is not going to live in chaos, as we saw after the fall of Iraq,' Aslany told me. Pahlavi, she said, was too popular, too strong, andtoo well-prepared to allow for such a conflagration. But as the United States marched toward Operation Iraqi Freedom, its hawks also pointed to someone in the diaspora as proof that, when all was said and done, Iraq would be secure: Ahmed Chalabi. The scion of a prominent Iraqi family sent into exile after the country's king was toppled, Chalabi spent decades trying to organize Iraq's opposition and pushing to overthrow Saddam. After U.S. President George W. Bush took office and surrounded himself with Chalabi contacts, he succeeded. There are differences between Chalabi and Pahlavi. Chalabi was far more daring than the former crown prince, traveling to Iraq during the 1990s and helping orchestrate covert activity against Saddam Hussein. He was also closer to U.S. officials. But the parallels are hard to ignore. Both left their homelands as teenagers. Both come from political dynasties: Before being exiled, Chalabi's father was the president of Iraq's senate and the country's richest person. Both formed opposition groups that their supporters believe could facilitate transitions — the Iran Prosperity Project for Pahlavi, and the Iraqi National Congress for Chalabi. Both claimed to have contact with defectors. Both repeatedly went on television to make the case for regime change. Both held themselves up as champions of democracy and human rights. And each saw himself as the man best equipped to lead his homeland after the existing government fell. Chalabi got a chance to prove himself correct. After the United States toppled Saddam, he was appointed to the Governing Council of Iraq, the country's interim government. Chalabi even served as its president for the month of September. But he never became the liberal, pro-Western statesman that he promised to be. Instead, Chalabi and his party worked to kick Sunni politicians out of office. In 2004, his house was raided by U.S. forces, who accused him of sharing information on American troops with Iran. And although Chalabi remained a player in Iraqi politics for years, his opposition movement proved to have very little support within the country. In Iraq's December 2005 parliamentary elections, the Iraqi National Congress won just 30,000 out of 12 million votes. Iraq, meanwhile, turned into exactly the morass that Chalabi promised it wouldn't be. The country splintered along sectarian lines. American troops spent years fighting insurgents and contending with terrorist attacks. Indeed, Washington is still babysitting the state, with more than 2,000 troops stationed in the country. Baghdad remains deeply dysfunctional. Past is not always precedent. If the Iranian regime does collapse, the transition could indeed prove to be much smoother than that of Iraq. Iran, as a nation, does have a long and proud history. The world may also be a long way from seeing how a collapse will play out. The regime has survived decades of crises. Neither Israel nor the United States have floated the idea of invading Iran. And even if they did, there's no guarantee that Pahlavi would ultimately decide to ride in on the back of an F-16. But after decades of intervention, protests and internal repression, the current debate makes as many Iranians nervous as it does hopeful — including when it comes to Pahlavi. 'Obvious foreign support is highly despised in Iran,' said Zamani, referring to the former crown prince and his backers. 'Never has a foreign invasion led to democracy in our country. We know history, and we don't want to repeat that.'
