As the clerical regime in Tehran faces a deepening crisis of legitimacy, a familiar figure has reemerged in Western policy debates: Reza Pahlavi, the son of the late shah.
To some in Washington, he appears to offer a ready-made alternative to the current system. But for many Iranians, particularly Kurds, Balochs, and Azeris, the prospect of a Pahlavi restoration is not a solution — it is a potential trigger for renewed internal conflict.
The case for restoring the monarchy often rests on a sanitized nostalgia for pre-1979 Iran. Yet for Iran’s ethnic nationalities, the Pahlavi legacy is closely associated with forced centralization and political repression. In 1946, under the Pahlavi crown, the short-lived Kurdish Republic of Mahabad was crushed and its leaders executed. For decades thereafter, the SAVAK security apparatus maintained regime stability through widespread repression of dissent, a record documented by international human rights organizations well before the 1979 revolution.
WHO IS REZA PAHLAVI — IRAN’S EXILED CROWN PRINCE?
To assume that a population of roughly 90 million would willingly exchange one form of absolute rule for another is to overlook the deeper drivers of Iran’s century-long struggle for accountable governance.
The ethnic fault line
Iran is a diverse, multiethnic state, yet Pahlavi’s contemporary rhetoric continues to reflect a rigid centralist framework. By characterizing demands for federalism and linguistic rights as “separatism,” he risks echoing the same security-first logic the current regime uses to justify crackdowns in Kurdistan and Sistan and Baluchestan.
A durable and unified Iran cannot be sustained through coercion or royal decree. It requires a modern social contract that recognizes regional diversity while preserving national cohesion. The protest slogan that has echoed across recent uprisings, “Neither the Shah nor the Sheikh,” reflects not simply rejection of specific figures, but broader public fatigue with all forms of absolute rule.
A geopolitical spent force
The Pahlavi option also struggles under scrutiny from a realpolitik perspective. Supporters often point to his international visibility, but his practical regional leverage appears limited. Consider Oman: despite the late shah’s decisive military support for the Sultanate during the Dhofar rebellion, Muscat today prioritizes its strategic relationship with the Islamic Republic rather than engagement with a claimant in exile.
More fundamentally, Pahlavi lacks the core prerequisite for national leadership: executive governing experience. After more than four decades abroad, he has no meaningful political infrastructure inside Iran and no demonstrated record managing the institutional complexities of a modern state. Revolutionary transitions are rarely steered successfully from exile.
CONGRESS SCRAMBLES FOR ANSWERS AFTER TRUMP IRAN STRIKE
Break the cycle
Replacing a religious autocracy with a secular monarchy risks perpetuating the very cycle of concentrated power that has repeatedly destabilized Iran. The Iranian public has paid too high a price to accept another top-down political model.
A sustainable transition must move toward a system in which sovereignty rests with citizens rather than bloodline. Iran’s long-term stability and its ability to reconcile its diverse national fabric will depend on building a democratic republic that finally breaks the country’s historic pattern of absolute rule.
Heyrsh Abdulrahman is a Washington-based senior analyst and former Kurdistan Regional Government official.
