Iran: neither the ayatollah nor the shah alone explains its modern history

Reza Pahlavi has reappeared in Western headlines and on the lips of members of the Iranian diaspora as the unrest gripping Iran stretches into another week. From Washington, he is presenting himself as a potential focal point for change, while many inside Iran remain skeptical about restoring any version of the old monarchy.

The headlines that imagine a tidy swap — remove the ayatollahs, bring back a familiar figurehead — are appealing because they promise certainty. But the reality of the street-level movement is messier and, for many Iranians, more principled: a broad rejection of concentrated, unaccountable power rather than a nostalgia march for the Peacock Throne.

Why Reza Pahlavi is being spotlighted again in coverage of Iran protests

Reza Pahlavi’s name circulates for several practical reasons. He is the living heir of the Pahlavi dynasty, accessible to Western media and diaspora networks, and offers a simple narrative to foreign audiences: a person to represent an alternative to the Islamic Republic. That simplicity makes for convenient interviews, clear quotes and easily clickable commentary.

Yet the dynamics that put his image in the spotlight come from outside Iran as much as inside it. The Iranian diaspora, particularly communities in the United States and Europe, carry memories—selective and often idealized—of the pre-1979 era. Distance and frustration with the present regime fuel a yearning for familiar symbols and a quicker fix to a complex crisis.

How symbolism shapes international perception

• Media and commentators prefer identifiable leaders to represent movements.
• Diaspora activism elevates certain figures more than domestic protests do.
• Political actors in exile can be easily amplified by Western outlets and policymakers.

What protesters in Iran are actually making clear: decentralized resistance

On the ground, the movement is notable for its lack of a single leader or a fixed platform. Neighborhoods, cities and different social groups have been mobilizing on their own terms — sometimes coordinating, often improvising. This decentralization is not just a tactical shortcoming; it is a political statement.

Many of those risking arrest and violence are explicitly rejecting the idea of another top-down replacement. They are calling for the dismantling of systems that permit unchecked power, whether clerical or monarchical. For them, the point is not to swap one autocrat for another but to create governance that disperses authority and allows pluralistic debate.

How the Pahlavi era shaped the seeds of today’s authoritarianism

The story of modern Iranian autocracy cannot be told as a clean break in 1979. Structures and habits formed under the Pahlavi monarchy — centralization of decision-making, securitized politics, and repression of organized opposition — left a political culture that the Islamic Republic inherited and adapted.

• Political parties were marginalized or eliminated under the monarchy.
• Dissent was often treated as a security problem rather than a civic conversation.
• State institutions were built to consolidate power rather than to check it.

Authoritarian practices don’t vanish simply because ideological uniforms change. The Islamic Republic built upon administrative frameworks and security apparatuses that had roots in previous decades. That institutional continuity helps explain why entrenched repression has proved so durable and why brief nostalgia for the shah ignores that reality.

Why reinstating a monarch is unlikely to deliver the freedoms protesters demand

Restoring a monarchy — even ceremonially — assumes a tidy transition that history does not support. Reza Pahlavi, by heritage, cannot escape the polarizing legacy of his family name. He has spent decades abroad, lacks a record of public office or governance, and represents for many the same kind of concentrated authority that protesters oppose.

Arguments that position him as a temporary caretaker gloss over how transitional promises have gone wrong before. Revolutionary figures have in the past claimed temporariness while building institutions that outlasted their stated intentions, and those who hope for a benevolent caretaker often find their hopes deferred.

Risks of reverting to ‘safe’ leadership

• Unitary leadership tends to prioritize order over freedoms.
• Transitional arrangements can calcify into permanent structures of control.
• Outside endorsements of a single figure can alienate broad domestic coalitions.

What the protest movement’s demands imply for Iran’s future political institutions

The chants and slogans filling Iran’s streets suggest a craving for institutions that check power and protect pluralism. This is inherently a slow and contested process: rebuilding public life after years of repression requires new legal frameworks, independent media, political parties, and civic spaces where disagreement is tolerated rather than criminalized.

Freedom delivered from above rarely endures. Whether clerics, generals or royals promise stability first and liberties later, history shows that the second promise often never materializes unless citizens and civil institutions have the capacity to hold power accountable.

Paths that protesters and civil society are signaling

1. Decentralized decision-making and stronger regional governance
2. Protecting freedom of expression and association
3. Building judicial and legislative checks on executive power

The narrative of a single savior simplifies conflicts that are fundamentally about public institutions and political culture. That is why many inside Iran are wary of trading one centralized authority for another, even one with a more familiar name. The debate over leadership is unfolding as much through action in neighborhoods and workplaces as through speeches and exile commentary.

Étienne Verité is a writer.

You might also like:

• Iranians protest nationwide against Iran’s clerical regime
• Western hypocrisy over sympathy for Iran’s Islamic Republic
• Iran protests: Iranians rise up against brutal Islamist rulers
• Islamic Republic human rights abuses: new report exposes systemic repression
• BBC criticized for ignoring Iranian uprisings: why coverage fell short

Robert Johnson

Robert Johnson is a dedicated columnist focusing on political and social debates. With twelve years in editorial writing, he provides nuanced, well‑argued perspectives. His commentaries invite you to form your own views and engage in critical issues.