I’ve spent the past week with someone who was born and raised in Iran and who has close family members still there. Their statements surprised me - according to them, while Iranians as a whole are not supporters of monarchy specifically, the vast majority see the theocracy as intolerable at this point and see Pahlavi as the only viable path forward with enough support to form a working government.
Do they want to live under the Shah? Most likely not, but they would absolutely prefer it to the status quo.
The goal here isn’t to put the Shah in power, but to rely upon him to form a transition government to avoid a power vacuum and then work out what comes next.
I looked this crown prince history up and he’s been a proponent of democracy there for decades, not returning to a monarchy (ironically). So he says but it should be noted
Serious question: do you think people in Iran would prefer the status quo, or Return of the Shah (son)? My gut says Shah, but I don't know anyone from Iran, so that's just a guess.
It’s a serious question but it’s not a relevant one. There isn’t a ballot with just “Pahlavi” and “Ayatollah” on it; and there probably never will be considering how much Iranians hate both.
About 30% would take the shaw has a first or second choice. This is higher than support for the current regime but the country is deeply divided on what an alternative future would look like.
It is possible to strongly disapprove of both Israel's policies in Gaza and the present regime in Iran. Or is it the case that you support the present regime?
You’re saying the Iranians are hunky dory with Khamenei?
Like yes, the protests align with Israeli geopolitical goals. (Also American and Saudi ones. Probably, too, to some degree, every oil exporter.) That doesn’t mean they’re the root or even dominant cause of the current events, even if their bombings are a proximate cause.
Speaking more broadly, this American obsession with Israel when it comes to the Middle East is belittling to the region’s people. (And recognized as such more broadly, e.g. across Asia.) It’s also destructive to the causes those activists purport to represent—aligning with the IRGC is not helpful to Palestinian independence. (If I have to choose between an independent Palestine and free Iran, I’ll choose the larger population. Granted, Gaza isn’t my pet war. But recognize that turning everything into a single dimension also means rejecting support along tangential, albeit non-parallel, paths.)
The whole episode of foreign interests trying to astroturf Reza Pahlavi will ultimately go nowhere, because there are no significant numbers of young, able-bodied men willing to kill and be killed on his behalf.
Or, like Mao said, "the Army is the chief component of state power and whoever seeks to acquire and retain state power must have a strong army."
Now, you may point to other "popular revolutions" throughout modern history, but that only proves my point. After Khomeini went into exile in France, tens of thousands of his loyalists continued building their networks in Iran's universities, bazaars, mosques, offices, government agencies, etc. The revolution of 1979 was simply that underground network rising to topple the modernist Persian state once they'd reached critical mass.
Even during the Arab Spring, nothing really changed. For instance, in Egypt, the Army ousted Mubarak to simply install their own man who commanded a real army with guns (Sisi). When the protesters didn't get the memo, they were fired upon and thousands killed.
Across the Artesh (Army), IRGC, Basij militias, and other Shia paramilitary groups, Khamenei has over a million armed, trained young men who believe his words are God's words, and whose fortunes are tied to the regime's survival. No amount of airstrikes can meaningfully degrade those numbers to the point where Reza Pahlavi can be allowed to touch solid ground and be installed as king.
Reza Pahlavi has millions of bots on Twitter, YouTube, Reddit, etc. who astroturf him as a contender for state power.
And you ignore all of the real Iranians screaming in Iran, at risk of being killed for saying so, for him: “Javid Shah!”. Google it and you will find them
The quickest way to kill a revolution in Iran is to air anything from the Shah’s family.
The previous revolt happened for a reason.
Upon what are you basing this position?
I’ve spent the past week with someone who was born and raised in Iran and who has close family members still there. Their statements surprised me - according to them, while Iranians as a whole are not supporters of monarchy specifically, the vast majority see the theocracy as intolerable at this point and see Pahlavi as the only viable path forward with enough support to form a working government.
Do they want to live under the Shah? Most likely not, but they would absolutely prefer it to the status quo.
The goal here isn’t to put the Shah in power, but to rely upon him to form a transition government to avoid a power vacuum and then work out what comes next.
I looked this crown prince history up and he’s been a proponent of democracy there for decades, not returning to a monarchy (ironically). So he says but it should be noted
> previous revolt happened for a reason
It also happened over three decades ago.
I’m not saying airing the Pavlavis is a great idea. But I wouldn’t assume it’s negative without evidence.
It was actually over four decades ago.
The Pahlavis still have a negative perception in Iran. Just because they aren’t the Ayatollahs doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to bring them up.
So do you think most Iranians approve of the present regime? And if not, what do you think they should be doing?
Serious question: do you think people in Iran would prefer the status quo, or Return of the Shah (son)? My gut says Shah, but I don't know anyone from Iran, so that's just a guess.
It’s a serious question but it’s not a relevant one. There isn’t a ballot with just “Pahlavi” and “Ayatollah” on it; and there probably never will be considering how much Iranians hate both.
There is actually polling on this.
About 30% would take the shaw has a first or second choice. This is higher than support for the current regime but the country is deeply divided on what an alternative future would look like.
https://gamaan.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Iranians-Polit...
[flagged]
It is possible to strongly disapprove of both Israel's policies in Gaza and the present regime in Iran. Or is it the case that you support the present regime?
You realize there can be more than one thing happening on the planet at a given time?
Uh? Who do you think is behind this?
> Who do you think is behind this?
You’re saying the Iranians are hunky dory with Khamenei?
Like yes, the protests align with Israeli geopolitical goals. (Also American and Saudi ones. Probably, too, to some degree, every oil exporter.) That doesn’t mean they’re the root or even dominant cause of the current events, even if their bombings are a proximate cause.
Speaking more broadly, this American obsession with Israel when it comes to the Middle East is belittling to the region’s people. (And recognized as such more broadly, e.g. across Asia.) It’s also destructive to the causes those activists purport to represent—aligning with the IRGC is not helpful to Palestinian independence. (If I have to choose between an independent Palestine and free Iran, I’ll choose the larger population. Granted, Gaza isn’t my pet war. But recognize that turning everything into a single dimension also means rejecting support along tangential, albeit non-parallel, paths.)
Does this guy have any support in Iran?
I don’t think the past is a great place to look for a new future in Iran…
The whole episode of foreign interests trying to astroturf Reza Pahlavi will ultimately go nowhere, because there are no significant numbers of young, able-bodied men willing to kill and be killed on his behalf.
Or, like Mao said, "the Army is the chief component of state power and whoever seeks to acquire and retain state power must have a strong army."
Now, you may point to other "popular revolutions" throughout modern history, but that only proves my point. After Khomeini went into exile in France, tens of thousands of his loyalists continued building their networks in Iran's universities, bazaars, mosques, offices, government agencies, etc. The revolution of 1979 was simply that underground network rising to topple the modernist Persian state once they'd reached critical mass.
Even during the Arab Spring, nothing really changed. For instance, in Egypt, the Army ousted Mubarak to simply install their own man who commanded a real army with guns (Sisi). When the protesters didn't get the memo, they were fired upon and thousands killed.
Across the Artesh (Army), IRGC, Basij militias, and other Shia paramilitary groups, Khamenei has over a million armed, trained young men who believe his words are God's words, and whose fortunes are tied to the regime's survival. No amount of airstrikes can meaningfully degrade those numbers to the point where Reza Pahlavi can be allowed to touch solid ground and be installed as king.
Reza Pahlavi has millions of bots on Twitter, YouTube, Reddit, etc. who astroturf him as a contender for state power.
It's not even a contest.
And you ignore all of the real Iranians screaming in Iran, at risk of being killed for saying so, for him: “Javid Shah!”. Google it and you will find them
[dead]