As Iranian and U.S. diplomats meet in Geneva for high-stakes negotiations aimed at averting a potential war, political tension within Iran is reaching a fever pitch. The Islamic Republic faces its most severe crisis since its founding in 1979. U.S. President Donald Trump has repeatedly warned of imminent military action if Tehran does not make concessions on its nuclear program. Meanwhile, anti-regime protests continue to erupt across the country, defying a brutal government crackdown that has reportedly killed more than 20,000 people.
Amid the turmoil, exiled opposition groups are seizing the moment. A growing chorus of voices in the diaspora has begun advocating for a return to monarchy, buoyed in part by protest chants of “long live the shah.” At the center of this movement is 65-year-old Reza Pahlavi, the exiled crown prince of Iran, who supporters say could lead the nation if the Islamic Republic were to fall.
Iran’s monarchy traces its roots back millennia, but the modern Pahlavi dynasty began with Reza Khan, a military officer who seized power in 1925. Reza adopted the Pahlavi name and initiated a series of reforms aimed at modernizing the country and aligning it with Western social and economic norms. He banned the hijab, promoted secular education, and centralized state authority. Yet his rule was authoritarian, and his ambitions for power drew resentment. In 1941, following the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran during World War II, Reza was forced into exile, leaving the throne to his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.
Mohammad Reza Pahlavi’s reign, while marked by ambitious modernization programs such as the White Revolution, was equally autocratic. Political dissent was harshly suppressed, and his regime relied heavily on the secret police, SAVAK, to maintain control. By the late 1970s, growing discontent culminated in the Islamic Revolution of 1979, forcing the Shah to flee Iran and ushering in the clerical rule of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.
Now, Reza Pahlavi is at the forefront of monarchist hopes. Based in the United States, he has been portrayed by supporters as a unifying figure capable of leading Iran through a post-Islamic Republic transition. The U.S.-based National Union for Democracy in Iran (NUFDI) has been particularly vocal in its advocacy.
In early 2025, NUFDI launched the “Iran Prosperity Project,” a high-profile initiative outlining what it claimed was a roadmap for economic recovery in a post-regime Iran. Pahlavi penned the foreword to the project, lending it both legitimacy and symbolic weight. Later that year, NUFDI released the “Emergency Phase Booklet,” detailing a vision for a transitional political system. While couched in the language of democratic norms, the document grants Pahlavi sweeping powers as the “leader of the national uprising,” including veto authority over the selection processes of a transitional government.
However, critics point out that the plan offers little regarding the country’s ethnic minorities or their calls for federalism. Instead, power would remain highly centralized under Pahlavi until a future referendum, which the plan suggests could eventually determine whether Iran would adopt a constitutional monarchy or a democratic republic.
Iranian history offers cautionary lessons. In 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini initially promised a more democratic Iran with a new constitution free from clerical dominance. Once in power, Khomeini consolidated authority rapidly, shaping a system that suppressed dissent and concentrated power in the hands of religious leaders. Observers warn that history may repeat itself if a new leadership, even one presented as a liberal monarch, fails to genuinely respect pluralism.
Indeed, Pahlavi and his supporters have struggled with these questions. When asked about his father’s autocratic legacy, Pahlavi has largely avoided addressing human rights abuses and political repression under the Pahlavi regime. His supporters, meanwhile, have occasionally resorted to intimidation.
At the Munich Security Conference in February, British-Iranian journalist Christiane Amanpour interviewed Pahlavi. Her probing questions about online attacks by royalist supporters sparked heated reactions. Video footage shows protestors heckling Amanpour, accusing her of insulting the crown prince. On social media, the rhetoric can be even more aggressive, raising questions about the movement’s commitment to tolerance and open debate.
When Amanpour asked whether he would urge followers to stop online harassment, Pahlavi responded: “I cannot control millions of people, whatever they say on social media, and who knows if they are real people or not.” While he denounced attacks in principle, his statement highlights the challenges of managing a decentralized and highly impassioned diaspora base.
How much support Pahlavi actually commands within Iran remains uncertain. Public opinion polling in the country is notoriously difficult, given government surveillance and restrictions. However, the GAMAAN group, founded by two Iranian academics in the Netherlands, conducted a 2024 survey attempting to gauge political sentiment. Just over 30% of respondents indicated they would vote for Pahlavi in a free and fair election. Yet the poll offered little insight into why individuals supported him, and it revealed a highly fragmented opposition, with dozens of figures receiving smaller but notable levels of support.
Moreover, during recent street protests, chants like “No to monarchy, no to the leadership of the clerics, yes to an egalitarian democracy” suggest that many Iranians are skeptical of returning to royal rule. The desire for reform does not automatically translate into support for a restored monarchy.
Even if Pahlavi were to assume power, critics argue that his potential rule may not guarantee the stability or liberal democracy promised by supporters. Centralized authority could replicate the patterns of repression seen under his father and grandfather. Additionally, ethnic and regional minority groups may feel marginalized if federalist demands remain unaddressed.
The challenges of a post-Islamic Republic Iran extend beyond leadership. The country faces economic instability, political fragmentation, and ongoing security threats. A power vacuum following the collapse of the current regime could easily descend into chaos, making a smooth transition unlikely.
While Pahlavi’s supporters envision him as a unifying figure, the reality may be far more complicated. His reluctance to address difficult questions about his family’s legacy, combined with the aggressive behavior of some of his followers, underscores the uncertainty surrounding his capacity to lead.
The Geneva negotiations between U.S. and Iranian officials underscore the global stakes involved. While the focus is often on nuclear compliance and sanctions, the internal dynamics within Iran are no less critical. Should the Islamic Republic falter, the country faces a crossroads. Multiple visions exist: a constitutional monarchy, a democratic republic, or another unforeseen model entirely.
For now, Pahlavi and his allies are working to shape the narrative of a post-Islamic Republic Iran. But voices from inside the country, particularly from students and activists, signal that the population’s aspirations may not align neatly with royalist ambitions. Calls for egalitarian democracy, inclusive governance, and respect for human rights may define the next phase of Iranian politics far more than nostalgia for the Pahlavi dynasty.
