Reza Pahlavi, the son of the last exiled shah of Iran, recently released a YouTube video, calling upon the Iranians to rise up and replace the ayatollahs. The question remains, should Israel be working to make him Iran’s next ruler or should we seek other alternatives?
By Rachel Avraham
Reza Pahlavi, the son of the last exiled shah of Iran, recently released a YouTube video, proclaiming: “My dear countrymen, the Islamic Republic has reached its end and is in the process of collapsing. Khamenei, like a frightened rat, has gone into hiding underground and has lost control of the situation. What has begun is irreversible. The future is bright and together; we will pass through this sharp turn in history.”
Crown Prince Pahlavi continued, “In these difficult days, my heart is with all of the defenseless citizens who were hurt and have fallen victim to Khamenei’s warmongering and delusions. For years, I have tried to prevent our homeland from being consumed by the fires of war. The end of the Islamic Republic is the end of its 46-year-war against the Iranian nation. The regime’s apparatus of oppression is falling apart.”
According to Crown Prince Pahlavi, “All it takes now is a nationwide uprising to put an end to this nightmare once and for all. Now is the time to rise; the time to reclaim Iran. Let us all come forward, from Bandar Abbas to Bandar Anzali, from Shiraz to Isfahan, from Tabriz to Zahedan, from Mashhad to Ahwaz, from Shahr-e-Kord to Kermanshah, and bring about the end of this regime.”
Crown Prince Pahlavi told the Iranian people not to fear the last days of the Islamic Republic: “Iran will not descend into civil war or instability. We have a plan for Iran’s future and its flourishing. We are prepared for the first hundred days after the fall, for the transitional period, and for the establishment of a national and democratic government by the Iranian people and for the Iranian people.”
Crown Prince Pahlavi told the members of the Iranian military, government, law enforcement and security agencies to cease their cooperation with the mullah’s regime: “Do not stand against the Iranian people for the sake of a regime whose fall has begun and is inevitable. Do not sacrifice yourselves for the sake of a decaying regime. By standing with the people, you can save your lives. Play a historic role in the transition from the Islamic Republic and take part in building the future of Iran. A free and flourishing Iran lies ahead of us. May we be together soon. Long live Iran!”
The question remains, should Israel support Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi being Iran’s next ruler instead of the mullahs and not just have the limited goal of eliminating Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities? Or should we support someone else in the Iranian opposition? Reza Pahlavi, like his father the Shah, is a friend of the State of Israel. In fact, the Crown Prince has visited Israel and offered encouraging words for the future of Iranian-Israeli relations, should he rise to power.
Under the previous Shah regime, Iran was the second Muslim majority country to recognize Israel’s independence after Turkey. After the Six Day War, Iran supplied Israel with a significant portion of its oil and Iranian oil was shipped to European markets via the joint Israeli-Iranian Eilat-Ashkelon pipeline. Under the Shah, Israeli construction firms were very active in Iran, El Al operated direct flights between Tel Aviv and Tehran, and Israel and Iran even attempted to develop a new missile together as part of Project Flower. In the Jewish world, the Shah of Iran is badly missed and many Iranian Jews have fond memories of the Shah.
However, just because Reza Pahlavi may be good for Israel does not mean that a majority of Iranians who are opposed to the mullahs view him to be the best replacement for the ayatollah’s regime. In fact, although the Shah was good for Israel, many Iranians are opposed to the Shah because of the horrific human rights abuses committed by his notorious secret police force known as SAVAK. They also disdain him for the 1953 coup d’etat, which overthrew the democratically elected government of Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh.
In fact, in 1979, leftists, socialists, communists and other pro-democracy advocates took part in the revolution to overthrow the Shah because of his authoritarian form of government and the vast gaps between the rich and the poor within the country at the time. Iranian writer Roya Hakakian even wrote about how young Jewish leftists even partook in the 1979 Revolution initially. Professor Ahmad Karimi-Hakkak at the University of Maryland at College Park claimed, “The Iranian Revolution was originally supposed to be a pro-democracy leftist movement. The revolution was just highjacked by the Islamists.” For this reason, many Iranians are opposed to the Shah returning because they do not want to replace one form of oppression under the mullah’s with another form of oppression under the shah.
Iran’s ethnic minorities are especially wary of the prospect of the shah returning to power. Dr. Javad Abbassi, a former political prisoner and South Azerbaijani human rights advocate in exile, told Defend Jerusalem: “Since the Pahlavi dynasty and throughout the Islamic Republic, Iran has enforced a rigid centralized state built upon Pan-Aryanist ideology. This ethno-nationalist framework glorifies a mythical Persian-Aryan identity while erasing the linguistic, cultural, and political rights of non-Persian nations. Groups such as the Azerbaijani Turks, Kurds, Baluchis, Ahwaz Arabs, and Turkmens who, collectively make up over 70% of the population, have been subjected to forced assimilation, cultural suppression, and political exclusion. These are not mere administrative issues but features of what scholars’ term internal colonialism.”
Dr. Abbassi argued, “Calls for returning to monarchy or preservation of Persian unity under secular nationalism repeat the same errors. Pan-Aryanism, monarchy, and all centralized models that elevate Persian identity over others are detrimental to national liberation and peace, as they validate the very ideology used to justify systemic repression and imperial ambitions. Iran’s centralized, Persian-centric nationalism has long fueled domestic unrest and international extremism. The regime has militarized regions such as Khuzestan, South Azerbaijan, Kurdistan, and Baluchistan the guise of protecting territorial integrity, while simultaneously radicalizing youth and driving interethnic alienation. The consequences are visible: internal uprisings, forced displacement, and exported ideological terrorism. In contrast, recognizing and empowering Iran’s constituent nations offers a democratic and decentralized alternative that directly challenges the state’s authoritarian machinery and imperialist behavior.”
According to Dr. Abbassi, “At this critical juncture, the international community and the civilized world must reject all forms of Persian supremacist nationalism, including monarchy or secular centralism, and affirm Iran’s true nature as a multinational state. The path to sustainable peace requires recognizing the right to self-determination for all nations within Iran—not as a threat, but as a precondition for justice and democracy. Global actors must support civil, democratic movements committed to pluralism and dignity. Such solidarity is essential not only for ending domestic oppression but also for dismantling the ideological core of the only regime in the world officially designated as a state sponsor of terrorism.”
Ahmad Obali, another South Azerbaijani dissident who survived an Iranian assassination attempt in the United States, told Defend Jerusalem that only Central Iran is exclusively populated by Persians and that Iran is a nation that consists of many different ethnic groups: “Iran is a country that is definitely not a Persian land but a Persian governed Iran. Iran used to be governed by Turkic kings until 1925, when Reza Shah and the Persians took over. It then became a Persian governed Iran. The majority of the country is non-Persian. Persians make up 37-38 percent of the country. The population of the country should be taken into account when deciding who will take over the country’s after the ayatollahs.”
Obali claims that Reza Shah considers himself to be Persian and “advocates Persian-centric policies, if he goes back to Iran. Kurds will not accept Pahlavi to lead the country or dominate the opposition to overthrow the government. They have their own leaders and do not accept Persian supremacy ruling the country. 90 percent of the Kurds will not accept him as a leader. 95 percent of the Ahwaz Arabs not only do not like Pahlavi. They hate him because of the ethnic issues. The Baloch do not want any part of Pahlavi or Persian centric government in Iran. Close to 90 percent of South Azerbaijanis do not want any Persian centric drive, especially Pahlavi. We have a bad memory of the Pahlavis in Iran. The Turkmen hate the Pahlavis for they changed the ethnic composition of the Turkmen areas of Iran. Basically, none of the ethnic groups want Pahlavi.”
Obali claims that this means that Pahlavi’s support base in Iran is only among Persians in Isfahan, Tehran and other areas of the Persian heartland: “And I am not sure most Persians want Pahlavi to come back. 50 percent of the Persians do not want the Pahlavis to come back. Look at Tehran. It has fourteen million people and is the capital of the country. 36 percent of the population of Tehran is Azerbaijani. There is also a strong Kurdish and Balochi population as well. And Tehran is by far the most Persian dominated area and they are against the Pahlavis returning.”
In fact, Obali claims that Reza Pahlavi is not even strong among the Iranian Diaspora in the United States, where he is presently living: “Reza Pahlavi has asked the people of Iran to show up and protest against the government three times. Absolutely nobody showed up on the streets of Tehran and big cities. He hasn’t done anything against the regime except give interviews. All he has is a name, but he has not done much except jump into waves of protests. The Mahsa Amini protests were going well until Pahlavi got involved, then they subsided. The Green protests were big and were going well, but he was the reason that many protesters in Iran went home because they did not want Pahlavi to be part of this movement. They wanted the Reformists to be the government of Iran.”
According to Obali, “Pahlavi did not do not do much. He does not have a substantial base in Iran or a majority base in Iran. Therefore, investing in Pahlavi to overthrow the government is a wrong idea. So the question is, who can lead the overthrow of the Iranian government? Pahlavi should not be in the mix. It should be the ethnic groups led by Azerbaijanis, for we are the largest ethnic group. We have more people than the Persians in Iran. Therefore, there should be a strong investment in Azerbaijanis who can work with other ethnic groups to overthrow the government. The Persian opposition abroad for the past 46 years were not able to do anything to overthrow the government for they did not want to give a say to the ethnic groups. This has led to the government staying in power. But if there is a strong investment in an Azerbaijani who can work with other ethnic groups and Persians, this is the way to go forward.”
Photo from © European Union, 1998 – 2025: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reza_Pahlavi,_Crown_Prince_of_Iran#/media/File:Crown_Prince_of_IRAN_Reza_PAHLAVI_EP-146067A_AR2_(cropped).jpg
