By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Although regime change is not an explicitly stated goal, there are indicators of a shifting sentiment towards it. Recent military actions, including potential strikes on key regime figures and symbolic sites, are seen as boosting confidence in the possibility of ousting the current leadership. According to Pahlavi, the current military strategy is pushing the regime to its breaking point, and he believes the regime will collapse by the end of the year. He urges world leaders to firmly back regime change to encourage the Iranian people to take action. However, some European powers are still calling for de-escalation and negotiation, which Pahlavi believes would be a mistake.
Read the original article here
Iran’s exiled ‘crown prince’ says he is ready to take over from Khamenei, and the reaction is, well, not exactly enthusiastic. It’s a bold statement, declaring a readiness to step in and lead the nation, but the sentiment circulating suggests a deep skepticism, even outright rejection. The specter of the past, the legacy of his family’s rule, looms large, and many see his claim as a step backward rather than forward.
The prevailing sentiment is that this is a case of déjà vu, a potential repeat of historical blunders. The dynasty’s past, marked by authoritarianism and a perceived subservience to foreign powers, is a major point of contention. The notion that a Western-backed monarch could successfully govern Iran, given the country’s complex history and the people’s aspirations for self-determination, seems like a fantasy to many. The memories of the Shah’s reign, and the revolution that followed, are still fresh in the minds of many Iranians, and there is concern that this could lead to another civil war or uprising.
The very idea of a monarchy, after the experience of the previous regime, is also seen as out of touch with the current desires of the Iranian people. The suggestion that a dynasty should regain power again is just not something many Iranians will accept. The calls for a democratic future, a government chosen by the people, is the future they want.
The concerns extend beyond mere historical baggage. Many believe this “crown prince” is out of touch with the realities of Iran, living a life removed from the struggles and aspirations of ordinary citizens. This detachment, coupled with his perceived dependence on foreign support, raises questions about his legitimacy and his ability to govern effectively. This is not to say that people don’t want change; they want someone that can represent the will of the people, not their own.
Some argue that his readiness is not about genuine altruism or a desire to serve the Iranian people. Rather, it’s suspected that this is a grab for power. This perception is intensified by the feeling that he is simply a Western puppet, installed to serve foreign interests, rather than the interests of Iran. The historical context is essential here, as the United States and Great Britain have a history of interference in Iranian affairs, including a previous coup.
The possibility of a repeat of the 1953 coup, where the US and the UK overthrew a democratically elected leader in order to control Iranian oil, is something to be considered. The fear is that the “crown prince” might be perceived as a puppet, serving the interests of foreign powers. The suggestion that this would happen again is something that the Iranian people will never accept.
Ultimately, the collective response to the crown prince’s pronouncements is one of deep skepticism, and there are some serious questions being asked. His lack of support from the IRGC, the army, and the general population suggests this path is a tough one. The path forward is a democratic future, not a return to the past.