By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Reza Pahlavi, Iran’s exiled crown prince, urged President Trump to take swift action against the Iranian regime in response to ongoing protests and a violent crackdown. Pahlavi, who has communicated with the Trump administration, believes the regime’s recent outreach is a ploy to quell the unrest. He emphasized that the situation requires immediate intervention to prevent further casualties and facilitate the regime’s collapse. Pahlavi views himself as a voice for the Iranian people, advocating for their demand of regime change, and expressed his willingness to sacrifice for their cause.
Read the original article here
Iran’s exiled Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi is calling for something that’s sparking a lot of debate: urging Donald Trump to step in sooner rather than later, hoping for the current regime’s collapse. It’s a bold move, to say the least, and one that’s stirring up a lot of opinions, especially given the history and the complexities of the situation.
The big question at the heart of this is: what would come next? Many people are very wary of any suggestion of the Pahlavi family returning to power. It’s hard to ignore that the Shah’s rule, supported by the US, contributed to the very conditions that led to the 1979 revolution. The memory of the Shah’s authoritarianism, corruption, and the actions of SAVAK, the secret police, are still very raw for many. People remember the brutal suppression of dissent and the disregard for the needs of the Iranian people. So, the idea of a monarchy, even with a different figurehead, raises significant red flags.
There’s a real longing for a truly democratic government, something like the 1951 moment where Iran had a democratically elected leader who prioritized Iranian interests. This resonates with the desire for a system where leaders are accountable to the people and not beholden to outside powers or their own personal gain. The fear is that any intervention, especially from someone like Trump, might be less about the Iranian people and more about strategic interests, potentially leading to a new form of control, not liberation.
The exiled Prince’s close ties to certain groups are also a sticking point. Many see these connections as a way to delegitimize the protest. His background, coupled with the legacy of his father, make it difficult for many to see him as a symbol of hope. It’s a bit like asking for help from someone who might just want to install a new regime, rather than helping Iranians build the democracy they deserve.
The timing of these calls for intervention is critical. If the current regime collapses, what takes its place matters deeply. There’s a clear understanding that the path to a true democratic government will be a long one. There’s also the reality of the international landscape, and how any actions might affect other conflicts, such as the one in Ukraine.
It’s easy to understand why there’s so much caution. The history of foreign involvement in Iranian affairs is a cautionary tale. The US and UK’s role in the 1953 coup that brought the Shah back to power is a painful reminder of how external forces can shape Iranian politics. Many are wary of a repeat of the past, even if the goal is a different future.
It’s clear that many Iranians want a secular parliamentary republic with a president as the head of state. It is a very important question, what kind of government will emerge if the current regime falls. Will the new leadership truly prioritize the needs of the Iranian people, or will it be another form of oppression? The answer to that question may depend on the choices made today. The Iranian people deserve to choose their own future, free from the shadow of the past and the interference of outside actors.