Few aspiring heads of state have more support from their people, but even fewer face an more unlikely path to rule.

In recent weeks, you may have seen an increase in interviews with Reza Pahlavi, the exiled crown prince of Iran: MSNBC, FOX Business, TV Rain Room, Republic World, Patrick Bet-David, American Optimist, FOX LA. I was curious if these appearances were appearing in my social media timelines because I’d began to write about Iranian history and culture, or because he was making a concerted effort to speak up, with the rising tensions in Iran. Curious, I conducted a Google Trends search over the past 12 months, 5 years, and as far back as 2004. While his search volume has indeed gone up of late with this series of interviews in American and foreign media, none really showed a material spike over a longer time period. That said, my instinct suggested that something was brewing, especially when I saw the Islamic Regime of Iran themselves put up billboards critiquing Pahlavi’s late father Mohammad Reza Shah (aka The Shah).

The Shah inherited the throne at the age of 21 from his father Reza Shah, the founder of the Pahlavi dynasty. In this article, I’ll examine the surging interest in Mr Pahlavi and explain the appeal of monarchy to some Iranians who oppose the regime in Iran. I’d like to reaffirm that I am not a political person, I’ve written on history and as an Iranian I am invariably increasingly interested in my vatan; I am not in any shape form or fashion, directly or indirectly involved or affiliated with any person or party – be it in the past, present or future [Related articles: Ancient Persia, Iran during the 20th century from the rise of the Pahlavi dynasty to the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the long list of dynasties and rulers in Iran going back 2500 years, the role of psychology (via oghdeh) and sociology (via Taarof) to understand Iranian history and politics].

Republics vs Monarchies

We sometimes conflate terms that aren’t opposites when discussing economics and politics. Few doubt that:
– democracies are better than authoritarian systems,
– capitalism prevailed as a better practical model available than communism/socialism,
– secular societies are more equitable than theocratic ones.
But when you objectively look around the world, indeed it’s not a given that all republics are better than constitutional monarchies today. Without a doubt, all factors being equal, if in 2024 you were to somehow magically inherit or find a new piece of land and start a country, then a republic may be the preferred form of government (for no better reason than “who would be king or queen?”).

The real, fair question is what makes sense for a given society and people. The symbolic King as head of state in Canada does not really matter when examining Iran.

When I first dove in deeper into the state of Iran, I asked innocuously and in good faith: “I realize that Reza Pahlavi has support amongst the diaspora, but are there any data points about the support inside of Iran?”

Swiftly, a passionate self-described advocate for the return of a constitutional monarchy figuratively grabbed me by the collar, and after proverbially connecting my face to the asphalt asked: “how much does the regime pay you?” Surely they weren’t speaking to me, I thought, since I was not on any such payroll. To defuse the tension, I added that “I had seen some videos of people chanting his name, but I was just curious if there were any studies or surveys, though I acknowledge these are not easy to conduct inside of Iran.” Thankfully, a few folks sent me survey results from Gaaman and ERF.i which I analyzed previously. To summarize, Gamaan concluded that Iranians were unhappy with the regime and favored a republic, but ultimately they trusted Reza Pahlavi most (it’s not like Pahlavi would return as prime minister, making that a bit of a head scratcher). In ERF.i’s survey, Iranians seemed to favour a “return to the time before the 1979-Revolution when the constitutional monarchy held sway, with 79.9% of Iranians overwhelmingly preferring Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi over the current political leaders.”

Politics & Paranoia

As an entrepreneur, the mere concept of a hereditary-based transition system let alone governance based on one’s last name seems antithetical and anathema to me. But we’re not speaking about corporate governance, but rather, politics. Moreover, we’re talking about a people – Iranians – who have grown distrustful and paranoid of others – unsurprisingly since after ruling over the known world have been invaded, occupied and/or seen their affairs meddled by Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Turks, Mongols, Russians, British and Americans. One of those, the Arabs, came along with their newly found religion – Islam – and converted the Zoroastrian people, though Iranians managed to retain their culture and language, Farsi (related: FAQ on Iran).

Iran’s Pedigree and DNA includes Monarchic Rule & Shahs

Iran’s history effectively goes back to 3200 BC, predating even Egypt. But that history includes 2500 years of monarchy, with Cyrus the Great defeating the Median empire in 550 BC and establishing the Achaemenid empire as the precursor and foundation to the Persian empire that would rule as the dominant one for two hundred years until Darius III was defeated by Alexander the Great in 330 BC. Following his death, Alexander’s general Seleucid took over control of Persia, which then was followed by dozens of other dynasties – some better than others admittedly, but continuing to contribute to mankind with inventions in arts and sciences.

The Greatest Individual To Live?

Thus as baseline, it’s not merely that Iran had monarchies and kingdoms, in Cyrus the Great, we had arguably the most powerful ruler of all time (by controlling a greater proportion of the known world than anyone else), the founder of human rights (with the Cyrus cylinder), and a fair and just ruler who recognized that liberating people who were subjected to despotic rulers and letting them live free and prosper would create a harmonious society. England invented soccer/football in 1863, so even if they have not won the World Cup in eons, surely you understand why the nation and people are deeply attached to the sport. Cyrus died a gruesome death, and it’s fair to argue that it was his boundaryless ambition and pride that ultimately proved his downfall, but while other rulers were more successful in one measure or another, no leader had the complete set of traits, skills, accomplishments that Cyrus had. For all intents and purposes, Cyrus was the most revered and respected secular individual throughout history, influencing a wide array of people including one of the founding fathers of America, Thomas Jefferson, who had a copy of Cyropaedia, written by the Greek student of Socrates, Xenophon.

Now, you can argue that the fact that Iran at the time being a monarchy was a reflection of the times. While Rome and Greece did have republics in ancient times and monarchies weren’t the only form of governance, kingdoms were the most popular form of government of the era.

The 1906 Constitutional Monarchy

Iran has had many dynasties, some lasting even longer than the average length of most empires, i.e. 250 years. Iran had some great kings, not only Cyrus the Great but also Darius I or more recently Reza Shah, who modernized Iran, but in doing so alienated clerics who lost land and influence. We also had less effective and outright poor rulers. Before the Pahlavis, the Qajars ruled 125 years (relative to the 54-year old reign of the Pahlavis) and conceded many territories to Russia and adopted poor economic policies which hurt Iran. Some have stated that were it not for the reforms of Reza Shah, Iran could resemble neighbouring Afghanistan today. That’s not entirely false. In any case, because the Qajars were dragging Iran sideways, the 1906 constitutional revolution led to the creation of a constitutional monarchy to limit the powers of the Shah – regardless of the dynasty and ruler in charge.

Iranian monarchists are quick to point out that the Pahlavis granted women the right to vote before most other advanced nations. One could argue that Iran’s progress during the 20th century could have occurred regardless of the form of government, and that is certainly true, which is why
1) I emphasize that in general, the key is the people and quality of leaders (moreso than the form of government);
2) whereas the monarchy gave Iran its most glorious periods, the only republic the people have known is a theocratic republic which has not delivered the freedoms and liberties people seek and demand in the 21st century, especially when technology gives humans a window into the quality of life of their brethren around the world.

Thus, whether due to correlation or causality, Iranians who oppose the regime have a favourable association with monarchies and a critical one of republics.

If America is the Model, Then Persia Was an Early Prototype

Thus, when America is viewed by some as the model of modern nations and one of its founding fathers wrote about “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” in its declaration of independence, Iranians have a fair and valid gripe about not being able to benefit from those very same self-evident truths and unalienable rights. Why can someone from Persia in the state of Iowa live a freer life than someone in modern day Persia, after all.

What Grade Would You Give Leaders and Dynasties in Their Report Card

As a business person whose written about leaders, companies, and much more, I personally found it easier to discuss Iran’s history by looking at it as an organization/company with its leader as the CEO, so that I could objectively credit or criticize someone without it seeming political. In that vein, while undoubtedly Cyrus the Great and Darius I earn their A+, other leaders even during the glorious Achaemenid Empire get lower scores (Xerxes I for example was good, but he had many dubious traits and by burning down Athens in 480 BC, he foreshadowed Alexander’s subsequent destruction of Persepolis). The Qajars get an F by most standards. Those in between earn a myriad of grades.

If we are to be honest about the Pahlavis, objectively, I don’t see how Reza Shah and Mohammad Reza Shah don’t each deserve an A- by starting off with a feudal country and by the 1970s turning them into high-growth economic engines commandeering the world’s fifth largest army and a beacon of stability in the Mideast. If both men lost any points in their grade as Shah, it may be over how both lost power and ended the monarchy, ironically further speaking to some of their appeal over time as leaders who accepted to step down to avoid the loss of life.

Taarof

I’ve written about taarof in the context of management and leadership, but to better understand Iran politics and history, taarof is quite illuminating. An extreme display of etiquette, taarof is actually a humble form of “self-lowering” and “giving up the upper hand,” which explains how even rulers have seized, maintained and lost power.

Instead of highlighting all of the ways that Iran was ahead of its time and boasted accomplished incredible feats, the Pahlavi report card was hijacked by critics: marxists and the clerics alike. For example, we oftentimes hear of SAVAK, Iran’s secret police. While Western media would report 100,000 political prisoners, the actual number may have been much lower, in the thousands. Ultimately, instead of comparing Iran in the 1970s to say Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iraq, and even certain European states like Greece or Portugal, some evaluate the Pahlavis by benchmarking Iran in the 1970s to modern-day western societies – which makes no sense at all.

Monarchy vs Republic

If a year ago you asked me “does Iran’s youth want any form of monarchy,” I earnestly would have said “I don’t know, but unlikely. Don’t young people want the right to vote for their head of state?”

All factors equal, that may have been right, but Iranians are incapable of trusting anyone politically because the reformists who promised change fail to deliver change. Even reformist politicians like Mohammad Khatami and Hassan Rouhani ended up being not all that different than hard-liners, so in the end, the people of Iran fail to generate any excitement around “new faces” the way say America fell for head over heels for Barack Obama in 2006 on a promise and platform of change. Thus by combining
i) Iran’s history with monarchy,
ii) the people’s frustration and exasperation with the theocratic republic, and
iii) the demotivating nature of seeing reformists fail to deliver real change,
these dynamics have created this very unique combination where an exiled crown prince has emerged heads and shoulders above others. But, given the regime’s relationship with Russia and China, the crown prince’s return appears more like mirage than reality on most days. Indeed, without a second amendment and not one but two strong pillars – the clerics and the IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps), no matter how frail the regime seems, its grip on power remains strong.

So while Iranians think fondly of 2500 of monarchy rule, their 45-year experience with the republic has led to a staggering devaluation of its currency, the nation being ostracized from the world community and an endless amount of executions of civilians. Thus, it’s not surprising that those opposed to the regime simply don’t want evolutionary reform, but revolutionary change, starting with an overthrow (“barandaz”) of the theocratic republic.

While many who oppose the regime may favour a republic (“jomhuri”) over a monarchy, the issue then becomes a practical matter. What would such a republic look like? And mainly, who would lead it? Fans of the monarchy point to Turkey and Russia that are republics in name, with leaders ruling authoritatively over a long period of time.

Monarchists don’t have any faith in Iranians who they consider and accuse to be profiteering instead of genuinely caring for the well-being of the Iranian people. Any time the western media describe someone as a political option, they are met with a barrage of vitriol. While I personally abhor the sexist overtones of the criticism that people like Masih Alinejad or Narges Mohammadi endure, the treatment and attacks they face is a reminder that anyone seeking to lead the Iranians will face an impossibly uphill battle to be seen as credible. The widow of one of the victims of the downed Ukrainian Airlines that was filled with Iranians, Hamed Esmaeilion, is a social activist who is a dentist by profession. Oftentimes, instead of getting any empathy for the loss of his wife and daughter, he is derogatorily described as the “tooth fixer” instead of seen as a viable political option.

Indeed, fans and supporters of Mr Pahlavi can be both commended for their passion and activism, and criticized for their militancy (not dissimilar to the dynamic between Donald Trump and some of his MAGA followers).

A Process of Elimination?

While the Qajar dynasty appears to have a crown prince in waiting (the Heir Presumptive to the Qajar throne is Mohammad Hassan Mirza II, in case you needed to know that factoid), it’s laughable to suggest anyone other than Reza Pahlavi can appear as an option in a return to a constitutional monarchy. As such, royalists are defined as those who only advocate for a return of the Pahlavi dynasty. I would, very respectfully, question whether Mr Pahlavi’s eldest daughter Noor would ever have any material level of credibility amongst the broader Iranian population, but it’s undoubtable that Mr. Pahlavi himself, aside from any lineage, has been impressively consistent for 45 years when other aspiring leaders have waffled on many issues, particularly the promise of reform.

The “No Show” Elections?

The 2024 Iranian legislative elections had most moderate and reformist figures disqualified from polls. According to the government, it had a record low turnout of 41%, with some polling stations and areas drawing even less votes. Mr Pahlavi referred to these as “sham elections.”

Waiting for Pahlavi?

To be candid, while an exiled crown prince can’t exactly go “get a job” at some swanky consulting firm to stay busy, Mr Pahlavi himself has stated that at 63 years of age, he may not be able to seamlessly uproot his life and family and relocate to Iran even if somehow, automagically, the stars aligned. But that’s really putting the cart ahead of the horse, especially given the reality and conditions on the ground. And therein lies the Paradox of Reza Pahlavi: If you were to somehow rank all of the possible individuals who could become the heads of their state by the support they command from their people in one column, it’s not shocking to think that Mr. Pahlavi would rank near the top of that list. But if you were to rerank that list by those who have the least obvious path to claim that seat (by way of elections, for example), then his rank may be closer to the bottom. After all, also to his credit, Mr Pahlavi has not once, in the 45 years since his father’s reign ended, advocated for military intervention.

As his father noted and the clerics now capitalize on, Iran is a fortress. For a brief period in the late 2000s and early 2010s, there were those in America who advocated for regime change (eg. General Wesley Clark enumerated seven nations, six of them have seen their regimes fall, save for Iran). But with America leaving Iran’s two neighbouring nations – Iraq and Afghanistan – Iran has the kinds of geographical buffer than even The Shah never dreamt of. The Islamic Republic has also expanded its tentacles in Lebanon, Syria, Palestine and Yemen. So long as Russia and China remain sponsors of the regime, nothing will change on the ground, though the endless protests and human rights issues, Iran will continue to remain in the news, and ergo, Mr Pahlavi will be the go-to expert for media abroad.