Forty-five years after joining forces with Marxists to topple Iran’s king (or Shah) and ending 2500 years of monarchic rule, the Mullahs have somehow incredibly managed to raise the popularity and appeal of monarchy in the oldest nation in the world.

There’s no way to escape this awkward, ironic reality: no one has helped the cause of monarchy more than the “Mullahs,” the clerics who turned Iran into an Islamic Republic, led by a supreme leader Ali Khamenei who controls all matters related to domestic and foreign policy. The Ayatollah, who replaced Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, has been in power since 1989. Stricken by cancer, when deceased rumors are that his son Mojtaba is at least in the running to replace him. Protecting the supreme leader are the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corp. (IRGC), which has moved from an armed force that dwarfs the formal military, or Artesh, but also runs many fiefdoms of the Iranian economy. Its 90 million consumers are one of the few untapped markets to America.

Ceterus Paribus: Who Wants a Monarchy?

All factors being equal, as an entrepreneur, I dislike hereditary-based transition systems. No one is fully self-made, I stood on the shoulders of my father, older brother & others, but false modesty aside, I didn’t have any wealthy uncles to rely on, I did not inherit a business and grow it, etc. I built our little empire the old fashioned way, through hard work & hustle. Throughout my career, I’ve encountered many so-called “born on 3rd base” individuals who think they hit a triple but were set up through a hereditary-based system. Now granted, not all such individuals are created equally. In business, they’re a dime a dozen. In politics, it’s more nuanced, and no country is more nuanced than Iran, where the late Shah’s son – the exiled crown prince – has ridden increased popularity but whose path to rule from a throne remains more elusive than any other aspiring leader with such support.

For each similarity politics and business share, they differ in major ways. Rupert Murdoch passed the reins of his news empire to his son Lachlan, while his other son James viewed as indignation enough to go raise a warchest to create his own. Edgar Bronfman Jr. took over Seagram and effectively destroyed shareholder value through his transformation from alcohol & industrial behemoth to media conglomerate. But, he was right about the synergies and rising value of content, he was simply too aggressive and mainly, too ahead of the curve. Clark Hunt and Geoff Molson are both scions of sports owners, but Hunt inherited the Kansas City Chiefs from his father Lamar whereas Molson and his brother raised financing and acquired it from the previous owner, George Gillett, who’d previously bought it from the Molson family.

Born in Iran and educated at a lyçee Français, monarchies were not in vogue growing up. The only people who hate monarchy more than the Mullahs may very well be the French, who pioneered the use of the guillotine as a reaction to the absolute monarchy in France. Between my “nature and nurture,” indeed, I like to think anyone can become anything, including head of state.

In monarchies, that usually isn’t the case, even though many monarchies are taken over through violence or diplomacy, and not heredity. Reza Shah, viewed as the father of modern Iran, had no “royal” pedigree, he was a member of the Cossacks who won the trust of the Russians and British whose shadows influenced Iran, before the US’s weight crumbled the monarchy and paved the way for the Islamic Republic.

From my assessment, I think Pahlavi drives interest in the monarchy, more so than an interest in monarchy explains Pahlavi’s support – but equally playing a role in the growing interest of monarchy has been the Mullahs’ actions.

From Monarchies to Republics

Nations trace their roots to monarchy and some remain monarchies to this day. Outside of a period when Rome was a republic, all early empires – Persia, Greece, Rome – were all kingdoms. Over time, the Enlightenment in France ushered in an era where leaders were voted by their constituents, and a wave of republics replaced monarchies. Even a commonwealth like the British Empire delegated enough power to locally elected politicians who ran the day-to-day operations of the country. As a Canadian, Queen Elizabeth had no bearing on our affairs, and represented a symbolic figurehead. Once she passed away, her son Charles took over, and with that passage the relevance of the British monarchy fell further into irrelevance. I mean no disrespect as someone who immigrated here and have always sought to respect local mores. Seeing politicians make a series of promises to get elected only to then run matters for a few years before focusing on re-election, I concede that republics are no better.

Oftentimes, people conflate democracy with republics, or dictatorship with monarchy. The UK is a democratic society with a form of government that is a constitutional monarchy, while Turkey is more of an autocratic republic ran by a strongman in Erdogan.

The Mullahs’ foreign and domestic policies have eroded whatever little support they had in 1979. The Iran-Iraq war in some ways galvanized their grip on Iranian society and strengthened their rule. Hearing Iranians express support for the monarchy is amplified only by their disdain for republic form of government, which is shocking to someone like me who was educated to view French or American forms of government as the optimal one. Won’t lie. To Iranians in favor of a constitutional monarchy, indeed “republic” is a tainted term.

Paradox & Walking Contradictions

Six months after I was born, the revolution toppled the monarchy, the next year Iraq invaded Iran. I never heard any ill will towards the Shah in our household, but in no way were we “monarchists” – we were simply apolitical. Before working for Spanish embassy, he leveraged being a polyglot and one of his side hustles was serving as one of Queen Farah’s translators. It wasn’t ideological, but merely a gig. We left Iran in 1983 when the government frowned on an Iranian working for a foreign embassy, I suppose. He brought us and many in his family to Canada, and he pursued entrepreneurship in his own right – something I covered in my 3rd book as well as my 2019 documentary, Fox in the Henhouse.

Image

My father (right), serving as one of Shahbanou’s (left) translators at a musical event featuring Peruvian artists in the late 1970s. My family was apolitical.

When I finally told my dad that I was spending time listening – and engaging – with Iranians in political Spaces on X, I expected him to say “baba, maa toro avordim inja ke siasi nabashi…” (we didn’t bring you to Canada so you meddle in politics here) but instead he said: “it’s a good thing to listen and learn what many people endured and had to go through.” Iranians tend to be talakbars to some extent, perhaps deep inside he felt like he never really got the recognition and appreciation from the hundreds of people he helped bring here. I could see a sense of validation.

Why is Iran different?

Eventually the value of conversations that Spaces provide diminishes, given that (not dissimilar to industry conferences I used to attend more frequently), it’s the same group of people discussing the exact same things.

But when I would join and listen, it was shocking to hear Iranians voice their opposition not merely to the current government (currently a democratic theocratic republic) due to their abysmal human rights record & squandering of Iran’s wealth to support the so-called Axis of Resistance and be the flag bearer of the opposition to the Western hegemony – but to republics altogether!

Now, to be clear, there is a large cohort of Iranians who may not support the regime but definitely do not favor a monarchy. Of those, some trust Pahlavi as crown prince, so they are embracing a monarchic system since the crown prince will not serve as a member of parliament, etc. but most roads seem to lead to Pahlavi due to the incredible progress Iran experienced under his grand-father and father.

While non-Iranians sympathetic to the “Palestinian cause” appreciate Iran’s sacrifice, amongst Iranians, the regime is growingly unpopular… even though at the onset in 1979, about 10% of Iran’s then 40M supported the Islamist movement…  All leaders have their shortcomings, the articles I’ve read on Pahlavis borderline on slander, though I am sure there are truths to parts of it. The Shah’s main weakness was less SAVAK but initially his loyalty to America, and eventually his growing confidence which scared the West who was increasingly relying on Iran’s oil. Iran’s history with US is thorny: Operation AJAX in 1953, the hostage taking in 1979… Iran went from America’s main ally to viewing it as the Great Satan, with America’s new regional ally, Israel, the Little Satan.

Evolving Views Meet Reality

At the onset, my view really was that demographics & technology will serve as a change agent. Whether Iranians see the 1979 events as a revolution or coup, whether they are reformers or seeking regime change through a revolution or reform it, it’s undeniable that Iran is experiencing a counter revolution embracing Iranian history and rejecting the Islamic influence which has taken the country to the brink.

While technology and demographics suggest a change in leadership is not impossible, what will actually make it happen may not be via weapons but rather, defections and strikes. That Israel assassinated Hamas’ Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran suggests that defections are happening. We have also seen strikes across Iran.

Leaders are not perfect. As a business person, at the end of 1999, Jack Welch was the manager of the century. Turned out he cheated on his wife, fired employees indiscriminately, and his quest for profit at any cost created a house of cards at GE that came crashing down after the 9/11 attacks on America. Other leaders, like the Shah, were vilified when alive, only for history to re-evaluate their legacy.

“Why do you piss off so many people?”

I refuse to insult any Iranian, be it Pahlavi before he was in vogue, or Khomeini/Khamenei now, or Time magazine’s Person of the Year Mohammad Mossadegh (who was the heir of a Qajar princess). Cyrus the Great remains my biggest influence. While I point out that despite doing some good, Xerxes also set the stage for Persepolis’ destruction… I do not criticize anyone as much as point out that there is always a reaction to an action. We saw this with 10/7, whom Palestinians viewed as a response to previous aggression by the IDF, and which Israel viewed as reason to finally strike hard at Hamas.

You can harm Hamas Inc but the Hamas. org mentality only got stronger since IDF’s response, but fact remains: the chain of events since have set Iran’s foreign policy strategy and efforts back decades and bankrupt its efforts: Dameshk is no longer under its orbit, and Hezbollah was also set back.

If the IDF blew up Iran’s defense systems in their tit-for-that responses, it explains Iran’s more dovish stance. Still unclear what Khamenei was thinking with his flower poems… but all indications are that to soften the growing resentment over current challenges, Iran will loosen certain restrictions.

For better or worse, I see both/all sides of any discussion. On the one hand, who wants a monarchy? Granted, while more recently the Mullahs have soiled the term republic, Iran’s history is indeed intertwined with monarchy, with some dynasties outlasting the average tenure of empires.

Yes, a lot of people rose against the monarchy and the Shah in particular (reasons include general resentment amongst clerics, SAVAK’s role in surveillance and enforcement, which while not as bad as reported, remained a thorn in Iranians’ side, jealousy & envy). But with the passage of time, most Iranians recognize that by and large, Iran modernized and improved dramatically during the 20th century, in large part thanks to the Pahlavi dynasty which followed a disastrous reign by the Qajars where Iran lost territorial concessions. In other words, those who do favor a monarchy do so due to the affinity for the late Shah, his father  and his son, and not out of any affection for the Qajars.

The Evidence Speaks For Itself

In law, you sometimes cannot introduce new evidence but may be limited to what’s on the face of the record. With each passing event or milestone it was not hard to see a government with little popular support.

Iran’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei controls the country no differently than a monarch would in a constitutional monarchy. But whereas in some constitutional monarchies the head of state actually has an impact, it’s not false to say that Iran’s president is more figurehead and spokesperson than someone who like their American counterpart can change policy. I do not think pro-regime people would disagree with me here. Iran saw not one but two elections in 2024: the turnout at both elections was anemic.

Earlier in 2024, Khamenei said that “God spoke through him,” an interesting turn of events, and surprising to this agnostic/atheist who was born Muslim but pretty sure that Mohammad was the last prophet. Prophets were the first entrepreneurial types to roam the earth, followed by kings & military commanders, discoverers, inventors, scientists, storytellers, and technologists – who really popularized entrepreneurship.

Statistics from inside Iran are hard to find let alone rely on, but sources from ERFI, Gamaan (not perfect but something) start to paint a picture. The key is to take things with a grain of salt, for example, when gauging support for Pahlavi, is it possible that 8 out of 10 people on the streets of Tehran support him? Possibly, sure, but would 80% of Iran’s massive 90M people – ergo 72M – do so? Probably not, Iran is a mosaic of ethnicities.

While some Muslims and Arabs voice their support for Iran’s investment in the Axis of Resistance (as many hate Iran for “meddling”, FWIW), two things are clear: most Iranians do not really support or care about Palestinians, “Shove that flag up your ass.”

Which is a stark contrast to how much Palestine seems important to the leadership. Qasem Soleimani – the IRGC commander overseeing Iraq, the Levant, etc. – said that defending Syria is more important than prayer and the revered Imam Ali. I do not like to criticize any Iranian, especially one that has the respect of some others (mind you, other Iranians loathe him), but the level of blasphemy and hypocrisy is not dissimilar than when seeing uber wealthy pastors in America act in ways that would make Jesus turn in his grave. People are similar, when said and done.

To the rulers of Iran, preserving Damascus was more critical than maintaining Tehran (because if they lose Damascus, they will not be able to keep Tehran but even if they lose Tehran they will be able to come back if Damascus is secured). Well, Damascus fell. Bashar Al Assad went from tough guy to twink in a matter of 24 hours.

Perhaps this is why Marco Rubio recently said: “I don’t know of any nation on earth in which there is a bigger difference between the people and those who govern them than what exists in Iran.”  “No way is the clerics who run that country representative of the people of that country.”

That I quote Marco Rubio tells you how much self-inflicted damage the Mullahs have done.

The domino effect following Hamas’ attack on Israel on 10/7 was more than Iran wanted to handle: Hamas and Hezbollah both weakened, Syria being a total write-off, with its new leader suggesting he intends to pursue Iran for $300 billion in damages… Iran wishes its return was $0, as it’s actually negative.

How is Iran doing? Well, despite massive oil and gas resources, it is experiencing an energy crisis. Its currency has crashed. In other words, let’s be real: if Pahlavi is increasingly popular, the regime can only blame themselves.

Naturally as a secular Westerner, I’ve never been a fan of the relative lack of freedoms and rights, and certainly been critical of their killing of civilians. But I have always tried to maintain an open mind to Iran’s foreign and economic policies, but if I had to do so now objectively, I cannot say they would get a good report card… and that’s a tragedy to Iranians who every few years suffer from one mismanagement (famine of 1910s, 1979 revolution, e ensuing 8-year war) to another.

Women’s Rights

And no one has suffered more than Iranian women. Women’s plight remains horrendous. Don’t get me wrong, for sure, it’s great that literacy and women enrolment in universities has gone up, but what good is that if you’re blinded at best and killed, at worst. Indeed, undoubtedly one of the many reasons for the Islamic revolution in Iran was to use religion to put the otherwise smart, assertive & confident Iranian women in a corner and limit their influence in society. Republican Americans do so with reproductive rights – people are the same.

Growing up all of the Iranian women (mother’s friends, family) were strong, spoke their mind & were never relegated to the background. They were equals in the relationships and (hate the term) sometimes “wore the pants.” But the revolution changed that; while women go to school and work in certain professions, they’ve effectively been knee-capped. I don’t think it’s a coincidence. Working in business for 25 years, I see first hand how women get the short end of the stick and are generally disrespected/overlooked in most corporate settings. Back in 1979, Iran was more conservative, religious and older demographically… and I think many men who led the revolution used the Islamic card as a tool to sideline women. So you have this paradox where an otherwise vocal & confident cohort was shoved to the side and back. This is also why so many Iranian women thrive when they leave Iran and pursue their lives abroad.

Any time I see a woman getting accosted, I am inclined to think that were the regime to fall, it would be led by women, either in droves, or somehow, perhaps naively, in a Rosa Parks like moment that engulfs the nation. The murder of Mahsa Amini had that potential, but inasmuch as the Women, Life, Freedom movement captured minds and made headlines in 2022, it does not appear as it  has the momentum & mobility needed to make a material change.

Appeal of crown prince

The growing appeal of the crown prince is rooted in the growing respect and nostalgia for the Pahlavi dynasty, who are credited with modernizing Iran.

There are many myths about Iran, and some of that has to do with anti Pahlavi propaganda the government has seeded throughout education and media. I didn’t think the regime gave much consideration to a ruler who had been gone for nearly half a century and an heir who had created a life for himself in America – until I saw the billboards. Undoubtedly, the Pahlavis enriched themselves during their dynasty, but all leaders of all states do so, and Iran’s rulers – be it natives like Cyrus the Great or occupying commanders like Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan – were the richest individuals on earth of their time. No wonder, since Iran is big business. In fact, the Mullahs are repeating the same mistakes – greed & wrath, amongst others – that previous rulers made. Meanwhile, Iranians repeat the same patterns of betrayal and vatan foorooshi.

I am apolitical and simply aspire to be as well educated on Iran so that when foreigners ask me about Iran, my views are not mere regurgitations of Christiane Amanpour, BBC or Iran International, so to speak. In my 40-years of research and writing, and my 30 years in business, I think all forms and systems of government suck, because people suck, and cannot control the sins they are presented with with enough virtues. Politics is just an amplified manifestation of this dynamic because of the ripple effects have across countries and the world.

Purity tests shrink the base and make the tent smaller

Pahlavi’s main positive trait is his positivity and inclusive nature. His supporters, however, make it challenging for him to actually expand the tent with a cohort who is neither monarchist nor loyal to the regime. That cohort is more practical and pragmatic, and the ultimate kingmakers, IMHO. His second main strength has been his consistency, which endears him to those who have grown to distrust and dislike reformers, who prop the regime while it continues to set records for civilians killed.

When asked if the crown prince has a real shot of actually restoring the monarchy, his critics point out that he is no revolutionary. And that, is fair.

Indeed, during the discovery stage of a legal dispute between Pahlavi and a friend and security guard, a testimony from the claimant reveals that somewhere in a CIA file sits how the the organization views Pahlavi: “A former friend claims that in the 1980s American intelligence approached Reza Pahlavi with a scheme to land a Pahlavi loyalist force in Kish Island under US naval and air support. Allegedly, Reza Pahlavi’s first question was about the exit strategy. None of this inspires confidence on Reza Pahlavi’s boldness and resolution.”

I understand the claimant who was at the time suing Pahlavi stated this as a criticism, though to me, it shows Pahlavi’s consistency, concern and consideration in wanting to avoid & minimize risk, ie the loss of lives. Critics of Pahlavi point out that he is no revolutionary, which is certainly true. When Khomeini returned from France to Iran, he was asked what feelings he was experiencing, to which he replied “heech” (nothing); even if Pahlavi were to experience “hamechi” (everything) if he were to return to Iran, it’s unfair to expect him to take that risk until and unless Iran is secure (and this presumes that the regime falls, which is not evident as despite Khamenei’s total rule as Supreme Leader, there is an entire apparatus and organization of clerics and IRGC members who would happily fill that void). This is not like Romania’s Nicolae Ceausescu when the fall of one man led to the collapse of the regime.

Iranians sometimes point to the fall of Caecescu as a possible scenario in Iran where Khamenei passes away or somehow steps down, etc. But the reality is that while Khamenei is the supreme leader, there’s an entire apparatus of clerics and IRGC leaders who would be willing to fill that vacuum. In Romania, when Caucescu fell, there was no system to fill the gap. While the Shah was in no way similar to Caecescu (he was in most ways the opposite: growing the economy while Romania was starved as it exported most of its output to the USSR, freedoms/rights, etc), in the context of a government falling apart after the departure of its leader, that’s the only parallel.

“Controlled Opposition”

The rag tag assortment of other leaders who express their opposition to the regime are considered “controlled opposition” by Pahlavi’s supporters, who have no time or trust in anyone but him. To me, they are just individuals looking for work in a post-change government. I do not understand why his fan club insults these individuals, who at least on paper seem to be risking their lives (if not by regime, by Pahlavi fans – I’m half joking folks) in voicing their minds. By doing so, they actually drag down Pahlavi, who as their king would/should not be lowered as such. But, I digress.

As someone who has recruited people and built teams all my life, another self-defeatist belief by some is that anyone involved with the IRGC is persona non grata & these aspiring leaders are controlled opposition, thus undesirables (and no, I don’t have let alone know anyone in the IRGC). Who will run various departments of Iran’s many ministries has not been answered. But again, I digress.

What Next?

As an entrepreneur, when I hear maximum pressure and maximum support, they sound like clear and catchy vision and mission statements, but as an operator, they ring hollow with no concise idea how regime change unfolds and paves the way for a return let alone restoration of the monarchy. As entrepreneur, Pahlavi’s daughter Noor is laughable… the spark created by the Mullahs for the Iranian monarchy will actually end with him.

Articles in JPost, etc. seem to be clamoring for the world to bolster separatist groups in Kurdish speaking areas to the West and Sistan in the East, but Iranians are by and large coalesced for good around Iranian identity. A more recent article asked why Pahlavi has not called for massive walkouts, a form of civil disobedience amplified by strength in numbers. There’s no doubt that the IRGC would kill Iranians if they did so, but Tehran’s population is 10 million, closer to 17 million if you include its metropolitan area. Would they kill them all? My wish for Iran has always been “minimizing Iranians’ pain while maximizing their quality of life,” but I realize it’s naive to think the regime will just disappear.

“No king nor supreme leader”

If the clerics represent the Islamist axis of the Islamic Marxist alliance that toppled the Shah and ended Iran’s monarchy, the MEK represents the Marxist side, though they, too, are Islamic in thinking. Their female members and leader, Maryam Rajavi, wears the hijab, for example.

Unlike Pahlavi’s more cogent “max support, max pressure” mantra, the MEK has a 10-point plan, a better communications and political organization, and arms. They lack support, but America has a dangerous history of transplanting and propping unpopular regimes. Their  lobbying and resources enable them to appear more credible than they are to Iranians by paying politicians like former VP Mike Pence and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to stand on stage and lend them credibility.

As I outlined in last week’s article ”Why Republicans are Supporting MEK,” despite their checkered past and lack of support within Iran, there are some who favor neither supreme leader, nor shah. While people don’t change, parties do (think of Democrats and Republicans compared to 20 years ago). While anyone aware of Iranian history would not support MEK, I suspect their support can only grow, as they rebrand and reposition themselves (impossible to get any lower, after all).

Ultimately, the regime is like everything else in Iran a paradox: yes weaker, vulnerable & exposed more than ever before, but also finally unshackled with Gaza, Lebanon, Syria – albeit not by choice.

Iran has spent a fortune that would make both Cyrus the Great and Alexander the Great blush with wrath, and envious with greed. It may not have much to show for it, and sadly, their channel to release this anger and frustration may once again be on the people of Iran.