Just hours before a ceasefire between Israel and Iran began on June 24, Reza Pahlavi—the son of Iran’s last shah—addressed the media from Paris, where he lives in exile.
During the televised news conference, the 64-year-old, who refers to himself as the crown prince despite the monarchy’s fall in 1979, cautioned the United States against resuming diplomatic talks with Iran over its nuclear program. He argued that doing so would essentially offer a lifeline to a regime he believes is on the verge of collapse.
Pahlavi likened the current moment to the fall of the Berlin Wall, urging Iranians to take to the streets amid the regional turmoil caused by Israel's war. He also called on members of Iran’s military and security forces to abandon their posts. However, despite his appeals, large-scale protests failed to emerge, Al Jazeera reported.
Rather than rising in protest, many Iranians, including those critical of the government, chose to unite in the face of foreign aggression.
Reza Pahlavi’s claim during his speech in Paris that he was prepared to step in as a replacement for Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and guide the country toward peace and democratic reform did not resonate with the broader public.
While Pahlavi appeared willing to cooperate with Israel in his pursuit of regime change in Iran, most Iranians did not share that view.
According to Iran expert and author of Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran and the United States Trita Parsi, Pahlavi may have undermined what little domestic support he previously held by failing to condemn Israel’s intense military strikes on Iran, a campaign that reportedly killed over 935 people, including a significant number of civilians.
He told Al Jazeera that, in his view, Reza Pahlavi had significantly damaged the reputation of the former monarchy by appearing on television and justifying Israeli military actions, even as civilians were being killed and residential areas targeted.
While Pahlavi’s team declined to respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment, his remaining support—especially among the Iranian diaspora—seems to stem more from opposition to the Islamic Republic and a sense of nostalgia for the pre-1979 monarchy than from confidence in his political agenda.
A British-Iranian woman in her late twenties, identified as Yasmine*, said that some of her relatives support Pahlavi not necessarily because of his policies, but because he symbolises a time when Iran had a secular, pro-Western government.
She noted that, in her view, Pahlavi lacks a well-defined political vision and that his appeal largely rests on what he represents rather than what he proposes.
Analysts told Al Jazeera that part of Pahlavi’s appeal stems from the absence of other prominent opposition figures—largely the result of the Iranian government’s long-standing suppression of dissent.
They also noted that for some supporters, Pahlavi represents an idealised version of Iran’s past, shaped by a romanticised memory of his father, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, and grandfather, Reza Khan.