Unity without clear lines risks hijacking Iran’s revolution—history shows that failing to draw firm boundaries only paves the way for a new form of authoritarian rule.
The January 2026 uprising and the chain of nationwide revolts that followed have brought the question of Iran’s future to the center of political debate. When the discussion turns to overthrowing the current system and shaping what comes next, a seemingly intuitive assumption emerges: that everyone opposed to the ruling theocracy must necessarily be on the same side and moving in the same direction. It is precisely at this point that deep political divergences—and conflicting strategies—begin to surface.
First, the monarchical dictatorship in Iran was decisively abolished in 1979 through the collective will of the Iranian people. The last Shah was expelled by popular consensus. Any political alliance with the son of that overthrown dictator therefore stands in direct contradiction to the explicit choice Iranians already made. Repackaging monarchy as an “option” is not neutrality; it is disregard for historical fact and popular sovereignty.
Second, cooperation with the remnants of a corrupt dictatorship—whose current activity is largely reduced to harassment, verbal abuse, and anti-democratic behavior in European and North American streets and on social media—does nothing to expand the ranks of Iranians fighting clerical rule. On the contrary, it undermines public trust among a population that is actively resisting dictatorship at great personal cost.
Third, aligning with a figure who, in his own “transition plans,” concentrates all executive, legislative, and judicial powers in himself is fundamentally incompatible with the goals of a democratic revolution. Such schemes amount to pre-designing a new absolute authority—structurally resembling both the current system of clerical absolutism and the unchecked monarchy of the past. This approach does not reflect the aspirations of a people seeking national sovereignty and democratic self-rule; it openly contradicts them.
Fourth, alliance with anyone who openly calls for foreign intervention to deliver himself to Tehran carries only political disgrace. External imposition, regardless of its packaging, strips a movement of legitimacy and alienates the very people whose sacrifices sustain the struggle.
There is a fundamental difference between Iran’s organized resistance and the so-called “prince.” That difference lies in their understanding of freedom, popular sovereignty, and the future political order. On one side stand people who are in the arena—who have paid with imprisonment, exile, blood, and life itself for a democratic alternative. On the other side are figures who speak of overthrow without having borne any cost, while simultaneously obstructing and diverting the people’s uprising.
The claim that “the form of the future system should be left to later” may sound democratic on the surface, but in practice it constitutes a serious political deviation. Monarchism, particularly in its current manifestation, is not a neutral political theory among others. It is a coordinated attempt to launder the crimes of a past dictatorship and re-impose it as an alternative. Iran’s history is unambiguous: when boundaries are not drawn early and clearly, dictatorship regenerates. In 1979, many said, “First the Shah must go; the rest can be decided later.” The result was the establishment of clerical tyranny. That mistake cannot be repeated.
Monarchy is not a benign political preference; it is inherently anti-democratic in structure. A genuinely free and fair referendum can only have meaning after the complete rejection of both forms of dictatorship—royal and clerical. The current revolution against the theocracy is therefore not a detour, but a necessary forward step that should have followed the overthrow of monarchy, not reversed back to it.
The issue is not opposition to unity. The issue is that unity without boundaries is not real unity. In practice, “togetherness” means solidarity among popular forces, social groups, and democratic and national movements. Forces that seek dictatorship—old or new—cannot stand in the same camp as democratic forces. Placing victims and former executioners under the same banner, without rejecting despotism and its roots, is a grave political error.
Anyone who seeks return through reliance on foreign powers, through incitement and abuse, through threats of martial law, and through declared alliances with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the Basij, and repressive security forces, is not advancing the revolution. He is attempting to neutralize it before it can succeed.
Some self-proclaimed opponents of the clerical regime like Reza Pahlavi have openly announced their alignment with the IRGC and security forces—the very institutions responsible for killing thousands during the January 2026 uprising. These are not allegations; they are publicly stated positions. How can one speak of “national unity” while standing shoulder to shoulder with those who murdered the nation’s children?
For any Iranian with a sense of dignity, a clear line against the allies of the IRGC and the killers of protesters is unavoidable. Boundary-setting in this context is not divisive—it is honorable. Without it, history’s failures will be replayed.
Clear boundaries serve two critical functions. First, they prevent political deception. Without them, anyone can claim to oppose the regime without offering a program or paying a price. Those who merely ride the wave can masquerade as equals to those who have sacrificed everything. Boundary-setting allows society to distinguish slogans from action, real resistance from opportunism, genuine opponents of repression from its covert partners.
Second, boundaries prevent the theft of the people’s struggle. Iranian history is filled with moments when uprisings succeeded in mobilizing the masses, only for unorganized or dependent forces to seize the outcome at the final stage. From the Constitutional Revolution to the era of Mossadegh, from the anti-monarchical revolution to today, the lesson is consistent.
Ultimately, boundary-setting means ensuring that the blood, pain, and resistance of the people are not used to manufacture yet another dictatorship—whether in the name of monarchy or under any other label. It is the safeguard for a democratic and popular system. Today, the central dividing line is clear: a democratic republic versus hereditary rule. This is the ultimate path.
