In an interview with Real America’s Voice, former Senator Robert Torricelli rejects both the clerical dictatorship and a restoration of the Pahlavi monarchy, calls for international support for Iran’s democratic opposition, and identifies the MEK and Maryam Rajavi’s Ten-Point Plan as a viable alternative.
Former U.S. Senator Robert Torricelli has called on the United States to support Iran’s organized democratic opposition, arguing that the country must not exchange the current clerical dictatorship for another authoritarian system under a restored monarchy. In an interview broadcast by Real America’s Voice, Torricelli identified the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK), the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), and Maryam Rajavi’s Ten-Point Plan as a viable alternative for establishing a democratic republic.
The interview, conducted by Jeff Crouere on the program Ringside Politics, followed a report examining Iran’s political situation, the January 2026 nationwide uprising, the regime’s escalating executions, and the controversy surrounding Reza Pahlavi’s political ambitions.
Torricelli, who served approximately 20 years in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate, stressed that regime change cannot be imposed from abroad. The decisive force, he argued, must come from the Iranian people themselves.
Iran’s political future cannot be reduced to a choice between two dictatorships
The Real America’s Voice report opened with footage of the January 2026 nationwide uprising, describing it as Iran’s fourth major nationwide uprising since 2018. According to the report, millions of people took to the streets across all 31 provinces, demanding the overthrow of the theocratic establishment.
One of the central slogans heard during the demonstrations was:
“Down with the oppressor, whether the Shah or the Supreme Leader!”
The slogan reflects a fundamental rejection of both forms of dictatorship and challenges attempts to present the restoration of the monarchy as the natural alternative to the current regime.
The report stated that the authorities responded to the uprising with a massacre that killed thousands and led to the arrest of approximately 50,000 people.
It also described the consequences of the February 28 outbreak of war, during which Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and several senior regime officials were killed. Despite these developments, the report said, the regime intensified its execution campaign. At least 45 political prisoners, including MEK members and protesters arrested during the uprising, had been executed since March, while at least 100 dissidents remained on death row.
Economic hardship and political repression, the underlying forces behind the uprising, have continued to intensify.
The report raised a question central to Iran’s political future: If the clerical establishment loses power, what political system should replace it?
Reza Pahlavi’s political ambitions and the legacy of the Shah
A substantial part of the report examined Reza Pahlavi’s efforts to position himself as a potential leader of a political transition in Iran.
It challenged the presentation of the former Shah’s son as a democratic alternative, recalling the authoritarian character of his father’s rule and the political repression carried out by SAVAK, the monarchy’s notorious secret police.
The report noted that Reza Pahlavi has not disavowed his father’s responsibility for that repression or repudiated SAVAK’s conduct. Instead, it cited his 2026 remarks expressing pride in his family’s history and everything they had done.
The report also included archival footage from a 1976 60 Minutes investigation by journalist Mike Wallace, documenting torture under the Shah.
In the footage, Iranian journalist Raji Samghabadi described the physical and psychological torture suffered by his brother in SAVAK detention.
Samghabadi recalled:
“My brother was released from jail perhaps a week after—before I saw you. There were torture marks all over his body.”
He added that the psychological torture had been even worse than the physical abuse and that, despite spending thousands of dollars on treatment, his brother never fully recovered.
Max McCarthy, then a press officer at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, confirmed that he had personally seen Samghabadi’s brother after his imprisonment.
“He was imprisoned, tortured, and I saw him afterward, and the poor guy was just a walking dead man,” McCarthy told Wallace, describing the consequences of torture at the hands of SAVAK.
The report also revisited controversies surrounding Pahlavi’s contacts with members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the regime’s security establishment. It played an audio recording in which Pahlavi spoke of personal contacts with IRGC members and other security personnel, describing them as forces on which he relied.
It further referred to legal complaints concerning attacks by Pahlavi supporters against events and rallies organized by Iranian dissidents who reject both the clerical establishment and the monarchy.
These issues reinforce the central question raised by the report: Can Iran achieve genuine democracy by replacing one inherited or authoritarian political structure with another?
Torricelli: Iran’s revolution must come from within
Commenting on the report, Torricelli described it as an extraordinary overview of the situation in Iran. He acknowledged American public concerns about involvement in another prolonged foreign war but warned against allowing those concerns to translate into indifference toward the dangers posed by the Iranian regime.
He argued that the United States must maintain a balanced policy that addresses Iran’s nuclear ambitions, systematic human rights violations, regional destabilization, and state-sponsored terrorism.
Torricelli was particularly clear about the source of political change in Iran.
“The election has come and gone; that has not changed. We were never going to change the government in Tehran by foreign intervention. Revolutions happen within. This was going to be won or lost on the streets of the cities and towns of Iran by the Iranian people.”
He said Washington could contribute by maintaining economic sanctions and restricting the financial resources available to the IRGC, thereby weakening the regime’s capacity for repression. However, he emphasized that the actual political transformation must be achieved inside Iran.
This distinction was central to his argument: international pressure can weaken the regime, but it cannot substitute for the Iranian people’s own struggle for freedom.
The MEK and Maryam Rajavi’s Ten-Point Plan are a viable alternative
Torricelli rejected the notion that Iran must choose between the former monarchy and the current theocracy. He argued that Iran has the educated population, historical experience, and political institutions necessary to establish a democratic alternative.
He explicitly identified the MEK and Maryam Rajavi’s Ten-Point Plan as part of that alternative.
“We don’t have to choose between the Shah and go back to this brutal dictatorship, or the theocracy. Iran is a country of sophisticated people, of institutions, of a grand history. There is an option,” he said.
Referring to the MEK, he continued:
“One of them, as you’ve pointed out, is the MEK, the People’s Mojahedin, that want a democratic republic in Iran.”
Torricelli also highlighted Maryam Rajavi’s Ten-Point Plan, describing its vision of a stable Iran without nuclear weapons, with gender equality and free elections.
He directly challenged the position of the U.S. State Department, which he said had characterized this alternative as not viable.
“Of course it’s viable!” he declared, arguing that Washington should recognize and support the democratic opposition rather than dismissing it.
His remarks placed the question of international recognition and engagement with Iran’s organized opposition at the center of the debate over the country’s future.
Maximum pressure and support for the democratic opposition
Asked what the U.S. administration should do to help Iran’s democratic opposition, Torricelli outlined three principal elements: maintaining maximum economic pressure on the regime, establishing a firm red line against Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, and beginning to embrace the democratic opposition.
He also welcomed the position that the United States should not support the restoration of the Shah’s dictatorship.
“The right policy now is: keep maximum economic pressure on, weaken the regime as much as possible, a red line of no nuclear weapons, and then start embracing the democratic opposition. Let this revolution come from within.”
Torricelli’s position was that Washington should distinguish between opposing the Iranian regime and imposing a political outcome on Iran. Supporting the Iranian people’s democratic aspirations does not require foreign military intervention or the endorsement of an alternative authoritarian leadership.
The discussion also touched on whether protesters and opposition forces inside Iran should receive weapons or other forms of assistance.
Torricelli said he would not oppose efforts to arm the opposition, although he believed the movement could succeed without such assistance. He pointed to the repeated nationwide uprisings and the growing scale of popular opposition as evidence of the regime’s vulnerability.
He described a potential turning point when members of the security forces refuse to continue defending the authorities and instead identify themselves with the Iranian people.
At that point, he suggested, members of the police and military could conclude that they no longer wanted to stand with the oppressors.
“The regime’s coming down. And at some point, the police and soldiers start saying, ‘I’m not standing with the oppressors; I’m an Iranian, I’m going to stand with the Iranian people.’ It’s a matter of time.”
A democratic republic, not another dictatorship
The Real America’s Voice report concluded by emphasizing that Iran’s future cannot be determined by foreign governments or inherited political claims. The decisive voice must belong to the Iranian people, through their political movements and organized resistance.
Torricelli’s intervention reinforced this principle. His argument was not simply that the current regime must end, but that the political alternative matters just as much as the overthrow of the existing establishment.
The experience of both the Pahlavi monarchy and the clerical dictatorship demonstrates why replacing one authoritarian structure with another cannot constitute democratic change.
The January 2026 uprising and the slogan rejecting both the Shah and the Supreme Leader underscore the political aspirations of Iranians who seek an end to dictatorship in all its forms.
The challenge facing the international community, therefore, is to recognize the Iranian people’s right to determine their own future and to engage with the organized democratic opposition seeking a secular, democratic republic.
As Torricelli argued, the United States does not need to choose between the Shah and the Supreme Leader. It needs to support the Iranian people’s right to choose a democratic future of their own.