By David Averre and Amir Daftari
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
"We have now reached a very sensitive stage of the final struggle…continue to strike and do not show up for work. To the military and law enforcement forces: this is your last chance to break from the oppressive forces and join your people. Await my final call."
These words, delivered by Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi in March to the people of Iran, perfectly encapsulate the sense of anticipation that gripped the Islamic Republic’s opponents and international observers alike over the fate of the regime.
In January, Iran’s security forces had massacred thousands of civilians to crush nationwide protests fueled by economic hardship and repression. Only weeks later, the United States joined forces with Israel to unleash an unprecedented strike campaign, killing Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the man who had ruled Iran for almost four decades, and decapitating the senior leadership of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
Read More on World
President Donald Trump told Iranians to "take over your government," Pahlavi appeared poised for a triumphant return from exile, and for a moment, it seemed the Islamic Republic could fall. Eight months later, those heady days seem a distant memory.
The IRGC did not wilt under pressure, internal or external; instead, it dug in and dragged mighty America into an increasingly embarrassing stalemate over the Strait of Hormuz. What became of the hopes and ambitions of those who would overturn the Islamic Republic and live free?
Newsweek spoke to civilians inside Iran, pro-democracy figures living beyond their homeland’s borders and independent analysts to explore whether they still believe a brighter future is possible—and whether the U.S. will be a part of building it.
False Start
U.S.-Israeli strikes in February swept the Islamic Republic’s supreme leader and many of his senior security chiefs off the board, but failed to produce a political or military collapse. Before looking to the future, we must first understand why the hopes of a renewed uprising earlier this year were unfulfilled.
...
"Where the expectation of a quick collapse went wrong was in its reading of the adversary. Many actors in this arena had simplistic views of the Islamic Republic and underestimated its capabilities," Khosro Isfahani, director of the National Union for Democracy in Iran (NUFDI), told Newsweek.
Khamenei spent decades embedding the Revolutionary Guards in virtually every aspect of Iranian society, from domestic security to the economy and intelligence services, so that killing its commanders would not dismantle the machinery of repression overnight.
"What we see today is a decades-old project of Ali Khamenei that came to fruition years ago and has only now entered its openly visible stage," Isfahani said.
His assassination may, perversely, have worked against those hoping for regime change.
"Toward the end of his life, when Khamenei was isolated by advanced age and by the risk of Israeli assassination, Iran was, for all practical purposes, governed by a collective leadership," said Ali Alfoneh, a senior fellow at the Arab Gulf States Institute and an expert on the IRGC. "In Khamenei’s absence, this ‘council’ has run the Iranian state far more effectively than he did…that he was accountable to no one, least of all the voters, systematically hampered the regime’s performance."
But a leadership structure that can function without Khamenei is not necessarily one that can command the same authority.
...
"The war has forced the regime to make the IRGC a more prominent power broker. This is because the new Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, lacks the political clout to consolidate power and make uniform decisions like his predecessors," Dr. Majid Sadeghpour, political director of the Organization of Iranian-American Communities (OIAC), told Newsweek. "The regime is now using all pillars of its power to stay alive with full force. It is surviving—barely."
But as the Iranian people have discovered, weakening a regime and freeing its citizens are two very different things.
The Price Of Freedom
Farhad, a pensioner living in the Iranian capital who supports the return of Pahlavi and an Iranian monarchy, wants the regime gone as much as anyone. But he isn’t fooling himself about Washington and Jerusalem’s true intentions.
"I am frustrated by the hypocrisy. They talk about liberating Iranians while bombs fall on our country," he told Newsweek. "Perhaps they believe the destruction is worth the price. It is easy to say that when it is not your family paying it."
"I suspect Trump wants to control the situation, not necessarily restore democracy. A weakened Iran might suit him perfectly well," he said.
Nika, a young woman from Esfahan, told Newsweek: "At first, I thought the strikes might weaken the IRGC enough for people to rise up. I was angry and wanted something to change. But I don’t think I understood what a war would actually mean for ordinary people. The people who suffer most are not the politicians making decisions."
Months on from the initial round of strikes—and amid rising expectations of a new round of conflict—Trump’s invitation to Iranians to take over their government rings hollow.
"I feel we were sold the idea that this would somehow help us. Where is the freedom we were promised? Where is the political change?," she asked.
...
Evidently, there is no agreement on whether another round of U.S.-Israeli strikes would offer salvation or simply compound the suffering.
"The Iranian people, with the leadership of its organized opposition, are certainly capable of overthrowing the regime in Tehran. Foreign military support is not essential," Sadeghpour said, arguing that foreign intervention in its current guise will never work. "Its aim is seemingly for the regime to change its behavior, as Iranians die to change the regime itself."
Isfahani reached the opposite conclusion, pointing to the scale of the internal security forces’ violent crackdown on protesters in January.
"There is no doubt about the necessity of international intervention for overthrowing the regime: a regime that will kill unarmed protesters at that scale will not be removed by its people alone," he said.
Alfoneh is concerned with a more immediate question. "I would like to know the purpose of America’s war with Iran," he said flatly.
"If I asked seven different U.S. government officials what the purpose of the war is, I would likely receive seven different answers. If I asked President Trump the same question seven times, I would likely receive eight different answers. I find this bewildering."
For Farhad, more war can only be justified if it results in a new dawn for Iran.
"If the regime survives, the Iranian people will have suffered for nothing," he said.
The Battle For Tomorrow
The desire for change is unmistakable. But while Iran's opposition may share a common enemy, there is precious little agreement on how to overthrow it, who should inherit power, or what that new leadership should look like.
According to Farhad, exiled Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, son of the Shah who ruled Iran before the Islamic Revolution, represents "a chance to correct" what happened nearly 50 years ago—with a caveat.
...
"I remember Iran before the revolution. It wasn’t perfect, but the country was moving forward. I believe Iran made a terrible mistake in 1979," he told Newsweek. "But I am not convinced the Americans want him back. They have had decades to help him build a serious path to power. I would welcome his return, but I don’t believe he can simply be handed the country."
Nika shared Farhad’s enthusiasm, not so long ago.
"A year ago, I understood the excitement around Pahlavi…but during the war, I wanted to hear someone speak for ordinary Iranians, for families losing people and young people whose futures were being destroyed. Instead, I felt Pahlavi was far more concerned with Israel. That changed how I saw him.
"I take him seriously enough to question him. That is different from believing in him."
Sadeghpour takes a far less charitable view of the would-be monarch.
"The talk about monarchy in Iran is mostly noise and an impediment to real change in Iran," he declared. His organization supports Maryam Rajavi and the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), an exiled opposition coalition with its own proposed transition plan for a democratic republic.
This division among opposition movements is exactly what has prevented any popular, viable alternative from materializing despite the evident disdain for the current leadership, Isfahani said.
"During the Woman, Life, Freedom movement of 2022, I interviewed many protesters in Iran," he said. "One protester told me that when you are looking death in the eye with a gun pointed at your chest, you don’t ask the protester next to you what model of democracy they prefer; you protect them with your life.
"The Iranian diaspora needs to match the urgency felt by their compatriots in Iran. There have been multiple failed efforts to build a unified diaspora coalition through bad blood, shortsightedness, and regime infiltration. The opposition needs to learn from the mistakes of the past and move beyond petty grievances."
Sadeghpour backs the NCRI and Rajavi to usher in a new era. Farhad hopes Pahlavi can help restore the Iran of old. Isfahani wants the opposition to overcome its divisions and form a united front.
Nika simply fears replacing one unquestionable leader with another.
"I don’t want another personality cult. We have spent our lives being told that one man knows what is best for us. I would rather see women, students, workers and people who have actually fought for change given a voice.
"I want a country where we can choose our leaders, criticize them and remove them. If Pahlavi cannot convince me that he would respect that, his surname means nothing to me."
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines