This essay was written before the February 28 beginning of the US–Israeli war on Iran. It is an edited version of one that appeared in The People’s Voice, the chapter newsletter of YDSA ISU, on February 18.
An oft-repeated sentiment in leftist spaces in the US is that Iran’s current regime must be tolerated because of its anti-Western/anti-imperialist stance. As an Iranian leftist, I’ve found this argument to be too black and white. The cost of this leftist support for Iran is paid by the Iranian people. Asking protesters to cease their revolt and insinuating that they are in the wrong for trying to remove the current regime completely excuses the theocratic fascism upheld in Iran. Iranians live under an extremely oppressive theocratic regime that silences voices against the government, kills protesters in the street, and enforces extremely strict religious laws. Most recently human rights groups estimate that the death toll of the 2026 protests has reached more than 7000, ranging from protesters to bystanders, many of whom were under the age of 18. Getting an accurate number is extremely difficult because the Iranian government enforced an internet blackout during the protests, leaving communications heavily censored or completely disabled.
On the other hand, Iran’s current government has made Iran one of the most important anti-imperialist countries of the Middle East. They have openly offered material support for resistance groups in Palestine, Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq, and Syria. Iran’s support has been key to the struggle of these nations against Western imperialism.
It is good to remember here that the enemy of your enemy is not always your friend. Just because many want to see a change in the government in Iran does not mean that Donald Trump’s call for an end to the current regime is necessarily going to lead to a brighter future for the Iranian people, or for others in the region.
Whose Bidding Would Reza Pahlavi Do?
One of the main questions onlookers have raised regarding the goals of the protests is: what kind of Iran will result if this revolution succeeds? The answer is difficult; the goals and desired leaders differ by political groups—but the most likely outcome is an Iran that abandons its anti-Western/anti-imperialist stance. It is the general ideal of many in the Iranian diaspora that the former Shah’s son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, is the most likely future leader of the Iranian people. The Iranian diaspora has a nostalgia for the monarchy before the Islamic Revolution, and the surviving Pahlavi is a symbol of that period.
As an Iranian leftist, I take issue with Pahlavi. The Shah’s rise was a direct result of the US and UK’s Operation Ajax, producing a coup of 1953, which removed the democratically elected and anti-Western-imperialism prime minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh, and replaced him with a Western asset: the Shah. Pahlavi has been exiled from Iran for the past 47 years. He has no ties to the working-class people of Iran. He propagates himself as their leader while sitting in luxury. He lives in the United States, one of Iran’s greatest enemies and exploiters. He has advocated for and excused the genocidal apartheid exercised by Israel. Pahlavi is not for the people; he is buyable and convenient for pro-Western imperialists. If he is put in power following a successful revolt in Iran, Iran would become another puppet of the US and Israel. Pahlavi is a Western asset, and Iran’s role as an anti-imperialist and anti-Zionist nation would collapse under Pahlavi rule. The natural resources of Iran would most likely be put up for Western exploitation, and the material conditions of Iran’s working class would be unlikely to improve.
Despite the diaspora and the Western media’s championing of Pahlavi, not all Iranians see him as the legitimate or only option for the future. From my perspective, Pahlavi is not wanted and to reject him is not an endorsement of the current government. One can want an end to the injustices under the current regime without wanting a return to the injustices of the era of the Shah.
The Pahlavi PR blitz offers a fantasy of a painless transition that is a distraction from the real outcomes likely ahead. Because any missile sent to Iran would damage US gas prices, Trump is likely to attempt to strike a deal with high-ranking Iranian officials (as he did in Venezuela) to secure political change and oil at the same time. This outcome would most likely remove Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei from power but maintain the current regime in Iran. The Iranian people would gain little from this scenario, as the tools of domestic political oppression would remain, and others would suffer as well, as Iran would most likely abandon its opposition to Israel’s genocide.
A “Revolution” in Which Everyone Would Lose
Trump’s sanction war on Iran caused the Iranian currency, the Rial, to collapse completely this winter, causing hardship that propelled millions into the streets where they faced deadly force from the government. Anger at government violence has further mobilized protesters, but if this revolution is successful, the Iranian people would lose more than they could gain. The desired leaders could not take power, the Iranian people are too oppressed to be able to organize opposition, and any foreign intervention will harm the Iranian people more than benefit them. Khamenei’s removal from power is the most likely outcome of foreign intervention. However, Khamenei’s government would probably retain power, but now with an opening to Western imperialism. Iran’s revolution is doomed if it succeeds. The fate of the Iranian people with any US interference will become worse.
Now more than ever, we need to be talking about Iran, paying attention to Cuba, and learning about events happening outside of our borders. We should be protesting the propaganda from US and Zionist sources calling for revolution in Iran, and we should be educating people in our communities about the events conspiring in Iran: the tragedy and massacres the Iranian people are facing and what we can do to help combat misinformation.
“Lucy Jane” is a pen name for an Iranian leftist who resides in Champaign County.
Since the US and Israeli war on Iran began on February 28, thousands of people have been killed and wounded (at least 1900 killed as of April 1). Behrooz Ghamari-Tabrizi, an Iranian-American historian and sociologist formerly at UIUC, has been outspoken in his criticism of the US war. You can find his full interview with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now here.
An excerpt:
AMY GOODMAN: “So, you’ve been imprisoned at the notorious Evin Prison, on death row. . . . And yet you warn against the toppling of this regime. Why?”
BEHROOZ GHAMARI-TABRIZI: “Because I think that in the past 40 years or so, there were so many important events happening inside Iranian society. Iranian society, decade after decade, showed that they are capable of transforming their own society. Issues of social justice remain very prominent in Iranian society. Iranian women were very, very active in changing the conditions of their own life inside the country. And the Iranian labor movement was very strong. Iranian students always were very strong. And I thought that at this moment toppling the government without having a clear alternative only would damage those struggles that people have struggled to maintain throughout these past 40 years, would diminish [them]. And I’m very pessimistic about the possibility of a regime change in Iran without having a clear idea of what is going to replace it.”