Dr. Reza Parchizadeh is a political theorist, security analyst, and cultural expert.
For years, supporters of Reza Pahlavi, the former Iranian crown prince, have advocated for a transition from an Islamofascist dictatorship to a constitutional monarchy for Iran, almost similar to what happened in Spain. They compare Pahlavi to Juan Carlos, who, with the endorsement and support of Franco’s military, ascended the throne and abolished the dictatorship.
According to them, Pahlavi can achieve the same with the support of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). Pahlavi, as himself has many times stated, is in touch with the Iranian regime and has been open to IRGC overtures. In this article I will argue why such a Spanish-style transition to normalcy – let alone democracy – is highly unlikely to take place in Iran.
Spain’s transition from the dictatorship of Francisco Franco to a constitutional monarchy under King Juan Carlos I was a pivotal moment in Spanish history. Franco ruled Spain as a right-wing military dictator following his overthrow of the left-wing republic in the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939). His regime was characterized by ultranationalism, authoritarianism, and repression and persecution of political opposition. Before his death in 1975, Franco designated the exiled Prince Juan Carlos de Borbón as his successor, hoping that he would perpetuate the ultranationalist regime.
However, instead of following in Franco’s footsteps, Juan Carlos chose to dismantle the authoritarian regime and move Spain towards democracy. The first step was the Political Reform Act of 1976, which allowed for the dismantling of Francoist institutions and paved the way for democratic elections. In 1977, the legalization of political parties led to the first free elections since the 1930s. Subsequently, a new democratic constitution was drafted and approved by a popular referendum in 1978, establishing Spain as a democratic parliamentary monarchy and guaranteeing fundamental rights and freedoms for all citizens.
But Iran today is far from Spain, and there are fundamental differences between the two countries. The most significant is that the IRGC is not a regular military like Spain’s army was towards the end of Franco’s rule. The Guards are more akin to the SS in the Nazi Germany and the Red Army in the Soviet Union, created with the specific purpose of enforcing the ideological agenda of their totalitarian regime, which makes them totally dependent on the regime’s core belief system, values and interests to stay relevant.
Even today, the IRGC, a U.S.- and Canadian-designated “state terrorist organization” that is also likely to be designated by the EU, is deeply embroiled in the Islamist regime’s warmongering across the Middle East and crimes against humanity in Iran and around the world. It is bent on defeat of the United States, destruction of Israel, and conquest of the Arab world. As such, the IRGC cannot possibly provide the building block for a democracy or even a normal regime in Iran.
The general behavior of Pahlavi’s supporters has not proved promising for democracy, either. His associates and followers have started a regime of oppression in exile even before getting to power in Iran. They have assaulted non-Pahlavist protesters during anti-regime demonstrations abroad, ran campaigns of harassment and intimidation against journalists and democracy activists, pushed IRGC talking points about political prisoners and Iran’s ethnic minorities, and welcomed all kinds of nefarious regime affiliates, including antisemitic IRGC members, among their ranks.
To cap it all, Pahlavi himself recently rejected democracy and instead suggested that he roots for some kind of an authoritarian regime. By erroneously comparing Iran to Afghanistan and putting forward a fallacious essentialist argument, Pahlavi claimed that Iran’s society, like Afghanistan, has its own “traditions, norms, and means of governance,” and imposing an “inauthentic Western construct” like “democracy” on it will lead to anarchy similar to Afghanistan. Pahlavi boldly made that argument against the backdrop of the recent nationwide “Woman, Life, Freedom Revolution” in Iran, which was widely praised by the West and most of the rest of the free world for its progressive values.
Pahlavi’s willingness to blatantly distort the truth about Iran and what most Iranians really want explains why he and his supporters were disturbed by the Woman, Life, Freedom Revolution in the first place. Not only did they not fully support it, but they also took issue with many aspects of it because the progressive nature of that revolution nullified the Pahlavist narrative regarding the “backwardness” of Iranian society to legitimize an authoritarian regime, most likely in the form of an absolutist monarchy with Reza Pahlavi as its Shah.
But even if the scenario to put the prince on the throne were realized, allowing for the continuation of the IRGC, unlike Spain, Iran would not transition from fascism to democracy. The Guards are highly unlikely to relinquish power and become a regular army subordinated to a constitutional system. Instead, they would exploit their newfound legitimacy as Pahlavi’s praetorians to continue their campaign of terror in Iran and abroad.
Pahlavi himself would serve as a figurehead to legitimize the existence of the new fascist order. His advocacy for what inherently goes against American values, his dynasty’s historical hostility to democracy, and his followers’ reactionary rhetoric and anti-democratic bent will further empower the Guards and their Russian allies to prevent Iran from shifting towards the West once the current Islamofascist regime falls.
As we have clearly seen in the past decade, Moscow has learned that promoting far-right positions and politicians around the world helps it keep the world divided while it continues to push for conquest and global domination. Iran is already within the Russian sphere of influence, but if the Islamist regime were to fall, the Kremlin would prefer to have an ultranationalist junta run the country rather than a Western-friendly liberal democracy. In other words, the Russians don’t want to see Iran as a powerful pillar of Western security strategy like the post-WWII Germany and Japan.
As things stand, Iran risks passing from one totalitarian regime to another. If things unfold in that direction, the country will remain a hotbed of tyranny and radicalism, oppressing its people while continuing to threaten its neighbors and the wider world. The democratic world needs to intervene to help the Iranian people establish a liberal democracy and bring Iran back to the West.