For over four decades, the Islamic Republic of Iran has stood as the world’s most dangerous theocracy—hostile to democratic values, regional stability, and global order. It has exported terror from Lebanon to Latin America, crushed dissent with unspeakable brutality, and built a nuclear program that threatens to ignite an arms race in the world’s most volatile region.
The time has come to face a sober reality: regime change in Iran is not only desirable—it is essential.
Yet for those dreaming of a post-Islamic Republic future, a grave mistake must be avoided: Restoring the Pahlavi monarchy and installing the son of the Shah as Iran's new leader would not be a step forward.
Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of Mohammad Reza Shah, has enjoyed renewed attention in Western media. He presents himself as a unifying and tolerant figure for a post-mullah Iran. But his claim to legitimacy rests not on merit nor democratic values but on bloodline—a regression to hereditary rule that many Iranian citizens, who have bled in the streets for freedom, will not accept.
His rise to power would be the equivalent of reinstating the Hohenzollern monarchy and the son of Kaiser Wilhelm II after the defeat of Nazi Germany—a tone-deaf move. To substitute one autocrat with the son of another autocrat would be to insult the democratic aspirations of the Iranian people. Moreover, the Pahlavi dynasty’s own legacy—of censorship, massive corruption, torture, and a secret police (SAVAK) that rivaled the Islamic Republic’s cruelty—has not been forgotten. How can we be sure Reza Pahlavi will not revert to the same?
Still, the challenge remains. While tens of millions of Iranians hate the current regime, they fear something even more: chaos. They have seen what happened in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Somalia—nations that descended into civil war and state collapse after their strongmen fell. Iran, unfortunately, is even more vulnerable. With its deep ethnic fragmentation—Persians, Kurds, Azeris, Baluchis, Arabs, Lurs, and others—Iran is the most ethnically diverse country in the Middle East. If the central regime were to fall without a transition plan, the country could fracture along ethnic and religious lines.
The consequences of such disintegration would be catastrophic—not just for Iranians, but for the world. A fragmented Iran could resemble post-2001 Afghanistan—a lawless zone dominated by militias and warlords. Imagine rogue forces mining or sinking ships in the Strait of Hormuz, through which a fifth of global oil supply passes. Picture criminal cartels smuggling weapons, drugs, and nuclear technology across Iran's porous borders. Envision international terrorist organizations setting up permanent bases in Iran’s mountainous terrain.
That future must be prevented.
The path forward is neither naive appeasement nor reckless regime change. It is strategic democratic pressure combined with calculated covert support. The United States and Israel must publicly demand that Iran's current leadership announce free and fair elections to elect a new parliament and president. This demand, framed in the language of universal democratic rights—not regime-toppling rhetoric—will resonate deeply with Iranian civil society, especially students, women, and professionals pushing them to the streets to support democratic elections.
Of course, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei will resist. That is why covert support for an internal palace coup must be on the table. The CIA and Mossad should coordinate efforts to identify key generals disillusioned with the regime. Immunity from prosecution, safe haven for families, and economic rewards for defection must be discreetly but clearly offered. The goal is to replace the current leadership with a transitional council committed to holding democratic elections and avoiding anarchy or civil war.
This is not fantasy—it is grounded in historical precedent. During World War II, the Allies prodded Admiral Darlan in Vichy North Africa to switch sides, allowing U.S. and British forces to land with minimal resistance. Later, Benito Mussolini was deposed by General Badoglio, a lifelong Fascist. Yet the Allies embraced Badoglio as a partner against Nazi Germany, understanding that a flawed insider can sometimes facilitate the birth of a democratic future.
The same applies to Iran. A coup by figures from within the regime—if it leads to a peaceful transition—is vastly preferable to revolution, anarchy, or invasion.
There is one more vital step. Iran’s nuclear scientists and engineers are among the most talented in the world. If neglected or persecuted after regime change, they could easily be hired by Turkey, Egypt, or Saudi Arabia—or worse, by non-state actors. That must not happen. Iran’s post-regime future must include a comprehensive program to offer these scientists gainful employment in technology development, or international research collaborations.
In short, regime change in Iran must come not as revenge, but as rescue—of a great people from a monstrous system, of a region from collapse, and of the world from a nuclear nightmare. It must be done not with dogmas and slogans, but with realism, intelligence, and finesse.
The Islamic Republic’s days are numbered. What replaces it must be strong, but democratic. Above all, it must be built not for exiled princes or foreign powers—but for the Iranian people themselves.
Rafael Castro is a graduate of Yale and Hebrew University, and an independent political analyst. Rafael can be reached at [email protected]
Why regime change is needed.
By Leonie Ben Simon
If Israel knocks out the launchers and America the nuclear ability, why push for regime change?
Count the Iranian population: Half are women who are sick and tired of being stuck under sheets of black material, forbidden to do almost anything. Add to that all of the other disenfranchised, many who have family members in jail, older Iranians who enjoyed a Western lifestyle prior to the current regime. Then with the internet exposure there are many young people who frequent underground bars and dance clubs.
We are watching tens of thousands of cars streaming away from the capital Teheran terrified of what the war has brought them, for sure wondering about the power of Khomeini and Co. They may have believed their media promoting the demise of Israel in the past, however reality has now set in.
What are their alternatives? To come back to a Gaza-style demolished suburb, to turn on the taps without water, to find the petrol stations everywhere closed? Do they expect other countries to join their leaders in the war against Israel?
What is the alternative for the man and the woman in the street in Iran? Do they want to go back centuries? Will their leaders be able to offer them anything or are they dead and buried? The same way Assad fled Syria to Russia after abusing half of his people, the few leaders left in Iran will have to either flee or stay buried underground.
The Russians and Chinese are keeping very quiet and cannot be expected to waste their resources entering this conflict, watching the Israeli’s strategy and outcomes which both the Russians and even the Americans could not achieve in past conflicts.
Rebuilding Iran, working with other countries including Israel to live, not to die should be the alternative to war, to killing and to destruction. Persia was once a great civilization in the days of the Biblical Book of Esther, a country with 127 provinces from India to Ethiopia. Will it go backwards to be history again?
Leonie Ben-Simon is a freelance journalist with an MBA from Monash University, Victoria Australia.