Amidst the ongoing military engagement between the United States, Israel, and Iran, a significant shift in sentiment is emerging among segments of the Iranian populace. Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of Iran’s last monarch, once viewed by many as a potential unifying figure for the fragmented opposition, is now facing growing disillusionment and criticism from his former supporters.
The catalyst for this erosion of trust varies. For some, the turning point occurred prior to the outbreak of open conflict, when Pahlavi persistently called for public uprisings against the Islamic Republic—a move many saw as dangerously irresponsible given the regime’s history of brutal crackdowns. For others, his recent encouragement of public demonstrations during the traditional Persian festival of Chaharshanbe Suri, while major cities are under constant aerial bombardment, has been perceived as profoundly out of touch with the grim realities of daily life.
Interviews conducted with Iranians, who are identified by pseudonyms for their security, reveal a deep sense of betrayal. Dina, a 39-year-old from Tehran, once held hope that Pahlavi could channel the widespread discontent into a coherent movement. Now, she laments his apparent lack of political acumen, stating, ‘I wish he had even a fraction of his father’s political judgment… he would know how to use the enormous energy among people.’ Her sentiment is echoed by Majid, a 21-year-old student who witnessed a friend killed by security forces during earlier protests. He questions the call for celebration while citizens live in fear of airstrikes, asking, ‘Does he even know what life is like here?’
The criticism extends to Pahlavi’s perceived alignment with foreign powers. His communications, particularly on social media platform X, have drawn controversy for offering condolences for fallen American soldiers while remaining conspicuously silent on the deaths of hundreds of Iranian civilians, including children, in coalition strikes. This disparity has led many to question his priorities and his claim to represent the Iranian people.
Furthermore, his political consistency is under scrutiny. Analysts and critics like Amir, 40, from northern Iran, point to Pahlavi’s fluctuating rhetoric—at times pleading for U.S. support and at other times insisting on its irrelevance—as a sign of strategic uncertainty and an attempt to align with the perceived whims of international players like former U.S. President Donald Trump.
The atmosphere within Iran is increasingly tense. Iranian authorities, represented by national police commander Ahmad Reza Radan, have issued explicit threats, warning that security forces are ‘ready to pull the trigger’ on anyone protesting at the ‘enemy’s request.’ This has rendered the prospect of public demonstrations even more perilous.
While Pahlavi retains a base of support among those who still see him as a viable figure for a potential transitional government, the opposition landscape is now markedly divided. The emerging trends indicate a growing cohort of the disillusioned who feel misled by unmet promises of support and a coherent plan, while those who were always skeptical now feel empowered to voice their criticisms openly. The overarching sentiment is one of being trapped—caught between a repressive regime and an opposition leadership that many believe has failed its people.