Iran

Reza Pahlavi, the exiled prince at the centre of the ambiguities of Iran's future

In the vacuum of representation that accompanies the protests against the Islamic Republic, the son of the last Shah returns to the centre of public debate, without however unravelling the knot between symbolic role, real consensus and political project for the Iran of the future

by Silvia Martelli

11 January 2026

Reza Pahlavi. REUTERS/Abdul Saboor/File Photo

4' min read

Translated by AI

Versione italiana

4' min read

Translated by AI

Versione italiana

Reza Pahlavi's name circulates again with insistence as Iran goes through one of the most critical phases since the birth of the Islamic Republic. The protests that are spreading from the suburbs to the big cities, fuelled by economic collapse, inflation and growing political repression, have reopened a question that has long been hanging in the balance: who can embody a credible alternative to the ayatollahs' regime? In this leadership vacuum, the figure of the son of the last Shah re-emerges as a powerful and controversial symbol, capable of catalysing hopes, nostalgia and deep distrust.

Reza Pahlavi does not lead the demonstrations, does not coordinate them and is not the recognised leader of a structured movement. Yet his name resonates in slogans, circulates on social media, divides the diaspora and troubles Tehran. He is an atypical political presence: physically distant from the country for almost half a century, but surprisingly central to the debate on what might come 'after'.

The Story

Born in Tehran in 1960, Pahlavi was 17 years old when he left Iran on the eve of the 1979 revolution. The collapse of the monarchy put an end to a dynasty that had ruled the country for more than half a century under the sign of forced modernisation, alliance with the West and strongly centralised political authority. The experience of shahism, even today, remains one of the most divisive knots in Iran's collective memory: for some it is synonymous with stability and development, for others with repression, inequality and geopolitical subordination.

After his father's death in 1980, Reza Pahlavi formally became the head of the royal house in exile, but for decades his role remained marginal, confined to monarchical circles in the diaspora. Only in recent years, and more markedly during the current protests, has he chosen to expose himself more decisively, presenting himself not as an aspiring ruler, but as a possible transitional figure. The message he repeats is calibrated: not a monarchical restoration, but a path leading to a popular referendum on Iran's institutional future.

It is a position designed to intercept a broad consensus, but one that does not dissolve all ambiguities. On the one hand, Pahlavi presents himself as the guarantor of a democratic process; on the other, his very surname recalls a past that many Iranians, especially among the younger generations, are only indirectly familiar with and view with suspicion. In the squares, his name often seems to function more as a cry for a break with the Islamic order than as a defined political project.

The current scenario partly explains this dynamic. The protests, initially triggered by economic reasons, have turned into a broader contestation of the power system. Lacking, however, is a unified leadership and a shared vision of the 'aftermath'. In this fragmented context, Pahlavi appears as a helpful, recognisable figure, immediately expendable on a symbolic level, especially abroad. But his real ability to affect internal balances remains uncertain.

International legitimisation

The communication strategy of the prince-in-exile relies heavily on international legitimacy. It is no coincidence that his agenda includes political contacts and public appearances in the United States. This includes his possible visit to Mar-a-Lago, Donald Trump's residence in Florida, a detail that has attracted media attention and raised questions about the relationship between the former US president and the Iranian opposition. A formal meeting has not yet been confirmed and Washington maintains a cautious line: verbal support for the protesters, condemnation of the repression, but no explicit endorsement of a single leader in exile. This caution reflects a historical dilemma in American policy towards Iran. Too visible an endorsement of Pahlavi would risk reinforcing the regime's narrative, which has always portrayed dissent as the product of foreign interference. At the same time, the absence of clear interlocutors makes it difficult for the West to imagine an orderly transition.

Even within the opposition, Pahlavi is a divisive figure. One part of the diaspora sees him as a resource, capable of speaking to governments and international institutions in a comprehensible and reassuring language. Others see him as distant from Iranian social reality, lacking a political structure on the ground and unable to unite the different souls of the opposition: secular, republican, ethnic, feminist, student.

More a symbol than a leader

The crux remains this: Reza Pahlavi is more a symbol than a leader. A symbol that works because it embodies the idea of a different, non-religious, outward-looking Iran. But precisely because of this he carries with him the weight of an unresolved past and the risk of overlapping nostalgia and political project. While the protests continue and the Islamic Republic responds with force, the future of Iran thus remains open. It is still too early to say whether Pahlavi will be able to turn his visibility into a real ability to influence events. For now, his role is that of a mirror: it reflects the aspirations, contradictions and uncertainties of a country that seeks an exit from its present without yet having a shared idea of its tomorrow.