Doesn’t Reza Pahlavi understand that without a Coercive Military Force, the Islamic Republic Will Not Fall!
By Victoria Azad
February 3, 2025
What I express in this article stems from a realistic perspective and the shared pain of many Iranians. Severe repression, poverty, hopelessness, and decades of empty promises from various individuals and groups have led many people to conclude that without a coercive military force, either domestic or foreign, the Islamic Republic will not collapse. The Islamic Republic will not leave with mere prayers and peaceful gestures. These people must be swept away by military force. Years of struggle and brutal repression confirm this perspective.
• One of the fundamental criticisms of Reza Pahlavi is that for years, he has assured global powers, especially the United States, that the Iranian people can overthrow the regime themselves, without any military intervention. He even traveled to Israel to convince them not to launch a military attack against the Islamic Republic. In an interview with American media, he openly stated that Iranians do not need foreign help and that military intervention should be taken off the table. He vaguely asked for “help” for the Iranian people but never specified how. His much-touted “maximum pressure” strategy has been discussed for years and is nothing new. He told Netanyahu to abandon military pressure and instead support the Iranian people in overthrowing the regime on their own.
• The United States and Israel were willing to accelerate the fall of the Iranian regime more than 20 years ago, but Reza Pahlavi’s lobbying efforts, along with figures like Shahriar Ahy, prevented this from happening. He even influenced Western political discourse by removing the phrase “Regime Change” from their vocabulary regarding Iran. This effectively meant he blocked both maximum pressure and military action against the Islamic Republic.
• George W. Bush initially wanted to topple Iran’s government first, but due to opposition from Reza Pahlavi, he instead invaded Iraq and overthrew Saddam Hussein. This decision ultimately turned Iraq into a playground for Khamenei’s Quds Force and its allies.
2. Has His Caution Helped Preserve the Islamic Republic?
• Some argue that his excessive caution has, in practice, prolonged the life of the regime, as key opportunities—such as during the Bush and Trump administrations—were lost.
Key Question: Is Foreign Military Intervention the Only Way to Save Iran?
Whether foreign military action is the ultimate solution is a complex debate. However, if we accept the premise that the Islamic Republic can only be overthrown by force, then blocking such action actually serves the regime’s interests. Even today, Reza Pahlavi has repeatedly told the U.S. and Israel to leave regime change to the Iranian people—despite the fact that under the weight of a corrupt dictatorship, the people’s backs are breaking.
• Some believe he is simply too cautious, indecisive, and influenced by incompetent advisors. Since he does not plan to return to Iran himself, he lacks a real sense of urgency about overthrowing the regime.
• Others suspect he is intentionally acting in favor of the Islamic Republic, either through infiltrators around him or because his financial and security situation abroad benefits from the status quo.
What Is the Solution?
If we believe that the only way to overthrow the regime is through military action combined with the ongoing revolution of the Iranian people, then we must support politicians who advocate for maximum pressure and military confrontation against the regime—not those who obstruct such efforts. Those who block this path are part of the problem and are preventing the regime’s downfall.
History and the experience of Syria show that in times of power vacuums and severe weakening of a regime, unexpected forces emerge and play a decisive role.
While groups like Tahrir al-Sham and Abu Mohammad al-Julani took a different path in Syria, the core principle remains the same: when a regime reaches the point of collapse, new actors—who may not yet be visible today—will suddenly appear and take charge.
Regarding Iran, if external pressures (from the U.S. and Israel) reach a level where the Islamic Republic can no longer stand, we will likely witness the emergence of new leaders and unexpected forces that will shape the future.
We may not be able to name Iran’s future leader with certainty today, but if the Islamic Republic is placed under immense military and security pressure, new and perhaps unexpected forces will emerge.
All signs indicate that the U.S. and Israel are moving closer to direct military confrontation with the Islamic Republic. Therefore, Iran needs bold and decisive leaders—leaders who genuinely care about Iran and are determined to overthrow the Islamic regime.
Why Is a Military Attack Highly Likely?
1. Iran’s nuclear program is out of control – Reports indicate that Iran is approaching 84% uranium enrichment, which is dangerously close to weapons-grade levels (90%). This is a red line for Israel.
2. Iran’s proxy attacks have intensified – From Houthi attacks in the Red Sea to assaults on U.S. bases in Iraq and Syria, the Iranian regime is now directly engaged in conflict with the U.S. and Israel.
3. Targeted assassinations have already begun – In recent months, several IRGC commanders and Iranian-affiliated forces have been eliminated in Syria, Lebanon, and even inside Iran. This suggests that the regime’s intelligence and command structures are weakening.
4. Israel views a preemptive strike as essential for survival – Netanyahu and Israeli security officials have repeatedly stated that if necessary, they will unilaterally strike Iran’s nuclear facilities.
• The U.S. and Israel may launch limited airstrikes to set back Iran’s nuclear program by years.
• The regime will likely retaliate, but in a controlled manner, as it lacks the capacity for an all-out war.
• Mossad and U.S. forces may eliminate high-ranking IRGC commanders, particularly in the Quds Force and missile program.
• This would deal a significant blow to the regime’s military leadership.
• If Iran escalates by attacking U.S. warships or major regional bases, Washington may launch a broader campaign to cripple IRGC military infrastructure.
• A successful attack could severely weaken the regime and create conditions for domestic uprisings, collapse, or the rise of new leadership.
• However, if the attack is limited and the regime survives, domestic repression may increase.
If military action occurs and Iranians welcome it, it will confirm that the regime has no real public support and survives only through brutal suppression. This scenario mirrors other historical collapses of authoritarian regimes—when external pressure reaches its peak, the people do not resist but instead embrace the downfall of their oppressors.
What Will Determine the Outcome of a Military Strike?
1. The speed and intensity of the attack – A swift and decisive strike targeting nuclear, military, and intelligence infrastructure will create opportunities for domestic rebellion and quicker collapse.
2. The reaction of IRGC and security forces – Will they fight until the end, or will they collapse internally like Saddam’s army and Gaddafi’s forces? If IRGC commanders sense the regime is doomed, they might abandon ship.
3. The role of internal forces – If opposition groups and emerging leaders inside Iran are prepared, they can seize power post-attack and prevent chaos or a Syrian-style collapse.