r/NewIran

To clarify before anyone twists this: I am pro-Pahlavi, anti-IRGC, and pro-regime change. That is exactly why fake allies of Iranian freedom need to be called out.

There is a difference between wanting the Islamic Republic weakened and wanting Iran liberated.

There is also a difference between wanting regime change and wanting Iranian sovereignty.

The historical pattern is obvious. Mossadegh was removed when Iran tried to control its own oil. Mohammad Reza Shah was restored under a post-1953 oil order. Then, when the Shah became too independent — OPEC power, oil sovereignty, military modernisation, and refusing to remain simply a Western client — the same Western world suddenly discovered “human rights” and let the monarchy collapse.

Whether every step was directly orchestrated or not, the lesson is clear: Iranian sovereignty is tolerated only when it serves outside interests.

And this is the part people deliberately ignore: Mohammad Reza Shah was not merely some “Western puppet,” as lazy Western narratives claim. By the 1960s and 1970s, he was building one of the most ambitious state-modernisation projects in the non-Western world. He weakened feudal landlords, challenged clerical power, expanded education, built modern infrastructure, pushed women’s rights, expanded literacy and health programs, industrialised the country, and created a new technocratic middle class.

Iran under the Shah was not moving toward unchecked oligarchic capitalism. It was moving toward a state-guided, secular, modern mixed economy with strong social reforms. Land reform, free education, literacy corps, health corps, worker profit-sharing, women’s suffrage, secular law, industrial planning, and national infrastructure were not the policies of a backward reactionary state. They were the policies of a modernising state trying to drag Iran from semi-feudal clerical domination into the first world.

That is why many Iranians do not see Mohammad Reza Shah simply as a monarch. They see him as the last leader who tried to build a modern, secular, socially progressive, nationally powerful Iran.

Western discourse almost always erases this. When Europe modernises from above, it is called nation-building. When Iran modernised from above, it is reduced to “authoritarianism.” When Western states suppress radicals, they call it stability. When the Shah suppressed Islamists and militants, they call it tyranny. The double standard is obvious.

This is not to say the Shah made no mistakes. He centralised too much power, suppressed political pluralism, and failed to build enough political institutions to absorb the social revolution he unleashed. But the reforms themselves were real. The direction was real. The transformation was real.

He was dismantling the two forces that had historically strangled Iran: feudal elites and clerical power. The tragedy is that by suppressing secular opposition too, he unintentionally left the mosque as the strongest organised network when revolutionary energy exploded. That does not make the Islamic Revolution noble. It makes it a hijacking of a modernising society by the most organised reactionary force.

This is why Reza Pahlavi matters.

He is not just “popular” or “symbolic.” The Pahlavi name represents the last time Iran had enough oil, geography, military ambition, state capacity, secular confidence, and national pride to seriously pressure the West without needing a war.

The Shah’s Iran showed what Iranian leverage looks like. Iran did not need to invade anyone to shake Western economies. Oil sovereignty, OPEC leverage, control over production, and Iran’s position in the Persian Gulf were enough. The West remembers what a sovereign Iran can do when it controls its oil, its straits, its military posture, and its national direction.

That is why outside powers will always prefer a weak Iran, a sanctioned Iran, a divided Iran, or a manageable Iran over a sovereign Iran led by a figure who could restore national confidence.

This is why they do not take Reza Pahlavi seriously, or why they try to bypass him. Not because he is weak, but because he represents the one thing they fear: a sovereign Iran with memory.

Pahlavi represents continuity with an Iran that could be secular, nationalist, pro-Western, modern, and globally connected — but not owned by the West. That is not what power brokers want. They prefer someone compromised, controllable, hated, or chaotic.

That is why even the idea of Ahmadinejad being entertained is so disgusting. It tells Iranians they do not want a free Iran. They want a managed Iran.

If this report is true, it exposes something extremely ugly: Iranian freedom was never the central priority. You cannot claim to be liberating Iran while flirting with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a postwar figure. This is the man associated with the stolen 2009 election, the Green Movement betrayal, hardline regime politics, and Holocaust-denial rhetoric.

For Israel, of all states, to entertain him is beyond cynical. No state “owns” the Holocaust. The Holocaust belongs to its victims, survivors, and murdered Jews. But a state that uses Holocaust memory as part of its moral identity cannot seriously treat Ahmadinejad as a useful chess piece and then expect Iranians to believe this is about our freedom.

This is exactly why Iranians should not outsource liberation to Trump, Israel, PBD, Europe, or any foreign power broker. If Pahlavi was sidelined because he refused to sell Iran’s future to outside interests or opportunistic diaspora middlemen, that only makes him look more principled, not less.

The danger is that they want regime change without real Iranian sovereignty: keep Iran weak, install a controllable figure, then blame Iranians when it fails by saying, “See, they are too radical.”

No. Iranians rejected Ahmadinejad in 2009. The Green Movement showed that. Woman, Life, Freedom showed it again. Any plan that resurrects Ahmadinejad is not a liberation plan. It is managed chaos.

Israel’s policy toward Palestine shows the regional pattern clearly: empower or tolerate the most destructive actor when it keeps the population divided, then use the resulting violence as proof that liberation is impossible. That is exactly why Iranians should be alarmed by reports that US and Israeli officials considered Ahmadinejad as a possible post-Khamenei figure.

Ahmadinejad is not some random Iranian politician. He is tied to the stolen 2009 election, the crushing of the Green Movement, hardline regime politics, and Holocaust-denial rhetoric. If Israel was willing to entertain him, then this was never about Iranian freedom. It was about leverage.

The same logic has appeared again and again: keep Palestinians divided through Hamas versus the PA, keep Iran trapped between regime hardliners and foreign-backed chaos, then tell the world these societies are too radical for freedom. That is managed conflict, not liberation.

A free, sovereign Iran would weaken the entire proxy-war architecture. It would weaken Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, and the IRGC network at the root. It would end the regime’s ability to export misery while also ending the excuse for endless containment.

But a broken Iran led by compromised figures keeps the region unstable, keeps the security state justified, and keeps outside powers relevant.

This is why Israel cannot claim moral ownership of the Holocaust while treating a Holocaust-denying figure like Ahmadinejad as geopolitically useful. The Holocaust belongs to its victims and survivors, not to any state’s strategic convenience. If this report is true, then it proves the point: Iranian lives, Jewish memory, and regional peace are all disposable when power politics demands it.

This also connects to something deeper than modern politics. Iran is not some artificial state outside civilisation. Persia is one of the foundational civilisations of the world. Alongside Greece and Rome, Iran helped shape law, governance, statecraft, science, medicine, literature, aesthetics, diplomacy, imperial administration, and ideas of religious tolerance.

Ancient Persia created one of the first great administrative states. Cyrus the Great became a symbol of lawful and tolerant kingship. Persian political culture influenced the Greeks, the Romans, the Islamic Golden Age, and eventually Europe. Persian scholars, physicians, philosophers, poets, mathematicians, and administrators were central to world civilisation.

Iran is not trying to “become Western” in some fake imported sense. Iran is trying to return to its own natural historical trajectory: secular, civilisational, creative, modern, pluralistic, and globally connected.

That is what the Pahlavi project represented at its best: not assimilation, but restoration.

A return to Iran’s pre-Islamist civilisational confidence.

A return to secular law over clerical rule.

A return to women’s rights over religious control.

A return to science, education, industry, and national dignity.

A return to Iran as a civilisation, not a hostage state.

That is why Reza Pahlavi is inconvenient. He symbolises more than nostalgia. He symbolises the possibility that Iran can become modern again without becoming a puppet; pro-Western without being owned; peaceful without being weak; nationalist without being Islamist; and sovereign without being isolated.

That is exactly the kind of Iran fake allies fear.

A broken Islamic Republic is dangerous, but it is also useful: sanctioned, isolated, hated, easy to demonise, and trapped in proxy wars. A sovereign Pahlavi-led Iran would be different. It would end the excuse for endless containment while restoring Iranian leverage over oil, the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz, and the regional balance of power.

This is why they prefer “managed regime change” over Iranian-led regime change. They do not fear Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad is useful chaos. They fear a legitimate national alternative that can unite Iranians, restore state capacity, and make Iran sovereign again.

Pahlavi is inconvenient because the Pahlavi name reminds the West of the last Iran that could pressure them without firing a shot. The Shah used oil sovereignty, OPEC leverage, and Iran’s geography to make the West feel Iranian power.

They will never want that again.

They want Iran anti-regime enough to weaken the mullahs, but not sovereign enough to become powerful. That is why Ahmadinejad is useful chaos, while Pahlavi is a threat. A free Pahlavi-led Iran could be pro-Western without being owned — and that is exactly what fake allies fear.

Israel has never been a true friend to Iranian freedom fighters. It has been a friend to its own security doctrine.

When Iranians demand liberty, dignity, secularism, and sovereignty, Israeli leaders speak in grand moral language. But their actions show they prefer an Iran that is weak, contained, divided, and useful as a permanent enemy.

A genuinely free Iran would destroy the proxy-war architecture at its root, weaken Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, and the IRGC network, and remove the excuse for endless regional militarisation. But that kind of Iran would also be powerful, independent, nationalist, and impossible to control.

That is why Iranians should be deeply suspicious when Israeli officials claim to support regime change while allegedly entertaining figures like Ahmadinejad, or while reducing Iran’s future to bombs, oil, nukes, and security deals.

Iranian freedom is not Israel’s project. It belongs to Iranians alone.

Americans and Israelis often bring up the Iranian people only when it is useful for their own politics — especially to mock Western leftists for defending the Islamic Republic’s fake “resistance” image. But their actual policy language is almost never about Iranian freedom. It is about nukes, oil, Hormuz, military infrastructure, deterrence, security, and keeping Iran weak enough to manage.

That is why Iranians should be suspicious when people suddenly act sentimental about “the Iranian people” while their preferred outcome would leave Iran bombed, sanctioned, fragmented, leaderless, or dependent on foreign brokers.

They do not hate the Islamic Republic because they love Iranian freedom. They hate it because it threatens their interests.

Those are not the same thing.

Please do not wait for Trump, Israel, Europe, or any foreign power to free Iran. Their priority is not Iranian freedom. Their priority is a deal, oil routes, nukes, security, and leverage. If Iranians stay silent during this ceasefire, outsiders will negotiate with the regime or choose some compromised figure and then pretend that is “stability.”

This is the moment for Iranians to show the world that the people are the real political force — not the regime, not Ahmadinejad, and not foreign kingmakers.

We need Iranians visible in the streets while the US Navy is present. The US and Israel are not going to prioritise Iranian freedom unless Iranians force the issue politically. Their public focus is Hormuz, oil, nukes, ceasefires, military pressure, and deals. That is exactly why Iranians cannot stay invisible while outsiders negotiate over our future.

The presence of US military power in the region creates a political reality: if the regime massacres civilians while the world claims diplomacy and “help” are on the way, then the moral responsibility becomes impossible to ignore.

The goal is to make it impossible for anyone to decide Iran’s future without the Iranian people — or to wash their hands of Iranian blood afterward.

Javid Shah.

Regime change without Iranian sovereignty is not liberation.

It is just another foreign-managed disaster.

TL;DR

To clarify before anyone twists this: I am pro-Pahlavi, anti-IRGC, and pro-regime change. That is exactly why fake allies of Iranian freedom need to be called out.

There is a difference between wanting the Islamic Republic weakened and wanting Iran liberated.

The historical pattern is obvious. Mossadegh was removed when Iran tried to control its own oil. Mohammad Reza Shah was restored under a post-1953 oil order. Then, when the Shah became too independent — OPEC power, oil sovereignty, military modernisation, and refusing to remain simply a Western client — the same Western world suddenly discovered “human rights” and let the monarchy collapse.

Whether every step was directly orchestrated or not, the lesson is clear: Iranian sovereignty is tolerated only when it serves outside interests.

This is why Reza Pahlavi is inconvenient. The Pahlavi name represents the last time Iran had oil power, military ambition, secular confidence, state capacity, and national pride. Under Mohammad Reza Shah, Iran was not some backward puppet state. It was becoming a modern, secular, socially progressive regional power.

He weakened feudal landlords, challenged clerical power, expanded education, built infrastructure, pushed women’s rights, expanded literacy and health programs, industrialised the country, and created a modern middle class. In many ways, Iran was moving toward a state-guided, socially reformist, modern mixed economy — closer to a secular social-democratic modernisation project than the lazy Western caricature of a “puppet monarchy.”

That is what they fear returning.

A sovereign Pahlavi-led Iran could be pro-Western without being owned, peaceful without being weak, nationalist without being Islamist, and modern without being submissive. That is very different from the weak, sanctioned, divided, manageable Iran outside powers prefer.

This is why the Ahmadinejad report is so disgusting. If US and Israeli officials really considered Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a possible post-Khamenei figure, then Iranian freedom was never the priority. Ahmadinejad is tied to the stolen 2009 election, the Green Movement betrayal, hardline regime politics, and Holocaust-denial rhetoric. Iranians rejected him. Any plan that resurrects him is not liberation. It is managed chaos.

Israel’s policy toward Palestine shows the same regional logic: empower or tolerate destructive actors when they keep a population divided, then use the resulting violence as proof that liberation is impossible. The same logic can be applied to Iran: keep Iran trapped between the Islamic Republic, fake opposition, compromised regime figures, and foreign kingmakers — then tell the world there is no serious Iranian alternative.

But there is an alternative.

A free Iran would weaken Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, and the IRGC network at the root. A free Iran would restore Iranian dignity, end the proxy-war architecture, and bring Iran back to its natural civilisational path: secular, modern, pluralistic, creative, and globally connected.

Iran is not trying to become someone else. Iran is trying to return to itself.

Persia was one of the foundational civilisations of the world — a pillar of law, governance, science, medicine, literature, administration, statecraft, and culture. The Pahlavi project, at its best, was not assimilation. It was restoration: secular law over clerical rule, women’s rights over religious control, education over superstition, national dignity over humiliation.

That is why Reza Pahlavi matters. He symbolises a sovereign Iran with memory.

They do not fear Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad is useful chaos. They fear a legitimate national alternative that can unite Iranians, restore state capacity, and make Iran sovereign again.

They want Iran anti-regime enough to weaken the mullahs, but not sovereign enough to become powerful.

Israel has never been a true friend to Iranian freedom fighters. It has been a friend to its own security doctrine. When Iranians demand liberty, dignity, secularism, and sovereignty, Israeli leaders speak in grand moral language — but their actions show they prefer an Iran that is weak, contained, divided, and useful as a permanent enemy.

A genuinely free Iran would destroy the proxy-war architecture at its root, weaken Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, and the IRGC network, and remove the excuse for endless regional militarisation. But that kind of Iran would also be powerful, independent, nationalist, and impossible to control.

That is why Iranians should be deeply suspicious when Israeli officials claim to support regime change while allegedly entertaining figures like Ahmadinejad, or while reducing Iran’s future to bombs, oil, nukes, and security deals. Iranian freedom is not Israel’s project. It belongs to Iranians alone.

Americans and Israelis often bring up the Iranian people only when it is useful for their own politics — especially to mock Western leftists for defending the Islamic Republic’s fake “resistance” image. But their actual policy language is almost never about Iranian freedom. It is about nukes, oil, Hormuz, military infrastructure, deterrence, security, and keeping Iran weak enough to manage.

That is why Iranians should be suspicious when people suddenly act sentimental about “the Iranian people” while their preferred outcome would leave Iran bombed, sanctioned, fragmented, leaderless, or dependent on foreign brokers.

They do not hate the Islamic Republic because they love Iranian freedom. They hate it because it threatens their interests.

Those are not the same thing.

This is the moment for Iranians to show the world that the people are the real political force — not the regime, not Ahmadinejad, and not foreign kingmakers. Iranians need to be visible now, while the US Navy is present and the world is watching. If the regime massacres civilians while global powers claim diplomacy and “help” are on the way, then the moral responsibility becomes impossible to ignore.

The goal is to make it impossible for anyone to decide Iran’s future without the Iranian people — or to wash their hands of Iranian blood afterward.

Javid Shah.

Regime change without Iranian sovereignty is not liberation.

It is just another foreign-managed disaster.

I follow a bunch of YouTube channels that do commentary about the situation in Ukraine and Russia and I've also seen a lot of Chinese YouTubers that do in-depth commentary about China. But I can't seem to find YouTube channels that talk about Iran from the perspective of an Iranian. Are there any YouTube channels that you would recommend for people who want a more in-depth knowledge about Iran and the situation there?

I hope this isn't an inappropriate question. Because I saw on twitter a persian girl in the US who wrote about how she went up and left the dinner date when the guy started expressing support for the Iranian regime. The date had gone very well up until that point. Suffice to say, she blocked him and never contacted him again

For those of you who are singles and done some dating during this time, how has it affected your dating life? How would you react if someone you dated started repeating IRGC propaganda? Could you imagine yourself dating someone who praises the Islamic regime?

Australian here 👋

We have - for better or worse - held to the idea of "support the underdog" and "tall poppy syndrome" i.e. the big guy deserves to be cut down irrespective of their motivations or values

Hence, pro-IRGC and Pro-Pal voices will blame supposed US-Israel "imperialism", but the moment you raise moral cases for the Iranian people themselves, you hit a brick wall.

Anyone else encounter this?