Or, like Mao said, "the Army is the chief component of state power and whoever seeks to acquire and retain state power must have a strong army."
Now, you may point to other "popular revolutions" throughout modern history, but that only proves my point. After Khomeini went into exile in France, tens of thousands of his loyalists continued building their networks in Iran's universities, bazaars, mosques, offices, government agencies, etc. The revolution of 1979 was simply that underground network rising to topple the modernist Persian state once they'd reached critical mass.
Even during the Arab Spring, nothing really changed. For instance, in Egypt, the Army ousted Mubarak to simply install their own man who commanded a real army with guns (Sisi). When the protesters didn't get the memo, they were fired upon and thousands killed.
Across the Artesh (Army), IRGC, Basij militias, and other Shia paramilitary groups, Khamenei has over a million armed, trained young men who believe his words are God's words, and whose fortunes are tied to the regime's survival. No amount of airstrikes can meaningfully degrade those numbers to the point where Reza Pahlavi can be allowed to touch solid ground and be installed as king.
Reza Pahlavi has millions of bots on Twitter, YouTube, Reddit, etc. who astroturf him as a contender for state power.
It's not even a contest.
Secondly, having thousands of protesters chanting your name still doesn't confer state power. State power is in the ability to achieve and retain a monopoly of violence. Khamenei's forces can (and are doing so already) mow down the protesters with machine gunfire, just like the Egyptian Army mowed down the supporters of Morsi in Cairo.
If you can't achieve a monopoly of violence, an asymmetry works just as well since you can impose your wishes on the opposition with superior firepower. That is what will, and is happening in Iran right now.
I don’t think the past is a great place to look for a new future in Iran…
master_crab•2w ago
The previous revolt happened for a reason.
JumpCrisscross•2w ago
It also happened over three decades ago.
I’m not saying airing the Pavlavis is a great idea. But I wouldn’t assume it’s negative without evidence.
master_crab•2w ago
The Pahlavis still have a negative perception in Iran. Just because they aren’t the Ayatollahs doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to bring them up.
sputknick•2w ago
master_crab•2w ago
s1artibartfast•2w ago
About 30% would take the shaw has a first or second choice. This is higher than support for the current regime but the country is deeply divided on what an alternative future would look like.
https://gamaan.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Iranians-Polit...
Ancapistani•2w ago
I’ve spent the past week with someone who was born and raised in Iran and who has close family members still there. Their statements surprised me - according to them, while Iranians as a whole are not supporters of monarchy specifically, the vast majority see the theocracy as intolerable at this point and see Pahlavi as the only viable path forward with enough support to form a working government.
Do they want to live under the Shah? Most likely not, but they would absolutely prefer it to the status quo.
The goal here isn’t to put the Shah in power, but to rely upon him to form a transition government to avoid a power vacuum and then work out what comes next.
stogot•2w ago
belviewreview•2w ago