Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Iran’s Exiled Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi Believes in Iranian Regime Change — Experts Contradict Him

News

Iran’s Exiled Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi Believes in Iranian Regime Change — Experts Contradict Him

Dacha Burns and Reza Pahlavi at the Politico Security Summit

(GEORGIA EPIPHANIOU/ MNS)

WASHINGTON — At a tenuous moment for the U.S.-Iran war, President Trump rejected Tehran’s terms for a truce proposal Monday. With negotiations stalled and concessions on a ceasefire deal dragging on, exiled Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi emphasized that regime change still could happen.

“Of course, it (a regime change) is a possibility, but more than a possibility, it is a necessity,” Pahlavi said in a security panel hosted by Politico on Tuesday.


Pahlavi characterized Iran’s government as weakened, leaving room for a successful uprising against the theocratic regime, which has been in power since Pahlavi’s late father, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, was overthrown in the Islamic Revolution of 1979.

“And therefore, when we say that now that you have a wounded beast, this is not an opportunity that you should let go,” said Pahlavi, 65, who has lived with his family near Washington for most of his adult life.

U.S.-Israel attacks in February killed the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, but since his son, Mojtaba Khamenei, stepped in as Iran's current leader, many experts cautioned that Iran’s political system remained entrenched and regime change seemed unlikely.

Gordon Gray, a former U.S. diplomat who teaches at George Washington University, said he did not think Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps would allow an opposition to rise up.

“I don't think they're unable to unite if given the chance. The problem is that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps isn't going to give them the chance,” Gray said.

Pahlavi, who has lived in the United States since he was 19, echoed the views of several Iranian grassroots organizations. They support a regime change led by Iranians themselves through mass mobilization and the overthrow of the country’s theocratic government, paired with U.S. political support. But they oppose a U.S.-backed military operation.

Pahlavi wants to serve as the temporary leader while Iran establishes democracy.

“What I am offering as transitional leader is precisely a mechanism or process whereby it's for the people of Iran to decide what they want and who they want as their leaders,” said Pahlavi.

However, some Iranian-American organizations, such as the Organization of Iranian American Communities, do not want him as a transitional leader.

“It is not as simple as someone who has no legitimacy in the form of Pahlavi to be able to be installed into our power from outside,” Majid Sadeghpour, the political director of the Organization of Iranian American Communities, said. “That's impossible in reality, and the people of Iran will reject it anyway and will rise up against it,” the human rights activist added.

Pahlavi has aligned himself with U.S. conservatives. However, the Trump administration does not deem Pahlavi as well-positioned to lead.

The President said in March that Pahlavi could be a possible option, but not an optimal one.

“Some people like him; we haven't been thinking too much about that," Trump said in a press briefing during his meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. “Somebody from within would be more appropriate.”

Sadeghpour said the National Council of Resistance of Iran, an exiled coalition of Iranian resistance groups from across the world, would be a better option. It was founded in 1981 and is now led by Maryam Rajavi, who proposed a 10-point plan for a future secular Iranian government, focused on democratic ideals and granting power to the people.

“The goal of the Iranian Resistance that we support is to overthrow the Iranian regime,” Sadeghpour said. “For that to occur, the Iranian people will have to overthrow this regime on their own, they will need U.S. and Western political support, they need us and they need Western political condemnation of Iranian regimes, killings and atrocities.”

Is a regime change attainable?

In recent months, some people thought that the time might have been right for such a change.

The U.S. imposed significant sanctions on Iran last year after Iran failed to renew a deal that limits their nuclear program. The value of Iran’s currency, the rial, fell sharply, sparking public outrage over rising inflation. In late December, people took to the streets and demonstrated against the government.

Iran is a diverse country of 92 million people and has over 20 ethnic groups.

“The Islamic Republic has spent decades ensuring that Iran’s citizens cannot unite against it… Any movement building has been defeated through the most brutal violence,” experts said in a report by the Human Rights Foundation.

During just two days of protesting in January, as many as 30,000 people may have been killed in the streets of Iran, Iranian health officials told Time Magazine.

Gray, who was the U.S. ambassador to Tunisia during the 2011 Arab Spring, said that the overthrow of the Tunisian government was possible then, because civil society successfully came together and overthrew a leader who “wasn't as repressive or as willing to use force against against his people, as as we see in Iran today.”

Gray said that the Iranian regime is brutally repressing anyone standing against it. The regime has engaged in widespread persecution of dissidents following the protests and the outbreak of the war. At least 22 political prisoners have been executed between March and April, according to the Center of Human Rights in Iran.

“I don't think there is a power vacuum. I think the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has a pretty strong hold on power. It may not be the only power center in Iran, but I would say they're the predominant,” said Gray.

Georgia Epiphaniou is the foreign affairs and national security reporter with the Medill News Service.


Read More

An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 21, 2026. Hegseth is crafting a strong and masculine identity for his audience as he reportedly contemplates a presidential run.

(Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Politicians Can’t Just ’Give the People What They Want’

For reasons that will baffle my many detractors, I am often asked for advice about being an opinion journalist. One of my standard responses is: You have to be willing to disappoint your biggest fans.

What I mean is that if you start to see your job as telling fans what they want to hear, you risk becoming an entertainer rather than a thinker, and eventually you become a caricature. I’ve seen it happen numerous times. Patrick Buchanan was a brilliant columnist and a serious person. But over the course of his career, he listened too much to the people who said, “Go Pat, go!” and too little to friends who said, “I think that’s taking it too far.”

Keep ReadingShow less
White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

Congress approval is at a record-low 10%. Moderation and consensus-building, not partisan theatrics, are how Washington gets problems solved.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

Reclaiming the Politics of the Possible

Washington is stuck in a cycle of performative conflict. The incentives seem to reward outrage, not outcomes that last; purity tests, not problem‑solving. So it’s no surprise that after three shutdowns in less than a year, public approval of Congress collapsed to just 10 percent this spring. (Gallup, April 2026.) But the country we live in — where many middle-income families report persistent financial strain and businesses are navigating unprecedented technological upheaval — cannot be governed by theatrics. Breaking this cycle requires moderation, consensus‑building, and a cooperative approach to governance.

This is not a call for centrism as an ideology. Instead, this is a call for transformative leaders to embrace moderation as their governing strategy, recognizing that in a pluralistic country of nearly 350 million people durable solutions require broad and stable alliances. Ultimately, this is a call for the 240 million of us who are eligible to vote in November to elect consensus-builders instead of bomb-throwers, and healers instead of arsonists.

Keep ReadingShow less
Adult man holds a microphone while asking a question during a town hall meeting.

Congress ignored 90% of public support for background checks. Learn how citizen assemblies and sortition helped Ireland break gridlock and could work in the US.

SDI Productions/Getty Images

Consensus Without Power: How Sortition Could Break America's Legislative Gridlock

In April 2013, four months after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting killed twenty children, the US Senate voted on the Manchin-Toomey Act to expand background checks and to include gun-show and internet sales of firearms. Roughly nine in ten Americans, including a majority of gun owners, supported the bill—a figure that has held steady across more than a decade of polling. It fell short of the 60-vote threshold by six votes. This was not an outlier. On complex issues, representatives often fail to translate public consensus into reality. Research shows that legislators consistently vote in line with donor and interest group preferences over constituent opinion. Before the vote, the National Rifle Association (NRA) warned every senator it would “rate” their vote on its annual rating system, and a low NRA rating could cost senators their next primary. Consequently, the bill died 54-46, and the majority of Americans watched, powerless, as their consensus was overridden by self-interested representatives.

Liberal democracies need a method to bypass electoral incentives that run counter to public opinion. One already exists: Ireland faced the same stalemate on complex issues before it instituted a process called sortition. The beauty of sortition lies in its removal of the primary pressure that misaligns representatives’ interests from public interest: reelection. Much like jury duty, citizens are randomly drawn from the population. An independent body then stratifies the pool, so the final group mirrors the country by age, gender, geography, and income. The group meets over weeks or months, hearing from experts and the public, as well as debating frequently. At the end, it issues a recommendation that parliament may then put to a referendum or pass into law.

Keep ReadingShow less