Michel Taubmann — Since the Islamic Republic was founded, you have always opposed foreign military intervention against Iran in any form. In 1980, as a young man, you even wrote to Ayatollah Khomeini offering to fight the Iraqi invasion with the Iranian army. Have you changed your position? And if so, why?
Reza Pahlavi — When Iran was attacked by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in 1980, I wanted to do my duty as an Iranian and defend my country, despite my aversion to the Islamic dictatorship that had been in place for a year. Unlike the People’s Mujahideen, who chose to fight alongside Iraq at the time, I have always placed love for my homeland above any political conflict whenever my country has been attacked. The situation today is very different.
The confrontation with the United States and Israel is the consequence of the warmongering of an illegitimate regime, which has been waging this war since its advent forty-seven years ago.
Persians and Jews share a long common history. In the VIth century BC, our king Cyrus the Great freed the Jews from exile and allowed them to return to their land, Judea. We obviously have no territorial dispute with Israel. As for the Palestinian tragedy, the Islamic Republic of Iran has done everything in its power to inflame it, with the aim of rendering it insoluble. Fiercely opposed to the 1993 Oslo Accords, it remains hostile to any idea of a Palestinian state living in peace alongside Israel – a country it continues to refer to as “the Zionist entity”.
As for the United States, while there may be long-standing grievances, the Islamic Republic should, at the very least, have been grateful to Washington for facilitating its rise to power in 1979, by abandoning not only my father, the Shah of Iran, but also the new Prime Minister, Shapour Bakhtiar, a liberal opponent who sought to establish democracy.
For forty-seven years, I’ve been fully committed to the fight for democracy, regardless of fluctuations in relations between the Islamic Republic, Israel or the United States. I have always believed that change in Iran will come from the Iranian people. I remain faithful to this conviction.
When a dictatorship maintains itself through war and terrorism, sooner or later it suffers the consequences. And that’s what happened.
M. T. — So, in your opinion, is Iran solely responsible for the military turn the conflict has taken since June 2025?
R. P. — No – not Iran, but the criminal regime! Our people are not warmongers and have never wanted war. The responsibility lies with the Islamic Republic, which imposed itself and maintains its power through terror, like a foreign army in an occupied country. Since 1979, the Tehran regime has made the destruction of Israel a strategic doctrine, and has waged an uninterrupted indirect war through Hamas, Hezbollah, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Houthis and dozens of militias throughout the region. Billions of dollars stolen from the Iranians have been squandered to fuel an endless war in which the Palestinians are also the victims.
For the first time, last June, during the “Twelve-Day War”, Israel retaliated by striking inside Iran itself, targeting the regime’s command structure rather than just its external relays. At first, the Iranians hoped that these strikes would break the regime’s terror machine; then fear set in as the sirens began to sound at night; before it ended in disappointment when they realized that the regime was still holding out.
M. T. — So the Israeli intervention in June 2025 was useless?
R. P.— You can’t say that. Of course, innocent civilians have tragically suffered from the absence of civil defense infrastructures. The June strikes seriously weakened the regime; they exacerbated its internal divisions and probably helped create the conditions for the popular uprising of December-January, when the vast majority of Iranians took to the streets to express their desire to put an end to this criminal, obscurantist regime.
Unfortunately, you know what happened next: tens of thousands of my compatriots were mercilessly massacred. Like many Iranians during those terrible days in January, I regretted that the outside world was not present - if only even by cutting off the communications of the forces of repression and facilitating those of the demonstrators.
M. T. — What do you expect from Israel, Europe and the United States?
R. P. — I expect six things from all States that want democracy in Iran:
1) Dismantle the machinery of repression and protect the Iranian people.
2) Cut off the regime’s financial resources completely.
3) Guarantee free Internet and communications for Iranians.
4) Expel Iranian “diplomats” posted abroad and prosecute criminals.
5) Immediately release all political prisoners.
6) Prepare to recognize a legitimate transitional government to steer Iran towards democracy.
M. T. — Were you consulted by the Israeli and/or American authorities before or after the hostilities broke out last June?
R. P. — I have no reason to be informed of military decisions taken by foreign States. I have long kept channels of communication open with the American government and other governments, notably in Europe, on the future of Iran. My relations with Israel are more recent. I met its main leaders, including President Herzog and Prime Minister Netanyahu, during my visit to their country – the only time in my life – in April 2023.
My position has always been the same: no foreign power can decide Iran’s destiny.
But let’s be clear: while the support of other nations can help us, change must be driven by the Iranian people.
M. T. — Looking back, can we say that the Israeli and American strikes in June 2025 significantly delayed Iran’s nuclear program?
R. P. — Yes, from a technical point of view, they delayed access to the bomb – but only temporarily. Within a few months, the regime began to rebuild this arsenal, spending fortunes at the expense of the Iranian people’s basic well-being. This has plunged them further into the extreme poverty that led to this Winter’s revolt. Alongside the nuclear program, colossal sums have been devoted to developing new ballistic missiles.
Without regime change in Tehran, no military strike or diplomatic agreement can guarantee that this program will remain dismantled. The only guarantee against an Iranian nuclear threat is the advent of a democratic government that respects international law.
M. T. — Politically speaking, is the Islamic Republic very weakened after eight months of external and internal confrontation?
R. P. — Last June, the regime lost senior officials, commanders of the Revolutionary Guards and personnel working in the nuclear and ballistic sectors. The strikes exposed the regime’s vulnerabilities, deepened social mistrust and emboldened ordinary citizens who saw the inability of their leaders to protect them, while they themselves went underground – like Ali Khamenei.
Years of wasting national wealth on missiles and propaganda proved useless: within days, Iran’s air defenses were overwhelmed and its leaders disappeared into hiding. The Islamic Republic emerged from this war weaker, more fractured and more isolated than before.
M. T. — Can you confirm that members of the Revolutionary Guards, including senior officers, are in contact with you through secret channels?
R. P. — In June 2025, I announced the establishment of a secure communication channel for military, security, police and civil servants wishing to break with the regime and get in touch with me or my team. This official channel enables us to manage the growing volume of messages and requests from those seeking to join our movement. Tens of thousands of members of the armed forces and the state apparatus have already contacted my team via this channel. The regime’s ability to retaliate is formidable: it can threaten families, monitor and track leaks. This is a reality we need to integrate into our planning. Some have also called for “soft exit” guarantees during the transition to democracy. I have stated publicly that those who break with the regime and join the democratic project will be able to participate in the change by occupying new positions, while
those who have committed crimes will be held to account.
Mandela is my role model for transition – not one based on revenge or massacres.
M. T. — In your opinion, is there any short-term prospect of a transition to democracy in Iran? And by what means?
R. P. — Our mission is urgent, but structured. I’ve defined a clear five-point strategy to pave the way from tyranny to freedom.
Firstly, to exert maximum pressure on the Islamic Republic. This regime has thrived on impunity and international silence. The world must never forget its crimes – executions and torture – as well as the corruption and organized plunder carried out by the Revolutionary Guards, both at home and abroad, notably through drug trafficking and prostitution.
Secondly, to give unwavering support to the Iranian people. They need to know that they are not alone, that the world is at their side, and that they can count on the diaspora – eight to nine million Iranians – to defend their rights.
Third, maximize defections. Every Iranian who withdraws his support for this system brings us closer to freedom. Whether they are in government, the army or the administration, we call on them to choose the nation over the oppressors.
Fourthly, to organize the mobilization of citizens inside and outside the country. Our struggle demands discipline, coordination and solidarity. The Islamic Republic seeks to divide and discourage us; we must unite, mobilize and persevere.
Fifth, prepare for the future through the Iran Prosperity Project. This is not a slogan; it’s a plan to rebuild Iran after liberation, so that we’re ready when the time comes.
M. T. — Is Iran protected by its alliance with the two giants, China and Russia?
R. P. — Authoritarian regimes are guided by the interests of their despots. Their so-called alliances are temporary and transactional – a matter of circumstantial rapprochement. The Tehran regime is weak and plagued by internal conflicts. No “alliance” can save a regime that is collapsing from within.
China and Russia are exploiting Iran’s isolation; they are not real partners. Neither of them lifted a finger to help the Islamic Republic during the “Twelve-Day War” last June. On the military front, it is Russia that depends on Iran as a supplier of the drones used on a massive scale in Ukraine. From this point of view, the weakening of the Islamic Republic would have positive consequences for Ukraine, and therefore for Europe vis-à-vis Russia.
India is looking for balance, but understands the risks of betting on a doomed system. When the regime falls, these relations will change overnight.
M. T. — A Qatar-Egypt-Turkey-Saudi Arabia axis has formed to oversee, alongside the United States, the post-war situation in Gaza. Do you see this as a lasting alignment that will shape the future of the Middle East, or just a temporary coalition of interests? What impact could this have on relations between Israel and Iran?
R. P. — Insofar as such coordination exists, it is an alignment of convenience dictated by the immediate needs of the post-Gaza era. Saudi Arabia, in particular, is faced with a fundamental reality: the Islamic Republic is collapsing from within; the path to regional stability lies in supporting a transition to a free and appeased Iran, not in accommodating a moribund and inherently unstable regime.
The advent of a new Iran, renewing fraternal relations with its neighbors, will naturally lead to the normalization of Arab-Israeli relations – and of course to normalization between this democratic Iran and its regional environment. A stable Iran, which will succeed the Islamic Republic, will be the cornerstone of this regional order, whose players will gradually adapt to the new reality. With the demise of the Islamic Republic, the last existential threat to Israel posed by a powerful state will disappear.
Terrorist groups committed to the destruction of Israel will be deprived of the considerable logistical support of a major country like Iran. A calmer regional climate is likely to facilitate the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, while respecting the right of both peoples to live in peace and security.
M. T. — So your “new Middle East” is broader than the “Abraham Accords”. You call them the “Cyrus Accords”...
R. P. — The region needs a new framework based on peace through freedom, not peace through fear. The “Cyrus Accords” envisage a democratic Iran, reconciled with the regional and international community, normalized relations with Israel, cooperation in the fields of water, energy, trade and technology, and an end to ideological conflicts. They are a logical extension of the Abraham Accords and a return to the values of Cyrus the Great: tolerance, sovereignty and dignity for all.
M. T. — At the Sharm el-Sheikh summit last October, President Trump spoke in rather vague terms of an evolution identical to the one you are calling for. Does this give you confidence in the future?
R. P. — In his time, the great Israeli statesman Shimon Peres defended a Middle Eastern project inspired by the European Union. Inter-regional cooperation naturally arises between peoples aspiring to progress in freedom. A free Iran must be a central pillar of the new Middle East.
President Trump’s intuition is right: the Middle East cannot reach its full potential as long as 90 million Iranians live under a regime that exports war, oppresses its own people and blocks all cooperation. Such integration is impossible as long as the Islamic Republic occupies Iran. Once the Iranians have regained possession of their country, Iran will become an engine of stability, partnership and growth for the entire region.
M. T. — Do you think that President Trump delayed the advent of this new Middle East by pushing Israel to stop fighting on the twelfth day of the war last June?
R. P. — President Trump’s priority is to prevent the regime from acquiring nuclear weapons. My goal is the freedom of my country and lasting regional peace. I believe the President intrinsically understands that freedom in Iran is the only guarantee of prosperity and stability – and that the only way to achieve this is to support the Iranian people.
Dictatorships fall when the people overthrow them, and when citizens, workers, technocrats and security forces stop supporting them. That’s what we’ve been seeing in the streets for several weeks now. We now need international support to accelerate the pace of change and reduce the cost to our nation. We know that change can only come from us, but, like the Americans during their own revolution, we will be grateful to our friends for the help they give us.
M. T. — Haven’t you made a mistake by appearing to tie your fate to a President Trump whose methods are highly controversial both inside and outside the United States?
R. P. — I have maintained high-level contacts with the American government. I also maintain direct or indirect contacts with Arab, Israeli and European leaders. I was hosted by the European Parliament and invited to the Munich Security Conference. I am grateful to the United States for welcoming me and protecting me and my family for almost fifty years, as well as to France and other countries where I regularly stay. I’ve lived through a succession of administrations, both Democratic and Republican. There have been times when I’ve been critical of some of their decisions. President Trump, I believe, has been the American president most favorable to the Iranian people. He has given Iranians hope. Now we need him to act. As he himself has said, it’s not up to him to choose Iran’s next leader. That’s up to the Iranian people.
M. T. — According to a reliable survey carried out in 2024 by the Gamaan Institute, you are the most popular personality in Iran. And converging testimonies indicate that many of your compatriots are counting on you. But what is your project? Re-establishing an old order, rejected forty-seven years ago by the Iranian people?
R. P. — My project – my raison d’être – supported by a growing number of Iranians, is above all a return to national and popular sovereignty. This means democracy and the definitive separation of religion and politics, what you call secularism. I have worked tirelessly towards this goal for forty-seven years, and will continue to do so in whatever role the Iranian people choose to entrust me with.
M. T. — You speak of democracy. But as Crown Prince and son of the last Shah of Iran, isn’t your mission to restore the monarchy?
R. P. — It’s true that the institutional position I inherited gives me a certain legitimacy in the eyes of Iranians. The monarchical institution has embodied Iran for 3,000 years. Our country has only known one republic in its history – that of the last forty-seven years – and that is the Islamic Republic, which is in every way monstrous and barbaric.
So it’s only natural that current comparisons should turn to the monarchy’s advantage. Most of my compatriots either never knew the old regime, or only have childhood memories of it. But they all know – especially the women – that in those days “lovers could walk hand in hand through the streets”. The choice between a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary republic belongs exclusively to the Iranian people. It’s not for me to decide, but for the nation.
M. T. — But the monarchical power wielded by your father was not democratic. Are you prepared to admit this?
R. P. — Independent historians have since proposed a balanced assessment of my father’s reign. The “White Revolution” and other reforms carried out in the 1960s and 1970s aimed to emancipate women – through a family code that granted them the right to divorce, among other things. There was also an agrarian reform that enabled peasants to become owners of their land. These were two reforms that could be described as “progressive”, but were fiercely opposed by the most reactionary clergy, led by Khomeini.
During this period, the country underwent spectacular modernization, imposed “from above”. There was unprecedented economic growth, the fruits of which were not always equitably distributed, and the emergence of an educated middle class aspiring to responsibilities – responsibilities they could have exercised under a parliamentary system. Many young intellectuals, trained on state scholarships at American and European universities, turned to Marxist or Islamist revolutionary movements.
M. T. — When people in the West talk about your father’s reign, they often mention the Savak, the political police who tortured opponents. What do you have to say about this today?
R. P. — I’ve mentioned this subject in my books and I’ve expressed myself on many occasions: I condemn torture whenever it takes place. What was reported at the time has largely proved to be untrue. In fact, the Islamic regime itself has acknowledged this. Today, I work with many of my father’s former opponents, as well as their children.
There are explanations linked to the context of a brutal and violent struggle, marked by murderous attacks directed against my father, the Iranian state, the Iranian people and the reform program. These attacks were committed by both Islamists and the extreme left. But one thing is certain: there is no excuse for torture.
M. T. — How would you describe the power exercised by your father?
R. P. — My father came to the throne at a very young age, twenty- two, in the dramatic circumstances of the Second World War. In his early years, he scrupulously respected the 1906 Constitution, which – long before any other country in the region – had established a parliament in Iran designed to balance the powers of the head of state.
As in all constitutional monarchies, the Shah ratified the appointment of a prime minister from a parliament freely elected by the people. After the assassination attempt by a Communist in 1949, in which he almost lost his life, and after the serious disagreements with Prime Minister Mossadegh in 1953, fanned by foreign influences, my father was forced to take further control of affairs and expose the Crown – and himself – to greater risks.
The monarchy whose continuity I symbolically embody is a constitutional monarchy. It was on the basis of the 1906 Constitution that I took the oath of office on October 31, 1980 – my twentieth birthday – three months after my father’s death, while I was in exile in Cairo. Should I have refused? It would have been unthinkable for the young man I was. And politically, it would have been unfair to deprive Iranians of a political option: constitutional monarchy.
M. T. — So you want to be king?
R. P. — That’s not the question. It’s not a question of what I want, but of what the Iranian people want and what they will vote for. I am the servant of my people and my nation. I see no other way out than democracy. The poll you mentioned earlier clearly shows that the overwhelming majority of Iranians want a democratic and secular system.
However, they are not entirely unanimous on the form this system should take: constitutional monarchy or parliamentary republic. It’s up to the people to decide, by referendum, when they can express themselves freely. Whatever they choose, I’m perfectly happy with it, because in both cases – constitutional monarchy or republic – it will be a parliamentary democracy. And that’s the main thing.
How can we imagine that, after so much suffering, so many uprisings and so much bloodshed, the Iranians would accept any outcome other than democracy?
M. T. — You live a long way from Iran. Isn’t that a handicap?
R. P. — Exile wasn’t my choice; it was imposed on me, as it was on eight or nine million of my compatriots living abroad today. Together, we form what might be called a “global Iran”, a kind of reserve force of opposition to the regime. Thanks to the Internet, we can now communicate constantly with our friends inside the country and relay their aspirations to the outside world.
Exile is of course a painful ordeal for every human being. But it has also opened doors for me – both humanly and politically.
Through exile I experienced the life of a middle-class citizen in an American suburb: I drove my own car, shopped at the supermarket, picked up my daughters from school when they were young, took the train among other passengers, in an anonymity that has largely disappeared in recent years. Politically, I have learned a great deal from living in the United States and Europe – modern, democratic societies where the press freely criticizes those in power and where there are many checks and balances.
Exile, while strengthening my Iranian identity, has also enabled me to discover and love a freedom that I wish for my nation and my people.
M. T. — Do you think the day is approaching when you’ll be able to return to Iran?
R. P. — When I left in June 1978, Iran had already been experiencing demonstrations and strikes for several months, but as a teenager I couldn’t imagine staying in exile for almost half a century. For forty- eight years, I have lived day and night with the hope of returning to Iran – for myself, of course, and for my family, since we have no other country, but above all for the Iranian people.
The day the country’s doors open to us and all the exiles, it will mean that an entire people has been freed from dictatorship. I’ve hoped for this day for a very long time. Today, I believe it is close, for two reasons: never before has the Islamic regime been so weak and so isolated on the international stage; and never before has it been so openly challenged in the streets by huge crowds of Iranians of all generations and social backgrounds – at the cost of tens of thousands of lives.
M. T. — Do you fear for your life?
R. P. — It’s not a problem, personally. I’ve often talked about it with my wife and my three daughters. The importance of this cause surpasses all other considerations, and I’m ready to sacrifice my life for it. From day one, this regime has massacred – by the hundreds of thousands – those who opposed it or simply lived differently. It has hunted down and murdered its opponents around the world, despite the police protection afforded by host countries – from activists in Vienna in 1989 to former Prime Minister Shapour Bakhtiar in the Paris region in 1991. Their aim has always been to pursue their enemies to the ends of the earth and to the end of time. They reserved this fate for one of my dear cousins, naval officer Shahriar Shafiq, assassinated in Paris in 1979. For almost half a century, I have lived under this threat, as has my family. I know that at any moment I could die, even here in the United States. But I’m engaged in a struggle that goes far beyond my own existence.
