Let us first be clear: for most Iranians, this is not our war. This is a war between Israel and the Islamic Republic, which has held Iranians hostage for more than four decades, and which has put them in harm's way with its reckless ambition. The regime has always declared its determination to destroy Israel, and it was drawing perilously close to carrying out that aim. Anyone who has passed through the Islamic Republic's education system, anyone who has witnessed its relentless destabilising of Lebanon, Iraq, Syria and Yemen, knows just how sincerely the regime is committed to destruction, and exactly why it has continued to push its uranium enrichment programme.
Like other Iranians, my heart breaks at the spectacle of bombs falling on my country. But the principal threat to our safety and well-being remains the regime itself. Over the past week, with the internet shut down, large numbers of citizens in Tehran and other cities have been arrested by the regime's security forces-supposedly for collaborating with Israel. Leading clerics have called for waves of killings as a solution to the state's military humiliation: 'I request the head of the judiciary to try these traitors in a field court,' said one last Friday, 'and execute them in public'. Declaring that executions had already begun, Amnesty International the same day condemned 'official calls for expedited trials and executions' designed to 'assert control and instil fear among the people of Iran.'
The Islamic Republic is not a 'normal' government, which acts to protect the nation and its people in times of trouble. It is more like a hostile occupying force, from which most Iranians dream of liberation. That is why, for many millions, the present moment, terrifying as it is, feels like a historic opportunity. We know by now that peaceful protest is not sufficient to bring down one of the most violent and entrenched regimes in modern history. The Israeli strikes have accomplished what years of protest could not-the dismantling of key pillars of the regime's machinery of oppression.
But as if the Islamic Republic were not enough, we Iranians have to deal with another obstacle, potentially mightier still: the immense cynicism of international opinion. Foreign leaders and newspapers pour scorn on our democratic hopes, telling us that we should make peace with our brutal government for fear it be replaced by something worse. I want to correct this twisted and heartless reasoning.
Those who wish to preserve the current regime usually offer Iraq as a cautionary tale-look what happened there, they warn, as a result of 'regime change'. Thanks to Iran's ancient civilisation and deep political tradition, it enjoys a unified national identity and deep internal cohesion. Not only that, but Iranians have already spent years anticipating just this moment: designing the post-regime reality and planning the political and social transition.There is an alternative in place.
This explains the overwhelming popularity of Iran's crown prince Reza Pahlavi, who has become the symbol of that transition. He offers himself as a unifying figure during Iran's shift from totalitarian rule to secular democracy. As the heir to Iran's oldest political institution, the monarchy, he remains the most trusted and recognisable figure among Iranians both inside and outside the country. Many of those who do not desire a monarchy for the future Iran, also recognise him as a stabilising figure capable of leading the country through this pivotal moment, and safeguarding Iran's territorial integrity.
Beyond Iran, Pahlavi has also advanced a regional vision for peace. His proposed Cyrus Accords-grounded in secular governance, mutual recognition and non-intervention-draw on Iran's venerable tradition of political tolerance. With the Islamic Republic removed, it is far easier to imagine a stable, peaceful and mutually cooperative West Asia.
The best option for the international community is to give its full support to this vision, which is the democratic hope of the Iranian people, and which will bring immense advantages to millions outside Iran. The best way to avoid Iran falling into chaos is to back a figure who is able to command trust across political lines. Iran's crown prince is the only figure capable, for instance, of securing the loyalty of those who are defecting from the regime.
The Islamic Republic is at its weakest. Having lost control of Iranian airspace, it is unable to protect itself, let alone the Iranian people. Its leader is hiding in a bunker. And Iranians are ready to take over where Israel's military assault finishes, to expel the regime, and to implement their plans. That is what the international community should support. This is what will ensure the end of this conflict.
Whether out of fear or complacency, however, many foreign leaders wish to preserve the present regime, albeit in chastened form. If such cowardice prevails, and the Islamic Republic endures, the consequences for Iranians will be catastrophic. As in the past, humiliation abroad is compensated by brutality at home. The regime now has the perfect pretext for a new wave of repression under the guise of 'national security'.
But the danger is not only internal. The wounded regime will not retreat -it will retaliate. It will double down on regional aggression and accelerate its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Its obsession with Israel's destruction will intensify. If the regime survives, in other words, it will be emboldened to new levels of aggression, internal and external.
Whether rightly or wrongly, foreign military action has brought about an important opportunity. But this opportunity will vanish if the West repeats the mistakes of the past. The most dangerous course now would be to throw the regime a lifeline-through quiet diplomacy, sanctions relief, or rhetorical 'balance' that legitimises the illegitimate.
Iranians are not asking to be rescued. They are asking to be recognised. What they need is space to determine their own destiny-and acknowledgement of the leadership they have already chosen. Other countries should realise the folly of imposing frameworks of their own or manipulating Iran's future.
The hope on the horizon is not just the collapse of a regime. It is the end of an occupation. And with the right support, it can mark the rebirth of a sovereign, secular, democratic and peaceful Iran. And an end to the nightmare the Islamic Republic has caused to all around it.
Like other Iranians, my heart breaks at the spectacle of bombs falling on my country. But the principal threat to our safety and well-being remains the regime itself. Over the past week, with the internet shut down, large numbers of citizens in Tehran and other cities have been arrested by the regime's security forces-supposedly for collaborating with Israel. Leading clerics have called for waves of killings as a solution to the state's military humiliation: 'I request the head of the judiciary to try these traitors in a field court,' said one last Friday, 'and execute them in public'. Declaring that executions had already begun, Amnesty International the same day condemned 'official calls for expedited trials and executions' designed to 'assert control and instil fear among the people of Iran.'
The Islamic Republic is not a 'normal' government, which acts to protect the nation and its people in times of trouble. It is more like a hostile occupying force, from which most Iranians dream of liberation. That is why, for many millions, the present moment, terrifying as it is, feels like a historic opportunity. We know by now that peaceful protest is not sufficient to bring down one of the most violent and entrenched regimes in modern history. The Israeli strikes have accomplished what years of protest could not-the dismantling of key pillars of the regime's machinery of oppression.
But as if the Islamic Republic were not enough, we Iranians have to deal with another obstacle, potentially mightier still: the immense cynicism of international opinion. Foreign leaders and newspapers pour scorn on our democratic hopes, telling us that we should make peace with our brutal government for fear it be replaced by something worse. I want to correct this twisted and heartless reasoning.
Those who wish to preserve the current regime usually offer Iraq as a cautionary tale-look what happened there, they warn, as a result of 'regime change'. Thanks to Iran's ancient civilisation and deep political tradition, it enjoys a unified national identity and deep internal cohesion. Not only that, but Iranians have already spent years anticipating just this moment: designing the post-regime reality and planning the political and social transition.There is an alternative in place.
This explains the overwhelming popularity of Iran's crown prince Reza Pahlavi, who has become the symbol of that transition. He offers himself as a unifying figure during Iran's shift from totalitarian rule to secular democracy. As the heir to Iran's oldest political institution, the monarchy, he remains the most trusted and recognisable figure among Iranians both inside and outside the country. Many of those who do not desire a monarchy for the future Iran, also recognise him as a stabilising figure capable of leading the country through this pivotal moment, and safeguarding Iran's territorial integrity.
Beyond Iran, Pahlavi has also advanced a regional vision for peace. His proposed Cyrus Accords-grounded in secular governance, mutual recognition and non-intervention-draw on Iran's venerable tradition of political tolerance. With the Islamic Republic removed, it is far easier to imagine a stable, peaceful and mutually cooperative West Asia.
The best option for the international community is to give its full support to this vision, which is the democratic hope of the Iranian people, and which will bring immense advantages to millions outside Iran. The best way to avoid Iran falling into chaos is to back a figure who is able to command trust across political lines. Iran's crown prince is the only figure capable, for instance, of securing the loyalty of those who are defecting from the regime.
The Islamic Republic is at its weakest. Having lost control of Iranian airspace, it is unable to protect itself, let alone the Iranian people. Its leader is hiding in a bunker. And Iranians are ready to take over where Israel's military assault finishes, to expel the regime, and to implement their plans. That is what the international community should support. This is what will ensure the end of this conflict.
Whether out of fear or complacency, however, many foreign leaders wish to preserve the present regime, albeit in chastened form. If such cowardice prevails, and the Islamic Republic endures, the consequences for Iranians will be catastrophic. As in the past, humiliation abroad is compensated by brutality at home. The regime now has the perfect pretext for a new wave of repression under the guise of 'national security'.
But the danger is not only internal. The wounded regime will not retreat -it will retaliate. It will double down on regional aggression and accelerate its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Its obsession with Israel's destruction will intensify. If the regime survives, in other words, it will be emboldened to new levels of aggression, internal and external.
Whether rightly or wrongly, foreign military action has brought about an important opportunity. But this opportunity will vanish if the West repeats the mistakes of the past. The most dangerous course now would be to throw the regime a lifeline-through quiet diplomacy, sanctions relief, or rhetorical 'balance' that legitimises the illegitimate.
Iranians are not asking to be rescued. They are asking to be recognised. What they need is space to determine their own destiny-and acknowledgement of the leadership they have already chosen. Other countries should realise the folly of imposing frameworks of their own or manipulating Iran's future.
The hope on the horizon is not just the collapse of a regime. It is the end of an occupation. And with the right support, it can mark the rebirth of a sovereign, secular, democratic and peaceful Iran. And an end to the nightmare the Islamic Republic has caused to all around it.
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of www.economictimes.com.)
