People inside Iran been demonstrating against their government for the past two weeks, taking tremendous risks and losing their lives in the hope of actualizing their dream of a free Iran.
Horrific images and reports out of Iran indicate that hundreds of protesters have been killed, if not thousands. There has been a communication blackout to prevent people from organizing and to hide deadly state violence and the repression of mass protests from the international view.
The protesters are diverse. They hold different, often conflicting, visions for the future of Iran. Their voices are not homogeneous. Still, this is a moment of unity among the protesters, as there appears to be a central message to their demands: the dictatorship must end.
This is also a moment that reveals the manipulation of this people-led movement by segments of the Iranian diaspora and some Western political and media actors. This manipulation is not new and is part of a well-oiled propaganda machinery that advocates for military intervention to topple the Iranian regime. While this propaganda and its imperialist narrative would exist regardless, its impact is amplified by a vacuum.
The vacuum created by the left
Iranian feminists and activists have long found it frustrating that the Western progressive left remains less interested in showing support for the cause of Iranian protesters. When analysis does appear, it often talks more about a potential Western takeover of Iran (which is a valid and real concern), rather than the plight.
But ask any expert on Iranian social movements, and you will hear the same answer: most people in Iran are fed up with state violence and the suppression of freedoms, and protests of this scale are not surprising.
So why is the left so apprehensive? It may be that some people sympathize with the Iranian regime, viewing it primarily as a victim of Western imperialism due to heavy sanctions and the constant push for “regime change.” Figures like Trump and Netanyahu loudly back Iran’s protesters, and some opposition figures of Iranian descent in the West openly call for military intervention against Iran.
The nationalist crowd within the Iranian diaspora who has recently adopted the “Make Iran Great Again” slogan has long cheered for a Western-induced regime change. Because of all this, some may feel hesitant to lend their voices to the cause of Iranians, fearing they will be grouped together with pro-Israeli and imperialist forces.
But this hesitation has serious consequences. One is the creation of a media vacuum that is then filled by right-wing media, politicians, and commentators. Another is the ignoring of calls for solidarity from laborers, feminists, students, and ordinary people who are risking their lives against a regime that has no concern for them. People who deserve our support.
The monarchists and their leader
As people are being killed on the streets of Iran, we are being gaslit into believing that the Iranian people are waiting for Reza Pahlavi to return to Iran. Pahlavi, the son of the former Shah of Iran, whose dictatorship was toppled in 1979, has adopted a narrative that strongly implies such a role. He is positioning himself as someone behind the protests, announcing calls to demonstrate, and then thanking people for responding. By doing that, he is inserting himself into an already ongoing uprising. The reality is that people would take to the streets regardless of his invitations.
I am not denying that he has followers. I am not denying that there may be many of them. No one truly knows how many there are. But chants like “javid shah” (“long live the king”) are selectively amplified by his supporters and sympathetic media to portray him as something he is not: a legitimate and widely accepted figure.
Pahlavi is the only figure within the Iranian opposition with a fully developed propaganda machine. He also has fierce supporters who are not shy about engaging in harassment and intimidation of those who disagree with them.
And let us not forget one important thing: this is the same individual who welcomed Israel’s attack on Iran during the so-called 12-Day War. In his recent address to the Iranian people, he declared President Trump ready to help them—a man who has supported military action against Iran in the past and might do so again.
A patriarchal, masculine alternative regime
Only a few years after the achievements of the Woman, Life, Freedom uprising—which was widely recognized as a feminist uprising in Iran—the tides have shifted. As the massacre of Iranian people on the streets by the monstrous Islamic regime continues, we are witnessing a return to, and embrace of, a patriarchal narrative centered on a singular male savior.
In this narrative, the savior has inherited his rightful place not through acts of service or an exceptional ability to unite the nation, but through blood. His legitimacy is derived from the bloodline of his father, the former dictator of Iran.
This narrative does not justify itself through reason, but by appealing to two emotional registers: nationalist loyalty and fear. The first attempts to portray Pahlavi as the natural descendant of Cyrus the Great. When that fails, threats and intimidation remain.
What if the regime falls?
The Western push toward a single imagined outcome for the protests in Iran is a mirage. No one knows what will come next.
What is clear is that there is no return from brutality of this scale. If the Iranian regime survives these protests, it will face an even deeper legitimacy crisis than before. Resistance will only grow.
One thing is clear: The future of Iran must be decided by its people. What we can all do is refuse to sit back and allow things to simply unfold—but also be careful not to appropriate a people-led movement that is not entirely ours. We owe that much to those who are risking everything and putting their bodies on the line for a free Iran.