How America misunderstood Iran’s monarchy - and the Pahlavi legacy - opinion

This opinion piece argues that American perceptions of monarchy are fundamentally flawed when applied to Iran, where kingship has historically been tied to national unity and cultural identity. It claims the US media and political figures misunderstood the Pahlavi dynasty's legitimacy and popularity, contrasting it with the current Islamic Republic's failures. The author suggests that a constitutional monarchy may be the best form of government for Iran and that Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi remains the most popular political figure in the country.

This opinion piece argues that American perceptions of monarchy are fundamentally flawed when applied to Iran, where kingship has historically been tied to national unity and cultural identity. The author claims that in 1979, the American media praised Ayatollah Khomeini while condemning the Shah, whom the article describes as a loyal ally and patriotic monarch. It asserts that neither US media nor political figures made a serious effort to understand Iranian kingship or the Pahlavi legacy. The piece points to the 2,500th anniversary celebration of the Persian Empire in 1971 as an event the American media failed to cover meaningfully. It claims that despite decades of regime propaganda, Reza Pahlavi remains the most popular political figure in Iran, citing chants of "Javid Shah" in stadiums. The author argues that Iranian culture is interwoven with stories of kings, and that the concept of a republic is alien to it. The piece criticizes the current regime as corrupt and disastrous, and suggests that a constitutional monarchy, comparable to Saudi Arabia or the UAE, may be the best form of government for Iran. It concludes that the regime is nearing its end and that Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi may be the only person capable of preventing civil war.