Iran’s Uprising And The Myth Of False Alternatives: Why ‘Neither Shah Nor Mullah’ Matters – OpEd

Iran’s modern history is defined by a sustained struggle against authoritarianism, foreign interference, and imposed political alternatives. From the Constitutional Revolution of the early twentieth century to the overthrow of Iran’s first democratically elected government in 1953, Iranians have repeatedly paid a heavy price for resisting dictatorship.

The 1953 coup against Prime Minister Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh—engineered through foreign intervention and executed via street gangs and military force—destroyed Iran’s democratic trajectory. The subsequent rule of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi relied on censorship, mass surveillance, torture, and executions. His security apparatus, SAVAK, became synonymous with systematic repression.

Crucially, the Shah’s regime did not merely suppress progressive and democratic forces; it simultaneously empowered reactionary clerical networks as a counterweight to the left and to popular movements. This policy directly contributed to the rise of Ruhollah Khomeini and the establishment of the Islamic Republic following the 1979 revolution. What followed was not liberation, but the replacement of one authoritarian system with another—this time institutionalised through the doctrine of Velayat-e Faqih.

Despite their ideological differences, the Shah’s monarchy and the Mullah’s Regime share a common structure of rule: reliance on violence, repression, and inherited security mechanisms. Former officials of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) have themselves acknowledged that methods of interrogation and torture were adopted directly from SAVAK. In this sense, the two regimes represent continuity rather than rupture.

The 2025–2026 Uprising: A Democratic Rejection of All Dictatorships

The nationwide uprising that began in December 2025 is neither spontaneous nor isolated. It is the culmination of decades of political exclusion, economic collapse, gender apartheid, and systematic repression. Like the Shah before it, the Islamic Republic has responded with mass killings, internet shutdowns, and the imposition of martial law—measures that signal not strength, but crisis.

This uprising is not reformist in nature. It constitutes a categorical rejection of authoritarian rule in all its forms. Iranian society is no longer debating a return to the past; it is asserting the impossibility of both monarchic restoration and religious dictatorship.

Distortion and Appropriation Outside Iran

While repression intensifies inside Iran, a parallel process is unfolding abroad: the political appropriation of the uprising. Certain monarchist networks, media outlets, and political actors are attempting to recast the movement as a campaign for the restoration of hereditary rule under Reza Pahlavi.

This phenomenon is not new. Historically, authoritarian forces have repeatedly sought to hijack popular uprisings by presenting “orderly” and externally palatable alternatives. Today, documented cases of manipulated protest footage, altered slogans, and media misrepresentation reveal a deliberate effort to erase the uprising’s explicitly anti-authoritarian character.

Equally concerning is the presence of individuals linked to the Iran’s regime external influence networks at some overseas demonstrations. This reflects a dual strategy long employed by authoritarian regimes: violent suppression at home combined with political deviation abroad.

Western audiences should be clear: contemporary Iran is not Iran in 1979. It is a society marked by widespread political awareness, digital connectivity, and historical memory. Attempts to impose leadership from above—whether monarchic or foreign-engineered—only fragment the opposition and serve the interests of the existing regime.

Legitimacy, International Law, and Responsibility

Any state that systematically kills unarmed protesters forfeits its political and legal legitimacy under international human rights law. The theocratic regime in Iran meets this criterion unequivocally.

The organized massacre of protesters is a bloody seal on the legitimacy of the overthrow strategy—a strategy that the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK) has steadfastly upheld since June 20, 1981, in the face of persistent illusions regarding the reform ability of this regime.

The Iranian people have clearly rejected foreign military intervention, externally engineered regime change, and “Chalabi-style” scenarios. Their demands are rooted in self-determination and democratic sovereignty.

Accordingly, they call on the international community to:

Designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organisation.

Close Iranian regime embassies and suspend diplomatic relations with officials implicated in crimes against humanity.

Establish an independent international fact-finding mechanism to investigate crimes committed by Ali Khamenei and the IRGC;( Regime revolutionary guard)

Recognize the Iranian people’s right to self-defence and the legitimacy of their democratic resistance.