نه به پادشاه در واشنگتن، نظام پادشاهی برای ایران

برای نسخه فارسی به پایین صفحه مراجعه کنید

No Kings in Washington, A Throne for Tehran

On March 28, 2026, “No Kings” rallies swept across the United States. Millions gathered in more than 3,000 events across all 50 states, rejecting what they saw as expanding executive power and authoritarian drift. The message was clear: no individual stands above the law. A day later, on March 29, a segment of the Iranian diaspora in those same cities promoted the return of monarchy under King Reza Pahlavi. The contrast is immediate. One side rejects concentrated power. The other seeks to restore it.

The monarchy they invoke ended with the Iranian Revolution. It collapsed under political repression, lack of accountability, and widespread public opposition. The system they are trying to revive belongs to another era. It does not meet the expectations of modern governance. What makes this position more striking is its source. Many of its advocates have spent decades in the United States and Europe. They have lived under systems defined by elections, legal protections, and limits on authority. These are rights that did not exist in the same form under Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Yet instead of building on those principles, they look backward.

It is not surprising that some of the same voices also support the bombing and destruction of Iran as a country. Their justification is that it will help topple the Islamic Republic. The logic is blunt. It treats national collapse as a political tool. It is the equivalent of burning down your own house to remove an intruder. What follows is not liberation. It is ruin, instability, and long-term human cost.

There is also a question of standing. Those who left and did not remain to confront the Islamic Republic have, in practice, stepped outside the country’s internal struggle. That choice may have been difficult. But it carries consequences. Calling for destruction from a distance, while bearing none of its cost, strips that position of legitimacy. The right to shape Iran’s future cannot be exercised from abroad while advocating outcomes that would devastate those who stayed. It requires return, risk, and direct stake.

Calling for the restoration of a monarchy that collapsed nearly half a century ago, while endorsing the destruction of the country itself, is not a political vision. It reflects backward thinking, clear detachment from modern political norms, and a movement shaped by intellectual laziness and a deficit in sociopolitical thinking rather than any credible path forward.

By: M.Davar
March 2026
—————————————————————————————————–
Below are a few of recently published related article by M. Davar

Israel’s Long Strategy Against Iran and the Reza Pahlavi Question

Exile, Intervention, and a Nation Trapped Between Power and Betrayal

Name Recognition Is Not Legitimacy: The Limits of Exile Leadership

Pushing Toward Conflict: The Calculations Driving the U.S. and Iran to the Brink

Manufacturing a Leader? The Rise of Reza Pahlavi

Iran’s Revolution: The Distance Between Rhetoric and Resistance

Iran at the Crossroads: Liberation, Illusion, and the Cost of Foreign Salvation

 The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of IranOnline.com.