Nournews: The direct military assault by the Zionist regime on Iranian territory created a historic and decisive moment for many groups, figures, and self-proclaimed patriots abroad. Among the most critical tests was that of Reza Pahlavi—the figure who for years has sought to portray himself as the symbol of return to Iran, national unity, and an alternative to the current political system. Yet his stance during this crisis not only failed to strengthen his standing, but in the eyes of the overwhelming majority of Iranians, it marked his open entry into the realm of treason against the homeland.
Reproducing historic betrayal
While during the tense days of missile, drone, and cyber-attacks on Iran, even many domestic critics stood by the people and condemned the aggression, Reza Pahlavi chose to draw inspiration not from the Iranian nation, but from Israeli analysts. He not only refrained from condemning the enemy’s assault, but once again repeated the outdated narrative that “the Islamic Republic’s adventurist policies brought Iran to this point.” In other words, he placed the blame for Israel’s attack not on the aggressor, but on Iran itself.
This analysis—steeped in both ignorance and betrayal—came at a time when Iranian soil was under attack, civilians were killed, and many families mourned their loved ones. In such a context, it was expected that any Iranian—regardless of political stance—would at least take a stand against a foreign military assault on their homeland. But Reza Pahlavi failed to do even that. Worse still, he tried—under his illusion—to incite the people and armed forces to rebel, thus effectively partnering with a bloodthirsty enemy. And this is not his first act of betrayal. His previous visit to the occupied territories and meetings with sworn enemies of Iran already demonstrated his disregard for national interests and sovereignty.
Reza Pahlavi’s conduct in this recent crisis follows the same treacherous tradition of the Pahlavi household in critical historical junctures. In the final years of his reign, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi handed over control of oil, allowed foreign intelligence to operate freely in Iran, and brutally suppressed popular movements—leading to the country’s full dependence on foreign powers. Now, his son—when he could have symbolically stood with the Iranian people—chose instead to remain silent, or worse, to echo the voice of the aggressor. This behavior evokes the same spirit that, in the last days of the second Pahlavi’s rule, convinced many Iranians that the dynasty never truly saw Iran as their homeland—but merely as a family estate.
Intellectuals react: Criticism from civil society and thinkers
Reza Pahlavi’s actions have drawn not only popular condemnation but also sharp criticism from intellectuals and even some of his former supporters. On social media, many political activists, journalists, and even opposition figures described him as “a spent figure, opportunistic, and devoid of national honor.” Users who once supported him wrote openly: “Silence in the face of an attack on one’s homeland is political death.” Others demanded that “if he cannot speak against Israel, he should at least not remain silent about his own country.”
One of the harshest and most scathing rebukes came from Dr. Abdolkarim Soroush, the renowned intellectual and reformist. In a blistering essay, he labeled Reza Pahlavi “a cultureless old child”.
Complete elimination from the political sphere
In conclusion, Reza Pahlavi—through his silence or complicity in the face of a military assault on Iranian territory—has now been completely eliminated from national and international political relevance. This process of removal had long been underway, but it has now reached its peak. In the collective conscience of Iranians—even political critics of the current system—the homeland remains sacred: it is land, it is dignity. Whoever sides with the invader during the bombing of their country will never sit on any throne within that land.
Wars often reveal faces more than they change countries. In this recent crisis, Reza Pahlavi’s true face became clear to many—not as a potential leader for Iran’s future, but as the historical heir of a rootless, homelandless dynasty. Instead of standing with the people, he stood with their enemies. And this was not a tactical error—it was a historic betrayal.
NOURNEWS