Moral Duty

The SAVAK flag is paraded in Toronto, in Vancouver two supporters of Reza Pahlavi are charged with the murder of Masood Masjoody who was suing him, and Anonymous writes:

People are often shocked to see fascist and racist views from Iranian monarchists.

After all, many people would expect that exiles escaping from such an authoritarian and theocratic country would support liberal democracy, secularism, and equal rights.

But the truth is that both fascism and racism run deep in Iranian monarchism.

Iranian monarchism, specifically Pahlavism, is a fully formed ideology, not simply “nostalgia for the Shah” or “the Iranian opposition”. It is a comprehensive system of actions, policies, and beliefs composed of “Aryanism”, Persian supremacism, anti-Arabism, forced assimilation of ethnic minorities, glorification of “the great times” of pre–Islamic Persia, and a hostility towards leftism and republicanism.

Iranian nationalism is not inherently fascist or racist, but the variant promoted by the Pahlavi state and endorsed by many contemporary monarchists aligns firmly within ultranationalism and ethnonationalism, not a healthy love of country and people.

Many Iranian monarchists still believe they are “Aryan people” and even “white”. This isn’t a fringe belief, it’s the main essence of Pahlavi-era nationalism, which was influenced from ideas of racial purity from German Nazi thought. In 1935, Reza Shah renamed the country from Persia to Iran, which means “land of the Aryans”. This was a deliberate move to align the country with Nazi Germany and the “Aryan racial theories” of the 1930s, and distance it from Arabs, Islam, and the Middle East.

Some historians argue that this was not related to Nazi influence, but to state there was no Nazi influence ignores all of the realpolitik of the time, as well as the similarities between Pahlavi Aryanism and German Aryanism.

There is already the first “timing coincidence” of the fact that the name Iran was used domestically for thousands of years, yet was only changed internationally after the Nazis came to power. Then there is the second “timing coincidence”, of Reza Shah seizing power in 1925 and beginning his “Nation Building Project” almost instantly, yet not renaming the country until 1935. In addition, several historians allege the name change suggestion came from one of the Iranian ambassadors to Germany, including Abdolqasem Najm, Mohsen Rais, or another ambassador during the 30s.

But even if this is not true, there are numerous other factors indicating Nazi influence. Denying Nazi influence ignores how Reza Shah openly sought an ally against Britain and Russia, as well as the fact that communication between Iran and Germany emphasized “shared Indo-European and Aryan heritage”. It also neglects the fact that Pahlavi nationalism, while not genocidal, still held racial hierarchies in its supremacism of Persians over Arabs and Turks, as well as over Iran’s ethnic minorities. The term Aryan was used in ancient Iranian texts several centuries before the Nazis, but Reza Shah also reframed and racialized the term, mainly by utilizing it in state nationalism promoting Iran as “an Aryan nation whose decline was caused by Arab influence”.

Furthermore, it ignores the documented admiration that Reza Shah and his advisors had for Nazi Germany’s “discipline” and militarism, seeing it as a model for “how to revive a country after humiliation”, as well as a blueprint for growing Iran after the country’s decline under the Qajar dynasty. 

It is true that there is no evidence the Nazis ordered the name change, and of course Reza Shah never adopted Nazi antisemitism, but to state there was zero Nazi influence is historically untenable and unserious.

Pahlavi era nationalism glorified pre-Islamic Persia, which was portrayed as “Aryan”, Zoroastrian, and “pure”, meanwhile, the Arab and Islamic influence that came afterwards was portrayed as “contamination”. And this narrative worked. These ideas were welcomed by the Nazis, who praised Iranians as “fellow Aryans”, said Iran was “racially valuable”, and exempted Iranians from the “Semitic” label the party placed on Jews and Arabs. Even after the Nazis were defeated, the Pahlavi state continued to promote “Aryan nationalism”, most visibly with the title of the Shah being Aryanmehr or “light of the Aryans”.

These ideas didn’t disappear after the Nazis fell, nor did they disappear after the Shah was overthrown. Even today, Iranian monarchists repeat “We’re Aryan”, “We’re Aryans, not Arabs” and even “We do not worship Arabs” and “Arabs ruined Iran”. While Iranians are indeed not Arabs, these statements are not said to simply distinguish themselves ethnically, but also racially. Many Iranian monarchists still see themselves as culturally and some even see themselves as genetically European and superior compared to the rest of the region. These slogans are not about “being noble people”, they are about stating their “Aryan superiority” against Arabs. The original meaning of the word is only brought up when the racism of these slogans is called out.

There are no current surveys in either Farsi or English asking Iranians or Iranian monarchists if they self-identify as “Aryan”. However, Aryanist and exclusionary rhetoric is found in massive volume on Farsi social media spaces, especially Twitter (X) and Clubhouse. Importantly, it is not limited to just online spaces, but has been seen in videos of monarchist protests both inside and outside Iran, especially the slogans “We are Aryans, not Arabs” and “We do not worship Arabs”. While moderate monarchists do exist, the online ecosystem is overwhelmingly dominated by extremists and right-wing influencers. Furthermore, these far-right tendencies are demonstrated in the leadership, as Reza Pahlavi has aligned himself firmly with global far-right politicians and neoconservative groups including Trump, Netanyahu, and the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD). These patterns demonstrate that Aryanism, exclusionary nationalism, and far-right alliances are not fringe elements, but normalized and powerful components of contemporary Iranian monarchism.

It’s also important to note that these alliances are not based on strategy or desperation. They are based on shared principles of anti-Arabism, anti-Muslim extremism, anti-refugee and anti-immigrant sentiment, and ethnonationalism. If they were purely strategy, we would see monarchists court European social democrats, human rights organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, and Iranian progressives, but we don’t. These actors are not marginal, nor are they sympathetic towards the Islamic Republic. Amnesty’s report on the 1988 Iranian executions is considered one of the most important documents on the regime’s crimes, and European social democrats such as the Swedish and German parties have consistently supported democracy in Iran. There is also no lack of resources or inability to reach these groups, as monarchists and Pahlavi have been able to consistently form alliances and meetings with far-right politicians.

Then there’s their selective “solidarity” with Kurdish and Baloch people. They only support them when they protest the Islamic Republic, and only embrace them because they’re seen as racially similar Indo-Iranian people, not because they support Kurdish or Balochi autonomy, language rights, or political struggle. The moment either group requests decentralization and actual recognition, they’re accused of separatism. While the current Islamic Republic is known for its harsh oppression of ethnic minorities and autonomy movements, the Pahlavi regime was certainly not benevolent in spite of monarchist romanticism.

The Pahlavi state crushed the Kurdish Republic of Mahabad in 1946, and crushed numerous Baloch protests and uprisings in the late 1920s, in addition to banning all non-Persian languages in educational, legal, and professional industries. This hyper-opposition to minority autonomy was inherited by today’s monarchists, with requests for a post-Islamic Republic Iran to be a federalized system being dubbed as “treasonous”. All “support” for these groups ends the second it no longer serves Iranian monarchists’ vision for a “centralized pure Persian state”.

This isn’t patriotism; it’s ultranationalism wrapped up in lion and sun flags and Persepolis cosplay.

If your nationalism is dependent on ideas of racial purity or nostalgia of what your country was over 1000 years ago while you celebrate attacks on your present-day country (as many Iranian monarchists did during the Israeli attacks on Iran in June 2025), you’re not a patriot, you’re an ideologue.

In addition, one can simply go to Iranian monarchists’ tweets and translate them; many of their translated Farsi tweets against Syrians, Palestinians, Afghans, and other Arabs and Muslims are extremist, racist, and dehumanizing. Particularly, there were multiple Iranian monarchists on Facebook who celebrated or downplayed the tragedy of the Christchurch Mosque massacres in 2019, as well as current posts from them celebrating suffering in Syria and Gaza.

The idea may sound absurd, but monarchists have actually strengthened the Islamic Republic, not merely failed to topple it. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the Basij are the major and stronger forces stabilizing the regime, but monarchists have also contributed. Their rigidness in only accepting Reza Pahlavi, the son of the overthrown Shah, as the alternative to the Islamic Republic has alienated other sects of the Iranian opposition. Iranian liberals, leftists, republicans (both progressive and conservative), and even Sunni Iranians and ethnic minorities all oppose monarchists’ strict demands, as well as their chauvinism, but have been sidelined.

Monarchists have refused to change their strategy, even though Reza Pahlavi has consistently failed to unite the Iranian opposition or make tangible progress in his four decades as “leader of the opposition”. All of Pahlavi’s initiatives, such as the “National Council of Iran” and the “Charter of Solidarity”, failed due to monarchists’ refusal to cooperate with other factions of the opposition. Monarchists have also alienated opposition political parties, such as the Kurdish Democratic Party of Iran (KDPI) and the Baluchistan People’s Party (BPP), both of whom have rejected monarchy restoration and have criticized the Pahlavis’ historical repression of their ethnic groups. Monarchists’ fighting with these other opposition groups combined with their toxic image have prolonged the lifespan of the Islamic Republic, due to the inability of the opposition to form a united front, although the regime’s security apparatus remains the primary reason for its continued survival.

Western media and governments have also contributed to this stagnation, with their continued funding and platforming of monarchist groups and minimizing of progressive and minority Iranians. This disproportionate support continues even with monarchists decades-long ineffectiveness. They have chosen them because they speak good English, have the recognizable Pahlavi name, and because of their support for hardline sanctions and for foreign intervention. Media outlets including Iran International, BBC Persian, Manoto TV, and VOA Persian continue to frame them as the primary or only Iranian opposition, in spite of their failures.

In addition, monarchists actually make people more sympathetic towards the Islamic Republic, or at least make them look comparatively evil when people witness their racism and extremism, giving the regime propaganda gold that the Iranian opposition is racist, anti-Muslim, and evil. For a specific example, Jubilee recently did a video with Mehdi Hasan in which he debated 20 right-wingers; one participant was an Iranian monarchist named Matin Sammimat who advocated for Israel to shoot Palestinian children and for the ethnic cleansing of the Gaza Strip. This caused viral criticism on social media and even caused some backlash from Iranians, although it is debatable whether they actually opposed this, or support it, but just don’t say it out loud. The regime did seize on this example, with PressTV, widely regarded as a regime mouthpiece, writing an article on this incident. Many Arab users online reacted with anger and disgust, with many demeaning Iranians as a whole.

Iranian monarchism is more similar to a cult than a political movement if we look closer. In terms of similar groups, one they can be compared to is Falun Gong. Both groups are hyper-centralized around one charismatic leader, Reza Pahlavi and Li Hongzhi. Both have troubling racial purity mythos, with monarchists believing in “Aryanism” and Li Hongzhi stating that non-Chinese people are “inferior” and that mixed race people are “impure”. Both groups have entered alliances with far-right politicians, with Iranian monarchists online often supporting Donald Trump and Reza Pahlavi being friendly with the current far-right Israeli government, while the Falun Gong-owned paper The Epoch Times also promotes Trump and European far-right politicians. The clearest similarity between both groups is how they label people who criticize them as “agents of the regime,” referring to the Islamic Republic in monarchists’ case and the Chinese Communist Party in Falun Gong’s case. The difference between the two is that Iranian monarchists dub themselves a “political movement”, while Falun Gong dubs itself a “religion”, but the behavioral aspects of both groups are strikingly similar.

The point of this comparison is not just to display these similarities between Iranian monarchists and Falun Gong, but also to situate Iranian monarchism as belonging alongside other global right-wing and reactionary movements. Some other comparable movements are Hindutva in India and Turkish ultranationalist opposition to Erdoğan. All these movements share core features: ethnic or religious hierarchies, exclusionary worldviews rather than civic patriotism, and alliances with far-right politicians in America and Europe. In the case of Iranian monarchists and Turkish ultranationalists specifically, these groups are also often falsely dubbed as liberal democratic for opposing an oppressive regime, despite their own authoritarianism and extremism.

I write this sentence begging Iranian monarchists who read this essay to please shed ideas of racial superiority, especially “Aryanism”. There are no legitimate scientific or genetic studies to support this belief. Iranians are not genetically European, and Farsi being an Indo-European language and Iran meaning “land of the Aryans” does not make one European or Aryan. If one wants to go by this, then Indians and Pakistanis are also “Aryan” people via their languages (Hindi and Urdu), yet these groups are some of the most despised by white supremacists and the European and American far right. You are not any different from them in their eyes and will not be spared from white supremacist racism in any form: verbal, physical, online, or in their hierarchy.

I also request you understand that Arabs didn’t cause or even contribute to the Islamic Revolution, so stop directing racism and personal anger against the Islamic Republic towards them. In fact, virtually all Arab states opposed the revolution, fearing it would spread Shiite revolutionary sentiment to their countries. Additionally, Arab monarchies such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Kuwait all were terrified of Khomeini’s calls for the overthrow of monarchies in the Middle East. Iraq under Saddam Hussein launched the Iran-Iraq war for the purpose of either toppling or containing the new regime, and all Arab states except for Syria backed Iraq in the war.

The political left was also not the people who brought Khomeini to power. Numerous left wing political parties and organizations, including the Fedai Guerillas, Komala, KDPI, Peykar, and the National Democratic Front all opposed Khomeini early on. All these groups advocated a boycott of the 1979 Islamic Republic Referendum. In addition, other leftists and left-leaning parties such as the National Front turned against Khomeini when he revealed his Constitution. Only the Tudeh Party supported him all the way.

In addition, Israel is not your ally, nor do they care about innocent civilians suffering under the Islamic Republic. To believe that Israel, whose closest allies in the Middle East are Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, bombed Iran out of “opposition to dictatorship” is incredibly naive. Israel does not care about democracy, as we can see with its friendliness with these regimes that brutally oppress their citizens. It wants the installation of a regime that is friendly towards it. In addition, Israel has been consistently expressing support for intervention in Iran, with its decades long claim that Iran is seeking a nuclear bomb. The similarity between “Iraq has WMDs” and “Iran is weeks away from developing nuclear weapons”, both pushed by Netanyahu, the Likud Party, and US neoconservatives, is clear as day. They want to make Iran Iraq 2.0, not to liberate it.

Please stop endorsing foreign intervention. If you believe a U.S. led intervention in Iran will lead to democracy rather than lead to hundreds of thousands of dead civilians and no democracy, just as U.S. interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Libya ended up causing, then truly you do not have even a hint of common sense. 

Also, if you want to truly blame someone for the Islamic Revolution, blame the US and the UK for overthrowing Mohammad Mosaddegh’s democratically elected government and re-installing the Shah with expanded powers, increasing anti-Shah sentiment and anti-Western sentiment in the country. That’s something that actually contributed to the Islamic Revolution. There were multiple other contributors as well, such as economic inequality, increasing authoritarianism, opposition to SAVAK, and anger at the creation and mandatory membership of the Rastakhiz Party, but all of these were domestic issues, not “Arab Intrusions”.

I also write this from a left-wing perspective, but I do beg for Iranian liberals and leftists to make yourselves more visible. You have sadly allowed yourself to be trumped by protests from Iranian monarchists with their lion and sun flags and slogans. Making yourself visible will allow you to not only produce an alternative leadership who can unite the Iranian opposition unlike Reza Pahlavi, but will also broaden your appeal to Iranians inside Iran. There are millions of Iranians who reject the Islamic Republic, the monarchy, and the near universally despised MEK at the same time, and you can seize on this.

There are several steps you can do. Create a left-wing media outlet to rival Iran International. Go organize protests with the civil flag of Iran. Speak up against monarchist chauvinism, even if they accuse you of being sympathetic towards the Islamic Republic. Connect with Iranians inside Iran as well by speaking up for their rights, living, and labor conditions.

And while you may disagree on economics, Iranian conservatives who reject monarchy, theocracy, and racism will be a critical ally for the freedom of Iran, and you must engage and form coalitions with them. They will be able to appeal to upper class Iranians, rural Iranians, Iranians disillusioned with Reza Pahlavi’s failures, and even some religious Iranians. You cannot afford ideological purity.

You also must connect with Iran’s ethnic minorities, from Kurds, Azeris, and Balochis to Turkmen and Lurs. They have been oppressed under both the Shah and the Ayatollah, and are also critical in the fight against the Islamic Republic, with many groups like Komala and the KDPI actively engaging in guerilla warfare. They must be embraced as equal partners, not as lower status figures nor as tokens.

History reveals that groups that were best organized before revolutions ended up taking power, as we saw with the Bolsheviks of Russia in 1917 and the Islamists of Iran in 1979. If the Islamic Republic does fall, you will not win elections if you all don’t start making yourself visible. The journey is not going to be easy, but you will never finish if you don’t start. Iranians inside Iran have almost no rights to protest, but those who live outside Iran do have those rights.

You have the ability to protest and organize, and it is your moral duty to. Iran went through tyranny from the monarchy, and is currently under the tyranny of the Islamic Republic.

It is your duty to organize to break this cycle of tyranny, and bring democracy and justice for all of Iran, because neither the mullahs nor the monarchists ever will.