For decades, Western policymakers have struggled to engage effectively with Iran’s opposition. The recent attempt to manufacture opposition unity has promoted exile groups that lack legitimacy inside Iran.
Iranians risking their lives in the country have already chosen their path – chanting for secular democracy and rejecting groups such as the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (MEK) and separatist movements. Yet, some Western think tanks and political operatives continue to elevate factions that lack legitimacy, undermining the very cause they claim to support.
The attempt to engineer a “unity council” or a “CPAC for Iranians in exile” – first introduced by United Against Nuclear Iran CEO Mark Wallace and later echoed by Middle East Forum executive director Greg Roman – demonstrates a persistent failure in Western engagement with Iran’s opposition.
These initiatives elevate artificial coalitions while sidelining legitimate grassroots movements, reinforcing a top-down approach that ignores the realities on the ground. Rather than supporting the organic leadership emerging from Iran, these efforts appear driven by external agendas seeking to shape Iran’s future from abroad.
Adding to this contradiction, some within these think tanks – while publicly advocating for Iran’s territorial integrity – have simultaneously backed activists who promote separatist or divisive agendas. This inconsistency raises serious concerns about whether these initiatives are guided by strategic vision or shifting financial and geopolitical interests.
History offers clear lessons on why a strong, centralized opposition is crucial in times of national transition. The failures of Iraq and Afghanistan’s transitions highlight the consequences of ignoring figures with historical legitimacy.
In Iraq, Prince Hassan of Jordan, who spent part of his youth in Iraq, was widely seen as someone who could facilitate a stable transition after Saddam’s fall. However, some US policymakers, including Zalmay Khalilzad, viewed Hassan as a potential rival and sidelined him.
The result? Iraq’s transition lacked a unifying authority, leading to insurgency, sectarian strife, and near civil war.A similar mistake occurred in Afghanistan. After the US-led invasion in 2001, Afghans widely hoped for Zahir Shah’s return – not as an absolute ruler, but as a stabilizing force to unite the country.
Yet once again, US policymakers and Khalilzad intervened, blocking Zahir Shah from playing any significant role. The opportunity to unify Afghanistan under a respected national figure was squandered, leaving the country vulnerable to political infighting and extremism.
The US made costly mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan by sidelining credible national figures and trying to micromanage transitions. Instead of fostering stability, these efforts led to power vacuums, insurgencies, and prolonged chaos.
A similar playbook is now being applied to Iran, where certain think tanks and policymakers are promoting manufactured exile coalitions – propping up discredited groups like the MEK and legitimizing divisive rhetoric. This top-down engineering weakens, rather than strengthens, the real resistance inside Iran.
Reza Pahlavi remains Iran's most supported opposition leader
Iran's opposition does not lack a central figure. Reza Pahlavi, the exiled crown prince of Iran, remains the most widely recognized and supported opposition leader, as reflected in multiple independent surveys.
A 2025 survey found that 90% of respondents support Pahlavi, with 80% favoring a constitutional monarchy as the preferred system of governance. These findings are consistent with data from the Empirical Research and Forecasting Institute, reinforcing Pahlavi’s broad legitimacy among Iranians inside and outside the country.
Beyond polling data, Pahlavi’s influence is also evident through real-world mobilization. During the recent Chaharshanbe Suri celebrations, he called on Iranians to take to the streets and play the old national anthem – an act embraced across cities nationwide. Just days later, on the first day of Nowruz, Iranians again chanted his name in cities large and small, reaffirming grassroots support.
These moments highlight not only his enduring symbolic leadership but also his unique capacity to unify and inspire action inside Iran.
However, Pahlavi has consistently stated that Iran’s future must be determined through a democratic referendum, not dictated by exiled opposition figures or foreign governments. His leadership is about ensuring national unity and guiding Iran through a transitional process that reflects the will of its people.
This clarity should inform Western policy: any meaningful support for Iran’s transition must align with legitimate, grassroots movements – not fragmented exile groups lacking credibility or public backing.
At the Israeli-American Council summit, Pahlavi made it clear: Iranians are not asking for foreign governments to overthrow the regime on their behalf. They seek a strategic partnership, not Western intervention.
Yet, some think tanks have deliberately misinterpreted this stance, suggesting that “partnership” implies a role for foreign actors in shaping Iran’s future government. It does not.
Partnership means refusing to negotiate with the regime while actively supporting the Iranian people in their fight for self-determination. Only the Iranian people have the right to decide their future and the West must align its policies accordingly.
In 1979, the Carter administration and US policymakers made a grave miscalculation by pressuring the shah to leave, enabling the rise of the Islamic Republic.
That decision, influenced by misguided think tanks and foreign policy advisers, led to 46 years of bloodshed – not just for Iranians, but for Israelis, Jews, Americans, and countless others across the Middle East. The cost of that mistake is measured in the lives lost to terrorism, regional instability, and repression.
The same policy errors cannot be repeated. This time, the US must not dictate Iran’s future but rather allow the Iranian people to decide their own fate.
Supporting the Iranian people’s fight for self-determination is not just a moral imperative. It is a strategic necessity for regional peace and security. The slogans on Iran’s walls and the chants in its streets leave no room for doubt. The Iranian people have already chosen their leader. It is time for policymakers to act accordingly.
The writer is an Iranian-American research professor and energy expert, political and human rights activist, organizer of joint events between Iranian and Jewish communities in Massachusetts, and leader of the From Boston to Iran group, alongside fellow activists. @Aidin_FreeIran
