Iran’s current crisis goes beyond temporary governance failures and is rooted in a closed political structure that has deprived society of the right to choose. Under these circumstances, overcoming the crisis is not possible through replacing a few officials or returning to a hereditary monarchy. Rather, the fundamental question is which force can channel the people’s protest potential into a lasting democratic transition.
The Limitations of Spontaneous Protests and the Importance of Organized Resistance
Today, Iranian society is burdened by severe economic pressures, systemic corruption, environmental crises, and the suppression of civil liberties. Despite the widening gap between the people and the ruling establishment, relying solely on spontaneous protests cannot guarantee the fall of an authoritarian government, as a centralized repressive apparatus is capable of exhausting and containing movements that lack continuity and organization.
The Gallows: The Real Story of Iran Behind the Oslo Ceremony
To fill this gap, the existence of an organized resistance is essential. The “Resistance Units” affiliated with the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK) play a key role in connecting scattered civil and labor protests—including those of workers, teachers, women, and students—and transforming them into a nationwide, sustained, and purposeful movement under the harshest conditions of repression.
A Ten-Point Plan for Iran’s Future
Organizations seeking to play a role in Iran’s future should define the alternative political order they advocate. In this regard, Maryam Rajavi’s Ten-Point Plan proposes clear principles for the period following the end of the current religious rule. Among its provisions are:
- Holding free elections and establishing a republic based on universal suffrage.
- Separation of religion and state, and full gender equality.
- Abolition of the death penalty and guarantees for freedom of expression, freedom of association, and an independent judiciary.
- Legal equality and autonomy for Iran’s ethnic groups and nationalities.
- Renouncing nuclear weapons and pursuing peaceful coexistence with the international community.
Why Is Monarchy Not a Suitable Solution?
Accepting the sovereignty of the people requires that every political force derive its legitimacy solely from free elections, not from family lineage or foreign backing. On that basis, a return to the monarchical model cannot be considered a democratic option. Reza Pahlavi, the son of the ousted Shah, entered the political arena on the basis of hereditary status, and his supporters have shown little willingness to confront the record of the previous dictatorship, including the activities of SAVAK, the Shah’s brutal secret police, and the use of torture during that period. Furthermore, the rhetoric and symbols associated with this movement are not fully consistent with democratic political culture.
Reducing Iran’s political landscape to a binary choice between the current regime and the Pahlavi monarchy suppresses the diversity of democratic and republican forces. In practice, this polarization benefits Iran’s regime because it justifies its survival by warning the public about the return of the former dictatorship. At the same time, the monarchist movement seeks to portray itself as the only viable alternative abroad, thereby marginalizing a third force that rejects both forms of dictatorship—those of the Shah and the mullahs.
The Need for a Change in the Policies of Foreign Powers
In recent years, Western countries have oscillated between two ineffective approaches: appeasement toward the regime in Tehran or promoting figures who lack an organized base inside the country. Lasting stability can only be achieved when the international community recognizes the Iranian people’s right to bring about change and supports democratic principles without military intervention or imposing externally manufactured leaders.
A democratic transition in Iran depends on the convergence of three key factors: deep social discontent, organized domestic resistance, and a clear plan for transferring power to the people. The real alternative for Iran’s future is neither a return to the past nor the preservation of the status quo, but the establishment of a democratic republic based on popular sovereignty.
In fact, democracy based on the will of the people is the only genuine option for today’s Middle East and the wider world. Western governments should recognize that only under such a system can lasting stability be achieved in the region, and that the interests of the international community can only be secured through democracy in Iran.
