In a televised interview broadcast by 60 Minutes, Reza Pahlavi, one of the most prominent opponents of the Islamic Republic of Iran, set out his view of the country’s immediate political future amid a period of extreme military escalation and internal instability. Speaking from Paris, Pahlavi argued that the Iranian system of government is entering a phase of collapse and presented himself not as a claimant to permanent power, but as a possible transitional figure whose role would be to help guide the country toward a democratic choice about its future. The interview unfolded against the backdrop of major U.S. and Israeli strikes across Iran, the reported killing of Iran’s supreme leader, retaliatory missile attacks by Iran, and rising casualties across the region, including the deaths of American service members.
Pahlavi described the reported death of the supreme leader as a profound and destabilizing moment for the Islamic Republic. In his account, the event carries both symbolic and practical significance, because the regime has long been identified, in the eyes of many of its opponents, with the concentrated authority of its highest leader. He portrayed the reaction of many Iranians not simply as relief, but as a sense that a historic opening may have emerged. In strongly condemnatory language, he characterized the ruling system as a violent and predatory structure sustained at the expense of the Iranian people, and he argued that its endurance has depended on repression, coercion, and the continued suppression of public dissent.
The interview also connected the present crisis to earlier waves of domestic unrest. Pahlavi referred to mass protests in Iran and to large-scale state violence against demonstrators, presenting these episodes as evidence that the regime had already entered a prolonged legitimacy crisis well before the outbreak of open war. In his view, recent events did not create the Iranian opposition, but accelerated a process already underway. He stressed that many Iranians had been prepared to continue resisting regardless of outside intervention, while also acknowledging that some now interpret foreign military action against the regime as a form of liberation or humanitarian rescue from further internal bloodshed. At the same time, he said he had advised people to prioritize their safety in the immediate moment, even as some continued to return to the streets in defiance of danger.
A central issue in the interview was whether Pahlavi seeks restoration of the monarchy. He rejected the idea that he is trying to return as king and stated that he is not running for office in any conventional sense. Instead, he presented himself as a transitional leader whose purpose would be limited: to help stabilize the country, facilitate a democratic process, and allow Iranians themselves to determine the future form of government. This distinction was one of the core themes of the exchange. Pahlavi repeatedly emphasized that he sees his role as instrumental rather than sovereign, as that of a bridge to a future political order chosen freely by the population rather than imposed from above.
When asked what principles should guide a post-Islamic Republic Iran, Pahlavi identified four main foundations. First, he stressed the preservation of Iran’s territorial integrity. Second, he called for a strict separation of religion and state, arguing that democratic life is incompatible with theocratic rule and that Iranians have paid a heavy historical price for living under a religious dictatorship. Third, he called for equality of all citizens before the law and the protection of individual liberties. Fourth, he argued that the country’s future governing system should be determined through an open democratic process in which the people themselves decide the constitutional and institutional form of the state. Taken together, these principles were presented as the minimum political basis for a national transition.
Pahlavi also addressed foreign policy and regional security. He spoke in favor of peaceful relations with Israel and described strategic cooperation with Israel as important for a future Iran. In doing so, he attempted to distinguish a prospective post-clerical Iranian state from the ideological orientation of the current regime. On the question of nuclear policy, he stated clearly that Iran’s nuclear weapons program, or any military nuclear capability, should be fully dismantled. He argued that Iran has no legitimate need to pursue the weaponization of nuclear technology, thereby positioning himself in favor of a non-nuclear future state integrated into a more stable regional order.
Part of the interview focused on the burden of dynastic memory and on the legacy of his father, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the last Shah of Iran. The interviewer raised familiar criticisms of the monarchy, including repression, inequality, and the close relationship with the United States. Pahlavi did not deny that this remains part of the historical debate, but he sought to reframe the past by contrasting pre-revolutionary Iran with the current condition of the country. He argued that many Iranians who lived through that earlier period, including some who suffered under the monarchy, now judge the present system to be far worse. He further defended his father’s final departure from Iran as an attempt to avoid civil bloodshed, invoking the idea that a ruler should not preserve power by turning weapons against his own people.
In responding to doubts about his long exile, Pahlavi argued that distance from Iran has not severed his political legitimacy. On the contrary, he suggested that his absence from both the 1979 revolutionary coalition and the Islamic Republic’s governing apparatus is precisely why many people now trust him. According to his interpretation, younger generations in Iran—many of whom have known only the Islamic Republic—have become deeply disillusioned with the revolutionary project and increasingly question the political judgment of those who supported it. He described this generational break as a major source of support for his own position. He also spoke in personal terms, insisting that although he physically left Iran as a young man, he has remained psychologically and politically oriented toward the country throughout his life.
The interview also explored his relationship with the United States, and especially with President Donald Trump. Pahlavi said he is in contact with members of the Trump administration and with U.S. lawmakers. He praised Trump for acting decisively against the Iranian regime and said that many Iranians view that intervention favorably. At the same time, he acknowledged that he does not expect formal endorsement from a foreign government. When confronted with Trump’s own ambiguous remarks about whether Iranians would accept Pahlavi’s leadership, he responded by arguing that his legitimacy must come from the Iranian people rather than from external recognition. He therefore presented himself as someone seeking neither foreign appointment nor hereditary restoration, but rather national acceptance as a provisional figure in a moment of upheaval.
To explain the depth of anti-regime feeling inside Iran, the report situated the current crisis within a longer arc of unrest, including the 2022 uprising that followed the death in custody of a young woman arrested by the morality police. That movement, and the state’s violent response to it, was described as one of the clearest signs that large parts of Iranian society had already turned against the ruling order. Pahlavi characterized the bravery of ordinary Iranians confronting armed authority as a form of civic heroism. He referred to images of wounded civilians, protesters, and rescuers targeted by security forces as emblematic of a society that has moved beyond fear and into open moral and political confrontation with the state.
A further element of his argument concerned the coercive institutions of the regime. Pahlavi said that some elements within the military and police have signaled willingness to abandon the hardline government. He suggested that a future transition might include selective amnesty and a broader process of national reconciliation, though not without limits. The underlying message was strategic as much as ethical: members of the security apparatus, he implied, now face a choice between remaining loyal to a failing state or aligning themselves with a national transition. In this respect, his rhetoric was directed not only at civilians but also at the regime’s own functionaries.
At the conclusion of the interview, Pahlavi addressed the Iranian people directly, particularly in light of internet blackouts and information restrictions. His appeal was framed in civilizational and national terms. He called on Iranians to have confidence in themselves, invoked the country’s long historical heritage, and urged people to move from passive hope to active belief that political transformation is possible. This closing message encapsulated the broader structure of his intervention: an attempt to fuse national memory, democratic aspiration, anti-theocratic politics, and transitional leadership into a single narrative of regime exhaustion and possible renewal.
Overall, the interview presented Reza Pahlavi as a figure seeking to convert symbolic prominence into transitional credibility at a moment of severe geopolitical and domestic rupture. He did not speak as a neutral observer, but as an engaged opposition actor attempting to define the terms on which a post-Islamic Republic Iran might be imagined. His position combined sharp denunciation of the current regime, openness to cooperation with Western powers and Israel, support for dismantling any military nuclear capacity, and insistence that the final constitutional form of the Iranian state should be decided democratically by Iranians themselves. Whether that claim to transitional authority would be accepted inside Iran remained an open question in the interview, but the segment made clear that Pahlavi sees the present crisis not merely as another episode of instability, but as a potentially decisive turning point in modern Iranian history.
Simon Gros 
Leave a comment