There is a strong sense in Iran that the protests are justified, which explains the support for them. The plunging rial, the harsh living conditions, and the complete lack of government accountability or any prospect for improvement – all of these lead people to identify with the protesters. At the same time, there is also a feeling of "here we go again": uncertainty about how these protests will achieve results when previous ones failed.
Indeed, sustained public opposition, protest, and mass demonstrations can lead to fundamental change in the regime, but this requires serious political leadership capable of offering an alternative. This did not happen in past protests, and it doesn't seem we are close to it now either.
The political groups in the Iranian diaspora worldwide are scattered and divided, and those inside Iran are repressed, with the most effective potential leaders in prison. A split and defections within the ranks of the security forces – a prerequisite for any possibility of the regime falling – will only occur if there is clear leadership for the opposition. At the same time, if the protests continue, there is also a chance that change will come from within the regime itself: some of the current leaders may take the initiative and try to change the Islamic Republic's system from within, as much as that is possible.
The opposition is divided
The Iranian opposition is diverse, but unfortunately also scattered and deeply divided. There is one point of consensus among them: they don't want the regime. But when it comes to what will replace it, they are very far from that. Many Iranians look with longing at the living conditions before the 1979 revolution, which were indeed better than today by many metrics. Iran was under authoritarian and oppressive rule, but the economy was in better shape, foreign relations were better, and culture and society were more vibrant.
This explains why some protesters are chanting the name of Reza Pahlavi, the son of the deposed Shah, who traditionally holds a significant share of supporters. Pahlavi also enjoys the support of certain Israeli politicians, but among Iranians, he is a divisive figure. His supporters come from only one end of the political spectrum and represent a minority.
Moreover, some of them have spent the past two years attacking other opponents of the regime, thus effectively helping the regime by sowing division in the opposition. Additionally, Pahlavi himself has failed throughout his long career to build effective political organizations. Israeli support for Pahlavi is part of a broader problem. Israel inserted itself into Iranian opposition politics by backing a divisive figure, thereby promoting division rather than unity. The hundreds of innocent Iranian civilians killed in recent months have also not helped Israel's image in Iran – or the way its messages are received now.
What Israel, or any other country, could do is help build an international front – including the United States – that would prepare Iran for a peaceful transition to democracy. Such an effort would encourage Iranians to organize, build a united front, and offer a real alternative to the regime. Israel is doing the opposite.
My dream is to return to Iran and help build a democratic republic with full freedoms, social justice, and gender equality. I want to see an Iran that maintains relations with all countries in the region, including Israel, and conducts a balanced foreign policy – as it did in the 1970s. But above all, my dream is for Iranians to decide their own fate, in free elections for a constituent assembly that will determine the form of government in our country.
The writer, a Tehran native, serves as historian at Yale University and contributes to The Atlantic. His published works include "What Iranians Want" and "The Shadow Commander" – chronicling Qasem Soleimani's life.
