Legitimacy Demands Discipline; The Responsibility of Iran’s Monarchists and Their Allies Echoing voices from inside Iran

For years, supporters of a constitutional monarchy have warned about dangers within the Iranian opposition:

Islamist currents dressed in softer language, separatist agendas disguised as “federalism,” and factions still carrying the shadow of 1979. Any current tied to the legacy of the Islamic coup stands against Iran’s democratic future.

But honesty and transparency require more than pointing outward. It demands discipline within.

A new concern is emerging — not from foreign infiltration or regime propaganda — but from within parts of our own monarchist camp.

Meanwhile, the Iranian people, inside the country and across the world, have already demonstrated unity. They have shown whom they trust to lead a national transition toward free elections: Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi.

The Iranian people are NOT divided as some Western diplomats suggest. They understand who carries national legitimacy and who survives on foreign invitations and platforms.

When opposition factions refuse to unite — not only with him but even among themselves — the problem is not “complexity.” It is unwillingness. And when Western governments hide behind pretexts, delaying recognition and support, the result is predictable: the regime gains time to repress, suffocate, and divide.

Delay is not neutral.

Delay strengthens tyranny.

Yet within our own movement, another danger grows.

Across social media and diaspora circles, a small but vocal group of self-declared monarchists has adopted a tone that is not constitutional but reactionary. Debate has turned into denunciation.

Those who question tactics are labeled traitors. Religion is mocked in crude and unnecessary ways.

This is not strength.

It is impatience masquerading as courage.

Warning signs appeared during the Munich gathering. What should have projected stability instead revealed friction.

For Iranians watching from inside the country — risking their lives — it did not look like disciplined leadership. It looked unsettled.

Ordinary Iranians are not looking for rage.

They are looking for reassurance.

They want maturity. They want a movement capable of governing — not one that shouts louder than its rivals.

Iranians remember the imposed Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988). They remember cities destroyed and generations scarred.

Even those who despise the Islamic Republic do not want their homeland reduced to a playground for global power competition.

Western strategies have too often focused on fragmentation: encouraging artificial coalitions, entertaining scenarios that divide Iran, or imagining a compliant post-regime structure convenient for external interests.

That path does not serve Iran. It serves outside agendas — and sometimes even the regime’s own strategy of division.

If Western powers continue avoiding recognition of the unity already demonstrated by the Iranian people, the Islamic Republic will survive longer. And once again, Iranians will pay the price.

But discipline must begin at home. Condemning political Islam is necessary. Desecrating religious symbols is not.

Secularism separates religion from state; it does not insult believers.

There are older and some younger generation Iranians who are still culturally Muslim yet firmly reject the occupying Islamic regime. They must see themselves reflected in the future of Iran — not alienated by needless provocation.

Unchecked hostility behaves like a snowball rolling downhill. It grows quickly but loses shape and control. Movements that divide the world into “with us or against us” eventually consume themselves. Iran cannot afford to repeat that mistake.

Leadership carries responsibility. When a national movement gathers around a central figure such as Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, the behavior of supporters reflects upon him — whether fair or not.

Silence in moments of excess can be mistaken for approval. That is why clear boundaries matter:

Reject personal harassment

Reject reckless rhetoric

Reject cultural and religious provocation

Uphold rule of law, pluralism, and national unity

This is not weakness. It is statecraft.

Some may call this reflection divisive. It is not. Self-correction strengthens movements; denial destroys them.

The occupying Islamic Republic survives on opposition fragmentation and moral missteps. We must not hand it that advantage.

If monarchism is to present a credible democratic path for Iran, it must demonstrate composure under pressure. The world is watching — often through a lens shaped by regime propaganda. We cannot afford to confirm that narrative.

The Iranian people have already shown unity.

They have already identified leadership for a transitional path toward a democratic vote.

The task now is not to manufacture artificial coalitions to satisfy foreign observers. The task is to protect national coherence, maintain discipline, and resist both internal radicalism and external manipulation.

This concern comes not from hostility but from duty — from those inside Iran who still believe that a constitutional monarchy can rise above anger and anchor a free, stable, and sovereign nation.

History will not forgive recklessness.

Nor will it reward hesitation.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)