Dr. Loqman Radpi - Jerusalem Post
As Iran nears a potential collapse amid new nationwide protests – particularly in Abdanan, Malekshahi (Ilam), Kermanshah and Lorestan in eastern Kurdistan (Rojhelat) – international talks have turned to a possible replacement for the Islamic Republic’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei.
Western powers – particularly the United States and Europe – fear a power vacuum similar to post-Saddam Iraq or post-occupation Afghanistan. But in their rush to avoid chaos, some think tanks and mainstream media outlets are risking endorsing another failed model: a centralized, Persian-centric state structure under a new name, which has already proven itself to be repressive and unstable.
Since 1979, Iran has been governed by a Parsi-Shiite ideological system. But the marginalization of non-Persian peoples within its borders goes back beyond the Islamic Republic. The 1935 name change from “Persia” to “Iran” was more than a superficial change; it was a move to establish a false, unified national identity. Under Reza Khan Pahlavi, this change initiated a modern imperialist strategy aimed at erasing the transnational reality of the country under the illusion of unity. It established a long-standing policy of repression, execution, and forced assimilation that stripped non-Persian national, ethnic, and religious groups—notably Kurds, Baluchis, and Arabs—of their political and cultural rights. From the Pahlavi dynasty to the current theocracy, Persians have monopolized power, the army, and economic institutions while simultaneously suppressing minorities who sought recognition, linguistic rights, and political autonomy. Persian was imposed as the sole official language. Shiite Islam became the ideological foundation of the state. National and ethnic groups – including Kurds, Baluchis, Azeris, Arabs, Turkmens, Qashqais, Armenians, Gilaks, Tabrizis and Talish – as well as religious minorities such as Christians, Jews and Baha’is, were eliminated, persecuted or violently suppressed. The Islamic Republic did not break away from Pahlavi chauvinism; it perfected it. The current regime has expanded and even refined the ethnocentric policies of Reza Khan and his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.
The West cannot continue to treat Iran as synonymous with “Persia”. Iran is a country of many nations and ethnic groups, each with its own language, culture and political will. Yet Western policymakers – along with a large part of the diaspora opposition – are content with a Persian-centric framework. The exiled elite often identifies as “Persian” abroad, but when confronted with questions about the rights of Kurds or Baluchis, they resort to the slogan “We are all Iranians.” This is not a call for unity; it is a rhetorical ploy to hide decades of domination and cultural erasure.
Proposals to restore the monarchy through Reza Pahlavi are not a solution; they are a return to defeat. During the 2022-2023 Jinnah uprising, Pahlavi failed to provide leadership or inspiration, especially among non-Persian groups. Former US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo publicly referred to reports of links between Pahlavi supporters and the Revolutionary Guards, further damaging his credibility. Even at its peak, the “I Am Advocating” campaign barely surpassed 400,000 signatures.
Although the campaign has recently been reactivated, it demonstrates his political worthlessness. Pahlavi is not a unifying figure, but a symbol of the remaining exclusion. A defunct force, he is irrelevant to Iran’s future and unfit to lead.
A meaningful transition after the Islamic Republic cannot be a return to Persian nationalism under a new name. To do so would merely perpetuate the very systems that have fueled decades of unrest. Stability will not come from reviving the past. Rather, it must come from a framework based on decentralization and inclusiveness that recognizes the rights of Iran’s peoples to self-determination—including territorial autonomy or independence if demanded. These rights must be part of the roadmap and order after the Islamic Republic.
The illusion of national unity has come at the cost of Iran’s future. Kurdish, Baluch, Ahwazi Arab, and other movements have long called for democratic solutions rooted in local governance, cultural rights, and international engagement. Their voices must not be marginalized once again in the name of imposed “stability.”
The international community must understand a fundamental fact: Iran is not a nation-state. Iran is a country of several nations and ethnicities – a nation of nations. What is needed now is not the restoration of the monarchy, but the recognition of differences. The West should not trade one dictatorship for another, and it should not repeat the mistake of prioritizing top-down control over justice. Stability will not come from restoring a failed system, imposed by Britain and dominated by Persians. Despite strong nationalist movements, non-Persian nations have historically been denied any avenue for self-determination because, under the Anglo-Persian Treaty of August 9, 1919, Britain prioritized the territorial integrity of Persia – later called Iran – to secure control over land, customs, and oil resources. That legacy of “imposed unity” still haunts the present.
@RojavaNetwork @YPJDefense @Kurdistan_C @RudawEnglish @shlerbapiri @Rojava_Efrin366 @Efrin366rojava @RojavaTribunal @fariba312 @SercanUstunds @ArianArian00 @MecheM22308 @wpicatto @Lepp06519086 @DilyaroS98243 @MeowDezong @BonnieTheKurd
@Unseen_Rebel @iAmHaks @BehrouzBoochani @JefreyKurdistan @D_abdulkader @inannaaaaaaa @SarwanBarzani_ @_jvd9 @Judy20255 @OmarBaloch___ @ashtiwai @BaxtiyarGoran @nna_nina @beyan1329 @roj_shinwar
@esen_rahsan @roj_shinwar
@Kurdistan_AR @Ch8Kurmanci @AHMTKURAL @K24English @KRG_USA @esen_rahsan @JamshidBahramy @MonaDarband @mohamadjamshidy @DarinKhedejnu
@senkyoyoudesu @BehrouzNiko @aboadam2610 @kurdi_778 @Ah_noori64 @Hadi0252