An investigation by Reuters news agency into Reza Pahlavi, the son of the last shah of Iran, has raised a question: has Iran's most prominent opposition figure abroad lost credibility and influence among Western policymakers and Iranians?

Reuters reported in July that Pahlavi's candidacy had "sputtered" after appearing to reach its high point earlier this year.

Although he has repeatedly declared his readiness to lead Iran through a transitional period, senior US officials have publicly distanced themselves from the prospect of a US-backed effort to bring Pahlavi to power.

The Reuters report notes that critics accuse Pahlavi of relying too heavily on foreign military intervention and failing to build a lasting political coalition.

A shift in Pahlavi's rhetoric

During periods of heightened tensions, Pahlavi welcomed international pressure on the Islamic Republic.

In January 2026, he told Iranians that the international community had entered the stage of action and echoed US President Donald Trump's message that help was "on its way."

"Great nation of Iran, the eyes of the world are upon you. Take to the streets, and as a united front, shout your demands," Pahlavi wrote on X.

After the military conflict failed to bring about the collapse of the Iranian government and criticism intensified over the consequences of war, Pahlavi said that "the final victory will still be forged by our hands" and that it was the Iranian people who would "finish the job."

The main responsibility, he said, remained with the Iranian people themselves. Some critics argued that this emphasis on the role of the Iranian people marked a retreat from his earlier messaging about international help.

How the West views Pahlavi

Mojtaba Najafi, a researcher focusing on political and social movements in Iran, argues that Western governments have never regarded Pahlavi as a truly viable option.

"A serious alternative would need the capacity to gain and manage power, influence existing power structures and offer a realistic prospect of structural political change," Najafi said. "Western governments have never considered Pahlavi to have met these criteria."

Najafi distinguishes between Europe and the United States. "European governments primarily approach Iran from the perspective of stability," he said, pointing to migration, geopolitical and security concerns, and the containment of radicalism and terrorism.

The researcher argues that, in the United States, pragmatic forces favor an accommodation with elements of the Islamic Republic.

"Their main concern is ending the regime's anti-American orientation and protecting US interests," Najafi said. "From this perspective, Washington is not necessarily seeking a transition led by a figure such as Pahlavi."

Israel's position is different

Israel's approach differs from that of the United States and Europe because Israel and the Islamic Republic have been enemies for the past few decades.

Najafi argues that some Israeli officials may view an opposition movement such as Pahlavi's as a useful source of pressure on the Islamic Republic.

Arash Azizi, a researcher at Boston University, is more critical. He argues that Pahlavi has failed to demonstrate the political skills necessary for his ambitions.

"Pahlavi has failed to demonstrate the political skills necessary for the ambitions he has set for himself," Azizi said. "His strategy has relied heavily on foreign powers that have shown little willingness to support him decisively."

"Pahlavi has cultivated ties with Western and, more recently, Israeli figures, but these efforts have not translated into decisive political backing," Azizi added.

Washington remains divided

Amir Taheri, a Paris-based political activist and supporter of constitutional monarchy, offers a more favorable assessment. He argues that Pahlavi leads a movement that has managed to connect different groups within the opposition and has been the most visible Iranian opposition figure abroad over the past year.

At the same time, Taheri acknowledges that Washington's position is divided. While parts of the Republican Party support Pahlavi, another faction favors accepting the existing political reality in Iran and seeking a new order from within the current system.

Taheri also considers Pahlavi's meetings with right-wing politicians in Europe a strategic mistake. Such contacts, he says, have not been well received by governments and traditional political forces.

His popularity in Iran remains uncertain

Pahlavi's popularity inside Iran is difficult to measure reliably. Iranian society remains highly volatile, with many people facing repression, economic hardship and inflation.

The consequences of war, Najafi argues, have shown that simplistic assumptions about political change through foreign intervention can bring suffering to the Iranian population. If the conflict does not result in political change, it could seriously damage Pahlavi's popularity.

Taheri also sees a decline in Pahlavi's political trajectory. His association with conservative and right-wing parties in the United States and Europe, as well as his support for a war that many Iranians regard as unjust, have damaged his position, he argues.

From a personal to a systemic alternative

The experts offer no unified answer to who could replace Pahlavi if his political standing continues to weaken.

Azizi and Najafi emphasize the limitations of his movement and the cautious attitude of Western governments. Neither identifies a specific alternative, instead stressing the importance of civil society and domestic forces within Iran.

Mehrdad Bozorg, a Germany-based political analyst and supporter of Reza Pahlavi, argues that Pahlavi's credibility among Iranians has actually increased, particularly following a brutal clampdown on anti-government protesters.

"After this crackdown, Iranians understood more clearly than ever that the Islamic Republic must go," Bozorg said. "At the same time, Reza Pahlavi has been the only opposition figure who has sincerely and consistently worked toward achieving a transition away from the Islamic Republic."

Bozorg said Pahlavi's legitimacy comes from the trust of the Iranian people rather than from other countries and argued that Western hesitation to acknowledge this hampers the Iranian people's aspirations for freedom.

"Israel, for various reasons, shares the Iranian people's view and, at least regarding the need for the Islamic Republic to leave power, is aligned with the national revolution movement," Bozorg said.

"It therefore sees the reality on the ground and understands that the Iranian people have chosen Reza Pahlavi as the leader of the transition. For this reason, it is realistic for Israel to view Reza Pahlavi as the only alternative."

Taheri argues that Iran should move beyond personality-driven politics and toward a "systemic alternative." In his view, the 1979 revolution's transfer of power to a single figure, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, should not be repeated.

Reza Pahlavi remains the most widely recognized Iranian opposition figure, according to many analysts. Yet there is no consensus over his political influence or his ability to unite opponents of the Islamic Republic.

While Arash Azizi and Mojtaba Najafi believe his position has weakened, Amir Taheri still considers him a major opposition actor.

Whether Pahlavi regains or further loses political weight will depend largely on Iran's evolving political landscape and the position of international powers.

Edited by: Keith Walker