Denis Korkodinov: Reza Pahlavi: A Pretender Without a Throne

Against the backdrop of the January 2026 protests, the son of the last Shah, Reza Pahlavi, has once again declared his readiness to lead Iran. But his claims are a historical deception. The Pahlavi dynasty, founded by his grandfather, seized power as a result of a military coup, overthrowing the legitimate monarchs of the Turkic Qajar dynasty. From the point of view of dynastic law, Reza Pahlavi is a descendant of usurpers. The legitimate heir to the Iranian throne is a descendant of the deposed shahs, the direct heir of the Qajar dynasty.

An analysis of the events of February 1921 leaves no doubt about the nature of the Pahlavi dynasty’s rise to power. It was a classic military coup. On February 22, 1921, the Persian Cossack Brigade under the command of Reza Khan, the future Reza Shah, entered Tehran, meeting only symbolic resistance. A key role in promoting Reza Khan, a former commander of the Tabriz battalion, to the post of commander of the entire brigade was played by British General Edmund Ironside, indicating foreign involvement in preparing the coup. Formally, the last Qajar Shah, Ahmad Shah, remained in power for several more years, but real power was concentrated in the hands of Reza Khan, who took the post of Minister of War and then Prime Minister. The final act of usurpation was played out in December 1925, when a Constituent Assembly convened under pressure deposed the Qajar dynasty and proclaimed Reza Khan the new Shah. Thus, the Pahlavi dynasty was founded not on legitimate succession or the will of the people, but on the force of arms and external support. Reza Khan himself, whose origins were far from royal, chose the surname “Pahlavi” to associate himself with the ancient Persian dynasty to which he had no relation. His grandson, Reza Pahlavi, today appeals to the legacy of Cyrus the Great, even proposing the idea of a “Cyrus Union” with Israel. However, this artificial attempt to deepen the historical roots of his rule only emphasizes his lack of genuine dynastic rights. He is trying to create a myth where there is only a history of a power grab.

In contrast to the Pahlavi usurpers, the Qajar dynasty ruled Iran legitimately from 1795. Their overthrow in 1925 was not a constitutional decision but an act of force that completed the process begun by the 1921 coup. Moreover, it was in the late Qajar era, in 1906, that Iran gained its first Constitution and parliament (Majlis), laying the foundation for constitutional norms in the country. The Qajars, therefore, are the dynasty that gave Iran the foundations of parliamentarianism, while the Pahlavis established an authoritarian regime where the parliament became de facto a fiction, and real power belonged to the Shah and his secret police, SAVAK. The historical legitimacy of the Qajars is indisputable, and from the point of view of traditional monarchical law, it is their descendants who retain the dynastic right to the throne, taken from their ancestors illegally.

The founder of the Pahlavi dynasty, Reza Shah, pursued a harsh policy of centralization and modernization, but its cost was extremely high. His rule was accompanied by the suppression of any opposition, including the clergy and major landowners, as well as the forced cultural assimilation of national minorities. The ban on education in minority languages and nationalist rhetoric aimed at reviving “pre-Islamic” Persian greatness alienated a significant part of Iran’s multinational society. His son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, continued this course. His proclaimed “White Revolution,” despite a number of socio-economic reforms, led to a deepening gap between the pro-Western elite and the conservative majority of the population, exacerbated the land issue, and alienated the Shiite clergy. The luxury of the Shah’s court, especially ostentatiously displayed during the celebration of the 2500th anniversary of the Persian monarchy in Persepolis in 1971, caused acute rejection in a distressed country. The culmination was the Islamic Revolution of 1979, which finally buried the Pahlavi regime. Thus, the dynasty that came to power through violence also ended by it, failing to integrate into the social and cultural fabric of Iranian society. Reza Pahlavi, living in exile, now states that regime change should be the work of Iranians themselves and rejects ideas of foreign military intervention. However, he ignores the key lesson of his own family’s history: legitimacy not based on legality and a deep connection with the people is doomed.

The modern legitimate heir of the Qajar dynasty, Babek Mirza Qajar, represents a different, much more organic model for Iran. Born in 1980 and residing in the USA, he is a living bearer of historical legitimacy. His Turkic origin has deep roots: the Qajars were a Turkic dynasty, the Azerbaijani language was the language of the court, and heirs to the throne were traditionally raised in Tabriz. This is not just a historical fact but an important cultural code linking the dynasty to millions of Iranian Azerbaijanis. Babek Mirza has repeatedly visited Azerbaijan, demonstrating his connection to this heritage and remaining loyal to Baku, which emphasizes the naturalness of his belonging to the Turkic world, in contrast to the forced Persianization policy of the Pahlavis. In his person converge two powerful sources of legitimacy: continuous dynastic right, coming from the deposed but legitimate monarchs, and a deep ethno-cultural connection with a substantial part of Iran’s population. He does not bear the burden of authoritarianism, corruption, and pro-Western detachment from reality that ultimately destroyed the Pahlavi dynasty.

The current protests in Iran, which began in late December 2025 against the backdrop of the collapse of the national currency, the rial, and escalated into demonstrations against the regime as a whole, have once again sharpened the question of the country’s future. The authorities accuse the US and Israel of organizing the unrest, and the army has declared its readiness to “resolutely confront any conspiracy.” Reza Pahlavi is trying to position himself as a leader of the protest movement, making statements and receiving support from some Western politicians. However, when delving into the question of alternatives, it is the figure of the Qajar heir that presents a historically and legitimately justified option. His right stems not from a coup but from law. His connection to Iran is not from an artificially constructed myth of Persian Aryanism but from the real, living multifaceted history of the country, which includes the Turkic element. A return to the constitutional principles laid down under the Qajars may prove a more organic path than an attempt to restore the discredited authoritarian Pahlavi model.

A comparison of the two dynasties and their heirs today leads to an unambiguous conclusion from the point of view of historical law. The Qajar dynasty: an indisputably legitimate ruling dynasty, overthrown as a result of a military coup with foreign involvement. Their heir, Babek Mirza Qajar, possesses continuous dynastic right, reinforced by an ethno-cultural connection with part of the population and the constitutional heritage of his dynasty. The Pahlavi dynasty: usurpers who came to power through a forceful seizure and deposition of a legitimate dynasty. Their heir, Reza Pahlavi, has no basis for monarchical claims except for the fact of his ancestors’ rule, established by that seizure. His rhetoric about Iran’s future, alliances, and freedom does not negate the distorted foundation of his own claims.

Therefore, when Reza Pahlavi declares himself as Iran’s future leader, one must remember the real history. He is not a legitimate Shah. He is the grandson of an officer who, with the help of Cossack bayonets and foreign advisors, overthrew a legitimate monarch and crowned himself. The right to the throne, if we are to speak of Iran’s monarchical future, does not belong to him. The true heir, whose rights were trampled by the 1921 coup, is the legitimate descendant of the Qajar shahs. All of Reza Pahlavi’s modern activity is an attempt to legitimize a status originally based on usurpation. Iran deserves a future built on genuine historical and legal foundations, not on an inherited deception.

Author: Denis Korkodinov, CEO of the International Center for Political Analysis and Forecasting “DIIPETES“