There is courage inside Iran. There is defiance. There is protest. There is sacrifice.
But it is largely leaderless.
Organized opposition has been dismantled. Networks have been crushed. Those capable of building structured political alternatives operate under surveillance, imprisonment, or exile.
And after the December 2025 massacre, something else is visible: exhaustion.
The regime did not just kill. It signaled the cost of mobilization. It reminded society how far it is willing to go. The result is not submission - but fatigue.
Courage remains, but sustained coordination does not. And that matters.
For years, the diaspora could say that the decisive arena was inside Iran. That is increasingly untrue.
With viable opposition effectively neutralized at home, the burden of political preparation has shifted outward. The diaspora is no longer merely amplifying events inside the country. It is, by default, the only space where coalition-building and institutional planning can occur openly. That shift carries responsibility.
If a post-collapse moment arrives and there is no coherent, negotiated alternative ready, this time the absence will not be solely the product of repression inside Iran. It will reflect a failure outside it.
In a previous essay, I argued that collapse of the regime is unlikely even with foreign intervention. More likely is a regime that is bruised but not broken — and therefore even more internally oppressive, a dynamic reflected in the scale of the 2025 massacre, partly shaped by the 12-day war, as I argued during the war.
There is no avoiding the fact that Reza Pahlavi is today the only opposition figure with broad name recognition across the country. This is not a judgment. It is an observation. Repression creates vacuums. Vacuums consolidate attention. In that space, his name has become a focal point.
It is true that he lacks operational experience, and not all his supporters are committed proponents of liberal democracy. It is true that some of his advisers may have personal ambitions and designs. Pointing out these flaws is easy. It is not a sign of deep political understanding.
The truth is, whether we like it or not, his name is the only one being chanted inside and outside Iran. We are presented with a historical opportunity to shape the country’s future. To lose that opportunity out of ideological baggage or ego would be a lasting stain - feeding populism through confusion rather than structuring it through institutions.
Many intellectuals abroad hesitate to engage him. They fear concentration of power. They fear repeating past mistakes.
Those concerns are legitimate. But refusal to engage does not weaken Pahlavi. It narrows him.
By remaining outside any coalition, the elite reduce the ideological breadth of the emerging opposition space, limit their own influence over transitional architecture, and make the future more homogeneous than it should be.
If you are concerned about concentration of authority, the solution is not distance. It is engagement.
No one is being asked to pre-commit to monarchy. One of Pahlavi’s own principles explicitly places the choice of system - republic or constitutional monarchy - in the hands of voters through a referendum.
The issue is not allegiance to a person. It is participation in shaping the constraints that will govern whoever holds transitional authority.
If the regime collapses - whether through internal fracture, external shock, or cumulative erosion - power will consolidate quickly around those who are visible and organized. Without a prepared and pluralistic coalition outside the country, any transition will be improvised. Improvisation favors those already positioned.
Inside Iran, open coalition-building is impossible. Outside Iran, it is not. That simple fact changes the equation.
The elite in the diaspora can meet. They can negotiate. They can draft principles. They can publish commitments. They can bind future authority to institutional guarantees before authority materializes. That is the opportunity. Instead, many focus solely on attacking Pahlavi or retreating into quasi-intellectual nihilism, niche pet peeves and grievances masquerading as principle.
Look at what you have to work with. He has articulated four principles:
- Territorial integrity
- Separation of religion and state
- Individual liberties and equality
- Democratic determination of the system through referendum
These are foundational commitments. They are necessary for any democratic future. They are not, however, a full institutional blueprint. That is where engagement begins.
If Pahlavi commits to secularism, insist on constitutional entrenchment and an independent constitutional court.
If he commits to individual liberties, insist on a binding bill of rights and meaningful civilian oversight of security forces.
If he commits to democratic choice, insist on a defined transitional timeline, an independent electoral commission, and international monitoring.
If he commits to territorial integrity, insist on enforceable minority protections and meaningful decentralization, especially with the Kurds, the Baluch and the Arabs.
For years, anyone in the diaspora who spoke out was labeled a backseat driver with no skin in the game.
Now some of those same voices have become the backseat drivers - full of pessimism, inflated egos, and a chronic inability to think beyond the ideologies of the 1960s and 1970s.
If the left - or any segment of the diaspora - refuses to enter coalition discussions out of fear of legitimizing a figure, it risks forfeiting the ability to shape the structures that will govern the transition. They are not opposing; they are abdicating. The consequences will be felt by everyone.
History rarely offers identical moments twice. But it does offer second chances to act more deliberately.
The elite have a civic duty to engage with the public rather than pontificate from the back bench. The left, specifically, has a moment to redeem itself for lending support to Khomeini in 1979.
The diaspora is no longer simply an observer.
If we fail to use this space - choosing distance over engagement and commentary over coalition - the consequences will not be abstract. This time, responsibility will be shared.
And this time, we will not be able to say we had no room to act.