Tehran Profits While Monarchists Fight The Resistance
Erfan Fard’s attack on the Iranian resistance, published on The Times of Israel’s blog platform, demands an answer. Beneath its furious denunciations lies a familiar proposition. Readers are invited to distrust the organised democratic opposition to clerical tyranny while embracing Reza Pahlavi, son of the deposed Shah, as Iran’s natural unifying figure. That proposition deserves scrutiny, especially when its advocate accuses others of precisely the intolerance his own language displays.
Fard describes the People’s Mojahedin Organisation of Iran (PMOI) as “terrorist thugs” while presenting himself as a defender of dispassionate historical inquiry. Such language establishes his hostility. It supplies little evidence for his sweeping conclusions about the movement’s present programme or democratic intentions. Readers deserve arguments they can examine, rather than insults dressed as expertise.
Let us establish an essential principle. A photograph of Erfan Fard with a former Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) commander reveals a meeting took place. While Fard denies, this proves he had an intelligence relationship serving Tehran’s security apparatus. Without authenticated evidence, that denial cannot responsibly be brushed aside.
Fard portrays the resistance as inherently incompatible with democracy while largely bypassing the programme it actually advances. Historical controversy becomes a substitute for examining present commitments. His preferred candidate receives the opposite treatment. Pahlavi’s declared democratic aspirations are accepted, while those of his opponents are dismissed.
I have spent decades working alongside Iranians seeking freedom. Throughout that struggle, Tehran has sought to influence how Western institutions understand both the regime and its opponents. The mullahs understand the value of a reassuring expert, an authoritative commentary and an apparently independent voice. Access to parliamentary discussions, television studios and policy conferences can confer credibility that official Iranian propaganda could scarcely purchase. The lesson is institutional. Western parliaments, broadcasters and other forums should examine affiliations, funding and access with care. Expertise requires scrutiny rather than automatic deference.
The Iran Experts Initiative illustrates why vigilance matters. Investigations by Semafor and Iran International in 2023 traced the initiative directly into the foreign ministry of Mohammad Javad Zarif. Leaked correspondence showed officials cultivating researchers established in Western policy circles and reporting their activities up the ministerial chain. On 14 April 2015, an email describing the initiative’s achievements was forwarded to Zarif himself and his deputy, Majid Takht Ravanchi. The documentary trail therefore reached the regime’s foreign minister.
Clemson University researchers have documented a network of accounts they attributed to the Revolutionary Guards, using fabricated identities across several platforms. Their findings demonstrate Tehran’s ability to manufacture apparently credible voices and exploit foreign political debates. A persuasive profile and a torrent of posts can conceal an organised operation. Available research points to the fact that thousands of Western social media messages supporting Pahlavi originated in Tehran.
My criticism is political. Pahlavi’s family name provides recognition, but recognition is hardly a constitutional settlement. His supporters cannot demand unity while treating republican opposition as an obstacle to be demolished. A movement that claims to unite Iranians must tolerate those who reject hereditary privilege, question royal nostalgia and insist that sovereignty belongs entirely to citizens.
Fard rightly distinguishes interviewing a former security official from endorsing that official’s conduct. The principle applies universally. Yet historical inquiry also requires taking survivors seriously. Neither revolutionary violence nor the crimes of the clerical regime can excuse torture under the monarchy. Iran needs accountability across successive dictatorships, with evidence tested and victims heard.
Tehran benefits when opposition debate collapses into mutual destruction. Pahlavi risks becoming a useful instrument of that strategy whenever his prominence is used to discredit organised resistance rather than strengthen the struggle for freedom. That is a warning about political consequences, rather than an allegation of secret instructions.
Iran’s future belongs to its people. Western leaders should demand evidence from experts, transparency from influencers and democratic accountability from every aspiring leader. Reject clerical tyranny. Reject inherited entitlement. Let Iranians choose.
