The Shah and the Star: Israel’s Misguided Friendship with Pahlavi Iran

Israeli media coverage of the ongoing uprising against Iran’s mullah regime often overlooks the critical perspective of Iran’s ethnic minorities, who make up 70 percent of the country’s population. This omission is significant given Iran’s long history of exploiting ethnic divisions to weaken opposition movements.

It is therefore deeply misguided for Israel to consider backing Reza Pahlavi, the son of Iran’s last Shah, in the hope that he could bring positive change to the Middle East. The belief that Pahlavi is a viable alternative stems from a misunderstanding of both Iran’s past under the Pahlavi dynasty and its current political dynamics. Supporting Pahlavi is not just a poor strategic decision; it also reflects a blatant hypocrisy that contradicts Israel’s stated values and long-term interests. The Pahlavi dynasty was built on Persian nationalism, often at the expense of Iran’s rich ethnic diversity—a history that Israel, if it seeks consistency in its foreign policy, must firmly reject.

Under the Pahlavis, Iran functioned less as a unified nation-state and more as a Persian-centric empire, where the cultural, linguistic, and political rights of non-Persian groups were systematically repressed. Ethnic minorities like the Kurds, Baloch, Arabs, and Azeris were subjected to policies aimed at erasing their identities, amounting to a form of cultural colonialism. For Israel to support a return to this oppressive status quo would be to disregard the legitimate demands of these marginalized groups for justice and autonomy. Such an alliance would be inconsistent with Israel’s opposition to oppression, betraying the very principles it claims to uphold.

The Hypocrisy of Selective Justice

Israel’s consideration of Pahlavi as an ally due to his non-hostility towards Jews reveals a selective application of justice. It ignores the broader canvas of human rights abuses committed under his father’s regime against various ethnic groups. True justice and human rights advocacy cannot be selectively applied; they must encompass all, especially those who have been historically marginalized.

The Case for Independence and Autonomy

The real path toward a stable Middle East lies not in the resurrection of old dynasties but in recognizing and supporting the legitimate aspirations for independence or autonomy among Iran’s ethnic nations:

• • Kurdistan: With a history of seeking autonomy, the Kurds have long been at the forefront of fighting for recognition. Their struggle against both Iraqi and Iranian oppression exemplifies the broader quest for self-determination in the region.
  • Balochistan: The Baloch people, split between Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, have faced neglect and suppression. Their natural resources have been exploited with little benefit to the local populace, fueling separatist sentiments that seek an independent Baloch state.
  • Arabistan (Khuzestan): The Arab population in Iran’s Khuzestan faces cultural and economic marginalization. An independent or significantly autonomous Arabistan could address these longstanding grievances, providing a buffer against Persian expansionism.
  • Azerbaijan: Although less often discussed, the Azeri population in Iran also harbors desires for greater cultural and political recognition, if not outright union with Azerbaijan to the north.

A New Middle Eastern Framework

The fragmentation of Iran into ethnic states or autonomous regions could lead to a more balanced and peaceful Middle East. Each nation, free to govern itself, would:
Reduce Internal Conflict: By giving ethnic groups control over their destinies, much of the internal strife fueled by Persian dominance would dissipate.
Promote Regional Stability: Smaller, ethnic-based states might find more common ground with neighbors, reducing the geopolitical tensions that a hegemonic Iran currently provokes.
Enhance Economic Development: With autonomy, regions like Balochistan could manage their resources for their benefit, potentially leading to economic growth unhindered by centralized, often discriminatory, economic policies.
Cultural Revival: Independence or significant autonomy would allow for cultural rejuvenation, preserving languages, traditions, and histories currently under threat.

A Vision for the Future
Israel, or indeed any power interested in regional stability, should advocate for a Middle East where nations like Kurdistan, Balochistan, and Arabistan can emerge or gain significant autonomy. This vision does not advocate for chaos but for a reimagined political landscape where self-determination leads to genuine peace and mutual respect among nations. The fall of the current Iranian regime, with its Persian-centric ideology, would not only be a victory for the oppressed minorities but could herald a new era where ethnic diversity is celebrated rather than suppressed. This strategy aligns with the principles of justice, human rights, and national self-determination — values that, if genuinely pursued, could transform the Middle East into a region of cooperative, sovereign states rather than a battleground for old imperial ambitions.