As the protests in Iran stretch into their third week, the crackdown by the regime has intensified considerably. Accompanied by a nationwide Internet shutdown during nighttime hours, the death toll over the weekend is estimated to be in the thousands after the Islamic Republic’s security forces indiscriminately fired into crowds of demonstrators.
Major demonstrations began on December 28, when Tehran’s bazaar merchants closed their shops and took to the streets in anger over the growing financial difficulties in the country. Before then, sporadic anti-regime protests had been seen in such places as Mashhad, during the memorial ceremony for human rights lawyer Khosro Alikordi, who was found dead hours after a visit from Islamic Republic security forces in December.
One element of the current unrest has begun to distinguish it from earlier waves, however. The presence of leadership attempting to direct the protesters.
Over the past few weeks, Iran’s Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi has taken a series of steps in a transition from moral supporter of protests to a leader attempting to guide their course. His calls for sustained demonstrations between Thursday and Friday at 8 p.m. local time, followed by appeals for nationwide strikes over the weekend, are part of his effort to shape momentum rather than merely comment on it from afar.
Crown Prince's plan results in protests
This evolution should not be too surprising. The crown prince has long articulated a structured vision for political change, principally through his five-pillar framework outlining national unity, civil resistance, international pressure, economic disruption, and preparation for a democratic transition – ideas he outlined at several conferences throughout 2025.
Until now, that plan had largely functioned as a roadmap in waiting. What distinguishes the current moment is that conditions on the ground appear to have caught up with it. The scale and persistence of protests, coupled with the resurgence of chants of “Javid Shah,” have transformed what was once theoretical into something operational, giving Pahlavi both a constituency and a stage around which to act.
Crowds have also been heard chanting for weeks, “This is the final battle! Pahlavi will return,” and “The shah will return to the homeland, and Zahhak (despot) will be overthrown,” invoking the mythological tyrant of Persian lore. It is a sign of support for the Pahlavi dynasty that has not been seen on the streets of Iran since the 1970s.
In previous protest cycles, such as 2009, 2019, and 2022, opposition figures often issued frequent appeals that outpaced public capacity to respond. That pattern tended to dilute any credibility and reduce momentum. There was also the issue of the lack of a single, cohesive figurehead for the opposition to rally around.
By the time he called for strikes, reports were already circulating of security personnel failing to report for duty or refusing to carry out orders.
Months ago, Pahlavi set up a direct and secure line of transmission for security officials who wanted to defect from the regime. While such current reports of numbers are difficult to verify independently due to secrecy and a lack of transparency coming out of Iran, they are part of the message that The Jerusalem Post has been receiving from within the country since the demonstrations started. The regime’s enforcement capacity is under strain.
Persian-language commentary over the past week has focused on the way Pahlavi has treated the unrest as something that needs to unfold step by step, rather than as a single burst of anger. In his recent messages, he has spoken about moving the struggle forward in stages, learning the lessons of the past that protests in Iran have often failed when they relied on momentum alone.
That thinking was visible in the order of his calls. He first urged people to remain in the streets and show their numbers, then later called for nationwide strikes.
Pahlavi has also given unusually practical guidance. He urged protesters to stay together, remain on main streets, avoid isolated side roads, and move as part of larger crowds. These were concrete instructions, not slogans, and show an awareness of what the people on Iran’s streets are experiencing.
The most consequential moment in Pahlavi’s recent statements came with his declaration of readiness to return to Iran. On Saturday, he said, “I too am preparing to return to the homeland so that at the time of our national revolution’s victory, I can be beside you, the great nation of Iran. I believe that day is very near.”
Preparing to return to a country he has not seen in over four decades carries significant personal and political risk. For many Iranians, this statement addressed a long-standing tension surrounding exile leadership. Calling on people to strike, protest, and confront repression while remaining abroad has often weakened trust. Signaling a willingness to share that risk alters the relationship.
This is central to the question of Pahlavi’s legitimacy. Leadership, in Iranians’ view, requires more than issuing directives from the comfort of abroad; it must be a visible acceptance of responsibility and consequence.
For many Iranians, this is not their first time in the streets. Past protest movements have often ended without real political change, leaving people exhausted and disillusioned. That is why the sense that someone is thinking beyond the protests themselves has struck a chord, and why the chant “Javid shah” has become so prominent. The idea that sacrifice is being directed toward a clear purpose, in this case, the end of the Islamic Republic, is helping to sustain momentum.
This does not solve the deep disagreements within Iran’s opposition over what should come next, or what kind of political system should replace the current one. Those debates remain open, and the outcome is far from certain. The Islamic Republic still has powerful tools of repression, and it is unclear how long strikes and protests can be maintained.
What can be said, though, is how Pahlavi has conducted himself over the past week. He has moved carefully as events have unfolded and the violence has increased, and he is no longer a bystander but is helping to direct the events on the streets.