On June 13, 2025, Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of Iran's last shah, published a Persian-language message urging the country's military and security forces to stand with the people and reject Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The Jerusalem Post report described the message as sharply worded and aimed directly at the institutions that would matter most in any internal power struggle.
Pahlavi's central line was that any war, likely between Israel and the United States on one side and Iran on the other, would be Khamenei's war and the Islamic Republic's war, not the war of Iran or the Iranian people. That distinction is the heart of the message. It tries to separate the country from the state, and the state from the leader who commands it.
The appeal to the military is politically important because it asks officers and rank-and-file personnel to imagine their loyalty differently. Instead of treating the chain of command as automatic, the message frames obedience as a choice with national consequences. That makes the statement not just a political slogan but a direct attempt to influence how security institutions might behave under pressure.
The report does not say the message produced any immediate response. It also does not suggest Pahlavi has any formal power inside Iran. What it does show is that he is still trying to position himself as a voice that can speak to Iranians beyond exile, including those inside the armed forces. That is a familiar strategy for opposition figures, but it becomes more charged when regional conflict is part of the backdrop.
By tying his appeal to the possibility of war, Pahlavi linked domestic legitimacy to external conflict in a way that is meant to weaken the leadership's grip. He cast the confrontation as one imposed from above rather than embraced by ordinary Iranians. That framing is designed to create moral distance between the governing system and the population under it.
Whether the message resonates is impossible to tell from the report alone. What is clear is that Pahlavi is trying to turn a moment of regional danger into an argument about national allegiance. The appeal was not to institutions as they are, but to what he wants them to become if the country's political order shifts.
Pahlavi's message also reflects a long-running contest over who can speak for Iran in moments of crisis. Exile gives him a platform, but it also means he must translate his position into language that reaches people inside the state apparatus. By addressing the military directly, he tries to create a wedge between ordinary service members and the leadership that commands them. That strategy only works if enough recipients see the appeal as credible. Even if it does not change behavior immediately, it shows how exile politics continues to revolve around the idea that the security forces are the decisive audience in any future shift.
That is why the message matters even without immediate effect: it is aimed at the people who would decide whether a future rupture is possible. Pahlavi is trying to make them think before the moment arrives.
