Why Iran’s Current Uprising Is About More Than the Economy

I usually avoid mixing personal matters with public or professional discourse. However, there are moments when silence feels like complicity. This is one of those moments.

Iran my homeland is once again at a historical crossroads. Ordinary Iranians, inside the country and across the diaspora, are standing up with courage, clarity, and hope. What we are witnessing today is not an isolated protest, nor a reaction driven solely by economic hardship. It is a continuation of a long struggle for dignity, sovereignty, and a normal life, one that has been denied under the rule of the Islamic Republic.

This Is Not Just About Inflation

Economic collapse, inflation, and currency devaluation have played a role in triggering this wave of unrest. But to reduce the movement to exchange rates or “bread and butter issues” is to fundamentally misunderstand it.

Iranians are protesting a political system the Islamic Republic that has failed them economically, socially, and strategically for decades.

A Demand for Peace, Not Provocation

One of the clearest demands of the Iranian people is an end to the Islamic Republic’s aggressive and ideological foreign policy. Decades of provocation particularly its repeated escalation involving Israel have resulted in international isolation, sanctions, and regional instability.

Ending the Islamic Republic’s financial and military support for Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon would significantly reduce tensions in the Middle East and open space for genuine diplomatic efforts toward peace.

Iranians want a country that contributes to regional stability and not a regime that thrives on permanent conflict.

Stop Exporting Violence

Another core demand is an end to the Islamic Republic’s interference beyond Iran’s borders: assassinations of dissidents, attacks on Jewish targets, and the export of violence under ideological banners.

This also includes the Islamic Republic’s military support for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine through the supply of attack drones, actions that associate the regime with war crimes and global instability, against the will of the Iranian people.

Iranians want peace, cooperation, and constructive engagement with the world—not isolation imposed by an unaccountable ruling system.

A Life Worth Living at Home

At its heart, this movement is about the right to live a full, dignified life in one’s own country.

Iranians want prosperity, a healthy economy, and freedom of lifestyle so that they are not forced to leave behind their families, friends, culture, and memories to start over elsewhere. Emigration should be a choice, not an escape from repression and economic despair created by the Islamic Republic.

After decades of lived experience, many Iranians have reached a difficult conclusion: the Islamic Republic is structurally incapable of delivering these basic aspirations.

Why Many Iranians Are Reconsidering the Monarchy

This realization has led to an honest reassessment of Iran’s modern history. Few claim that the Shah’s era was perfect but it was not. But with historical distance, many now recognize that it offered a more pragmatic and functional framework for national development than the current system.

As a result, there is growing support among Iranians for a return to a constitutional monarchy, not as an unquestionable end state, but as a transitional mechanism. The proposal is straightforward: allow the Crown Prince to help guide Iran through a peaceful transition, stabilize institutions, and then allow the people reely and without coercion to decide the country’s future.

That future could mean retaining a constitutional monarchy or moving toward a new republic. What matters is that the choice finally belongs to the people.

Historical Precedents: Monarchy as a Stabilizing Transition

This idea is not unique to Iran, nor is it unprecedented in modern history.

After the death of General Francisco Franco, Spain faced the challenge of transitioning from decades of authoritarian rule. Rather than descending into chaos or revenge politics, Spain restored the monarchy under King Juan Carlos I. The monarchy served as a neutral and stabilizing institution that helped guide the country toward democracy, culminating in a constitutional system that enjoys broad legitimacy today.

Similarly, Great Britain and the Netherlands offer examples of how monarchies evolved into or were rebuilt as constitutional systems where real power rests with elected institutions. In both cases, the monarchy functions not as an authoritarian ruler but as a unifying symbol above daily politics.

The Dutch case is particularly instructive. For long periods, the Netherlands operated as a republic, yet it consciously rebuilt a monarchy from the ground up in the 19th century not to reverse progress, but to strengthen national cohesion and political continuity during times of upheaval.

These examples demonstrate that constitutional monarchies can coexist with democracy, civil liberties, and modern governance. In some historical moments, they have even served as bridges from authoritarianism to stable democratic systems.

A Transitional Vision for Iran

For many Iranians, the proposal is straightforward: allow the Crown Prince to help guide the country through a peaceful transition, restore trust in state institutions, and ensure national continuity. Once stability is achieved, the Iranian people should be free through transparent and democratic means to decide their future.

That future could mean retaining a constitutional monarchy or moving forward with a new republic. What matters is not the form itself, but that the choice finally belongs to the people.

A Request to the Reader

As an Iranian, I feel a responsibility to speak not to impose views, but to ask for fairness and intellectual honesty.

Much of the discourse about Iran is shaped by ideological narratives that fail to distinguish between Iran as a civilization and its people, and the Islamic Republic as a ruling system. Listening to Iranians themselves, engaging with accurate information, and questioning oversimplified explanations all matter.

For many Iranians today, acknowledging the role of the Shah and the concept of a constitutional monarchy is part of an honest conversation about the future.

History is complex. But the future should be built on clarity, truth, and the will of the people.