Let's be careful using words like 'hijack'. Reza Pahlavi (i.e. the son of the Shah) has led one of the most consistent and coherent oppositions to the Islamic Regime for the past few decades (has dedicated his life to it), and has clearly stated his only intent is to create a transition/solidarity council to enable an actual, democratic system in Iran.
Over 85% of protestors are in favour of such a council, and 33% of them believe Reza Pahlavi should be the representative of such a council (which places him as the most popular representative by far).
The Shah regime is still widely despised in the country.
If you're suggesting that we treat the revolutionaries as representatives of the people a la Chalabi and his motley crew in 2003, be prepared for disaster.
Here's a guy who was raised as a prince. Dropped out of two universities. Then got a BSc in political science from private persian professors. Never had to work for anything, and then waited until other people started a movement and then he somehow has a claim to the movement once it started. His supporters then went on to attack anyone that suggested that should he really want to be a part of the movement he should put himself up to vote.
Not only that, but all his addresses where through representatives, never publicly decided to speak, probably because he would fail without his DC speechwriters and you sit here and tell us that he has majority support? In which universe?
It's funny how everyone keeps shouting how great democracy is, but then when it comes to actually putting themselves up for vote, they're "naaah, why would I risk not being elected".
There was massive grassroots opposition to Saddam too.
And there is also precedent of a "grassroots" revolution back in 1953 in this very same country. Sorry that I'm taking this claim with a pinch of salt.
I'm not sure why you keep insisting on equating Iran and Iraq? They are different countries, demographics, cultures, political systems, etc...with very different circumstances. The Iraqi National Congress was setup and funded by the CIA (after the invasion of Iraq by US military), with a banking elite as it's figurehead.
The coalition being built in and outside of Iran is an organic, cross-class, cross-cultural network that is the result of years of activism. Within it, you will find figures like Masih Alinejad, a world-renowned journalist and women's rights activist, and Hamed Esmaeillion, a representative for the families of PS752 (the plane that was shot down by the Islamic Regime with 170+ souls on board). To equate this to a CIA-backed coup is not well-founded.
1. Any political movement will attract people who are hungry for power-for-power’s-sake or to inflate their own ego. Naiveté about this is malpractice in the same way that US naïveté about Chalabi was malpractice.
Iranians who are naive to the point of self-deception will be as misleading as those who are willfully deceptive. Discernment without undue cynicism is necessary but hard.
From the perspective of the US/UK, Iran and Iraq are pretty culturally similar. They are strangers to us. Lets not pretend to be more anthropologically/politically knowledgeable than we are.
2. We don’t have access to reliable intelligence. It is wise to be humble about our ability to sort fact from myth from falsehood.
3. If we want this to succeed, then we want marginal (in the sense of “swing voters”) and civic-minded Iranians to switch to supporting this. Those Iranians will have “CIA-backed coup” as a historical memory so it is worth empathizing with them.
Over 85% of protestors are in favour of such a council, and 33% of them believe Reza Pahlavi should be the representative of such a council (which places him as the most popular representative by far).
You can read more here (GAMAAN conducts the most rigorous surveys on public attitudes in Iran): https://gamaan.org/2023/02/04/protests_survey/