Misinformation Threatens Iran’s Protest Movement, Undermining Pursuit of Genuine Change
Table of Contents
The decades-long struggle for freedom and dignity in Iran is being jeopardized by a surge of online misinformation, particularly surrounding the figure of Reza Pahlavi, son of the deposed shah. While appearing as enthusiastic support, this campaign risks distorting the realities faced by Iranians and inadvertently strengthening the Islamic Republic’s grip on power.
Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani recently voiced sharp criticism, labeling Pahlavi a “nepo baby” who has “never done a damn thing for the Iranian people except live luxuriously off the wealth stolen from them.” Though provocative, this assessment highlights a growing disconnect between the online portrayal of political leadership and the actual demands of Iranians on the ground.
This gap is increasingly filled with misleading videos, exaggerated claims, and recycled footage designed to project an image of overwhelming support for a single exiled figure. While not always intentionally false, this content creates a misleading impression of unity and inevitability – an illusion that, counterintuitively, bolsters the Islamic Republic.
A Nation’s Complex Grievances
Iran is a society profoundly shaped by decades of political repression and economic mismanagement. The grievances fueling dissent are multifaceted: unemployment, widespread corruption, gender inequality, ethnic discrimination, generational frustration, and the oppressive weight of authoritarian control.
Independent reports from organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch consistently demonstrate that protesters are primarily demanding freedom, accountability, and dignity – not the restoration of the monarchy. Slogans such as “Death to the dictator” are broadly directed at authoritarian rule, not specifically advocating for dynastic succession.
Attempts to frame this complex reality within a monarchy-centered narrative oversimplify Iran’s social landscape. Viral clips suggesting protests are fundamentally about reinstating the shah’s son misrepresent a movement that has repeatedly rejected inherited authority in favor of popular sovereignty. This misrepresentation is critical, as perception directly shapes legitimacy – the very foundation of both revolutions and counter-revolutions.
How Misinformation Aids the Regime
For years, Tehran has maintained that protests are not organic expressions of public anger, but rather foreign-driven conspiracies orchestrated by exiles and elites disconnected from Iranian society. State media routinely portrays demonstrators as puppets of Western intelligence agencies or nostalgic royalists seeking to reclaim lost privilege.
Misleading social media content inadvertently plays directly into this narrative. When Iranian state television points to recycled protest footage, doctored videos, or exaggerated claims circulating online, it doesn’t need to disprove the authenticity of all opposition voices. It only needs to sow enough doubt to undermine credibility, both domestically and internationally.
In this way, opposition-aligned misinformation becomes a strategic asset for the Islamic Republic. False certainty is far easier to attack than nuanced complexity. A messy, pluralistic movement is significantly harder to discredit than one falsely presented as a centralized project led from abroad.
Visibility Does Not Equal Legitimacy
A crucial distinction exists between genuine support and amplified visibility. Social media often collapses this difference. Coordinated posting, emotionally charged language, and repetition can create the illusion of inevitability – as if history has already chosen a leader.
However, online inevitability does not translate to legitimacy on the ground. Many Iranians who oppose the Islamic Republic also strongly oppose monarchy and hereditary rule, believing that political authority should be earned, not inherited. Iran’s 1979 revolution, despite its ultimate outcome, was fundamentally rooted in opposition to absolute monarchy as well as dictatorship.
When these Iranians see their struggle repackaged as a coronation campaign, they feel marginalized and erased. The result is not persuasion, but alienation. Trust erodes – not only in the promoted figure, but in opposition discourse as a whole. This distrust is corrosive, fragmenting movements, weakening solidarity, and creating space for authoritarian narratives to reassert themselves.
Truth as a Strategic Imperative
Some supporters of political alternatives may argue that exaggeration is justified under repression, believing that inflated visibility keeps global attention focused on Iran. However, this logic is short-sighted.
Authoritarian systems are not overthrown by spectacle alone. They are undone when reality becomes undeniable – when facts, testimonies, and lived experiences accumulate to the point that denial becomes impossible.
Misinformation achieves the opposite. It muddies the historical record, confuses outside observers, and provides those in power with justification to dismiss genuine grievances as propaganda. In this context, accuracy is not neutrality; it is a vital strategy.
Maryam Rajavi, president-elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), articulated this point in a recent interview with Just the News, stating that monarchy in Iran is “a symbol of dictatorship and absolute rule,” and that Iranian society “will not, under any circumstances, accept a return to that kind of despotism and chauvinism.” She highlighted the historical abuses under Mohammad Reza Shah, pointing to the widespread use of torture, mass surveillance, imprisonment, and executions by the regime’s political police, SAVAK – abuses well-documented by historians and human rights organizations, including declassified U.S. government documents. Rajavi posed a pointed question: “after World War II, would Hitler’s National Socialism have been allowed to participate in governing Germany?” This comparison underscores a fundamental truth: societies emerging from dictatorship do not build democracy by recycling symbols of past authoritarianism.
A Defining Choice for the Opposition
Iran’s future will not be determined by viral videos, trending hashtags, or carefully curated social media narratives. It will be decided by whether Iranians – both within the country and in the diaspora – can uphold credibility, pluralism, and intellectual honesty under immense pressure.
The choice facing the opposition is stark, yet simple: build legitimacy through truth, or sacrifice it for illusion. History offers a clear lesson. Movements that succeed are those that reflect reality, respect diversity, and refuse to trade long-term trust for short-term attention. In Iran’s case, the cost of getting this wrong is not merely political failure – it is the prolongation of authoritarian rule itself.
Abdollah Pakatchi, political science graduate from Tehran University, with decades of expertise on politics and human rights challenges across Middle East and Iran.
Views expressed in this article may or may not reflect those of Middle East Online.
