Beyond a long-standing enmity; Reza Pahlavi's vision for peace between Iran and Israel under the microscope
The Jerusalem Post examined Reza Pahlavi's vision for peace between Iran and Israel amid geopolitical uncertainties and realities.
As regional tensions continue to cast a heavy shadow over Iran-Israel relations, the Jerusalem Post newspaper has examined Reza Pahlavi's views on the future of Iran in a new editorial, describing these views as not mere fantasy, but a thought-provoking plan; a plan that, according to the newspaper, is worth listening to and carefully evaluating.
This editorial, referring to Reza Pahlavi’s recent speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Texas, emphasizes that his message must be measured against the complex political realities of the region. In the speech, Pahlavi called for the complete end of the Islamic Republic and asked his audience to imagine a new Middle East in which Iran is a friend of Israel. He also emphasized that if the political system changes, Iran can become a democratic partner for the United States and Israel.
The Jerusalem Post analysts have also noted that this vision of the future, while appealing, also faces serious limitations. According to the newspaper, Pahlavi has presented not an immediate implementation plan but an intellectual framework that emphasizes a key distinction: “The Islamic Republic does not represent the entire Iranian people, and hostility to Israel is part of the regime’s ideology, not an inherent feature of Iranian identity.”
This distinction is of strategic importance, especially from the Israeli perspective. Over the past decades, the Islamic Republic has created a network of regional pressure against Israel by financially and militarily supporting groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, Shiite militias in Iraq, and the Houthis in Yemen. In such an environment, changing the narrative about Iran requires a profound redefinition of mutual understanding between the two sides.
Another part of this analysis addresses the historical dimension of Reza Pahlavi’s remarks. By referring to ancient periods in Iranian history and mentioning Cyrus the Great, he attempts to present a different image of Iran; one based on religious tolerance and coexistence, which existed before the formation of the hostile discourse of the Islamic Republic. This return to history, according to the authors of the editorial, is an attempt to create an alternative narrative that can pave the way for future dialogues.
However, the Jerusalem Post warns that one should not lose sight of the realities on the ground. The newspaper emphasizes that a speech, however important, cannot change the security equations in the region or eliminate the current threats. Especially after events such as the violent attacks of recent years, there is a deep distrust between the parties that cannot be easily overcome.
At the same time, the editorial emphasizes the importance of “recognizing moments of openness,” recalling examples such as the Abraham Accords, agreements that seemed impossible to many before they were realized. From this perspective, Reza Pahlavi’s attempt to raise the possibility of a different regional order could be part of a process that is gradually challenging established notions.
The Jerusalem Post also points to the fragmentation of the Iranian opposition as one of the main obstacles to realizing such a vision. According to the newspaper, a political transition, even if it occurs, will not by itself lead to the establishment of stability, democracy, or effective institutions, and requires planning and broad consensus.
Overall, the publication urges policymakers in Israel and the United States to adopt a balanced approach: on the one hand, avoiding a romantic view of figures like Reza Pahlavi and, on the other, avoiding ignoring voices that offer a different narrative about Iran’s future. According to the authors, one of the West’s frequent mistakes towards Iran has been to remain confined within a framework that assumes the Islamic Republic is the only representative of the country.
The editorial concludes by emphasizing that although the prospect of peace between Iran and Israel still seems distant, its inclusion in the public discourse is an important step in itself; a step that can pave the way for imagining a different future in the region, a future in which, instead of permanent confrontation, the possibility of coexistence and cooperation is also considered.
