Tehran: In a powerful and coordinated escalation from exile, two of the most influential figures in Iran’s opposition movement Maryam Rajavi and Reza Pahlavi have issued compelling appeals to the Iranian people and the international community, calling for the end of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s rule and the beginning of a democratic transition. Their calls come against the backdrop of a fragile ceasefire in the Iran-Israel conflict and widespread unrest within Iran’s borders, marking a critical juncture in the country’s political future.

Maryam Rajavi, the Paris-based leader of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), urged citizens of Iran to rise up and overthrow the Islamic Republic. In her statement, Rajavi described the current moment as a unique opportunity for liberation, pointing to the regime’s increasing vulnerability and the recent regional ceasefire as signs of shifting tides. She emphasized the need for a broad-based civilian uprising and appealed directly to women, youth, and ethnic minorities groups long oppressed by the clerical regime to lead the charge toward a secular, democratic republic.

Rajavi's organization, the NCRI, is closely linked with the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK), a group long regarded as one of the most persistent and organized opposition forces against the Iranian regime. She reiterated the council’s commitment to a future Iran based on gender equality, ethnic inclusion, religious freedom, and a ban on nuclear weapons values she insisted stand in stark contrast to the ideology of the ruling clerics. Though the NCRI has historically faced criticism, including over its controversial tactics and foreign alliances, it has also been instrumental in exposing Iran’s nuclear secrets and organizing diaspora-led resistance efforts.

Simultaneously, Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of Iran’s last Shah, offered a different but complementary vision for Iran’s post-regime future. In a widely circulated video interview, Pahlavi declared his readiness to lead a transitional government should the Islamic Republic fall. He made clear that he is not seeking a return to monarchy but is willing to take on a leadership role during a potential transition period to stabilize the country and pave the way for democratic reforms.

Pahlavi proposed the formation of a transitional council that would include technocrats, civil society figures, security experts, and diaspora leaders. This council would oversee the country’s administration during an interim period, with a mandate to prepare for free elections, draft a new constitution, and establish a truly representative government. Emphasizing his desire to serve rather than rule, Pahlavi said he would only take this role with the support of the Iranian people and the broader opposition.

Both Rajavi and Pahlavi’s appeals arrive at a time of heightened political instability and regional military tension. The recent ceasefire between Iran and Israel remains tenuous, with reports of continued airstrikes and conflicting statements from Iranian leadership. Domestically, the Islamic Republic is grappling with growing economic hardship, inflation, and public discontent conditions that have fueled sporadic protests across major cities. While the security apparatus remains strong, the government’s legitimacy appears to be weakening among broad segments of the population.

Despite their shared goal of toppling the Islamic Republic, Rajavi and Pahlavi represent two different wings of the Iranian opposition. Rajavi leads an established, organized resistance movement with a militant past and a defined political platform. Pahlavi, meanwhile, carries the symbolic weight of Iran’s former monarchy but has increasingly positioned himself as a moderate, secular figure advocating for democratic reform. While there is no formal alliance between the two, the simultaneity and tone of their statements suggest a growing awareness that only a unified front can meaningfully challenge the entrenched clerical regime.

However, both figures face skepticism. The Iranian opposition remains fragmented, and many inside the country are wary of exiled leaders who have lived abroad for decades. Some civil society groups, while agreeing with the need for regime change, have distanced themselves from both the MEK and the Pahlavi legacy. Nonetheless, there is a growing recognition that time may be running out for the Islamic Republic, and that voices from abroad may yet play a pivotal role in shaping what comes next.

As regional tensions rise and Iran’s domestic crisis deepens, the dual calls from Rajavi and Pahlavi reflect not just a desire for change but a demand for action. Their appeals may not unite all factions of the Iranian opposition, but they undeniably add momentum to a growing wave of resistance. Whether this will translate into concrete political change remains to be seen. For now, both leaders have reasserted themselves as influential figures in the struggle for a new Iran one that aspires to democracy, accountability, and freedom from autocratic rule.