Inside my meeting with Reza Pahlavi: His plan for a free Iran

By Hedieh Mirahmadi, Exclusive Columnist Tuesday, September 15, 2026

I recently had the privilege of meeting Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi with a small group of evangelical pastors and ministry leaders.

As an Iranian-American, a former Muslim, and someone who has spent much of my professional life studying Iran, Islamism, and U.S. national security policy, I came to the meeting with a question that has hovered over every serious discussion about the Islamic Republic for decades — what happens the day after?

Our meeting with the Crown Prince delivered a clear resolution: he possesses a concrete roadmap for the day after. Far from treating these issues as mere theoretical concepts, he has established a comprehensive transition framework to renew Iran into the great civilization it once was — fostering economic prosperity, safeguarding religious liberty, and supporting the growth of the underground Church.

His five-part strategy focuses on supporting the Iranian people, encouraging regime defections, organizing Iranians across the diaspora, and executing a comprehensive blueprint for post-regime reconstruction.

Most importantly, he does not describe himself as the ruler who will determine Iran’s final political system. He describes his role as leading and facilitating a transition in which the Iranian people ultimately determine their form of government.

A particularly crucial segment of our discussion with Crown Prince Pahlavi centered on his commitment to religious freedom.

Under the Islamic Republic, Christians — particularly Muslim-background believers — have faced surveillance, persecution, and death for their faith. Yet Christianity has continued to spread.

As a former Muslim who came to Christ, I cannot look at what is happening inside Iran merely through the lens of geopolitics. Something spiritual is occurring there.

For decades, the Islamic Republic has tried to impose Islam through the power of the state. Instead of producing faith, coercion has produced profound disillusionment. At the same time, men and women are encountering Jesus Christ through satellite television, digital ministry, personal relationships, and underground churches.

The Gospel has flourished precisely where the regime tried to extinguish it. Imagine, then, an Iran where Christians no longer have to worship underground.

Imagine Iranian pastors freely training other believers. Churches operating openly and flourishing. Think of the Jewish Iranians, Christians, Zoroastrians, and others protected equally under law rather than existing at the mercy of an Islamic state.

Pahlavi repeatedly emphasized that his vision is a secular democratic system in which the law protects the conscience of every citizen.

This is an important principle for Christians. The Gospel does not require government coercion. Christ calls people freely. Christianity does not need the sword of the state to compel conversion because genuine faith cannot be forced.

Therefore, religious liberty protects not only Christians but the integrity of Christianity itself.

But Iran will eventually have to confront another challenge. The future of Iran cannot simply be about overthrowing the IRGC. It must also be about preventing another oppressive Islamic regime from capturing Iran afterward.

How does a future secular democracy guarantee genuine religious freedom while preventing political Islam from again using religious liberty as a vehicle for acquiring political power and eventually extinguishing that liberty?

That question is not theoretical. It is the very lesson of 1979.

Islam as personal religious belief and Islamism as a political project cannot simply be treated as identical questions. A democratic Iran must protect the Muslim who wishes to pray while remaining vigilant toward organized movements seeking to replace constitutional government with religious supremacy.

Pahlavi’s response was grounded principally in the rule of law: equal citizenship, transparency, restrictions on foreign financing of political extremism, prosecution of incitement to violence, and constitutional safeguards preventing religious movements from coercing others.

Fine-tuning how that plays out in drafting Iran’s constitution will be extremely important.

Another moment in the discussion deeply resonated with me as a Christian Zionist and an Iranian. Pahlavi spoke of the ancient relationship between Persia and Israel.

Long before the Islamic Republic began chanting “Death to Israel,” Persia occupied a remarkable place in biblical history.

Isaiah names Cyrus more than 600 years before his birth and describes him as a ruler God would use for His purposes. The book of Ezra records Cyrus permitting the Jewish people to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the Temple after the Babylonian exile.

That history is not incidental. Persians and Jews share a relationship stretching back more than 2,500 years. The Islamic Republic’s obsession with Israel is not the historic identity of the Persian people. It is the ideological identity of a revolutionary Islamist regime.

Crown Prince Pahlavi envisions a free Iran dedicated to peace with Israel and its Arab neighbors.

Rather than funding extremist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, a renewed Iran could partner with international allies to combat global terrorism.

Instead of exporting revolution, Iran could export energy, technology, and commerce.

For Christians who believe that God’s purposes for Israel did not disappear — such a transformation would be extraordinary.

It would also radically alter the Middle East's strategic landscape. We should all reflect on the profound implications of such a transition.

Yet none of this answers the immediate question of how change actually comes.

Here I remain convinced of something I have written repeatedly: the final blow against the Islamic Republic cannot be delivered by an American occupation. The US efforts to degrade their military power, choke their source of financial support, and target their brutal war criminals have made this moment possible. Those efforts must continue, but the Iranian people are ultimately the boots on the ground.

For a manageable transition, Pahlavi emphasized that internal defections across Iran's security apparatus, armed forces, and civil bureaucracy are vital. Drawing a clear line against the flawed de-Ba'athification strategy used after the Iraq War, he stressed that uncompromised personnel who committed no atrocities under the current regime ought to assist in safeguarding order and reconstructing the nation.

You do not stabilize a nation of nearly 90 million people by dismantling every institution overnight. You separate those responsible for crimes against humanity from those capable of becoming part of a lawful post-regime order.

Iran also possesses another tremendous resource Iraq did not have: a massive, educated, and economically successful diaspora waiting to help rebuild the country. Iranians who have spent decades living under democratic institutions and understand both their advantages and their fragility.

I know them because I am one of them.

I want my daughter to someday visit the Iran of her ancestors without fear. I want her to see a nation known not for hostage-taking, terrorism, and cries of “Death to America,” but for the civilization, beauty, intellect, and hospitality that existed long before the Islamic Republic.

And as a Christian, my hope goes deeper still. I want the Gospel preached without fear.

I want Muslims to have the freedom to hear the claims of Christ and decide for themselves whether He is who He said He is.

Perhaps the question facing Christians today is not whether we can predict Iran’s future.

It is whether we recognize the significance of the door that is opened and the calls for support from the people trapped inside who long to be free.

Despite nearly five decades of darkness, death, and destruction overshadowing Iran, something extraordinary remains intact — the innate human yearning for liberty has endured.

I pray Christians around the world will hear their cries and be their voice.