Polls show that the majority of Americans oppose President Donald Trump’s war in Iran. Those numbers go even higher when the prospect of boots on the ground is included. The war has even repelled some of Trump’s biggest supporters in the MAGA world, who thought he was serious when he promised during his 2024 campaign that he wouldn’t engage in foreign wars if elected.
But none of those schisms were on display Saturday at CPAC, the nation’s oldest conservative political convention, when Reza Pahlavi took the stage. The son of the last shah of Iran was given rock star treatment and greeted with roars of approval from an audience filled with Iranian-Americans who back Trump’s attack on Iran.
“Can you imagine Iran going from death to America to God bless America?” he asked the raucous crowd. “Well, I, too can.” He pitched Trump’s war as an opportunity for Iranians to finally throw off 47 years of oppressive theocratic rule, and offered up himself as the chosen one who would lead the country through its transition to freedom.
“Unlike the regime that worships death and destruction, the Iranian people celebrate life and liberty,” he said. “That’s why I can imagine an Iran that exports engineers instead of extremists, startups instead of suicide bombers, energy instead of hatred.” With echoes of Trump’s “Make America Great Again” motto, Pahlavi said, “I can imagine in the Middle East where Iran is no longer a source of chaos, but an anchor of stability that does not fear its people, doesn’t threaten its neighbors, doesn’t isolate itself from the world. Imagining this is not difficult, because this is exactly what Iran once was, and what it can be again.”
The moment was surprisingly moving. Hundreds of exiled Iranians, many with children in tow, were clearly longing for Pahlavi to deliver change for the good. Yet the crown prince’s future—as well as exiles who hope to return to Iran—rests almost entirely on Trump, which seems like risky business. After all, Trump has the attention span of a gnat, and already he’s facing a revolt from his own party over the war.
Media stars like Tucker Carlson and Joe Rogan have been openly breaking with Trump for betraying his campaign promises. At CPAC, where most speakers seemed largely supportive of the war, former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) sounded a discordant note, saying, “A ground invasion of Iran will make our country poorer and less safe. It will mean higher gas prices, higher food prices. And I’m not sure if we would end up killing more terrorists than we would create.”
Some Republicans in Congress like Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) have joined with Democrats to try to pass a war powers resolution that would limit the president’s ability to wage war in Iran. Gas prices are skyrocketing as Iran continues to strangle the critical Strait of Hormuz, an outcome that seems to have taken Trump by surprise.
Faced with increasing opposition at home to the war, Trump has suggested that “me and the Ayatollah” might jointly oversee the operation of the strait, a partnership that would seem anathema to Iranian exiles in the US.
At CPAC, Pahlavi seemed to recognize the limits of America’s support for regime change in Iran through military action. “What we ask of America now is simple: Stay the course,” he pleaded. “Pave the way for the Iranian people to finish the job.”
The crown prince framed himself as the leader of an Iranian MAGA movement, and his supporters openly pined for the restoration for the shah. In that sense, they seemed much like American conservatives imagining a better past that never was. After all, Iran wasn’t exactly a model of democracy before the 1979 Iranian revolution. While he may have been a modernizing force, Pahlavi’s father was an authoritarian monarch who oversaw a one-party state that also engaged in torture and human rights abuses. Many of the Iranians I met at CPAC were far too young to remember life under the shah, and they seemed to view pre-revolutionary Iran with sepia tones.
“Iran, as it was before 1979, you know, we had a great country,” Sara Paras told me. “We were progressing. But now with the Ayatollah and Islamic regime, they are just destroying our country.” Paras, 29, is an enthusiastic backer of Pahlavi. “He is the representative of the people of Iran. He wants the same thing that the Iranian people want, too. They want freedom.”
While Pahlavi seems to have a large following of Iranians inside the US, Trump and his aides have reportedly called him the “loser prince” because they don’t believe he has much support inside Iran, a country the suburban Maryland resident hasn’t visited in 50 years. At CPAC, however, Pahlavi pushed back on such criticism. “I have unified a broad coalition of dissidents, republicans, and monarchists, left and right,” he said. “Men and women of all ages, religions, and ethnicities. Even people who were former political opponents have joined the movement to free Iran under my leadership.”
One thing Pahlavi didn’t promise to deliver in Iran: immediate elections—though he has said that those will happen eventually.
“The Iran story is not yet finished,” he said, concluding his speech. “Great civilizations outlast even the most vicious occupiers. With your help and with the courage, sacrifice and heroism of Iran’s greatest youth, our best latest chapter is being written right now. When it is done, a free and democratic Iran will stand alongside the United States as a partner, ally, and a friend. President Trump is making America great again. I intend to make Iran great again.”
Facts Only
Reza Pahlavi, son of the last shah of Iran, spoke at CPAC and received strong approval from Iranian-American attendees.
Pahlavi framed Trump’s military actions in Iran as an opportunity for regime change and positioned himself as a potential leader for a post-theocratic Iran.
He stated that Iran could transition from exporting extremism to exporting engineers, startups, and energy.
Pahlavi claimed to have unified a broad coalition of Iranian dissidents, including republicans, monarchists, and former political opponents.
He did not promise immediate elections in Iran but suggested they would occur eventually.
Polls indicate most Americans oppose Trump’s war in Iran, with opposition increasing if ground troops are involved.
Some Trump supporters, including MAGA allies, feel betrayed by his engagement in foreign wars after his 2024 campaign promises.
Conservative figures like Tucker Carlson and Joe Rogan have publicly criticized Trump for breaking his anti-war campaign pledges.
At CPAC, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) argued that a ground invasion of Iran would harm the U.S. economically and create more terrorists.
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and some Democrats are pushing a war powers resolution to limit Trump’s authority in Iran.
Gas prices are rising due to Iran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz, which Trump reportedly did not anticipate.
Trump has suggested a potential partnership with Iran’s ayatollah to manage the strait, a proposal that conflicts with the goals of Iranian exiles.
Pahlavi has not visited Iran in 50 years and resides in suburban Maryland.
Trump’s team has reportedly referred to Pahlavi as the “loser prince,” doubting his support within Iran.
Many young Iranian-Americans at CPAC expressed nostalgia for pre-1979 Iran, despite the shah’s authoritarian rule.
Executive Summary
At CPAC, Reza Pahlavi, son of the last shah of Iran, received enthusiastic support from Iranian-American attendees as he framed President Trump’s military actions in Iran as an opportunity to overthrow the theocratic regime. Pahlavi positioned himself as a unifying leader for Iran’s future, promising a return to stability and prosperity, while acknowledging that his vision depends heavily on continued U.S. support. However, Trump faces growing opposition within his own party, with figures like Matt Gaetz and Thomas Massie criticizing the war’s economic and strategic costs. Some conservatives, including media personalities like Tucker Carlson, accuse Trump of betraying his campaign promise to avoid foreign wars. Meanwhile, gas prices are rising due to Iran’s disruption of the Strait of Hormuz, adding to domestic pressure. Pahlavi’s appeal to Iranian exiles contrasts with skepticism from Trump’s team, who reportedly doubt his influence inside Iran. The situation highlights tensions between regime-change advocates, fiscal conservatives, and isolationist factions within the Republican Party.
The debate reflects broader divisions over U.S. foreign policy, with Pahlavi’s supporters envisioning a restored Iran aligned with American interests, while critics warn of unintended consequences and mission creep. The outcome remains uncertain, as Trump’s shifting rhetoric—including a proposed partnership with Iran’s ayatollah—further complicates the political landscape.
Full Take
**Steelman:** The strongest version of this narrative presents a compelling case for regime change in Iran, framed as a moral and strategic imperative. Pahlavi’s speech at CPAC taps into genuine grievances of Iranian exiles, offering a vision of a secular, prosperous Iran aligned with U.S. interests. The emotional appeal—contrasting theocratic oppression with a romanticized past—resonates with audiences who see Trump’s military actions as a means to liberation. The narrative also acknowledges internal Republican divisions, lending it a degree of balance by including dissenting voices like Gaetz and Massie.
**Pattern Scan:** The article employs several rhetorical techniques that could manipulate perception. The portrayal of Pahlavi as a unifying figure leans on **ARC-0012 Hero Narrative**, where a single leader is presented as the solution to complex geopolitical problems. The romanticization of pre-1979 Iran, despite its authoritarian history, reflects **ARC-0024 Ambiguity**, glossing over inconvenient facts to sustain a nostalgic myth. The framing of Trump’s war as a binary choice—either support regime change or accept theocratic rule—hints at **ARC-0031 False Dilemma**. Additionally, the use of emotional language (“roars of approval,” “surprisingly moving”) could be seen as **ARC-0008 Emotional Exploitation**, amplifying the moral urgency of the cause.
**Root Cause:** The narrative rests on the assumption that U.S. military intervention can reliably produce democratic outcomes, a belief that has driven multiple foreign policy failures. It also assumes that Iranian exiles—many with no lived experience under the shah—can accurately represent the will of Iranians inside the country. The paradigm echoes Cold War-era regime-change rhetoric, where authoritarian allies were framed as preferable to ideological adversaries, regardless of their human rights records.
**Implications:** The push for regime change risks entangling the U.S. in another prolonged conflict, with unpredictable consequences for regional stability and domestic politics. Iranian exiles may find their hopes dashed if Pahlavi’s support proves shallow or if Trump’s attention wanes. Economically, the war’s impact on gas prices and global markets could further strain American households, fueling backlash. The narrative also raises questions about whose interests are being served—Iranian democracy or U.S. geopolitical dominance?
**Bridge Questions:**
How reliable is exile sentiment as a proxy for the views of Iranians living under the current regime?
What historical precedents suggest that U.S.-backed regime change leads to stable, democratic outcomes?
If Trump’s support for Pahlavi is contingent on short-term political gains, what happens when domestic pressure mounts to end the war?
**Counterstrike Scan:** A coordinated influence campaign pushing this narrative would likely amplify Pahlavi’s legitimacy while suppressing critiques of his father’s regime, frame opposition to the war as unpatriotic, and use emotional appeals to override strategic concerns. The actual content aligns partially with this playbook—particularly in its uncritical presentation of Pahlavi’s leadership—but includes enough dissenting voices (Gaetz, Massie, Carlson) to avoid outright propaganda. The inclusion of skepticism from Trump’s team and the acknowledgment of economic costs suggest a more nuanced report rather than a pure influence operation.
**Patterns detected:** ARC-0012 Hero Narrative, ARC-0024 Ambiguity, ARC-0031 False Dilemma, ARC-0008 Emotional Exploitation
Sentinel — Human
The article shows signs of human authorship, with varied sentence length, passionate and idiosyncratic emphasis, personal voice, unique authorial voice and perspective, emotional engagement, personal anecdotes, and vivid descriptions.