From the final months of 2025 through the months following the outbreak of war in 2026, Iran went through one of the most costly and bitter political and military periods in its recent history—a period marked by widespread protests, repression, external threats, and, ultimately, military attacks by the United States and Israel.
Among all the names repeatedly heard during those months, four figures featured more prominently than others in narratives about Iran’s future: Ali Khamenei, Donald Trump, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Reza Pahlavi.
But one point must be clear from the outset: these four men cannot be placed on the same footing in terms of power, position, and responsibility.
Khamenei was the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic and the holder of governing power inside Iran. Trump was the President of the United States and Commander in Chief of its armed forces. Netanyahu was the Prime Minister of Israel and responsible for the political decisions of his government. Reza Pahlavi, by contrast, was an opposition political figure outside Iran who was proposing a role for himself in Iran’s political future and transition.
Therefore, if we are going to discuss the responsibility of each of them, the proper standard must be their actual position, practical power, specific decisions, and documented statements.
That is where the central question of this article begins:
When everyone speaks of “the Iranian people,” are the people truly the ones making the decisions, or can their name and suffering sometimes become tools for advancing the aims of others?
Ali Khamenei: The Responsibility of Power That Stood Against the People
Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic, stood at the head of Iran’s political and security structure for years.
During the nationwide protests that began on December 28, 2025, reports emerged of protesters being killed, mass arrests, torture, and disappearances. In January 2026, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights said it had received information concerning serious human-rights violations during the protests, including arbitrary detention, enforced disappearance, and torture.
In September 2026, the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission said there were reasonable grounds to believe that Iranian authorities’ crackdown on the protests—including unlawful killings, torture, and arbitrary detention—may have involved crimes against humanity.
Therefore, criticism of Khamenei is not simply criticism of one individual. It concerns the responsibility of the head of a governing structure for the conduct of that structure toward its citizens.
But February 28, 2026, marked another turning point.
The United States and Israel launched extensive attacks against Iran, and Khamenei was killed during those attacks. Reuters reported that the joint U.S.-Israeli attack resulted in the deaths of Khamenei and a number of senior Iranian military and government officials.
Yet the death of a leader does not necessarily mean the end of the structure that he spent years at the head of.
Iran’s problem is not simply the person of the Supreme Leader; it is the structure of power and the people’s right to determine their own future.
Donald Trump: From Supporting Protesters to the Decision for War
During the protests, Donald Trump expressed support for Iranian protesters and threatened action against the Islamic Republic.
In January 2026, he made several statements about the protests and the executions of protesters. Some of his claims concerning a halt to executions were not fully confirmed by independent sources at the time. Reuters reported on January 16 that Trump said Iranian authorities had halted mass executions, but Iran had not confirmed the claim.
After that, the situation moved from political pressure to military action.
On February 28, 2026, the United States and Israel launched extensive attacks against Iran. Trump said the objectives of the operation included confronting what he regarded as immediate threats from Iran and the risk of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.
Khamenei was killed in the same operation.
Trump’s responsibility, therefore, must also be defined precisely.
He was not responsible for the Islamic Republic’s domestic repression. But as President of the United States, he bore political responsibility for the military decisions and actions of the U.S. government.
These two responsibilities should not be conflated.
If the Iranian government suppressed its own citizens, responsibility for that rests with Iran’s governing structure.
But if U.S. military operations harmed civilians, that issue must also be examined independently and separately.
In September 2026, the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission said there were reasonable grounds to believe that the U.S. attack on Shajareh Tayebeh Elementary School in Minab may have constituted a war crime. The mission said that more than 150 people, including 120 children, were killed in the attack.
Regardless of political disagreements over the war, this report underscores a simple but critically important principle:
One side’s violation of people’s rights cannot be justified by pointing to violations committed by the other side.
Benjamin Netanyahu: Responsible for Israel’s Decisions, Not Tehran’s
Benjamin Netanyahu should be examined by the same standard.
He was the Prime Minister of Israel, and Israel participated in the February 2026 attacks against Iran.
In the first hours of the attack, Netanyahu said Israel had targeted facilities and senior officials of the Islamic Republic. He also verbally attacked Khamenei in connection with the repression of the Iranian people, terrorism, and Iran’s nuclear program.
But his responsibility must be clearly and narrowly defined.
Netanyahu was not responsible for the Islamic Republic’s domestic repression. But as Prime Minister, he bore political responsibility for the decisions and operations of the Israeli government and military.
That distinction matters.
A child killed during a military attack is not responsible for the Islamic Republic’s nuclear policy.
An Iranian citizen is not responsible for the decisions of the government in Tehran.
And opposing the Islamic Republic does not mean that an Iranian should be expected to accept the consequences of every foreign military operation.
At the same time, opposition to the Islamic Republic does not mean that every U.S. or Israeli military action can be justified in the name of saving the Iranian people.
Israel’s security is one issue; the lives and rights of Iranian citizens are another.
Reza Pahlavi: Where Political Promises Meet Human Responsibility
Reza Pahlavi, the son of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Iran’s last shah, sought to play a prominent role in Iran’s political future during the January 2026 protests.
He supported the continuation of the protests and increased international pressure on the Islamic Republic.
In a January 12, 2026, interview with CBS, he called on Donald Trump to act sooner and said that, in his view, faster intervention could lead to the collapse of the government and reduce the number of deaths.
But four days later, on January 16, other remarks by Pahlavi emerged that were particularly significant.
Pahlavi said that, according to him, elements of Iran’s armed forces and security forces had refused to participate in killing civilians and had secretly pledged their allegiance to him. He also said that tens of thousands of people had expressed their readiness to break away from the government and join him.
This was a claim made by Reza Pahlavi—not a fact that could be treated as established without independent verification.
Reuters also reported at the time that the extent of Pahlavi’s direct influence and the level of his actual support inside Iran were difficult to independently verify.
This raises a fundamental question:
If tens of thousands of military and security personnel were truly prepared to break with the government and join his movement, the Iranian people had a right to know how many there were, what connections existed among them, and how real and reliable that coordination actually was.
And if the extent of that support was smaller than what had been publicly suggested, the Iranian people likewise had a right to know.
The issue here is not merely political disagreement; it is a matter of trust.
When people inside Iran risk their lives by taking to the streets, information about the extent of military or security support for a political movement can affect their decision to remain in the streets or withdraw.
Political statements about such a potential base of support therefore carry a heavy responsibility.
“This Is a War, and War Has Casualties”
During the same period, a CBS reporter asked Reza Pahlavi about his responsibility for the lives of protesters whose presence in the streets he had supported.
Pahlavi responded:
«“This is a war, and war has casualties.”»
He went on to say that his goal was to reduce casualties and prevent innocent people from being killed, and that he was willing to put his own life at risk for Iran’s freedom.
But that answer still leaves a fundamental question:
If the people who have taken to the streets are unarmed, whom exactly are they at war with?
And more importantly:
When a political figure outside the country calls on people inside Iran to continue their struggle, is his responsibility limited to making that call?
Or should he also speak openly about the dangers ahead, the actual capacity for support, the degree of coordination among military and security forces, and even the possibility of failure?
Of course, Reza Pahlavi’s responsibility is not the same as Khamenei’s.
Khamenei stood at the head of the Islamic Republic’s government and power structure. Pahlavi did not possess that kind of governmental power or military command inside Iran.
But the absence of governmental power does not mean the absence of political responsibility.
His responsibility is of a different kind: responsibility for his own statements, calls, promises, and claims.
Four Men, Four Different Forms of Responsibility
The responsibilities of these four men should not be treated as identical.
Khamenei stood at the head of the Islamic Republic’s governing structure and bore political responsibility for the conduct of that structure, including its repression of citizens.
Trump, as President of the United States, bore political responsibility for the decisions and operations of the U.S. government and armed forces.
Netanyahu, as Prime Minister of Israel, bore political responsibility for the decisions and operations of the Israeli government and armed forces.
Reza Pahlavi did not possess governmental power or military command inside Iran, but as an opposition political figure, he bore political and moral responsibility for his own statements, calls, promises, and claims.
This distinction is critically important.
A head of government cannot be placed on the same level of executive power as an opposition figure living outside the country.
But, at the same time, a political figure cannot be exempt from accountability for his statements and their potential impact on people simply because he does not hold governmental power.
Who Was the Victim?
Throughout all these narratives, one group must not be forgotten:
The people of Iran.
For the government, a protester may be portrayed as an “enemy.”
For a foreign power, the people may be presented as symbols of “freedom.”
For an opposition movement, the people may be described as the “force of the revolution.”
But to themselves, they are human beings—with families, lives, fears, hopes, and futures.
People who take to the streets have the right to know what dangers await them.
People who place their hopes in foreign support have the right to know the limitations and costs of that support.
And people who trust the promises of a political figure have the right to know what reality lies behind those promises.
The people should not be seen only when they are needed to legitimize a political power.
Iran After All This
Even if the Islamic Republic falls, Iran’s questions will not end.
Who will form the next government?
How will the future constitution be written?
Will Iran become a republic or a monarchy?
What guarantees will exist for the rights of women, ethnic groups, languages, religious communities, and political opponents?
And, most importantly:
Who will make these decisions?
No foreign government and no political figure should answer these questions on behalf of the Iranian people.
Iran’s future should be shaped by the genuine will and participation of Iranians—not by the barrel of a gun, not by airstrikes, and not simply by the promises of one individual.
Final Word
Iran’s problem is not simply about one person leaving and another taking his place.
The fundamental issue is whether political power will ultimately be accountable to the people.
Khamenei stood at the head of a structure that confronted the people with repression, and the United Nations has raised serious findings concerning that structure’s conduct during the 2025 and 2026 crackdown on the protests.
Trump and Netanyahu, as leaders of foreign governments, bore political responsibility for the military decisions of their respective countries—decisions that launched a large-scale war on February 28, 2026.
And Reza Pahlavi, despite having no governmental power inside Iran, bears political and moral responsibility for his statements, calls, and claims—particularly when he speaks about the extent of support for him among Iran’s armed forces and security forces, at a time when the level of that support has not been independently verifiable.
In the end, the issue may be summed up in a single sentence:
The Iranian people must never become a means for anyone to seize power; they must be the ones who decide Iran’s future.
