Farzan Seyedi and moderator Marjan Keypour Greenblatt used the IAC Summit to argue that Reza Pahlavi has a central role in Iran's opposition, while emphasizing that a transitional government should ultimately return the constitutional choice to the Iranian people.
Few questions in Iranian opposition politics are more consequential than leadership. At the January 2026 Israeli-American Council National Summit, Reza Pahlavi's name appeared repeatedly in a panel that otherwise ranged across military strategy, U.S. sanctions, Israeli security, public opinion, media narratives, and the future structure of the Iranian state.
Farzan Seyedi, introduced as a political member of the Iran Novin Party and a supporter of Pahlavi, argued that the Crown Prince's significance should be understood in practical as well as symbolic terms. Seyedi pointed to transition planning and the Iran Prosperity Project as evidence that Pahlavi's network was attempting to prepare for governance questions that would arise if the Islamic Republic lost power. He emphasized continuity of essential state functions and argued that Iran did not have to experience a vacuum.
At the same time, Seyedi explicitly separated Pahlavi's role in a transition from the question of Iran's final constitutional system. He said Iranians should ultimately choose the form of government they want and mentioned possibilities ranging from constitutional monarchy to republican or other democratic arrangements. That formulation reflects a central argument made by Pahlavi supporters: backing him as a transitional national figure does not necessarily require prejudging the outcome of a future referendum or constitutional process.
The panel also demonstrated the intensity of support for Pahlavi among many participants in the Iranian opposition diaspora. During the question-and-answer portion, an audience member asked Rep. Rich McCormick why members of Congress were often seen with other Iranian opposition figures while interactions with Pahlavi appeared less frequent. McCormick did not offer a detailed institutional explanation, but he responded by warning generally about political actors and organizations he considered hostile to Israel and the United States.
Near the end of the session, Greenblatt made the panel's most direct statement on the leadership issue. She told the audience that supporting Iranians required listening to whom Iranians themselves were identifying as their leader and named Reza Pahlavi. That statement reflected the position of the moderator and the political atmosphere of the session. It should not be treated as a substitute for nationwide polling inside Iran, which remains difficult under conditions of censorship and repression, but it is a clear record of the political orientation of a prominent diaspora gathering.
Seyedi's own closing message reinforced that orientation. Standing with an Iranian flag connected to protest activity, he called for a future Iran aligned with America and Israel and concluded with support for Reza Pahlavi. The moment captured the convergence of nationalism, opposition politics, and diaspora solidarity that ran through the session.
The unresolved question for Iran's opposition is how to turn symbolic leadership into an inclusive transition capable of handling institutions, security, economic stabilization, minority rights, transitional justice, and political competition. Seyedi's answer at the IAC Summit was that planning for those questions is already underway and that democratic legitimacy should ultimately come from the Iranian people themselves.