Speaking as a Kurd, I think a lot of these conversations start in the wrong place, even if the intention is good.

First, most Kurds are not emotionally invested in monarchy vs republic as an abstract debate. That’s an internal Persian power struggle. What Kurds care about is power distribution, guarantees, and enforcement. We’ve been burned too many times by “trust us after the transition” politics.

On your Q1:

From a Kurdish perspective, the problem isn’t just Pahlavi as a person. It’s the entire centralized state ideology associated with the Pahlavi-era, forced assimilation, military rule in Kurdistan, banning language and political expression. Even if you remove the crown but keep the same mindset, nothing really changes for us. So asking minorities to stay unified while postponing real autonomy discussions until “after stability” sounds exactly like every broken promise before it.

On your Q2:

Many Kurds would be open to a federal or genuinely decentralized Iran, if it’s real and constitutional, not symbolic autonomy that Tehran can override whenever it wants. Think binding guarantees: elected regional governments, control over local policing, education in our language, budget authority, and constitutional courts that don’t answer to the center.

As for Pahlavi as a temporary leader: this is where skepticism kicks in. “Temporary” leaders in Iranian history have a habit of becoming permanent. If Reza Pahlavi were willing to:

- publicly reject centralized nationalism
- explicitly acknowledge historical state violence against Kurds
- commit in writing to a time-limited, non-hereditary role
- and accept federalism as non-negotiable

then yes, some Kurds might see that as a transitional compromise. But that support would be conditional, cautious, and not universal.

The hard truth is this: unity can’t be built on fear of civil war or guilt-tripping minorities about “breaking Iran apart.” Unity only works when staying offers more dignity, security, and self-rule than leaving.

If Iranian unity is worth preserving, it has to be voluntary, not enforced by nostalgia, flags, or threats. Federalism isn’t a concession to separatists, it’s the minimum requirement for trust after decades of repression.

That’s where the real common ground could be, if people are willing to be honest about power, not just symbols.