One may ask why, in the modern world of the 21st century, many Iranians seek the return of a monarchy, specifically a constitutional monarchy. This is a complex subject that could fill many books, but a few key points help clarify its meaning. For a historic nation like Iran, whose identity is deeply rooted in its history and culture, any form of governance that distances itself from these two elements risks losing its legitimacy. In fact, for a country that existed as a nation before becoming a modern state, culture has always been the primary force binding together diverse groups across differences of religion, language, ethnicity, and background. It is difficult to imagine what would remain of Iran if history and culture were stripped away. Whether for better or worse, Iranians rely on these two pillars more than anything else. After more than 45 years of living under a communist–Islamist authoritarian regime, many Iranians have reached the conclusion, often at a subconscious level, that these imported ideologies are fundamentally incompatible with Iran’s social fabric. During this period, Iranians have tried different routes and none have succeeded in delivering freedom, stability, or prosperity. The reason the term communist–Islamist is used is to emphasize the ideological reality of the 1979 revolution itself. The revolution was not driven solely by religious forces; it was largely shaped and mobilized by communist and leftist groups that lacked mass legitimacy on their own. These groups placed the clerical establishment at the forefront in order to exploit the religious authority of the mullahs and use it as a tool to mobilize the population. Many of the dominant slogans and policies that emerged after the revolution such as hostility toward the United States, opposition to capitalism, and aggressive anti-Israel rhetoric originated primarily from communist and radical leftist ideology rather than from traditional Shiʿa religious doctrine. Historically, the clergy had neither the theological inclination nor the political tradition to pursue such positions in this form. As a result, the country came to be governed not by a purely religious worldview, but by a hybrid system in which islamic ideology operated through a communist structure. In this critical situation, it is therefore significant that many Iranians are now calling on the king to help them. This call is not driven by ignorance or blind nostalgia, but by lived experience and the exhaustion of all other options. Over decades, Iranians have tested every alternative and found them wanting. Beyond memories of the Pahlavi era and its reputation, many Iranians understand that it is not merely an individual but the institution of monarchy itself that represents continuity, stability, and the protection of Iranian values. For many, the monarchy within a constitutional framework is seen as the only remaining institution capable of safeguarding Iran’s historical identity and cultural foundations, while also offering a realistic path toward social stability and economic recovery. Calling on the king today is not about returning to the past; it is about preserving identity and rescuing the future after all other paths have failed.