The anti-government protests that erupted in Iran 10 days ago seem to be gaining momentum. Turmoil has swept the cities. Mashhad, Tabriz, Isfahan, Shiraz, and the capital, Tehran, have been rocked by large crowds shouting, “Death to the dictator!” “Neither Gaza nor Lebanon, my life for Iran!”, a condemnation of the ruling Islamists’ imperial policy in the region. Defying a violent crackdown, demonstrators have set up barricades on streets and set fire to police cars and government buildings.

There is no question that the clerical despotism’s legitimacy is in tatters. This is the fifth display of mass opposition in six years. But the very fact this has happened so many times previously should caution against optimism that this is the end of the Islamic Republic, notwithstanding many Iranians reporting that this time feels different.

Rumours that Ali Khamenei is looking to flee are almost certainly false. The Supreme Leader is no Shah: the monarch fled the country 47 years ago this month rather than spill blood to cling to power. Khamenei has engaged in unspeakable brutality to secure the regime many times, and there is no sign yet that the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution have lost faith in their mission to defend “God’s Shadow on Earth”, nor been deprived of their ability to do so.

The current protests might yet prove to be a watershed, though, in consolidating Khamenei’s enemies around an alternative. The Western media barely covered Iran’s protests until 8 January, and its excuses about not having journalists in-country are laughable. What made the uprising impossible to ignore after Thursday was the scale of its escalation, caused by a call from the exiled Crown Prince, Reza Pahlavi.

It was a risk by Pahlavi: if his call had fallen flat, he might have been fatally discredited. Instead, despite the regime cutting off the internet, there are videos all over social media of Iranians braving gunfire to chant, “This is the last battle. Pahlavi will return!” and “Javid Shah!” (“Long Live the King!”).

Maybe this is a skilfully curated influence campaign by Iranian monarchists. Even if not, political activists are by definition a motivated minority. Although Iranian public opinion is difficult to measure, it seems implausible that four decades of Islamic Republic rule have erased a 2,500-year tradition in which the Shahanshah — the “King of Kings” — embodied the state ruling by virtue of farr, or divine sanction. As an Iranian within the government told The Wall Street Journal, outright and unprompted, “he wanted his King back”, and two more officials echoed the sentiment.

Monarchism per se might not be the whole story behind Pahlavi being the single most popular opposition figure. Many associate his name with an era of Iranian openness, prosperity, and international stature, and with the promise of secularism and patriotism — the antithesis of today’s isolation, deprivation, and theocratic misery. Others regard Pahlavi simply as the only viable alternative, but the distinction scarcely matters. Something is always preferable to nothing, and for now Pahlavi appears to be the most plausible replacement for the Islamic Republic.