Dictators, in their final throes, invariably attempt to mask their shattered aura of invincibility with hollow claims and posturing. In previous decades, such theatrical displays might have temporarily emboldened the regime’s loyalists. Yet in today’s era of hyper-connectivity, these maneuvers quickly become fodder for public ridicule.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the case of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, whose authority has weakened following major strategic setbacks in Lebanon and the collapse of the Bashar al-Assad government in Syria. In the face of unprecedented dissent from within his own circle, Khamenei strives to project confidence—yet the cracks in his regime are increasingly difficult to hide.

One day, Khamenei warns, “Be certain that if you persist with this course, you will lose power.” Another day, he proclaims, “Bashar al-Assad’s fall is not only pivotal for Syria but will reverberate across the Middle East. Nowhere will the consequences be felt more acutely than in Iran, marking a strategic and military blow.” A third voice from within his ranks laments, “Why couldn’t we, with 100,000 troops and billions spent, prevent Assad’s downfall? What became of ‘defending the shrines’? Was all that bloodshed in vain?” Meanwhile, a member of Qom’s Seminary Teachers’ Assembly has demanded accountability: “The regime has committed grave errors and must apologize to the people—no more cover-ups.”

These performances mirror the Shah’s last-ditch displays of legitimacy before his 1979 overthrow. Ten months prior to his downfall, state media boasted of a “400,000-strong rally of ‘the masses’” in Tabriz. But much like then, a chorus of dissidents compares the two regimes’ “death rattles,” noting how many elites are discreetly transferring assets abroad anticipating a collapse.

Today, Khamenei’s shaky “Velayat-e Faqih” is further exposed by online revelations of corruption and the defection of key figures. In a recent speech, he expressed alarm at “soft threats: manipulating public opinion, sowing doubt in the regime’s unshakable principles.” Yet for many Iranians, especially those who recall the chants of “The Shah’s tyranny is doomed” decades ago, these principles have never been beyond question. As one defected IRGC commander recently admitted, referring to the failures in Syria, “We were hit hard, defeated—utterly crushed. The loss was devastating.”

The parallels to the Shah’s downfall are haunting. Propaganda-laden spectacles and official rallies may obscure the truth for a while, but they cannot reverse the tide of skepticism and anger that grows when a regime’s authority is visibly fractured. In 1979, the Shah’s final attempts to muster public support ultimately failed amid widespread unrest and a sagging economy. Today, a similar combination of public discontent, economic hardship, and mounting calls for accountability from within the establishment suggests that Khamenei’s bluster may be wearing thin.

Crucially, however, Khamenei’s regime will not simply topple under its own weight. Coordinated resistance units on the ground have been key to accelerating the regime’s decline. In stark contrast to the decades-long grip of dictatorship—spanning from Reza Shah Pahlavi to Ali Khamenei—this opposition movement presents an alternative rooted in pluralism, civil liberties, and the sovereignty of the Iranian people.

Whether the Supreme Leader can maintain his grip on power remains to be seen. Historically, autocracies can linger if they retain sufficient means of repression. However, in an age when even the regime’s own officials question its actions, and where technology exposes corruption and abuses to the public, Khamenei’s claims of enduring popularity ring increasingly hollow.

Just as the Shah’s displays could not save him when the people recognized his vulnerability, Khamenei’s orchestrated rallies and stern warnings will not indefinitely shield him from the consequences of strategic failures, domestic discontent, and the accelerating pressure applied by organized resistance. From Qom’s clerical halls to the ranks of the Revolutionary Guard, there is now open talk of errors, apologies, and a collapsing order. If history is any guide, hollow shows of force cannot forever suppress the truth—or quell the will of a nation that has seen the power of collective dissent.

This time, what began as isolated rumblings in the provinces could be the spark that ignites a new era—an era in which Iranians refuse to compromise on the promises of democracy, freedom of assembly, and religion, accepting only a system that delivers these fundamental rights.