A Critique of the Positions of Some “Left” Groups and Organizations Regarding the NATO and Israeli Attack on Our Homeland, Iran

“10 Mehr” Group, July 16, 2025 — 

At a time when Iranian officials, hoping to open a window for easing the pressure, were sitting at the negotiating table with representatives of the U.S. government, Iran’s skies were violated by the enemy. The aggressor and racist Israeli state, with the green light and direct cooperation of the United States and its NATO allies, launched a surprise attack on our country. Simultaneously, mercenary agents linked to Mossad and Western intelligence agencies assassinated several senior military commanders and nuclear scientists of the country. A few days later, the United States, by bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities, openly revealed its previously covert partnership with Israel in the aggression against Iran—a partnership that blatantly violated all international norms.

In the face of this combined aggression, the people of Iran, despite all ideological and political differences, rose up. The heroic defense by the armed forces, the overt support of the masses for national resistance, and an unusual yet meaningful unity across social sectors reversed the tide, contrary to the enemies’ expectations. Only a handful of discredited and mercenary groups—monarchists, the Mojahedin (MEK), and other direct affiliates of imperialism—welcomed these attacks. But perhaps more important was the confusion and contradictory reaction of many “leftist” forces who had lost their compass. Believing this war to be the beginning of the downfall of the Islamic Republic, they suddenly found themselves facing a national uproar and unified public support for defending the country. This undeniable reality forced them—albeit reluctantly and through ambiguous language—to condemn this criminal and illegal aggression.

This writing is an attempt to more precisely examine the positions of some “left” forces regarding the recent twelve-day war and to critique those who—wittingly or unwittingly—have, at this critical moment threatening our nation’s existence, distanced themselves from the trenches of independence and resistance. We hope this critique will be a starting point for their reconsideration and return to the historical traditions of Iran’s revolutionary left—a tradition that has always regarded the defense of the homeland, the people, and social justice against global imperialism as its primary duty.

The Positions of Some Leftist “Regime-Change” Groups

In the midst of an unequal war initiated by Israel’s blatant aggression with direct U.S. support against Iran, a statement was issued by the “Coordination Council of Left and Communist Forces” that clearly showed part of the Iranian left still has not been able to redefine its historical, political, and moral position in the face of war and imperialist aggression, and the necessity of defending national independence. This “Council,” which includes organizations and parties such as the Worker-Communist Unity Party, the Communist Party of Iran, the Worker-Communist Party of Iran—Hekmatist, Rahe Kargar Organization, the Organization of Fadaiyan (Minority), and the Minority Core, wrote in a statement titled “Against the Reactionary War of Israel and the Islamic Regime”:

Israel’s attack on Friday surprised the Islamic regime, which was preparing to participate in the sixth round of negotiations with the U.S. in Muscat on Sunday. The regime’s baseless nuclear deterrence strategy—which had cost hundreds of billions of dollars and brought economic misery to tens of millions of Iranians—collapsed…. As was previously evident, and as was once again proven yesterday when Israel began its attack, the majority of Iranians will not stand by the Islamic regime in any war…. Social and class movements in Iran, alongside leftist and communist forces and progressive institutions, will together find their path to continue the struggle against the entirety of the Islamic regime, against Israel, and against its monarchist allies. (emphases added)

The first notable point in this position is the complete lack of any concrete understanding of the primary contradiction at this moment—namely, the contradiction between a nation under attack and an imperialist-Zionist aggressor bloc. This statement, by equating the “Islamic regime” and Israel in the war, not only ignores the qualitative difference between a state resisting aggression and a colonial-aggressor regime, but also effectively shirks the duty of defending national independence—a duty incumbent upon every progressive force. The stance may appear “neutral” or “opposed to war on both sides,” but in practice it represents a retreat from revolutionary ideology and an indifference toward the victims of imperialist aggression.

This line of thinking is not unrelated to the political and ideological background of some of these organizations. Similar approaches were evident in the analyses of organizations such as Peykar for the Liberation of the Working Class in the 1980s regarding the Iran-Iraq War. At that time, when Saddam Hussein’s army invaded Iran with full support from Western imperialism and Arab reactionaries, some “leftist” forces, ignoring the reality of foreign aggression, portrayed the war merely as “a product of the interests of two reactionary regimes,” and refrained from taking any active stance in defense of their country and people. Following the start of Iraq’s attack on Iran on September 22, 1980, Peykar, in issue 75 dated October 7, 1980, declared the following stance regarding the imposed war:

The reactionary Iran-Iraq war and the growing clarity of the goals pursued by both sides further confirm the legitimacy of the position taken by forces that have condemned and boycotted this war. The continuation of fratricide, the nationalist (bourgeois-nationalist) propaganda of both sides, the aggressive goals each side pursues toward the other (one openly declaring territorial claims, the other exporting the Islamic revolution or strengthening its own reactionary factions)… efforts to mobilize the unaware masses behind themselves, the groundwork for future repression through the strengthening of the repressive apparatus (the army), etc., all point to the nature of this war and to the policies pursued by the reactionary ruling classes in both Iranian and Iraqi society….

Today, we are witnessing the same flawed and superficial logic repeated in the statement of the “Coordination Council of Left and Communist Forces.” These organizations, which call themselves “progressive” and “aligned with social movements,” instead of offering unconditional defense of Iran’s independence and territorial integrity in the face of imperialism at this critical historical moment, continue to emphasize regime change. Clearly, opposition to the ruling system—especially when it ignores the real threat of foreign aggression—is not progressive in nature, and in practice serves the interests of imperialist and reactionary forces.

Ultimately, what is missing from these positions is a historical-materialist understanding of the objective causes of this war within the framework of global contradictions. Groups that sometimes operate under the banner of councilism and at other times rely on ultra-leftist rationales or pseudo-Marxist theories like the “imperialist pyramid” to avoid recognizing the principal contradiction in a given situation not only err in their analysis but also deviate in political practice.

The Position of Western-Oriented Social Democrats

Mr. Farrokh Negahdar, a former revolutionary socialist and currently an exiled political and civil activist, introduces himself in a letter addressed to Donald Trump as follows:

I am an exiled Iranian citizen who has endured decades of harassment and persecution by the Islamic Republic. Throughout these years, I have tirelessly pursued two goals: holding free elections in Iran and establishing diplomatic relations between Iran and the United States of America. (emphasis added)

This personal introduction is a clear example of the approach taken by the entire spectrum of social democratic currents inclined toward the West—currents that are unable to comprehend that genuine democracy is fundamentally at odds with the interests of imperialism and cannot be achieved without a struggle against it.

It is precisely within the framework of these two stated goals that Mr. Negahdar, in an article titled “National Solidarity, the Response to the Aggression of Israeli Warmongers”, published in the June 12, 2025 (Khordad 23, 1404) issue of Kar newspaper, writes:

The scale of this aggression shows that in terms of military power, intelligence, and control over the battlefield, the Islamic Republic does not hold superiority. While affirming Iran’s legitimate right to retaliate, the scale of these attacks and the resulting damage demonstrate that the country’s defensive and deterrent capabilities are insufficient to shift the situation in our favor. (emphasis added)

And based on such an analysis of Iran’s defensive posture—and by downplaying Iran’s military achievements in this war—he offers the following strategic proposal, which reflects the wishful thinking of all Western-oriented elites inside the country and social democrats abroad:

The Islamic Republic’s strategy in recent decades to militarily compete with the Israeli government and its main ally [they don’t even mention the name ‘United States’!] has failed. Military confrontation is beyond the country’s capability. Iran should adopt a policy toward Israel aligned with Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and other Arab states. (emphasis added)

This call for alignment with governments like Turkey and Saudi Arabia against Israel—instead of with true allies such as China and Russia—warrants reflection, given its ignorance of or willingness to overlook the real policies and “alliances” of these states. Turkey has played a direct or indirect role in the attempt to topple the Assad government and has had strained relations with Palestinian resistance and Hezbollah. Saudi Arabia has engaged in extensive intelligence and security cooperation with Israel against resistance movements in Palestine, Lebanon, and Syria. The economic and oil policies these states have pursued in coordination with the Zionist regime all indicate that alignment with these regional players in no way serves the interests of the Iranian people or the broader resistance to U.S. and Israeli aggression.

Thus, the approach presented here—backed by a Western-oriented social democratic perspective on war and regional politics—not only lacks a realistic understanding of regional developments, but also, through a kind of self-deprecation and misjudgment of national capabilities, proposes strategies that could actually threaten Iran’s territorial integrity and reinforce the dominance of imperialism and regional reaction. These positions ultimately reflect a crisis of identity and strategic confusion within a segment of the Iranian “left” which, by removing the concept of imperialism from its analysis and reducing the struggle to a narrow focus on democratization, has found itself teetering on the edge of political irrelevance, viewing a return to the embrace of imperialism as its only path forward.

Although the views of Farrokh Negahdar and the broader Western-oriented social democratic current may stem from genuine concerns for democracy and human rights from an individual or group perspective, they reveal a fundamental lack of strategic and historical understanding in the context of a national crisis and full-scale war against Iran. At a time when the country requires unity, national solidarity, and firm defense of its independence and territorial integrity, such approaches can fuel internal disintegration and inadvertently support imperialist aggression. Leftist forces—especially those who consider themselves advocates of democracy—must, if they truly seek genuine democracy, prioritize the defense of the homeland’s independence and territorial integrity in the face of imperialism. For no democratic achievement is possible without national security and independence.

The Position of Nameh Mardom (The Tudeh Party)

If the previously mentioned positions were at least explicit and clear—so that readers could know where they stand—Nameh Mardom, as always, cloaks its real stance behind misleading rhetoric and carefully selected facts. Through this method, it says one thing on the surface while meaning something else entirely—in appearance it signals left, but in practice it turns right.

Following the joint NATO–Israeli attack on Iran, Nameh-ye Mardom published a “statement” from the “Central Committee” on June 12, 2025 (Khordad 23, 1404), under the eye-catching headline: “The Tudeh Party of Iran Strongly Condemns the Criminal and Terrorist Attack by the Israeli Government on Iran.” Naturally, one would expect this headline to signal a bold and comprehensive analysis and stance against imperialism and Zionism within the body of the statement. However, upon reading the statement, it becomes clear that its real aim was not such a denunciation. Once again, as in the past, the reader is faced with deliberately vague and ambiguous language that undermines the headline’s claim and in practice leads to conclusions that contradict its stated intent.

To begin with, nowhere in the entire text of the statement is Zionism or its criminal projects mentioned even once. And where imperialism is mentioned, it is merely to warn the Islamic Republic against “moving toward military confrontation with imperialism and Israel.” In other words, the main threat of war, according to the statement, is the Islamic Republic and its policies—not imperialism or Zionism. Let us have a look at key excerpts from the statement:

Israel’s attack on Iran comes at a time when “the IAEA Board of Governors”… in a resolution against the Islamic Republic, stated among other things: “Iran’s numerous failures since 2019 to meet its obligations… constitute noncompliance with its safeguards agreement with the IAEA.” It is worth noting that some of the issues raised in the resolution had already been addressed during the JCPOA agreement….”

Ali Khamenei, in a statement issued after the attacks, declared: “… the Zionist regime … must await a harsh punishment. The powerful hand of Iran’s armed forces will not let them escape….”

Masoud Pezeshkian, reacting to the Board of Governors’ resolution, emphasized… “We will follow our path and continue enrichment.”

With… the threat of retaliation by the Islamic Republic—which Ali Khamenei has promised— … today the national interests of our homeland face grave dangers. Dragging Iran into destructive large-scale military conflicts… could… set back the struggle for freedom and liberation from dictatorship by years….”

Only imperialism, its dependent reactionary forces, and the ruling despotism benefit from tension and war….

The Tudeh Party of Iran believes that only through establishing and defending peace can we bring an end to the current dangerous crisis in the Middle East.”

(All emphases are ours)

Let us now examine how this statement frames the war narrative, and to what desired conclusions this intentional framing leads.

From the outset, the statement avoids condemning the manipulative behavior of the IAEA under U.S. orders. Instead, by noting that only “some” of Iran’s “numerous failures” were addressed during the JCPOA, it subtly implies that Iran’s continued “violations” are to blame for the escalation of tensions—even letting the IAEA off the hook. Then, to “prove” the obstinance of Iran’s leaders, the words of Mr. Khamenei and Dr. Pezeshkian—spoken in defense of Iran’s legitimate rights—are enlisted to imply that the real cause of rising tensions is not the U.S., not Israel, nor even the IAEA, but the Islamic Republic itself.

It is on the basis of this initial framing that the subsequent “loaded” arguments of the statement are constructed. First, Iran’s response to the Israeli aggression is labeled as “retaliation in kind,” and then it is suggested that Iran should refrain from defending itself, because such “retaliation in kind” not only endangers “our homeland’s national interests,” but also triggers “destructive, large-scale military conflicts”—as if there had been no such conflicts so far in the region: not in Gaza, not in Lebanon, not in Yemen, not in Syria, and now not even in Iran! And it is Iran that though its act of self-defense is pushing the region toward war. The real message: surrender, so that Pax Americana can be preserved. (Mr. Farrokh Negahdar at least deserves credit for stating this position more honestly.)

But the true nature of this abstract “peace advocacy” becomes even clearer when we read the following line from the statement: “Destructive large-scale military conflicts … could … set back the struggle for freedom and liberation from dictatorship by years.” In other words, the problem with “military conflict” is not that it could kill millions of people and make life impossible across the region. The problem is that “military conflict” could set back the American–Israeli project of regime change in Iran and thus damage the long-held aspirations of the statement’s authors for “liberation from dictatorship.”

Finally, we reach Nameh Mardom’s usual pacifist and neutral-sounding conclusion: “Only through establishing and defending peace can we bring an end to the current dangerous crisis in the Middle East.” Translation: If Iran stops defending itself, peace will prevail; with peace, the fall of the Islamic Republic will accelerate; and with the fall of the Islamic Republic—and possibly the fragmentation of Iran—the “dangerous crisis in the Middle East” will be resolved!

Could there be a clearer way of siding with the U.S. and Israel against Iran? Given this analysis, wouldn’t it be more accurate for the statement’s headline to read: “The Tudeh Party of Iran Welcomes the U.S. and Israeli Attack on Iran for Regime Change and Fragmentation of the Country” so that the real intent of the statement’s authors is more faithfully reflected?

Similar misleading positions can also be observed in subsequent materials published in Nameh Mardom. In issue No. 1237 of this publication—the central organ of the Tudeh Party of Iran—two pieces were released concerning the war between Iran and Israel: one was a statement by the Central Committee titled “Resolution of the Emergency Meeting of the Central Committee of the Tudeh Party of Iran: On the Situation in the Country After the Criminal Assault by the Israeli Government and the Attack of U.S. Imperialism”; the other was an Editorial titled “The Future the People of Iran Want Is Different from What Khamenei, Trump, and Netanyahu Want.”

Although there are differences in tone and emphasis between the two texts, both ultimately serve a unified discursive strategy: to portray a concrete, global war as a mere local conflict between two reactionary states, while simultaneously attempting to preserve a moral and abstractly pacifist posture—without offering any clear acknowledgment of the war’s geopolitical and historical implications or its place within the broader imperialist order.

The Statement presents a reductive account of the recent war, framing it as a simple two-sided clash between “two reactionary governments,” completely detaching it from the broader context of imperialist contradictions. Within this framing, the extensive Israeli assault on Iran—which, according to numerous reports, had been prepared for months in coordination with NATO forces, the U.S., and Israel—is entirely excluded from analysis. There is not even a cursory mention of the role played by German and British fighter jets in supporting the Israeli attacks, nor of the gross violations of the UN Charter represented by the invasion of Iranian territory. This deafening silence is troubling not only analytically but ethically.

In contrast, the Editorial focuses narrowly on Iran’s missile attacks and their alleged failure to inflict a “crippling blow” on Israel, promoting a narrative that closely resembles the discourse of social-democrat exiles such as Farrokh Negahdar: an emphasis on Iran’s military weakness, a disregard for the serious damage inflicted on Israel, and the suggestion of futility in resistance. The analysis fails to mention the extent of casualties and material and psychological damage on Israel’s home front, including the flight of hundreds of thousands of civilians to Cyprus, the mass panic among settlers, and the disruption of Israel’s critical infrastructure:

After twelve continuous days and nights of widespread, destructive, and bloody Israeli military assaults on Iran, and in response, missile attacks by the Islamic Republic on Israel, and finally, the bombing of three major Iranian nuclear sites by America’s most advanced stealth bombers using bunker-busting bombs, the conflict ended with a ceasefire imposed by Trump—or, according to their propaganda, ‘brokered’ by him…. Contrary to the deafening propaganda of the Iranian government … the missile attacks on Israeli cities not only lacked deterrent effect but based on field realities, clearly failed to deliver a crippling blow to Israel’s air force…. Thus, despite the bluster and hollow threats of IRGC commanders and Khamenei himself, from a military balance-of-power perspective and given the serious weaknesses in the country’s defense infrastructure, a renewed Israeli offensive, coordinated with the U.S., could begin at any moment….”

From this perspective, the Editorial—wittingly or not—functions in sync with the official censorship of Israeli and Western media, reproducing their dominant narrative. By omitting vast swaths of battlefield realities, it transmits a sense of defeatism into Iran’s political atmosphere. This is despite the fact that even neutral military analysts have acknowledged the decisive role of Iranian missiles and drones in altering the region’s deterrence balance. Some reports even suggest that Israel, fearing escalation, pleaded with Trump to enforce a ceasefire.

Although the authors of Nameh Mardom are ultimately forced to acknowledge reality and—albeit subtly and ambiguously—refer to “the honorable resistance and national unity of the people,” they simultaneously attempt to separate this national unity from the state, claiming that the people did not support the Islamic Republic but merely defended national interests and sovereignty:

What has so far thwarted Israel and U.S. plans for renewed aggression against Iranian territory is the honorable resistance and national unity of the people…. At this critical juncture, in contrast to the anti-national views and policies of the regime’s leaders—especially Khamenei—the Iranian people have demonstrated admirable political maturity and clarity in defending national interests and sovereignty—not in defense of the Islamic Republic.

This distinction, while appealing to idealistic minds, is objectively indefensible. National sovereignty, in practice, is inseparable from the existing political and military structures that—despite their flaws—stood against aggression and responded. How can one defend “national sovereignty” in the face of foreign invasion while refusing to acknowledge the institutions that represent and enforce it? How can one define “national interests” independently of the country’s executive and defense infrastructure?

The Editorial ultimately offers a paradoxical and incoherent conclusion: “The popular movement against foreign aggression … has sent a message to the dictatorship that, under the right conditions, it too can be pushed back.” But the reality is that this popular movement, instead of pushing back the ruling power, in a historic moment, moved closer to it and supported it. This experience demonstrated that national interests, in real-world terms, are defined not through moralistic slogans and reductive reasoning but through actual alignments and a deep understanding of complex global contradictions.

If the Tudeh Party of Iran wishes to become a meaningful force in future developments, it must break with this duality in its positions and stop equivocating. One cannot claim to defend national independence while presenting an analysis aligned with the imperialist narrative. One cannot pose as a “peace-loving left” while ignoring NATO’s assault on a sovereign country. In today’s world, the “left” can only claim legitimacy if it unambiguously confronts the imperialist war machine—without hesitation and without excuses—even if doing so requires a conditional defense of a government whose domestic policies one may critique. This is the essential lesson of this war.

Final Word

A review of the positions adopted by the diverse spectrum of the opposition—from liberal right to pseudo-leftists claiming socialism—reveals that, despite differences in language and vocabulary, they all share six fundamental points of convergence:

• Denial of the existence of a global imperialist order and deliberate disregard for the role of the United States as the leader and enforcer of this global order;
• Denial of the principal contradiction shaping today’s world—that is, the contradiction between imperialism and the nations of the Global South;
• Denial of the anti-imperialist character of the Axis of Resistance of Iran’s central role within it;
• Reduction of the Iran–Israel–U.S. war to a bilateral conflict, detached from the broader global war that stretches from Ukraine to Gaza;
• Reversal of priorities, placing the fight against the Islamic Republic above the defense of Iran’s independence and territorial integrity;
• And finally, ignoring the growing strength of the global anti-hegemonic front, led by China, Russia, and other nations, including Iran.

This set of shared assumptions demonstrates that—regardless of their declared beliefs—these currents are deeply estranged from any grounded understanding of the objective place of the Iranian Revolution within the structure of the global order. As the experience of the Organization of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class (Peykar) in the early post-revolutionary years showed, failing to recognize global contradictions and the central role of imperialism contributed to the weakening and derailment of Iran’s “left” movement. Today, the ideological heirs of those same errors are retracing the path to historical failure and irrelevance. The lesson to be drawn from the past is this: any political force that fails, in decisive historical moments, to define its true position vis-à-vis global imperialism is destined to fade—whether it cloaks itself in hollow slogans of justice or in the guise of independence-shattering liberalism.

Forty-five years ago, in the early days of Iraq’s invasion of Iran, comrade Kianouri, in a historic article published in the Party’s theoretical journal Donya, rightly identified the invasion of our homeland as part of imperialism’s plan to crush the Iranian Revolution. He warned that, despite all its internal weaknesses and shortcomings, the revolution stood on a broad base of popular support:

More than three weeks have now passed since the treacherous and unlawful invasion of our homeland by Saddam’s clique…. It is now clear to all that this invasion is a direct continuation and integral part of the comprehensive conspiracies that U.S. imperialism—the leader of the imperialist world—and reactionary regimes, especially those neighboring Iran (Turkey, Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the UAE, Oman, and Pakistan), have prepared to crush our country’s great and glorious revolution….

Elsewhere in the article, he refers to the people’s presence as the main pillar of defense for the revolution and national sovereignty, despite all the difficulties and deprivations:

Despite all the disarray and shortages—caused primarily by counter-revolutionary forces and submissive, compromising liberals within the government, as well as by the monopolistic tendencies, inexperience, and mismanagement of some revolutionary officials—the revolutionary forces defending the achievements of the revolution have taken deep root among the oppressed and patriotic segments of society. These forces will not be shaken by passing winds….

Today, this warning is more relevant than ever. The same international actors—with new tools and disguises—are pursuing the same goals: the fragmentation of countries, the destruction of independent regional powers, and the restoration of Western hegemony over a region that no longer consents to subjugation. Iran—with all its internal contradictions and shortcomings—stands at the heart of this global confrontation. Therefore, the duty of all national, popular, and anti-imperialist forces is not to echo empty slogans or mechanically negate state power, but rather to clearly defend national independence, to resist foreign domination, and to struggle for deep, popular reform within society itself. This is the only path that can both avert the dangers of war and disintegration and open the horizon to a future that is free, just, and independent for the people of Iran.