A Reply to Anti-Resistance Forces: Why Has This Coordinated Orchestra Been Launched, and Why Now?
The “10 Mehr” Group, December 2025 —
Editorial Note: The following is the text of a document prepared by the “10 Mehr” Group in response to the recent mass attacks by some “left” forces against the “Axis of Resistance Left,” but its publication was delayed due to the recent unrest in the country. Given the new wave of attacks launched by “left” opportunists against the Iranian Revolution following these unrests, we felt it necessary to resume publication of this document as soon as possible. We draw the attention of readers to the fact that the recent wave of mass attacks on the “Axis of Resistance Left” was a precursor to the process that led to the recent planned unrests in the country.
***
For many long years, the struggle between the defenders of resistance against imperialism and Zionism, and the supporters of compromise and submission to the United States and the West—both inside and outside the ruling establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran—has continued with full intensity and sharpness. This struggle, especially since the beginning of the policy of “Looking to the East” by the leadership of the Islamic Republic of Iran, has taken on broader and more acute dimensions.
From the very beginning, this struggle also found a direct reflection among the left forces of Iran. A section of those who call themselves “left,” in step with the neoliberal, compromise-seeking and capitulationist factions inside and around the ruling establishment, raised the call for negotiation and compromise with the United States, and described the continuation of resistance against imperialism and Zionism as “adventuristic” and even “against the national interest.” On the other hand, the genuinely left forces defending Iran’s anti-imperialist and popular revolution—including the “10 Mehr” Group, the Justice website, and later “A Group of Supporters of the Anti-Imperialist Left Unity – Iran”—rose to firmly support the progressive and independence-seeking forces inside and around the establishment, and called for the formation of a united front of all forces defending the revolution, both religious and non-religious, against the domineering policies of imperialism and Zionism. Still, another segment of the more sincere left forces, who decisively defend the policy of resistance against imperialist and Zionist aggression while at the same time dissociating themselves from the Islamic Republic, entered the field with the slogan “Neither imperialism nor the Islamic Republic,” and claimed to be creating a “third line” within the Iranian left movement.
The 12-day war that began with the criminal attack of the Zionist state of Israel on Iran and ended with the bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities by U.S. imperialism—and, of course, with the direct partnership of the client states of U.S. imperialism in the region—during which more than a thousand Iranian citizens, including scientists and military commanders, were martyred, proved the bankruptcy of the policy of the compromise-seekers and capitulationists in and around the ruling establishment, and of the “pro-West left” that supports them. The national unity formed around the call of the Leader of the Revolution to defend the homeland blocked the anti-national program of the compromise-seekers and capitulationists within the State and disgraced the “pro-West left” in the eyes of the masses. In this process, a significant part of the Iranian people also experienced for themselves the real meaning of Imam Khomeini’s concept of the “Americanized left.” What remained in the left movement was the existing differences between the anti-imperialist left, and the “third-line left,” who is opposed to the Islamic Republic.
1. The Assault Begins
Against such a background, we suddenly face an orchestral assault on the so-called “axis-of-resistance left” by those who, in appearance in the name of the “third-line left,” but in practice in the service of the “NATO left,” enter the field one by one and try in every possible way—using labeling, slander, insults, and even open anti-religion slogans in the name of “left”—to prevent the consolidation of national unity around resistance, defense of the country and the revolution, and within that framework, the necessary rapprochement between revolutionary Muslim forces and the anti-imperialist left.
The first solo in this orchestra begins with an article by Mr. Mohammad Maljoo in Akhbar-e Rooz (October 14, 2025) entitled “The Axis-of-Resistance Left: The Wound on the Face of the Left.” In this piece, based on the artificial dichotomy he constructs between the “axis-of-resistance left” and the “people-oriented left,” he writes:
The left cannot escape its own shadow. The axis-of-resistance left, although a shameful part of the body of the Iranian left, is a disgraceful stain on the glorious history of the left.
The axis-of-resistance left in Iran is the offspring of a current that considers the contradiction with imperialism as the main axis of left politics… On this basis, it sees the axis of resistance in the Middle East not as a reactionary religious bloc but as a force against domination and global capitalism.… But when it remains practically passive in the face of internal oppression, it slips from an ideal into a tool for justifying internal power…
A left that should be the voice of workers, the dispossessed and freedom-seekers, in the narrative of the axis-of-resistance left, turns into a supporter of militaristic and ideological states.… In this narrative, social justice is mostly sacrificed to governmental expediency, and political freedom is postponed in the name of the fight against imperialism.…
The axis-of-resistance left, in its current form, is a left that has taken refuge behind the government rather than standing alongside the people.… A reversed left: an enemy of domination in words and a servant of domination in practice.… Its anti-Westernism leads to praise of any authority that is in conflict with the West…. Such a left has in practice become the guardian of the existing order…. It has practically become the internal enemy of the left in Iran….
The axis-of-resistance left, citing the external danger, tries to call people to solidarity with the establishment and lines up behind the military.… Therefore, the axis-of-resistance left stands in the same line that authoritarians have formed to suppress social discontent. From the perspective of the axis-of-resistance left, homeland and government become one….
And he concludes:
The axis-of-resistance left … is in the service of the continuation of internal authoritarianism. But the people-oriented left seeks to free compatriots from two dominations: external domination and internal domination. The difference between these two lefts is, ultimately, the difference between faith in power and trust in the people: one clings to power to survive, the other joins the people to liberate…. (all emphases ours)
We do not intend here to respond to these mental constructs of Mr. Maljoo. Several comrades close to us in various publications rolled up their sleeves and quickly delivered strong responses to his ear-splitting solo, and we refer readers to those replies. But unfortunately, these comrades dealt only with the out-of-tune notes played by Mr. Maljoo and ignored one fundamental issue: the political motive behind Mr. Maljoo’s solo at such a sensitive moment in the struggle of the Iranian people. And precisely for this reason, their responses—although forceful—instead of helping to isolate his attempt to create discord within the left, inadvertently helped his solo be heard even more widely. By engaging in the quarrel without questioning its political motive—namely, fanning that very quarrel—they unintentionally amplified the weak sound of Mr. Maljoo’s instrument.
But Mr. Maljoo’s solo did not remain merely an intellectual self-display; it became an invitation to other silent players to start a concert—and this orchestra, immediately after his invitation, began its performance. Different players came from all sides and each, in turn, played their own instrument. Thus, the symphonic concert of attack on the “axis-of-resistance left” was organized.
However, this orchestra elevated Mr. Maljoo’s solo to a much higher level. While Mr. Maljoo had targeted only the “axis-of-resistance left,” from an apparently a theoretical viewpoint, the newly-formed orchestra went far beyond this stage, first extending the attack to all anti-imperialist left forces, including the “10 Mehr” group and then to the Tudeh Party of Iran and its 1979–1982 line, and finally dragged the matter into the security sphere with accusations of “espionage”—not only for the security organs of the Islamic Republic, but even for Russia (which, in their view, is still the Soviet Union). In other words, although this assault began ostensibly under the banner of defending the “third-line left,” in its evolution it turned into the loudspeaker of the “NATO left.” And in the meantime, opportunists claiming to be “left” also entered the field and poured out whatever they had in their hearts against the anti-imperialist defenders of resistance; and used this opportunity to justify their own destructive and anti-national policies.
2. The Beginning of the “NATO Left” Concert
Following Mr. Maljoo’s implicit invitation, the “NATO left” orchestra, conducted by Mr. Kazem Alamdari, immediately entered the stage and began its concert. In an article entitled “The Axis-of-Resistance Left in the Service of the Islamic Republic,” published in Iran-e Emrooz (November 27, 2025), he set aside all of Mr. Maljoo’s bashful courtesies and bluntly wrote what Mr. Maljoo had only hinted at, not only confirming Maljoo’s claims but sharpening the edge of the attack toward the continuers of the Tudeh Party’s 1979–1982 line, including the “10 Mehr” Group, and by using labels and accusations, presenting them not only as “spies” of the Islamic Republic but also as agents of Russia. We review parts of his baseless and filthy accusations here to see the depth of the moral decline of such claimants. (All emphases in quotations are ours.)
He begins his article as follows:
This article … is written with the aim of examining and conveying awareness about the role of several figures affiliated with the Tudeh Party—or currents close to it—in the extraterritorial activities of the Islamic Republic… Contemporary Tudeh-type tendencies, including media such as “Payk-Net” and “10 Mehr,” have in practice become the main current of this political orientation…. The Islamic Republic, using a security model derived from the Tudeh Party tradition and the former Soviet models, has systematically used forces with a Tudeh background or a strong anti-Western mentality for infiltration, intelligence gathering, psychological operations and creating division among opponents abroad.
He then divides the Iranian left into two parts:
In Iran’s political space, the left can be divided into two main currents:
“Justice-seeking left”: a tendency compatible with social-democratic models and democracy, emphasizing social justice, civil liberties and modern institutions.
“Axis-of-resistance left”: the continuation of the intellectual and organizational tradition of the Tudeh Party and the product of Cold War worldview, in which “anti-Westernism” and “mental dependence on Russia” are placed above national interests. This group is mainly composed of former members and activists of the Tudeh Party and the Majority (a split from the Fedayeen) … This current today acts alongside the Islamic Republic and in continuation of its anti-American and pro-Russian policies…. In this discourse, the Islamic Republic and its allies — from Putin and Assad to Maduro, China and even North Korea — are presented as “bastions of resistance.” Any criticism of repression, discrimination, corruption or human-rights violations in these countries is either denied or answered with the justification that “the West is behind the protests.” The axis-of-resistance left, in appearance speaks of social justice, but in practice, by justifying the behavior of authoritarian governments, empties the left of the content of freedom and democracy and turns it into the soft arm of the security apparatus….
But as we see, his classification is not the same as Mr. Maljoo’s. Here, he skillfully replaces Maljoo’s “third-line left,” which at least verbally has an anti-imperialist stance, with a pro-West “social-democratic left” and presents it as the main rival to the “axis-of-resistance left.” In doing so, he not only removes the question of imperialism from the discussion altogether but also opens the door for the “NATO left” to enter the scene. Within this new framework, the direction of the attack shifts from targeting the “axis-of-resistance left” to targeting the Tudeh Party of Iran itself and its history:
The Tudeh Party was not only a political party; it was an organization with extensive experience in secrecy and underground activity, networked communications, infiltration into other groups and information gathering. These skills were directly borrowed from the security patterns and intelligence services of the Soviet Union and East Germany and … made the Tudeh Party one of the most complex political-intelligence networks in the Middle East.…
Why is this issue serious today? Because some individuals who inherited their organizational training from the security traditions of the KGB and Stasi, through spying, informing and creating side distractions, in practice waste the energy of groups opposed to the Islamic Republic. By infiltrating political circles, they obtain private information about activists and … place this data at the disposal of the IRGC’s security apparatus.
We see how the “NATO left,” with this royalist-style indictment against the Tudeh Party of Iran and its 1979–1982 line, enters the scene and takes the banner of confrontation with the “axis-of-resistance left” not from the “third-line left” position supported by Mr. Maljoo, but even farther from the “social-democratic left” position that is seeking a “peaceful transition” from the Islamic Republic — on whose behalf Mr. Alamdari hypocritically claims to speak — and practically hands it over to the NATO-oriented regime-change forces.
And following this call by the leader of the NATO symphonic orchestra, its players appear on the stage one by one:
■ “The most important reference of the resistance left is Cuba … the very country whose leader, Fidel Castro, when he met Ali Khamenei, entered the mausoleum of Khomeini while walking over the graves of executed leftists in Behesht-e Zahra.” (Mehrdad)
■ “Bravo — how precise and logical you explained this sinister current.… These are very well-trained agents of Russia and they work very calculatedly.… They are very frightening agents….” (adleraz)
■ “With greetings and thanks for your efforts, dear Dr. Alamdari, who … with a sharp eye and scientific examination have addressed the day-to-day issues of Iran. Currents and individuals who divide despotism into bad and good under any name, and ignore democracy and human rights, and only use them when it suits them, always, as restraining forces, stand in the enemy’s ranks.…” (Qasem Defa’i)
■ “Greetings to dear Dr. Alamdari. You have presented a complete report of what has happened to our homeland, our youth, and our enlightened thinkers from the 1950s to the present because of Iran’s geopolitical position, at the hands of the Tudeh Party left and the new left — very documented and credible and awareness-raising. I, myself, am one of the thousands of victims of the treacherous members of the Tudeh Party during the Cultural Revolution of the universities in 1981 at Tehran Polytechnic…” (Mostafa Haghighi)
■ “Mr. Alamdari’s points about positions and support for the Islamic Republic are basically correct. Also, the logical connection between the political views of the Tudeh Party and the axis-of-resistance current cannot be denied! … The views of the Tudeh Party pursued the interests of Soviet policies within the framework of the Cold War, defending a section of the power of global capital which the Soviet Union represented.… Thus, the Tudeh Party once again, by supporting the Islamic Republic in the years after 1979, caused disaster and stood fully against the interests of freedom-seeking, justice-seeking and equality-seeking people!” (Ali Khooban)
■ “The axis-of-resistance left … are abroad [!?]. In my belief, leftists like Maljoo and his like-minded people in Iran have more authority in the people’s liberation movement than the ‘axis-of-resistance left’; we must be diligent in introducing these people.” (Kamran Omidvarpour)
And those who felt that Mr. Alamdari had stirred the pot too much and that it could cause trouble for them, while fully confirming Mr. Alamdari’s statements, entered the scene from a moral angle and objected only to his method. Consider Mr. Nader Hejbari’s critique and Mr. Alamdari’s response:
■ “I am not a member of the Tudeh Party, but I have a problem with unfairness from anyone and any current, and it is necessary that this point become clear.… Exposing the nature of the ‘axis-of-resistance left,’ this anti-national current, is necessary — but not with distortion and falsehood. Noble ends require noble means.…” (Nader Hejbari)
And Mr. Alamdari’s repeated insistence on accusation and labeling in his reply to him:
Let me remind you that ‘the Tudeh Party does not officially pursue such policies’ [we will address this below]; but what is today called the ‘axis-of-resistance left’ arises from that same Soviet/Russian intellectual, political and ideological tradition and is the logical continuation of the Tudeh Party’s policies in Iran.… The aim is not to criticize individuals; rather it is to critique an ideological and political current whose roots emerged from decades of Soviet domination over the ‘fraternal parties.’ This current in Iran, like in other countries, is the direct heir of the Tudeh Party, and without knowing that history, understanding the behavior of today’s axis-of-resistance left is impossible.…
The axis-of-resistance left aligns its policies with Russia’s interests…. Ignoring the intellectual and political alignment of the axis-of-resistance left with Russia also leaves unanswered why they support the Islamic Republic.
The axis-of-resistance left did not come from the sky. They are the twin of the ‘fraternal parties’ of the Cold War era….
The discussion is about a durable ideological foundation that still exists among a segment of forces that emerged from the Tudeh Party — and today are defined in the framework of the ‘axis-of-resistance left’ — and explains their behavior. A shared ideology places them beside the Islamic Republic and Russia.… From this standpoint one must ask: Why does a segment of forces attributed to the Tudeh Party or to the axis-of-resistance left today take the side of the Islamic Republic’s reactionary policies against freedom-seeking, justice-seeking forces or independent educational institutions like Iran Academia? … The answer… is following … an ideology whose main orientation is ‘anti-Westism’ — an ideology inherited from the Tudeh Party.…
Thus, a current that began with Mr. Maljoo’s solo against the “axis-of-resistance left” step by step changed its nature and turned into a full “NATO left” concert led by Mr. Alamdari and his cohorts, and the issue shifted from a theoretical critique of the “axis-of-resistance left” for “ignoring the struggle for social justice” to a new full-scale ideological assault — this time under the cover of “left” — on the Tudeh Party of Iran, its 1979–1982 line, and the “subservience” to and “espionage” of this party and its “survivors” for the Soviet Union, Russia, and the Islamic Republic; an assault whose main target, in Mr. Alamdari’s own words, is “the anti-Westism inherited from the Tudeh Party of Iran”! And thus, a solo that began “in defense of social justice” by Mr. Maljoo evolved into a full concert in defense of the imperialist “West.”
The West-oriented, East-hating forces inside the ruling establishment of the Islamic Republic, no doubt, cannot contain their joy at finding such a partner among the Iranian “left.” And one should expect that from now on they will use all their power to strengthen such a “left” against the “axis-of-resistance left,” which, in their view, is produced by the Tudeh Party of Iran and its “survivors.”
3. The Opportunists, Too, Enter the Fray
But it was not only the “NATO left” that entered the scene created by Mr. Maljoo to justify its hostile line against the Islamic Republic of Iran — and naturally against the 1979–1982 line of the Tudeh Party of Iran in defense of the revolution and its leadership. Here, too, some who introduce themselves as “well-wishers” or defenders of the Tudeh Party entered the scene; but, in the name of defending the Tudeh Party, they leveled the same accusations against the party’s past policy and against the “axis-of-resistance left.”
The most active among them was Mr. Mazdak Daneshvar, who, in an article titled “The Axis-of-Resistance Left and the Distortion of the Popular and Anti-Imperialist Line” in Akhbar-e Rooz (October 19, 2025) entered the scene with such words: (all emphases added)
From the mid-2010s, a tendency emerged within Iran’s left.… Some of these individuals can be described with the label ‘known characters.’ The basin of their scandals has fallen from the roof long ago and no one takes them seriously anymore. But with Israel’s military aggression against Iran, these individuals have gained more and more tribune and voice.…
The axis-of-resistance left … has become the Achilles’ heel of the left and the source of its disgrace.… They … by using a distorted version of the arguments of the Tudeh Party of Iran in the years after the revolution, try to give themselves authenticity… The axis-of-resistance left takes a distorted interpretation from the approach of the Tudeh Party of Iran in 1979 to 1982 and uses it to justify their current performance.
Then he explains the 1979–1982 line of the Tudeh Party and tries, in his own view, to clarify its difference from what he calls the “distorted” line used by the “axis-of-resistance left,” without explaining what the difference between what the “axis-of-resistance left” says today and the concept of “Ke-bar-Ke”1 struggle of that time actually is:
The concept of ‘Ke-bar-Ke’ for the Tudeh Party referred to a transitional situation from the old order to the new order — that is, a period when the power structure had not yet stabilized and various forces were engaged in determining the fate of the new state. Therefore, this term did not refer to a struggle within an established and formed system; rather it related to the clash of political forces in the transitional stage after the revolution. As a result, the use that today’s ‘axis-of-resistance left’ makes of this term (i.e., to describe factional conflicts within the stabilized Islamic Republic) differs from its original meaning in the discourse of the Tudeh Party and is incorrect. Second, the leaders of the Tudeh Party had clearly specified that they were not supporting Ayatollah Khomeini only because of his anti-imperialist approach, but also because of his support for the oppressed and the toiling masses. For this reason, they limited their support for Ayatollah Khomeini to his ‘popular and anti-imperialist’ tendency….”
After a short time, Kianouri2 again identified two completely clear and opposing tendencies within this now-unified ruling structure and described their struggle as ‘class struggle’: one tendency consists of supporters of maintaining all the foundations of the capitalist economic system with a very mild Islamic cover … and another tendency consists of supporters of adopting decisions for a fundamental transformation of the economic system.…”
What was said has no resemblance to the distorted narrative of the axis-of-resistance left from the Tudeh Party of Iran. Both domestically and internationally the Tudeh Party … tried to advance its political program based on the struggle against U.S. imperialism and efforts to improve the situation of workers and the dispossessed. The Tudeh Party… did not forget its duties in defense of the toilers … even where it knew it would lead to its own repression.”
If we go to the core of Mr. Daneshvar’s critique of the positions of the “axis-of-resistance left,” we see that his argument is that the “Ke-bar-Ke” of those days — which Comrade Kianouri called “class struggle” within the ruling establishment — and which the “axis-of-resistance left” still operates on basis of, no longer exists today. For him, today the ruling establishment is fully in the hands of the very bourgeoisie which Comrade Kianouri and the Party spoke of. In other words, the bourgeoisie is in full control, there is no hope left in the Islamic Republic, and the time for another revolution has arrived.
Mr. Daneshvar concludes his piece as follows:
The use by the axis-of-resistance left of the Tudeh Party’s tendency at the beginning of the revolution, in my view, is distorted and is for designing a pedigree and background for itself in the history of Iran’s left. Many of the people in this small but noisy group have now been exposed for everyone, but their misuse of the literature of the Tudeh Party of Iran still draws positive views toward them.…
And his worry — just like that of Mr. Maljoo and Mr. Alamdari’s “NATO left” orchestra — lies precisely in the admission he makes at the end: that the positions of the axis-of-resistance left “have gained more tribune and voice…,” and “still draw positive views toward them,” “with Israel’s military aggression against Iran….
But Mr. Daneshvar, despite his apparent defense of the Party’s 1979–1982 line, does not spare that line from his own pen either. In a response to one of his critics, published in Akhbar-e Rooz (November 23, 2025) under the title “What Has the Axis-of-Resistance Left Borrowed from the Tudeh Party of Iran?”, he writes:
Some friends … argued that if there were not fundamental problems in the approach of the Tudeh Party of Iran, the axis-of-resistance left could not present itself as its heir. I too believe there are criticisms to be made of this party’s approach and they must be stated.…
From the very beginning of the revolution, the Tudeh Party of Iran recognized its losing position. The leaders of this party, especially Noureddin Kianouri, believed that in the sphere of mass mobilization they did not have the capacity to confront the Islamic Republic and the force that emerged from the revolution….
Given what was said, the Tudeh Party in its short four-year period of activity placed its greatest effort on encouraging changes from above and did not consider organizing from below as its main priority … and perhaps for this reason … it ignored human rights violations and the repression of civil society.…
This approach of the Party to changes from above and at the top of the political pyramid can also be traced in the conduct of the axis-of-resistance left.… This group of leftists, by supporting one faction within the current Iranian government against another faction … tries to turn the domestic path of the Islamic Republic away from the neoliberal road and align it globally with China and Russia. This is an approach also seen in the Communist Party of Russia. The Communist Party of Russia, under the almost life-long leadership of Gennady Zyuganov, has the same approach to the issue of the Ukraine war and Putin’s state…. They try to … encourage the ruling capitalist state of Russia toward ‘left leaning’ reforms in distributive justice.
And then, he draws this “brilliant” conclusion:
This group of Iranian leftists also … engages in sanctifying and venerating the resistance axis which has now gone up in smoke and counts a dogmatic and rigid faction within the Islamic Republic as its ally as a ‘West-hating’ faction.… Such an approach, compared with the tragedy of the 1980s, resembles more to a comedy.…
This “analyst” of the Tudeh Party’s past line should be asked: you, who are repeating exactly Mr. Alamdari’s criticisms of the Tudeh Party’s 1979–1982 line, why do you call the “axis of resistance left” a “distortion” of that line? Moreover, with these analyses you have not only merged Mr. Maljoo’s claims and Mr. Alamdari’s accusations and presented them together as your own view, but you have gone a big step further and with a stroke of the pen turned the entire resistance movement itself into “smoke in the air”! — something neither Mr. Maljoo nor Mr. Alamdari dared to do.
As the last point in this section, we must express our regret at the entry of the “Tudeh-iha” current into this organized concert against the “axis-of-resistance left.” We have great respect for these comrades and their past struggles — especially for our late comrade Farhad Assemi, the founder of the “Tudeh-iha” current — despite theoretical differences we had with his assessments. We consider the “Tudeh-iha” current a truly anti-imperialist current, and for that reason, their entry into the affair created against the “axis-of-resistance left” is very surprising to us.
These comrades, on the “Tudeh-iha” website, dated November 3, 2025, write: (all emphases added)
Supporters of the axis-of-resistance left, to escape accountability, separate the role of the bourgeoisie from the structure of the Islamic Republic. They say neoliberal policies are implemented by the ‘bad bourgeoisie,’ not by the government! As if the Islamic Republic is a classless shell and there is no class struggle in it. This inverted reading has turned the axis-of-resistance left into a tool for legitimizing the ruling establishment.
Struggle against imperialism has meaning only within a non-capitalist economic framework and separating it from social justice is empty of meaning.… One cannot be anti-freedom, anti-dissent, anti-woman and anti-worker and at the same time call oneself anti-imperialist…. A genuine left cannot remain silent before neoliberal policies that have ruined people’s lives, even if those policies are expressed under anti-imperialist slogans.…
This left [the axis-of-resistance left], instead of relying on class power from below, has sat hoping to advise the military bourgeoisie; but history has shown that no popular transformation forms from above…. The axis-of-resistance left, without party and without base among the working class, cannot become an equal partner of power; rather it will only be a plaything in the hands of the bourgeoisie.
Of course, we too fully agree with these comrades’ assessment of the dialectical link between anti-imperialist struggle and the struggle to defend the interests of the working class and other toilers against neoliberal policies, and we have repeatedly stated our positions on this in various documents. But what raises questions for us here is the simultaneous harmony of these comrades with the “NATO left” in attacking the “axis-of-resistance left.” These comrades do not pay attention to the fact that the “NATO left’s” assault on the “axis-of-resistance left” positions is motivated by defending the imperialist West and supporting domestic neoliberal policy, not from the angle of defending the working class and social justice — that is, exactly at the opposite point of what these comrades defend.
Therefore, we view this attack on the “axis-of-resistance left” by the “Tudeh-iha” current only as an effort to use the created opportunity to present their own positions, and we hope they will correct this misplaced attack of theirs against the “axis-of-resistance left,” which has no affinity with the anti-imperialist positions of the “Tudeh-iha” and only helps the West-oriented goals of that same “bad bourgeoisie” they point to (not our term).
4. Fishing in Troubled Waters
It is on the background of such a noisy “NATO left” concert that the current leadership of the Tudeh Party of Iran and a number of individuals and currents defending it have also entered the scene and are trying to fish in the troubled waters created by the “NATO left” — in favor of their apparently leftist but in practice rightist and anti-national line. The current leadership of the Party and these individuals and currents have begun their attack on the “axis-of-resistance left” and the “survivors” of the Party’s 1979–1982 line from two directions: first, repeating the same security labels and accusations in harmony with Mr. Alamdari and the “NATO left”; and second, separating their own account from the former leadership’s line while at the same time claiming inheritance to the Party’s proud past.
We begin with Nameh Mardom: This publication, in issue no. 1247 (November 17, 2025), in an editorial titled “The Velayat Dictatorship Has Been Brought to Its Knees Before Unsolvable Super-Crises,” after an introduction about the country’s conditions, concludes: (all emphases added)
The Islamic regime can now do nothing but repression, arrest.…
At the same time as the first signs of the natural spread of progressive and justice-seeking ideas in the heart of society appeared, and following the immobilization of the security-media project of launching a fake ‘anti-imperialist left’ under the banner of defending the ‘Islamic Axis of Resistance,’ security forces… arrested a number of progressive writers, researchers, and translators of the country…
Amid the recent security-media efforts to promote ‘left-hatred’ and the organized assault on the Tudeh Party of Iran through entirely false accusations, these arrests show the government’s fear of the consequences of the spread of justice-seeking views and their linkage with freedom-seeking, and of the formation of a real anti-imperialist struggle in defense of Iran’s national sovereignty…
Contrary to the atmosphere of despair and disillusionment seen among some left theorists and activists, now we must, with active solidarity and effective cooperation, place the country on the path of transition from dictatorship and movement toward establishing a national and democratic republic.
These claims of Nameh Mardom are very illuminating from several angles:
First: we see how these comrades, without any hesitation, repeat word-for-word the sentences of the “NATO left,” and in one single sentence, in harmony with Mr. Alamdari and his “NATO” orchestra, present both the “anti-imperialist left” as “fake” and as a product of an “Islamic regime security-media project,” and also call the axis of resistance the “Islamic Axis of Resistance” — that is, the same “reactionary religious bloc” of Mr. Maljoo. This short sentence of Nameh Mardom fully exposes who the “fake” anti-imperialists are and who the “real” anti-imperialists are.
Second: these comrades hypocritically speak of an “organized assault on the Tudeh Party of Iran”! We ask these comrades: which “Tudeh Party of Iran” are you speaking about? The Tudeh Party before the 1982 assault, or the current “Tudeh Party of Iran” which, under your leadership, has placed itself against the 1979–1982 line and negated it? Look at each and every attack and accusation by the “NATO left” above and tell us which of these accusations is directed at you? Did not Mr. Alamdari, the representative of the “NATO left,” while attacking and accusing the past leadership and policy of the Party, himself openly separate your account from theirs and say: “Let me remind you that the Tudeh Party does not officially follow such policies”?
And it is not only Mr. Alamdari who separates the account of the current “Tudeh Party of Iran” from that of the previous “Tudeh Party of Iran” that is in fact under “attack.” Consider these statements by Mr. Mahmoud Sarraf-pour, titled “A Frank Word with Mr. Kazem Alamdari,” published on the “Seday-e Mardom” website — affiliated with the current Party leadership — dated December 4, 2025. He says: (all emphases added)
The trumpet of Tudeh-hatred is heard this time from the throat of a retired university professor from Los Angeles in the state of California, USA… What is going on? Kazem Alamdari refers to a few former members of the Tudeh Party of Iran who have for years left the Party or been expelled and who deliberately present themselves as defenders of the Party’s past line and the ‘who-will-defeat-whom’ policy — in those one or two years of the Party’s legal activity — and who currently have no relationship or affinity with the Tudeh Party of Iran or the Party’s current policies. A small number of these individuals have created their own internet site with the name and title ‘10 Mehr’ and in it defend views that have nothing to do with the policies of the Tudeh Party of Iran. Of course, the account of ‘Peik-Net’ and ‘Rah-e Tudeh’ is somewhat separate from ‘10 Mehr’.…
The Tudeh Party of Iran … has clearly stated its view regarding the position of ‘Peik-Net’ and ‘Rah-e Tudeh’ and has considered the manager of these two sites to be affiliated with the Ministry of Intelligence and these sites to be in the service of the Islamic Republic. [He is well aware but hides that the current Party leadership has made the same accusations against ‘10 Mehr’ in several documents too.]
For reasons unclear to us, Mr. Alamdari uses the incorrect and unwise policies of these groups unaffiliated with the Tudeh Party and opposed to the Party’s policies, and blemishes the people’s image of the Tudeh Party of Iran.…
One must ask Dr. Alamdari: … Where do these vulgar accusations you make against the Tudeh Party of Iran come from? After the wide assaults on the Tudeh Party of Iran … the regime created — seemingly Tudeh — groups. It gave them space so that with the regime’s implicit approval they could damage the true face of the Party. And then it forced others, on the basis of the views of these regime-made groups, to attack the Tudeh Party of Iran and fish in troubled waters. The first and easiest tactic is precisely to treat these ‘seemingly’ leftists and the Party as one. This regime-made bundle counts ‘Rah-e Tudeh’ and the ‘axis of resistance people’ as the same Tudeh Party of Iran. By making this mismatched set into one, the ground is prepared for articles like this. And in the final analysis, it is reaction and imperialism that celebrate.
Thus, according to one of the organs affiliated with the current Party leadership, the account of the Party’s current policy is separate from the account of those “few former members … who present themselves as defenders of the Party’s past line.” In other words, they say: Mr. Alamdari! Why have you treated us — who think like you — as the same as others who consider themselves “defenders of the Party’s past line”? The “true face” of today’s Party is not what you are attacking. Stop “damaging” it and do not bundle these “mismatched” people together!
But the matter goes far beyond separating the account of the current leadership from the Party’s past history; it extends to an open inheritance-claim over that very negated history: (all emphases added)
A point that must be reminded to Mr. Alamdari and his like-minded people is that the Tudeh Party of Iran must be sought in such heroes as Rahman Hatefi (Heydar Mehrgan), Abolhassan Khatib, Saeed Azarang, Amir Nik-Ayin, Rafat Mohammadzadeh, Abbas Hejri, Taqi Key-Manesh, Esmail Zolghadr, Abotorab Bagherzadeh, Ali-Akbar Mahjoobiyan, and hundreds of other named and unnamed Tudeh members.…
The cause must be sought in this truth that the Tudeh Party of Iran … is a thorn in the eye of the enemies [a thorn in the eye of which enemies?] and for that reason has stirred their animal hatred.”
Such inheritance-claiming over the Party’s glorious past history by those who have negated and rejected it both politically and security-wise can only be called “shameful.” These people must be asked: in defense of which ideal and political line did these heroes, whose heroism you now take credit for, lose their lives? Other than the ideal and line which you have negated for years and now call the continuers of their path “spies” and “mercenaries” of the Islamic Republic? Many outside the Party may not know, but we, who witnessed the processes from inside, know how they even accused many of these very heroes of cooperation with the Islamic Republic’s security establishment. Those who claim that “Kianouri and the Party were fooled by Khomeini” have already deprived themselves of the right to take pride in that past.
But fortunately, not everything around the current Party leadership is so dark, and there are Tudeh members who still decisively defend the Party’s historical, political, and especially moral standards. One commendable example is the writing of Mr. Mohsen Seirafi. In “Letter to the Central Committee of the Tudeh Party of Iran: Theoretical Struggle Instead of Accusation-Mongering,” dated December 3, 2025, he warns the current leadership:
In the editorial of Nameh Mardom … November 17, 2025 it says: ‘At the same time as the first signs of the natural spread of progressive and justice-seeking ideas in the heart of society appeared, and the immobilization of the security-media project of the fake “anti-imperialist” left under the banner of defending the “Islamic Axis of Resistance,” security forces … arrested a number of progressive translators…’ (emphasis from the letter’s author)
This statement of Nameh Mardom means that the ‘anti-imperialist left’ current has been made by the Islamic Republic’s security organizations. Such an accusation has no valid foundation. Because some members of the ‘anti-imperialist left’ current were political prisoners of the 1980s who resisted in the prisons of the Islamic Republic. Others in the 1980s were members of the Tudeh Party of Iran abroad — meaning people whom you called ‘comrade.’
To overcome differences of political line among progressive groups, one must turn to theoretical struggle, not accusation-mongering. Accusing fighters who have devoted their lives to people’s causes … is incorrect.…
Exposure must be based on evidence and documentation, not on differences of political line with this or that political group.
A wrong political line can, in practice, come to serve the Islamic Republic or imperialism. In that case one must expose the nature of that political line and struggle against it.
We decisively agree with his statement that “a wrong political line can … come to serve imperialism” — as indeed it already has in many cases. The reality is that the current contradictions at the global level and in Iran have reached a point where ambiguity and the policy of “sitting between two chairs” no longer works; and for the current Party leadership there remains no choice but to review their current line and correct it in the direction of a truly anti-imperialist and popular struggle. No amount of labeling and accusation, and no inheritance-claiming from the Party’s glorious past, can hide the erroneousness of their current political line.
5. Why the Collective Assault on the
Axis-of-Resistance Left”? And Why Now?
Mr. Kazem Alamdari, the loudspeaker for the “NATO left,” despite all the nonsense and repeated baseless accusations he has thrown at the “axis-of-resistance left,” has spoken the truth in one specific point: “The axis-of-resistance left did not fall from the sky.” This statement is absolutely correct, and his worry — and that of his colorful chorus within the “left” movement — is precisely contained in this acknowledgement: that the “axis-of-resistance left” did not fall from the sky, but has roots in objective historical realities and contradictions that not only make its existence necessary, but also make its validity clear. In other words, the formation of an anti-imperialist “axis of-resistance left” is a logical response to the set of historical contradictions that both our world and Iran today are wrestling with — contradictions without recognition of which the “left” cannot even claim to be left.
What connects the members of this newly formed orchestra against the “axis-of-resistance left” is precisely ignoring the very root contradictions that link Iran’s domestic issues to international processes and turn them into interconnected links of a chain. Therefore, to understand the real causes of this organized assault on the “axis-of-resistance left,” and the real reasons it has been dragged into accusation and labeling against the Tudeh Party’s 1979–1982 line — and, in their view, Tudeh “survivors” in the left movement — one must, as Marx advised, go to the “roots” and identify the major contradictions that have been the main ground and real driving force of such an assault at this historical moment.
Denying the Historic “Ke-bar-Ke” Struggle within the Ruling Establishment
The first trick of those assaulting the anti-imperialist left is to deny the existence of a real “Ke-bar-Ke” struggle inside the ruling establishment of the Islamic Republic, and to present the interests of all class layers inside the ruling establishment as unified. On this basis, these so-called “left” forces — each in a different language — present the defense of the Islamic Republic against imperialism as defense of the entire ruling establishment of the Islamic Republic, and claim that the anti-imperialist positions of the “axis-of-resistance left” in practice serve “the whole Islamic Republic” and its “repressive policies”!
As one of the forces present in the “axis-of-resistance left,” and one of the “survivors” of the Tudeh Party’s 1979–1982 policy, we find it necessary to show the baselessness of such a claim by presenting a condensed version of some of the assessments in the Political Platform of the “10 Mehr” Group:
The turn to the East and new alignments inside and around the ruling establishment
With the rise of China as an economic power rival to the United States, and even more decisively with the entry of Russia’s military into Ukraine and NATO’s direct military involvement against Russia, all existing equations … in Iran were overturned. This new situation … made continuation of double-edged policies impossible for both sides [and] … showed that … one must choose between the sides in this global confrontation.
A section of the Islamic Republic’s ruling establishment … with an understanding of the nature of global transformations and the general trajectory of these transformations against the one-sided domination of imperialism … decided to adopt the ‘turn to the East’ policy…. This turn was initiated under the guidance of the faction representing the petty bourgeoisie and the lower layers of society inside the ruling establishment — which from the very beginning of the revolution was represented by the ‘Vali-ye Faqih’ [the Supreme Leader].…
The consolidation of these international orientations of the Islamic Republic … changed the balance of power inside the country. The pro-West faction … on the one hand becomes ever more dependent on Western governments, and on the other hand concentrated on riding the wave of protests arising from accumulated legitimate grievances, which the neoliberal policies of these same West-oriented forces were the main cause of…. Based on this understanding of the domestic situation, imperialist states have now entered the scene with full economic power and propaganda technology so that by riding the legitimate protest wave of our people and helping the internal pro-West forces to seize the people’s rightful movement, they can steer developments toward organizing a color revolution and returning Iran to the West’s embrace — or, if possible, the completely dismember Iran.…
The neoliberal bourgeoisie of Iran … today sees the ‘turn to the East’ policy as contrary to its own interests, and for that reason … has suddenly, hypocritically and in unison with imperialist media, raised the cry of trampled democracy and human rights in Iran, and tries thereby to take control of the protest movement and direct it toward returning to the West.…
Thus, today a ‘Ke-bar-Ke’ struggle has once again formed inside the ruling establishment, with pro-West neoliberal capitalist factions on one side, and those capitalist factions benefiting from the ‘turn to the East’ policy under the guidance of the Vali-ye Faqih, on the other side.… Although this new ‘Ke-bar-Ke’ struggle, unlike the earlier one, does not in itself have a class nature and is merely political rift between West-oriented and East-oriented currents, one can say that the outcome of this political struggle will have very serious class consequences for Iranian society and the country’s future.
One cannot doubt for a moment that the defeat of the ‘turn to the East’ policy will have catastrophic consequences for our people, especially for workers, toilers and other lower strata.… The United States and its domestic bourgeois supporters in Iran will move with all force to end every form of internal resistance, and undoubtedly, as history has repeatedly shown, the first victims will be the working class and the anti-imperialist left defending it.…
It is entirely clear that the fate of Iran’s working class and its anti-imperialist left defenders is tied to the result of this new ‘Ke-bar-Ke’ struggle.… The interests of the working class and its political representatives require that they enter, practically and openly — without fear of labels — the decisive struggle for the future of the class and the country and fulfill the responsibility history has placed before them.
And this is possible only through a concrete understanding of the major objective contradictions, scientific separation — free of narrow-mindedness — of the camp of the true defenders of the revolution from the camp of counter-revolution, and practical movement toward strengthening the forces whose victory can reopen the path to advancing the original goals of the February 1979 revolution.…”
Only by closing one’s eyes to this objective “Ke-bar-Ke” struggle can the attackers of the “axis-of-resistance left” allow themselves to label it as defending “the whole ruling establishment” and as “unconditional” defense of its policies; and not only that, but add the accusation of espionage and security service for the Islamic Republic.
Of course, among these people, some have tried — apparently without resorting to accusation and labeling and only from a theoretical viewpoint — to inject the same accusation of supporting “the whole ruling establishment” against the “axis-of-resistance left.” For example, Mr. Mazdak Daneshvar, by consciously ignoring the objective reality of the split inside the ruling establishment, claims:
The term ‘Ke-bar-Ke’ in the Tudeh Party referred to the transitional situation…. Therefore, the use that today’s ‘axis-of-resistance left’ makes of it … differs from its original meaning…. Such an approach, compared to the tragedy of the 1360s, resembles a comedy.…
In other words, in his view, even if we accept that such a “Ke-bar-Ke” existed existed in a “transitional situation,” today no such struggle exists, and the Islamic Republic is wholly in the hands of a repressive bourgeoisie. Therefore, defending Iran against imperialism can mean nothing other than defending the continuation of repression by that bourgeoisie. And such a defense, if it was a “tragedy” in the first years, today it has become a “comedy”! The logical conclusion: only by overthrowing the Islamic Republic can people’s problems be solved and democracy established.
Unfortunately, a similar false claim — this time within an “analytical” framework — is also heard from the anti-imperialist comrades of the “Tudeh-iha”:
Supporters of the axis-of-resistance left … separate the role of the bourgeoisie from the structure of the Islamic Republic. They say neoliberal policies are implemented by the ‘bad bourgeoisie,’ not by the government! … This inverted reading has turned the axis-of-resistance left into a tool for legitimizing the ruling establishment…. This left… will only be a plaything of the bourgeoisie.” (emphases ours)
Such a statement not only denies the existence of a “Ke-bar-Ke” struggle inside the ruling establishment, but in order to present “the whole ruling establishment” as unified, it also distorts the meaning of Marxist theoretical concepts. These comrades use the concepts “bourgeoisie,” “government,” “ruling establishment,” and “structure of the Islamic Republic,” but apparently do not correctly understand the precise meaning of any of them. First, the “bourgeoisie,” the “government,” and the “ruling establishment” are all inside the “structure of the Islamic Republic,” and no one can separate these parts from the whole “structure.” Second, the boundary between “State” and “ruling establishment” disappears and “the State of the Islamic Republic” is equated with “the ruling establishment of the Islamic Republic.” And the root of the error lies precisely in this equating.
These comrades do not pay attention to the fact that, from a Marxist viewpoint, the “ruling establishment” — that is, the ensemble of ruling classes of a society — is not identical with the “State” — that is, the political machine applying the power of those ruling classes — and that the policies advanced by a State always reflect the balance of power among different classes (with potentially different interests) within the ruling establishment. In other words, even though a country’s State at any moment follows a particular policy, that particular policy does not mean that the interests of all classes within the ruling establishment are identical; rather it reflects, more than anything, the interests of those classes or segments that at that moment have the upper hand within the ruling establishment.
Thus, because the boundary between these concepts is blurred, the “axis-of-resistance left’s” defense of the Islamic Republic’s State against imperialism becomes, in these comrades’ view, “legitimizing” the Islamic Republic’s ruling establishment — and it is forgotten that, unlike the classes within the ruling establishment (each largely pursuing its own class interests), the role of a State as an institution within the structure of a nation-state is not limited to class functions alone; it also has a series of national functions, including defending borders and territorial integrity, maintaining internal security, and preserving the overall system. Defending these national functions does not necessarily mean defending the class role of that State in defending the interests of the ruling classes. On this basis, from the “axis-of-resistance left’s” viewpoint, defending the national policies of the State can be advanced simultaneously with struggle against the class policies of the ruling establishment; one does not negate the other.
The attackers of the “axis-of-resistance left” — some consciously, some due to intellectual/theoretical confusion; some maliciously, some with good intentions — blur this fundamental distinction and thus erect a “Great Wall of China” between anti-imperialist struggle and class struggle for social justice, and claim that advancing one means abandoning the other.
In reality, by blurring the boundary between “ruling establishment” and “State,” and attributing all problems to the “State” of the Islamic Republic, the critics of the “axis-of-resistance left” leave themselves no choice but to raise the slogan of overthrowing the “State” — whether from the right toward imperialism and the West, or from the “left” toward another “revolution” — an approach which the “axis-of-resistance left,” with a precise understanding of these concepts, and of today’s major contradictions in Iran and the world, decisively opposes and rejects.
Closing One’s Eyes to the Linked Chain of Contradictions
But this is not the only manifestation of the anti-resistance camp’s intellectual and political distortion. By mechanically separating two aspects of one single struggle — which, from a Marxist-Leninist standpoint, we consider a national liberation struggle — they divide it into two apparently separate parts (an anti-imperialist struggle in the external arena and a class struggle in the internal arena) and claim that the “axis-of-resistance left” has sacrificed internal class struggle to its external anti-imperialist struggle — as if such a thing were even possible!
The reality is that these two aspects are not independent, separate arenas such that something could be taken from one and added to the other. On the contrary, they are connected like two joined containers of water: removing from one side reduces the quantity on the other; and adding it to the other side raises the first again. Politically, this means every step strengthening anti-imperialist struggle helps strengthen the struggle of the working class; and every advance in class struggle for the interests of workers and toilers strengthens the anti-imperialist struggle.
To clarify this further, we refer the reader to another condensed section of the Political Platform of the “10 Mehr” Group:
Sanctions, Neoliberalism, and the Question of National Security
The problem the Islamic Republic’s ruling establishment is facing today is that those millions of toilers — whose support is the only guarantee for internal security and the success of the ‘turn to the East’ policy — are the same people who for decades have witnessed the destruction of their welfare, livelihood, and fundamental rights due to chaotic privatizations arising from neoliberal economic policy, severe economic exploitation, and the repression of their rightful protests; and, as we have seen in recent months and years, imperialist states have used every opportunity to channel people’s accumulated and rightful anger toward destabilizing the country. And this is the most important danger today threatening our national security and territorial integrity — a danger no military or security power can neutralize by itself.
Thus, one can say that the internal threat against Iran’s national security is more serious than the external danger. For decades, the big pro-West neoliberal bourgeoisie inside the ruling establishment … was able, by preventing the formation of labor unions and parties defending toilers, to open the path for chaotic privatizations, attacks on labor law, trampling Article 44 of the Constitution [on the economic structure], and ultimately driving the majority of toiling people into poverty.…
What has intensified this danger is the U.S. decision … to finish off the Islamic Republic … on the one hand, and the joining of the pro-West neoliberal bourgeoisie to the domestic opposition on the other.…
Relying on this reality, the U.S. and its allies now pursue a policy of fueling a vicious cycle of protest and escalating repression inside the country.… There is no doubt that in the current conditions, maintaining the internal status quo.… will result in nothing but the defeat of the ‘turn to the East’ policy, the destruction of the country’s independence and territorial integrity, and returning a fragmented Iran to the West’s embrace…
In these conditions, the faction supporting resistance against the U.S. and the ‘turn to the East’ faces an unavoidable choice: either continue the domestic status quo, preserve the anti-popular neoliberal economic structures, and intensify repression of rightful protests with the help of security and police forces; or understand the critical situation and move practically to win back the lost trust of huge masses, make fundamental changes in the economic structure, economically and politically dispossess the large pro-West neoliberal bourgeoisie … and respond seriously, practically, and rapidly to the suppressed needs and demands of the millions over the last four decades. This is the choice that will determine the fate of our homeland in this global struggle. …
The leaders of the Islamic Republic must accept that in today’s critical conditions, without the support of the millions they will not have the necessary capacity for long-term resistance against U.S. economic and military pressure. Therefore, even for the sake preserving independence, they must accept fundamental transformations in political, economic, and social structures to prevent a social catastrophe that will seize everyone, including themselves.
This is the “axis-of-resistance left’s” understanding of the organic link between anti-imperialist struggle and class struggle. Those who deny this undeniable link and turn that denial into a weapon to assault the “axis-of-resistance left” either knowingly act in the service of the enemy or suffer from an incomplete and incorrect understanding of the foundational concepts of Marxism that must guide any left force. To inform the minds of those who sincerely consider themselves “left” but out of ignorance have joined this NATO orchestra, we refer them to another section of the Political Platform of the “10 Mehr” Group about the linked chain of contradictions:
From a Marxist-Leninist viewpoint, in the stage of imperialist domination, the global contradiction of labor and capital is embodied in the contradiction between the masses of the world and imperialism, whose main axis is defending countries’ independence against imperialism’s political, economic, and military domination. At the same time, based on this main contradiction, secondary contradictions also exist — such as freedom versus dictatorship, poverty versus wealth, and national, ethnic, religious, and cultural differences — which depending on each country’s stage and historical conditions, one or more can become decisive. Therefore, determining which contradiction is dominant at each stage and must be placed at the top of the agenda is a very critical matter, possible only through a precise and comprehensive analysis of international and domestic conditions. Any error in distinguishing the principal contradiction from the non-principal, and insisting at the wrong time on resolving secondary contradictions, will inevitably cause serious damage and ultimately defeat…
And precisely in order to break the power of the countries’ resistance front internationally, imperialism has long tried to emphasize secondary contradictions within national frameworks — such as ‘dictatorship’ and ‘human rights violations’ (which themselves are the direct result of the imperialist order) — to redirect movements, especially in resisting countries, and focus them on a link of the chain whose movement — separated from the existing imperialist global order — not only changes nothing but helps imperialism’s plans. In other words, imperialism tries to induce the oppressed peoples to believe that achieving social justice, democratic freedoms, and human rights is possible under imperialist global domination, and that this struggle can succeed purely within the national framework and separate from the main global contradiction.…
But many historical examples have proven the bankruptcy of such an approach: no one has seen even one example of the victory of such efforts for ‘democracy’ and ‘human rights’ since the collapse of the socialist camp and the appearance of the unipolar world. Nationally confined ‘anti-dictatorship’ struggles — in Iraq, Egypt, Libya, and others — brought no democracy or human rights. Imperialism has never allowed and will not allow these struggles to succeed within a limited national framework; and after overthrow, people’s lives have not improved. The criminal genocide in Palestine before the eyes of humanity is a living proof of this fact.…
Given these historical realities, the only correct path is resolving national contradictions within the framework of the main global contradiction — the contradiction between all peoples and imperialism — because imperialism has left us no other option. On this difficult and dangerous road, a struggling people must weigh the consequences of each move and chose their action on the basis of its benefit and harm.
We hope the above has sufficiently exposed the analytical contradictions of sincere “third-line left” friends who, by separating the internal and external arenas, push the slogan of simultaneous struggle against imperialism and the Islamic Republic. They must know that this view, whether they want it or not, will place their struggles in the service of monarchists and MEK regime-changers; “NATO leftists” and affiliates of George Soros’s National Endowment for Democracy (NED); opportunist, West-oriented “leftists” sitting on two chairs; and ultimately imperialism’s plans to end peoples’ resistance. By contrast, the correct domestic path is not confrontation with the “State” and the entire “system” of the Islamic Republic. Rather, it is the struggle to disarm the large neoliberal bourgeoisie inside the ruling establishment and end its economic and political domination over the State. The correct slogan for the authentic anti-imperialist left today is not “No to imperialism, no to the Islamic Republic,” but “No to imperialism, no to neoliberalism” — i.e., a unified struggle against imperialism and its domestic agents.
Why This Collective Asault — and Why Now?
For decades, a colorful spectrum of “pseudo-lefts” and “leftists” condemned the Islamic Republic’s resistance policy against imperialism and Israel as “adventurism,” “warmongering,” “wasting national resources,” “exporting the Islamic revolution,” “building a Shi‘a empire,” etc., and echoed slogans such as “Neither Gaza nor Lebanon, my life for Iran,” “A lamp that is needed at home is forbidden for the mosque,” and other similar anti-resistance slogans. Since these oppositions and slogans aligned, on the one hand, with the policy of pro-West reformists within the ruling establishment and the affluent social layers supporting them, and, on the other hand, with U.S. imperialism’s policy of eliminating resistance in the region, both domestic pro-West forces and imperialist states used all their propaganda and media capacities to amplify and legitimize these tendencies inside the “left.” On the basis of such support, these pseudo-lefts and ultra-leftists advanced so far that they openly celebrated the criminal assassination of General Soleimani, the helicopter “crash” that killed President Raisi, and the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s government at the hands of the U.S., Israel, and Arab reaction, and even held celebrations for these “victories”! They hoped that, after imposed retreats on the resistance front, Iran, too, would be forced to bow and abandon its “adventurism.”
Such an approach, within a unipolar world under a U.S. confident in its power, and within imperialism’s carrot-and-stick approach toward an Islamic Republic dominated by pro-West liberals, could for a long period time attract many unknowing minds, because it kept alive the hope that by abandoning resistance and submitting to U.S. demands, the country could be saved from further blows, and “peace” could be achieved through “getting along” and surrendering.
But what revealed the bankruptcy of such an approach was the broad awareness formed globally and domestically about the nature and real goals of imperialism and Zionism — awareness whose turning point, after October 7 and following the organized slaughter of countless men, women, and children in Gaza and the near-total destruction of the strip over almost two years, expanded unprecedentedly — crimes that not only shook the world’s public conscience, but also unveiled the structural linkage between imperialism, Zionism, and the war machine of global capitalism, and collapsed many prior illusions about imperialism’s true motives.
In Iran, this global awareness, intertwined with the direct experience of the 12-day war, became a decisive factor in the political orientation of the millions. The consequence was the formation of a kind of social unity around defending the Islamic Republic of Iran against imperialist and Zionist plots and threats. This process led people — who for more than four decades have been victims of neoliberal capitalist economic policies of the ruling establishment — to conclude in practice that one must distinguish between the “ruling establishment” of the Islamic Republic and its “State” — on one side, struggle against neoliberal economic policies of the dominant bourgeoisie inside the ruling establishment; and on the other side, defense of the country’s surivival and independence against external aggression as an unavoidable national necessity.
This transformation in consciousness was nothing other than a practical confirmation of the correctness of the policy long advanced by Iran’s anti-imperialist left — a policy derided with labels such as “axis-of-resistance left” or “remnants of the 1979–1982 line of the Tudeh Party.” The broad acceptance of this policy by a large part of society meant the rapid erosion of the social base of the pseudo-lefts and leftists, pushing them toward nervous, hysterical, aggressive reactions against the growing anti-imperialist left.
Now, despite the desperate efforts of these NATO pseudo-lefts and leftists, millions of people and revolutionary Muslim forces in Iran increasingly recognize the real nature of imperialism and its vile aims for Iran and the peoples of the region and the world — and consequently the correctness of the political line of Iran’s anti-imperialist left that took shape from the very beginning of the revolution. One can say that now, after more than four decades, the necessity of forming a United People’s Front composed of all revolutionary and anti-imperialist forces of Iran — religious and non-religious — is understood more than ever, and no accusation, label, or lie — from whoever — will be able to negate the legitimacy of this historical trend.
Our revolutionary people … more than at any time in the past, have found a clearer understanding of the true and real friends and the hateful, irreconcilable enemies of the revolution, inside the country and throughout the world. And this understanding, as they face realities, and despite all efforts of saboteurs and enemy agents and the misled, is expanding — something that is the most important factor for closeness, cooperation, and unity of all true revolutionary forces, regardless of their philosophical theories and social outlooks.
Tudeh Party of Iran,
“The Third Year of Our Homeland’s Glorious Revolution,”
February 1981
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
Footnotes
1 “Ke-bar-Ke” (who-against-who): A concept developed by the leadership of the Tudeh Party of Iran immediately after the victory of the 1979 Revolution to describe the class factional fight within the leadership of the Islamic Republic over the general direction of the revolutionary process — capitalist vs. non-capitalist path of development. — Tr.
2 Comrade Noureddin Kianouri, First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Tudeh Party of Iran during the first years of the Revolution, who was arrested along with the rest of the leadership of the Party in 1982. — Tr.