A short intro because the repost is a great read, and I have nothing to contribute to it.

“Armin Navabi is an Iranian-Canadian ex-Muslim atheist, author, and podcaster. In 2012, he founded the online free thought community Atheist Republic, a Canada-based non-profit organization.”

Original link: https://www.queermajority.com/essays-all/by-any-means-necessary

By Any Means Necessary: Iran, Hamas and the Left

Armin Navabi; Jan 17, 2024

We have all, by this point, seen the displays of support for Hamas and radical Islamists from young Western leftists in response to the October 7th, 2023 attacks on Israel by Hamas. Disturbing though it is to see terror attacks, kidnappings, and brutal gang rapes condoned or even celebrated, what’s most troubling is that this isn’t the first unholy alliance between the Western far-left and the Islamic far-right. What we’ve seen in the months since October hasn’t just been a series of isolated incidents or trivial social media trends; it's a reflection of a deeper and more concerning shift in political and ideological attitudes. And it’s happened before. More than 40 years ago, in my country of birth, Iran, Islamists and the radical left joined forces, and the destructive consequences of that alliance provide crucial lessons for the present day.

THE RED AND BLACK ALLIANCE

In 1979, Iran underwent an Islamic Revolution that reversed decades of progress in economic development, women’s rights, education, health, and more. But why would a country that had taken such strides toward a promising future undergo a revolution? To understand this, it's important to recognize that the so-called Islamic Revolution in Iran was not purely Islamic — it was initiated by leftists and executed by both leftists and Islamists.

Many Mullahs, including Ayatollah Khomeini, grew increasingly enraged with Iran's rulers, Reza Shah and his son Mohammad Reza Shah (the last of the Pahlavi royal dynasty) due to their progressive reforms concerning women's rights. These reforms, perceived as Westernized and contrary to Islamic values, were instrumental in inflaming the discontent that fueled the Islamic Revolution. However, the Mullahs themselves lacked the political skills necessary to instigate a revolution on their own.

In the years leading up to the revolution, Iranian leftists, deeply influenced by revolutionary communist theories and literature, were also growing restless and impatient. Lacking the means to mobilize a people’s revolution independently, these leftists found allies in the Islamic clerical establishment. The mullahs, with their extensive network in mosques and influence over the populace, provided the perfect machinery for an uprising. Together, they were powerful enough to overthrow the system.

This ideological fusion between the secular left and the Islamic right, a phenomenon Mohammad Reza Shah referred to as the unholy alliance between the “black and the red,” (“red” signifying the communists and “black” the mullahs) lies at the very crux of the revolution. The “red” half of the alliance reframed, in the eyes of many Western left-wing thinkers, what would otherwise have been viewed as a reactionary religious uprising into a revolution against the detrimental impacts of colonialism and capitalism.

A key architect in building the ideological framework for the Islamic Revolution was the Iranian sociologist Ali Shariati. Influenced by his time among Parisian radicals in the 1960s, he sought to reinterpret Islam with a strong emphasis on social justice and anti-imperialism by incorporating elements of revolutionary Marxism. He aimed to synthesize these schools of thought to mobilize the Muslim masses (especially the youth) against imperialism, and to promote social change within an Islamic framework. His Islamic-left ideology was the single most influential doctrine that led to the 1979 revolution.

The revolution succeeded. The Pahlavi shahs were deposed and the Ayatollah Khomeini emerged as the leader of Iran. It didn’t take long after the success of the revolution, however, for leftist ideals to be jettisoned.

THE HIJAB

In the very first year of the new regime, Ayatollah Khomeini decreed mandatory veiling for women at work on March 7, 1979. On March 8, International Women's Day, women took to the streets in large-scale protests against the compulsory hijab. Women on the left, who once adopted the veil as a sign of resistance during the revolution, did not anticipate it becoming mandatory. "We didn't have a revolution to go backwards," crowds chanted.

The veil mandate was perceived by many as a sign that women, who had actively participated in the revolution, were now "back to dog status”, as a protest leader put it. The civil rights women had gained during the Shah’s rule were suddenly at risk.

Homa Nategh, an active participant in the revolution, was present at the March 8 women's protests. Demonstrating her commitment to the leftist cause, Nategh famously stated, “Women of Iran are used to Hijab. Have no problem with Hijab.” She believed that wearing the hijab was a minor sacrifice in the pursuit of greater goals. “If Hijab is the only means to get free of Imperialism — if it’s the price — we’ll pay.” She went as far as to hyperbolically say, “Hijab is not our women's problem, and to fight against imperialism, if necessary, we will even wear a blanket.”

In a self-reflective interview years after the 1979 Women's Day Protests, Nategh recounted her pivotal role in those events. She described approaching female demonstrators and urging them to cease their protests, under the belief that unity with the Mullahs was paramount. "We must have a united voice [with the Mullahs]," she stated. Nategh acknowledged her significant influence, admitting, "It was me who finished the women's protests. I was the reason for it. Because left parties were listening to me." She recalled the heartbreak and confusion of the protesting women, who feared a backslide of women’s rights. "Lots of sad [female protestors] came to me to question my act. [They told me:] ‘It’s not going to get right. This suppression is going to get worse.’"

Despite their pleas, Nategh convinced them to stop, influenced by the leftist party's stance, leading to her self-professed betrayal of Iranian women. "I was an important part of it. They were moving their veils on top of their heads hoping that somebody would help them. Nobody came, none of the parties went to join them." In a subsequent apology to Iranian women, Nategh expressed regret for her actions and the unforeseen consequences: “I did not think that the person who tells me how to dress will later tell me how to think.”

HORSESHOE APOLOGIA

Sadegh Khalkhali, a hardline cleric and Head of the Islamic Revolutionary Court after the revolution, was infamous for his harsh and often brutal judgments, including ordering the execution of many associated with the previous regime. In this, he was supported by the Tudeh Party (the Iranian communist party). According to the Iranian newspaper, ISNA:

“The method of the Tudeh Party after the revolution was the same as it had been observed over many years. The Tudeh Party, when perceiving people’s demands against the financial corruption of the monarchy, quickly identified liberalism as treason and counter-revolutionary, and openly branded the provisional government as a representative of imperialism. Alongside such an approach, when it realized that Islamism was the dominant discourse in society, it presented itself as a defender of the Islamic government, even nominating Sadegh Khalkhali as the party-supported candidate in elections, and even supported the proposal of the 'Islamic Republic favored by Imam [Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini] in contrast to the 'Democratic Republic' proposed by Mehdi Bazargan.”

Noureddin Kianouri, a prominent Tudeh member, defended his party's stance in supporting Khalkhali by saying that these actions were necessary to suppress counter-revolutionary elements and those who supported the former imperial regime. In weekly Q&A sessions held in the early days of the revolution, he said, “Khalkhali has rendered valuable services in the field of suppressing counter-revolutionaries, criminals, and proponents of the former regime [...] With unparalleled courage, he sent several hundred of the most important figures of imperialism to the firing squad.”

The Tudeh Party leadership thought that by intensifying the anti-American aspect of the revolution and courting the support of the Soviet Union, the Islamic Republic would gradually move in an anti-imperialist direction. They were in for a rude awakening.

THE EXECUTIONS

In 1988, the Islamic Republic began coordinating extrajudicial mass executions of political prisoners, including the Tudeh Party and members and supporters of other leftist political groups. The main target of the killings was the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran, also known as Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), a militant leftist group. Khomeini issued an order for their execution referring to them as "moharebs" (those who war against Allah) and "mortads" (apostates from Islam), using their alleged non-Islamist beliefs and actions as a justification​​. In part, the letter read:

“In the Name of God,

The Compassionate, the Merciful,

As the treacherous Monafeqin [MEK] do not believe in Islam and what they say is out of deception and hypocrisy, and as their leaders have confessed that they have become renegades, and as they are waging war on God, and as they are engaging in classical warfare in the western, the northern and the southern fronts, and as they are collaborating with the Baathist Party of Iraq and spying for Saddam against our Muslim nation, and as they are tied to the World Arrogance, and in light of their cowardly blows to the Islamic Republic since its inception, it is decreed that those who are in prison throughout the country and remain steadfast in their support for the Monafeqin [MEK] are waging war on God and are condemned to execution.”

The wave of Iranian political killings in 1988 was one of the largest mass executions of the second half of the 20th century and one that has largely been forgotten outside of Iran or the Iranian diaspora. The exact death toll remains uncertain. Most sources agree that thousands were executed, with estimates ranging from 4,000 to 30,000 people — the majority of whom were loaded onto trucks in large groups, brought to designated sites, and hanged en masse. The Tudeh Party was completely eradicated.

Iran today ranks among the least free countries in the world. LGBT people have virtually no rights. Same-sex behavior between gay and bi men is a crime that carries a maximum penalty of death. Indeed, thousands of LGBT people have been executed by the Iranian regime since the 1979 Revolution. Women who refuse to wear the hijab risk brutal attacks, imprisonment, or even death, as the much-publicized case of Mahsa Jina Amini showed. And political and religious minorities live as second-class citizens or worse. How might things have turned out if the progress prior to the revolution had been allowed to continue?

HISTORY RHYMES

The trends, behaviors, and beliefs that led to the disastrous Iranian Revolution threaten to repeat themselves today in the West. We have already begun to see early glimpses. The most prominent example is the ongoing wave of mass anti-Israel and/or pro-Hamas protests following the Oct 7th attacks. Not only has Hamas been a disaster for women, LGBT people, and their own civilians, but the Palestinian “one state” solution would result in a country as unfree as Iran —  and one equally antithetical to left-aligned values. Other warning signs include the case of Hamtramck, Michigan, where a progressive-backed Muslim-majority town council voted to ban Pride flags, or the spate of young TikTokers siding with Osama bin Laden’s 21-year-old “Letter to America.” This goes beyond Islamism. Segments of the far-left and Christian far-right are more than willing to team up, as we’ve seen in recent years with European populist movements, the opposition to defending Ukraine from Russian conquest, and radical lefties voting for Donald Trump to “let the empire burn.” The question is: why?

There is a particular strain within leftist thought that often exhibits a fascination with revolution and a drive to dismantle and disrupt, sometimes indiscriminately. Young (and some not-so-young) radicals see the problems that exist today, and with no appreciation for how far we’ve come, pronounce society to be irredeemably flawed. The only solution is to tear it all down. Whatever rises from the ashes, this dubious logic goes, cannot help but be better than the status quo. This perspective, while rooted in a desire for human betterment, usually leads to the precise opposite. Such revolutionary zeal is not just a desire for change, but an impulse to break the existing order, often “by any means necessary”, as so many recent anti-Israel protest signs can attest. This includes allying with any group or ideology that opposes the current power structures. This “enemy of my enemy is my friend” approach leads to alliances that are, at best, ideologically inconsistent, and at worst, counterproductive to the values that many leftists traditionally uphold.

In their pursuit of anti-establishment goals, many leftist factions find common ground with Islamist movements, not because of shared values, but because of a shared opposition to perceived imperialist or colonialist forces. The fact that Islamic fundamentalists oppose women’s rights, secular governance, and basic freedoms; the fact that they criminalize homosexuality and bisexuality in every society they control, is willfully overlooked by the far-left in the pursuit of a common adversary. But the blanket romanticizing of perceived underdogs, often without a critical assessment of their values or intentions, risks empowering forces that, given requisite power, could establish regimes far more oppressive than those they replace. In their quest for a radical overhaul, they’re willing to discard tangible progress in the pursuit of an idealized, hypothetical future. In Iran, decades of progress in economic development and women’s rights were thrown away in the revolution. The West today, which is so much further along, has even more to lose.

The Western world as we know it has been sculpted by liberal ideals such as democracy, individual freedom, LGBT rights, women’s rights, civil liberties, secularism, and the rule of law. Two hundred years ago, three-quarters of the world lived in extreme poverty. Today, this figure has decreased to less than 10%. Over this same span, life expectancy has soared in parallel with the expansion of liberal democracies.

There's a misconception that our current state of well-being is a permanent, fixed baseline that we can take for granted. Instead, progress can be fragile and temporary. The rights and freedoms we enjoy today are not guaranteed tomorrow. They are recent gifts of history, not immutable laws of nature. The potential to regress is real. While the champions of illiberal ideas fight tooth and nail for their beliefs, the guardians of liberal values seem to slumber. They need a wake-up call.

Despite facing myriad external adversaries, the greatest threat to liberal values comes from within. In their misguided quest to dismantle the liberal order, radical elements can act as a Trojan horse, surreptitiously opening the gates to any destructive force that aligns with their anti-liberal agenda. The unholy alliance between the Western left and the Islamist right has happened before. Let’s learn the lessons of history.