Why Western left fails to grasp the link between imperialism, Zionism, and ‘regime change’ in Iran

By David Miller

When the Israeli spy agency Mossad called for riots in Iran on its Farsi-language social media on January 1, almost no one in the West took notice.

Yet the very next day, former US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo made his famous intervention, openly calling for riots in Iranian cities and wishing a Happy New Year to “every Iranian in the streets – and “also to every Mossad agent walking beside them.”

After that, there was little justification for critics of Western foreign policy to ignore the role of foreign intelligence agencies and terrorist elements in the events that followed.

Nevertheless, a widespread reluctance persists to confront the involvement of Mossad – and indeed the CIA and MI6 – in the two days of riots between January 8 and 9.

The Western left has largely failed to understand the “regime-change” alliance linking Mossad, Pahlavist monarchists, the cult-like terrorist group Mujahedin-e Khalq, and a wide array of CIA-backed “opposition” groups – almost all based in the US, with a smaller presence in the UK and across Europe.

Few have grasped that Britain’s MI6 has also played a role in this sinister “regime-change” project targeting Iran. Instead, many on the Western left tend to interpret these attempts as a “freedom struggle,” viewing them as expressions of popular agency or even as a working-class or trade-union uprising. They are not.

What follows is an examination of the multifaceted errors, misunderstandings, and intellectual degradation displayed by far too many leftists – from the liberal and secular left to the revolutionary left, including those who claim to be anti-Zionist or supporters of the Palestinian liberation movement.

Before proceeding, however, it is necessary to briefly outline the correct framework for understanding the role of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

It is the world’s leading anti-imperialist state and the tip of the spear in the struggle for the liberation of Palestine. One need not take my word for this, nor even that of Sayyed Ali Khamenei or General Qasem Soleimani.

Instead, one should listen to the words of the leaders of the Palestinian Resistance themselves.

Here is the martyr Yahya Sinwar in 2019: “If not for Iran’s support for the resistance in Palestine, we would not have obtained these capabilities [rockets and the technical means to produce homegrown rockets]. Indeed, our [Arab] nation has deserted us in our difficult moments, while Iran has supported us with weapons, equipment and expertise.”

And here is the former Hamas chief, Martyr Ismail Haniyeh, on International Quds Day in 2020

“The essence of [our] strategy is the resistance project. Complete resistance, including the armed military resistance at the top. From here, I salute all the components of the nation that embrace and support the choice of resistance on the ground in Palestine… I am particularly specifying the Islamic Republic of Iran, which has not faltered in supporting and funding the resistance financially, militarily, and technically. This is an example of the Republic’s strategy that was established by Imam Khomeini, may God have mercy on his soul."

Against the Islamic Republic (and the Palestinian Resistance) are, first and foremost, the Zionist colonists in Palestine and their main supporters, the US and the UK. 

We also need to note the Iranian self-styled "opposition," which takes the form of the monarchist supporters of the former Shah who want to install his son as the new king. Then there is the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MKO, aka People’s Mujahedin of Iran/National Council of Resistance of Iran)

The MKO is a designated terrorist group based in Albania, a NATO member state, where it maintains a troll farm alongside other operational infrastructure.

It was removed from the US list of terrorist organizations in 2012 following an extensive lobbying campaign supported by Zionist lobby networks.

In June 2023, Albanian police raided the group’s premises, seizing around 150 computer devices. The raid followed the China-brokered rapprochement between Iran and Saudi Arabia, after which Riyadh, having long denied any connection to the MKO, was forced to withdraw its backing.

The Saudis had also denied funding the anti-Islamic Republic media outlet Iran International, but once the agreement mediated by China was signed, financial support was abruptly cut and the channel’s London office was closed.

Several months later, however, a new London office was opened after fresh funding was secured from the Zionist entity, which continues to bankroll the propaganda outlet to this day.

The case of Iran International highlights the broader ecosystem of external opposition groups targeting Iran. Many of these are financed through deniable intermediaries such as the National Endowment for Democracy and its network of affiliated agencies.

Journalist Alan MacLeod has recently documented several of these organizations in MintPress, including Human Rights Activists in Iran / Human Rights Activists News Agency, the Abdorrahman Boroumand Center for Human Rights in Iran, and the Center for Human Rights in Iran. There are, however, many more such entities operating within this parallel infrastructure.

Leftist take on Iran

We should begin with those “leftists” who have historically held deeply flawed positions on “regime change” and the roles of the CIA, MI6, and Mossad.

Many are already familiar with the limitations of figures such as Bernie Sanders, who spoke of an “abhorrent regime” and praised the “incredible courage” of Mossad-directed “protesters”; or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, often scathingly referred to by critics as “AOCIA”; or Jeremy Corbyn, who stated that he was “appalled by the killing of protesters”; or Zarah Sultana, who declared, “The images of body bags leave no doubt about the brutality of Iran’s repression, and a communications blackout is indefensible.”

In the UK, Owen Jones, Michael Walker of Novara Media, and many others followed the same pattern. For those who remain unconvinced on these points, I suggest consulting the sources linked in the preceding statements.

The “Mullahs”, the “Ayatollahs” and the “Islamists”

Part of the problem is that Islamophobia runs deep within the left. Often disguised as morally upright secularism, a closer look reveals much more beneath the surface.

Back in 2017, I co-edited a book on Islamophobia, which proposed a theory identifying five pillars of Islamophobia. Alongside Western states, neoconservatives, the Zionist movement, and the far-right, we argued that a fifth pillar was found within certain elements of leftist, secular, and feminist movements.

In the book, we examined the so-called pro-war left, the New Atheists, feminist groups, and strands of secularism. Back then, we concluded that:

It is clear that while some within these groups did not initially set out to campaign against the oppressive conditions faced by Muslims in the West, many have ultimately ended up there.

In this sense, we describe these movements as “social movements from above,” whose trajectories have effectively aligned them with other Islamophobic currents – whether intentionally or not.

However, the problem on the Western left runs much deeper. It permeates the core of anti-Zionist and anti-imperialist movements and is evident across the so-called ‘revolutionary’ left.

Thus, beyond the “pro-war left,” when it comes to Iran, we must also critically examine the anti-war and pro-Palestine left.

Many on the left hold anti-theist and anti-Islamic views. Perhaps tentatively at first, they eventually adopt the racist language commonly used to describe Muslims and Muslim societies.

Terms like “Mullahs,” “Ayatollahs,” and “Islamists” – the latter, as I have argued elsewhere, being popularized by Zionist ideologues and curated by none other than Benjamin Netanyahu – come to be accepted as natural descriptors.

“Islamic fundamentalism”

Another key term in left-wing Islamophobia is “fundamentalism.” In the UK, a certain current of feminists formed a group called Women Against Fundamentalism in the late 1980s.

They did not adopt a nuanced or narrow definition of “fundamentalism” limited to a small subset within religious movements. Rather, they explicitly stated (1994, p. 7) that they were referring to movements that “use religion as a basis” for political strategies.

This description covers nearly all Muslim political movements, with the exception of a handful of Westernized secular groups—almost all of which are funded by state-related interests.

By their definition, Christian liberation theology and even the Quakers, a well-known liberal Christian group, would also qualify.

It is remarkable that this Islamophobic term was deemed appropriate for an organization claiming to be progressive, but there it is. One of the key activists was Julia Bard, a member of the Jewish Socialists’ Group, raising several questions about that organization.

Others involved included Nira Yuval-Davis, who describes herself as “an anti-Zionist diasporic Israeli Jew,” a phrase that appears to legitimize the false Zionist notion that Jews outside Israel constitute a diaspora and lends political legitimacy to the concept of “Israel.”

Perhaps the best-known figurehead of Women Against Fundamentalism was Gita Sahgal, infamous for labeling the civil rights group Cage as “Jihadi,” a subject I have explored in depth elsewhere. The term “Jihadi” is yet another Islamophobic label used to demonize Muslims engaged in political life.

Maryam Namazie and the secular/feminist/communist  alliance with Mossad

Gita Sahgal has also been closely associated with the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain (CEMB). For example, she appeared for “evening drinks” at a 2013 meeting alongside Maryam Namazie, the spokesperson for CEMB.

Founded in 2007, CEMB is an anti-Muslim organization. Namazie, who is Iranian, was prominent in the early October 2022 demonstrations against the Islamic Republic in Trafalgar Square on behalf of CEMB.

Images of her topless protest were subsequently removed by Instagram and Twitter.

That day, she joined forces with Islamophobic monarchists and other anti-government factions. Namazie is a former leading member of the Worker-Communist Party of Iran, though as of 2017 she still identified as a “communist.”

This has not prevented her from collaborating with far-right groups through her “anti-Shariah” campaign organization, One Law for All. Among its supporters from Islamophobic networks are prominent neoconservatives like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Caroline Fourest, as well as Zionists such as Alan Johnson, who works for the Israeli lobby group BICOM.

Additionally, various UK anti-Muslim civil society groups, including the Lawyers’ Secular Society, the National Secular Society, Women Against Fundamentalism (mentioned earlier), and British Muslims for Secular Democracy, have been involved.

One Law for All has also worked closely with far-right figure Baroness Cox, who is known for inviting Dutch Islamophobe Geert Wilders to the UK.

On January 16 of this year, Namazie published a piece on the website of the Islamophobic UK NGO, the National Secular Society, titled Iran: The Generation That Broke Faith with Theocracy.

The article echoed many of the main falsehoods circulated by Mossad and CIA-linked actors, including blaming deaths caused by foreign-backed terrorists on the police and Basij, claiming that families must pay for the bullets that killed their loved ones in order to reclaim their bodies, and more.

Left opposition and ‘workerism’

There is also a tendency to seize upon any criticism of governments in Western-designated enemy states. Liberal opposition suffices, but it’s often preferable if it can be framed as left-wing or ‘progressive’ criticism or revolt. Thus, Owen Jones has made himself appear misguided by citing Tudeh, the marginal, counter-revolutionary, and Islamophobic Iranian “Communist” party.

The naive “workerism” prevalent among large sections of the left is also noteworthy. Consequently, many leftists have circulated statements from unions in Tehran and elsewhere, attempting to leverage these as proof of genuine grassroots dissent, thereby obscuring the cover they provide to acts of terror.

One of the more sophisticated examples of this approach appeared in a piece published by Progressive International, the think tank funded in part by proceeds from the Sanders Institute, established by Bernie Sanders.

While the article offered an otherwise nuanced analysis of the forces arrayed against the Islamic Republic, it slipped into imagining that workers’ struggles in Iran might be free from foreign intervention. However, as British writer Phil Bevin demonstrates, the backing of such actions by the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MKO) terror cult seriously undermines these arguments.

It comes as no surprise that Progressive International, with its star-studded roster of intellectuals including Noam Chomsky, Jeremy Corbyn, and Yanis Varoufakis, is also a strong supporter of the recently collapsed CIA operation in northeast Syria, commonly known as Rojava.

Those involved in running Rojava are closely linked to the Sanders-Corbyn political current. Its director, David Adler, came from the Sanders Institute, and communications director James Schneider is the highly controversial former spin doctor for Corbyn. Their involvement in the “Justice for Kurds” campaign aligns seamlessly with their effective cover for CIA and Mossad-backed terror in Iran.

Anti-zionists against Islam

Here are some words from a self-proclaimed anti-Zionist and supporter of Palestinian liberation, spoken within the last fortnight.

To be clear, this is not someone who is a “watermelon” supporter of Palestinian “rights,” but a genuine supporter of the resistance and the liberation of Palestine, at least according to their public statements.

• “Yes, Israel and the USA were involved in attacking the regime during the protests, but to miss the hatred of the Iranian people for the repressive, corrupt, theocratic rule of the Mullahs is racist and orientalist. The clerical regime of Iran is bated in the blood of their own people.”
• “The clerical regime in Iran bears resemblance to fascism.”
• “I happen to believe that when religion takes over the state, it inevitably means it is repressive.”

It is truly breathtaking to hear these racist beliefs spill from the mouths of self-proclaimed anti-racists and anti-Zionists. Every term from the Islamophobic bingo card is there: “regime,” “theocratic,” “mullahs,” “repressive,” and, of course, “fascism.”

This example is just one of many that reveal how deeply Islamophobic ideas run on the left—including within anti-Zionist circles, Jewish anti-Zionist groups included.

Revolutionary socialists for Mossad terror

Here is a ‘revolutionary socialist’ posting on Facebook, a post that received 172 likes from prominent British and international leftists, including many members of Trotskyist groups such as Counterfire and the Socialist Workers Party.

The author, John Clarke, a Canadian academic and socialist activist, opened his brief piece by stating that “the struggle in Iran should be supported but, at the same time, we must speak out against US and Israeli interference and intervention.”

There seems to be no recognition that this amounts to simultaneously supporting Mossad and condemning it. Clarke goes on to acknowledge that “there is no doubt that Western and Israeli intelligence agencies are seeking to influence the movement in Iran.

Doubtless, there are also reactionary and monarchist elements on the ground who are doing all they can to ensure the struggle serves US interests.”

In reality, the original demonstrations beginning December 28 were protests over economic grievances, not protests against the Islamic Republic itself. The left appears oblivious to the internal political dynamics at play. When Pahlavists and Mossad agents showed up, they were roundly condemned by the demonstrators.

Following the two nights of rioting and terror instigated by Mossad and its recruits, million-strong marches took place in Tehran and other cities across the country. Virtually no Western leftist has acknowledged this massive display of national unity.

Most strikingly, Clarke quotes Lenin on the 1916 Easter Rising in Ireland, writing that Lenin “took on those who focused on the imperfect form of the struggle and stressed the way forward that it pointed to.” While true, it is utterly fanciful to compare an anti-colonial uprising in Ireland to a Mossad-orchestrated terror attack in Iran.

The latter signals the potential end of the Islamic Republic, the balkanization of Iran, and its elimination as a threat to the so-called “Greater Israel” project and the leading global supporter of Palestinian resistance.

Clarke claims socialists should offer “winning strategies,” but Mossad and CIA subversion of the Islamic Republic is a losing strategy, both for the prospects of socialist revolution and for human civilization.

It is also a surefire way to guarantee full Zionist triumph in Palestine, expansion into Greater Israel, and even further, towards a new Jewish empire.

The New Left for “nuanced” analysis

Then there is the tendency to produce “sophisticated” and “nuanced” academic-style writing that deliberately says very little. Eskandar Sadeghi-Boroujerdi, an Iranian lecturer at the University of St Andrews, writes on the New Left Review blog:

“Some cast the unrest as an imminent revolutionary rupture; others as exclusively the product of foreign destabilization; still others as the delayed reckoning of a society finally pushed beyond endurance. Each captures part of the picture, but none adequately explains the dynamics of the present conjuncture. What is unfolding is better understood as the convergence of accumulated social exhaustion, acute distributive shock and a crisis of governance which the Islamic Republic no longer possesses the ideological, bureaucratic or fiscal resources to manage.”

So far, so apparently nuanced. But there is a red flag in that phrase “present conjuncture,” which signals that this account ultimately carries water for Mossad-backed terror.

This term is a staple of poststructuralist and postmodern academic work, which often tries to maintain the appearance of a radical, even Marxist, spirit. It originates from Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci’s work, later adopted by French structuralist Marxist Louis Althusser, whose “glacial grip,” as Terry Eagleton put it, was passed on to British cultural studies scholar Stuart Hall and his followers.

The problem is that by the time Hall domesticated the concept in the 1980s, it had been stripped of any recognisable Marxist or anti-imperialist politics. Now, forty years later, the term is confined to academic debates and has no practical use whatsoever for actual movements seeking to defeat imperial power.

And so it is that only a few paragraphs later, we find this:

At the same time, there is video evidence of armed protesters confronting security forces with knives, machetes, and, in some cases, firearms, supposedly indicating how years of repression have radicalized segments of the opposition.

The evidence for this claim is, of course, nonexistent. These weapons did not arise from the radicalization of Iranian citizens but were supplied by foreign intelligence agencies.

Moreover, this narrative completely ignores the open boasting by Mossad and even Mike Pompeo’s January 2nd post on X, claiming Mossad agents were on the ground. Did Sadeghi-Boroujerdi overlook this crucial information in his research? In fact, the word “Mossad” does not appear once in his piece.

The most glaring failure of analysis is the suggestion that Mossad’s involvement only strengthened the Islamic Republic’s arguments.

“Acknowledging foreign interference does not mean endorsing the claim that the nationwide protests were purely foreign-engineered. A widespread uprising rooted in years of social and economic hardship cannot be reduced to external intelligence machinations—even if Israeli and US agencies sought to hijack it. What they chiefly achieved was to provide a convenient alibi for repression, reframing the protests as a continuation of the June war, thereby justifying a state of exception under the guise of national security.”

This is a truly awful way to describe an assault on the very foundations of the Islamic Revolution. Unsurprisingly, Sadeghi-Boroujerdi resorts to the racist label “Islamist” in his analysis of the Republic.

He closes his post by lamenting a “rapidly narrowing space for political agency.” Yet in this context, the idea of “agency” reeks of one of the key CIA talking points routinely deployed in regime change operations, an agenda tied closely to a specific intelligence agency.

In the end, there is no way around it: the international left is, at best, providing cover for and advancing Zionist efforts to destroy the Islamic Republic – and with it, the material defense of the Palestinians.

At worst, they are direct collaborators in the Zionist assault on Iran and, by clear extension, in the genocide in the Levant. And if they are Iranian, they are traitors to their own people.

David Miller is the producer and co-host of Press TV’s weekly Palestine Declassified show. He was sacked from Bristol University in October 2021 over his Palestine advocacy. 

(The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of Press TV)

Press TV’s website can also be accessed at the following alternate addresses:

www.presstv.co.uk