by BRUNO GUIGUE

I know this will be unpleasant for many, but I believe it must be said and repeated: in the current situation, equating the “mullahs’ regime” with the genocidal Trump-Netanyahu duo is clearly political nonsense. Have we forgotten that it is the Iranian state itself, its integrity and sovereignty, that is the target of imperialism? Having sympathy for this or that political force, the Tudeh Party for example, changes nothing: consistent anti-imperialism, especially if it is Marxist, and at least as much if it is not, must affirm its solidarity with the Islamic Republic of Iran and its legitimate government, period.

Playing the selective outrage card by brandishing falsified victim figures, omitting to mention that the anti-government riots were largely orchestrated by the Mossad (congratulated by Mike Pompeo), bravely calling on those on the ground to fight against the “religious dictatorship”, haggling over support for Iran in the name of a secularism transformed into an export product, invoking the fate of the women of Tehran at the very moment when the butcher of Tel Aviv is massacring schoolgirls, all these charades have a name: it is the neither-nor stance, the opportunism of equidistance, the hypocritical anti-campism that consists of having two irons in the fire.

Obviously, this balancing act allows one to preserve one’s conscience: since one is against both sides, and they are both supposedly evil, one will necessarily be on the side of Good! Except that these two sides are the only ones that exist in the real world, and rejecting them both amounts to escaping into fantasy and leaving the stage of history. Who can fail to see that treating them the same way, without discerning the balance of power, without geopolitical considerations, without analyzing the devastating strategy of Washington and Tel Aviv, is tantamount to supporting the aggressor?

With stratospheric hypocrisy, imperialism wants us to believe that the destruction of Iranian civilian and military infrastructure would serve the democratic forces in that country. But for goodness’ sake, we’re not obliged to believe it and align ourselves with its policies! Condemning the “mullahs’ regime” in the threatening tone of Western moralizers, as the fanatics of the “neither-nor” stance do, is not only to usurp the rights of the Iranian people themselves, who are perfectly capable of choosing their political direction, but above all, it’s to jump on the bandwagon of foreign aggression.

For all those who take the plight of the Iranian people seriously—and many do so sincerely, including those who adhere to the “neither-nor” stance—it will be necessary to sweep away some bad habits and re-evaluate our perception of the world as it is, or rather, as the genocidal duo is shaping it. We must rid ourselves, once and for all, of this unfortunate tendency to choose good guys and bad guys on the political chessboard of the country targeted by imperialism. By what right should we make this selection? Are the people in question incapable of making their own judgments? It is perfectly natural that we have subjective preferences, but these must give way to the duty of solidarity with the nations under attack.

Is it really so difficult? Left-wing forces in France have a particular fondness for the Tudeh, an Iranian left-wing organization: that’s their right, and understandable. But let’s not forget: firstly, the Tudeh itself is calling for international support against the aggression suffered by its country, and secondly, it’s not the Tudeh that’s receiving the enemy missiles and legitimately retaliating by launching missiles back at the aggressor forces. In short, today, it’s not the Tudeh that’s making history; it’s not on the front lines, taking and returning the blows. True anti-imperialism, however, consists of aligning oneself, without reservation or preconditions, with those who are making history by fighting the imperialist enemy, regardless of their political or ideological leanings.

This is why it is particularly ridiculous and counterproductive, from a progressive point of view, to say that one condemns both the American-Israeli aggression and the mullahs’ dictatorship (the PCF version, or LFI depending on the moment) or, even worse, to condemn both the imperialist aggression AND the Iranian retaliation (the PS version, obviously the most grotesque and opportunistic). It should also be noted that these political stances place their authors far behind the positions taken by sovereign states like China, Russia, or Spain, which categorically condemn the aggression perpetrated by Washington and Tel Aviv, and that’s all there is to it.

And if this is the case, it is because their governments have long since grasped the gravity of the situation and acted accordingly. They uphold the right of nations to decide their own future and do not interfere in their internal affairs. They judge the external actions of states in light of international law and condemn them when they turn international life into a battleground where certain powers exercise the law of the strongest. This contrasts with those in the West who believe that the noble principles invoked by the most brutal imperialism are more than just a smokescreen, and, unable to influence the course of events, take refuge in abstract moralism, a superficial humanism, and a flexible application of human rights.

___

The text was taken from Le Grand Soir, where it was published on March 1, 2026. Translation using software tools.