The freedom of Iranians once again undermined by anti-imperialists

This is the story of a dispute amongst intellectuals and an open letter which, in recent weeks, has sparked accusations, expressions of regret and two waves of scandal of opposing nature within the academic elite of the global Left. At first glance, it would appear to be an outdated controversy, peppered as it is with figures and slogans from the 1970s – the Black Panthers, Frantz Fanon, anti-colonialism and anti-imperialism; but the fact is that this is also – indeed, above all – a story concerning the lives of real people who have been oppressed twice: first by the regime that imprisoned them, and second by the moral short-circuit of a section of the world that refuses to look at them.

“Iranian political prisoners caught between the two blades of a pair of scissors”, reads the headline of an open letter published in The Guardian on 20 August. The signatories include prominent figures such as Judith Butler, Angela Davis, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn; the text expresses solidarity and calls for an end to torture, executions and summary trials by the authorities in Tehran; and, at the same time, calls for an end to sanctions and attacks by the United States and Israel, emphasising that opposition to war must not lead to silence regarding the brutal repression currently taking place (the Abdorrahman Boroumand Centre for Human Rights in Iran has already documented 976 cases of executions in the first seven months of 2026). Because the prisoners of conscience languishing in Iranian jails are victims of a hollow anti-imperialism, the letter argues, “of a system that pretends to oppose imperial power whilst, at the same time, implementing the very same logic of domination. We see this – the academics assure us – across the distance of geography, beyond the silence of censorship and internet blackouts. And we stand in solidarity with you, at the intersection of two forms of oppression (…)’.

So far, so good: in Iran, prisoners are expressing their appreciation and gratitude, because international appeals have often had a positive impact and because shining a beam of light where darkness prevails does, after all, make them feel less alone.

But the lull lasted less than the blink of an eye; reactions to the letter in The Guardian were immediate and unexpectedly virulent. For the Iraqi writer Sami Ramadani, this message of solidarity is a mistake; it is ‘appeasement of the imperialist establishment’, and the political activist Ajamu Baraka agrees: it amounts to collaboration. Journalist and historian Vijay Prashad is on the same wavelength; in his view, the letter offers ‘ideological cover’ for US warmongering, and the metaphor of the scissors, however evocative, is deeply flawed. For, as Prashad argues, on the one hand there is the blade of imperialist war, but on the other – whatever the internal contradictions may be – ‘there is a state that coexists with its society’. It follows, therefore, that, for Prashad, the society and institutions of the Islamic Republic are fused into a single ‘entity victimised by the empire’, and Iranians who do not identify with the regime’s policies and violence are to be dismissed as a mere contradiction. “No state in the region has gone to such lengths for the cause of the Palestinian liberation movement,” notes Prashad, and indeed it is no secret that the discomfort regarding Tehran’s political prisoners stems from this observation. “It is also possible to disagree with certain aspects of Iran’s domestic policy,” says the writer and activist Carlos Martinez, “but the question we must ask ourselves is: which side of the fence are we on? Do we support a war of aggression or the resistance? The genocide in Gaza or the only state that has stood by Palestine for almost half a century?”

Moreover, as the Palestinian-born writer Susan Albulhawa points out – who is also “deeply disturbed” by the tone of the letter in The Guardian – Iranian prisoners are convicted “under the laws of their own country, whether just or unjust”; who knows what they may have been guilty of – she adds – after all, who is to say that political prisoners are not Mossad agents?

Faced with relentless criticism, some of the signatories reconsidered their support; shortly afterwards, Columbia professors Rashid Khalidi and Nadia Abu El-Haj withdrew their signatures, whilst historian Robin D.G. Kelley offered an explanation, stating that the published text did not correspond to the original that had been submitted to him; and the activist and former journalist Mumia Abu-Jamal (a former member of the Black Panther Party, who has been in prison for murder since 1982), who was initially among the signatories, claimed that he had never authorised the addition of his name.

Dismayed by the intensity of the reaction to a letter which, according to many Iranian intellectuals, was ‘frankly the bare minimum’, more than a hundred writers, journalists, artists, historians and activists across Iran and the diaspora – including Janet Afary, Fatemeh Shams, Ali Sabouri, Reza Khandan, Khosrow Sadeghi Boroujeni, Farzaneh Milani and Sara Zeri, have written a new letter to denounce the exploitation of the Iranian people’s suffering and to reiterate that justice and freedom cannot be sacrificed on the altar of anti-imperialism. ‘A resistance movement that chooses to turn a blind eye to the plight of political prisoners is not worthy of the name,’ they emphasise. ‘Solidarity must not require us to choose between different forms of injustice, but must take a clear stand against all systems of oppression.’