More than 100 Iranian former political prisoners, civil society activists, writers, academics and artists have signed a new statement arguing that Iranians should not be forced to choose between opposing the Islamic Republic’s domestic repression and opposing the U.S.-Israeli war against Iran. The statement, titled “Solidarity Beyond Ideological Camps,” calls for an immediate halt to executions, the release of all political prisoners, an end to the war and an end to what they describe as the collective punishment of the Iranian people. The letter states, “Moral clarity lies not in collapsing distinctions, but in refusing to let one form of domination justify another. True solidarity rejects the false dilemma of choosing between injustices; it demands opposition to all systems of repression and oppression that ensnare the vulnerable.”
.jpg){kind=link}
The letter explicitly supports an August 20 open letter from left-leaning activists outside of Iran, which described Iran’s political prisoners as caught between “two blades of a scissors” - repression by the Islamic Republic on one side and foreign military and economic pressure on the other. The original letter highlighted opposition to U.S. and Israeli military intervention and economic coercion, and opposition to executions, imprisonment and restrictions on political and civil society activity by the Islamic Republic.
That framing quickly generated controversy. Some critics argued that the “two blades” metaphor risked creating a false equivalence between the Iranian government’s domestic repression and a foreign military attack against Iran. The two, they argued, have different origins and objectives, and placing them side by side could blur responsibility for the war. Adding to the debate, some of that letter’s signatories asked to be removed as signers, suggesting they had not meant to sign.
Others worried about a different danger: that Iran’s position as a country under attack could push executions, political prisoners and restrictions on civil society into the background, particularly as wartime conditions strengthen the role of security institutions inside the country.
The new “Solidarity Beyond Ideological Camps” statement directly addresses that criticism. Its signatories argue that recognizing two forms of violence does not mean treating them as morally or politically equivalent. A government, they say, can simultaneously be the target of foreign aggression and the perpetrator of repression against its own citizens.
Most of the signatories of the new letter are based outside Iran, but the list also includes a notable group living inside the country. Among them are sociologist and former political prisoner Saeed Madani, teachers’ union spokesperson Mohammad Habibi, writer Reza Khandan, journalist Nasim Soltanbeigi and poet Hafez Mousavi. Other signatories inside Iran include former political prisoners, labor activists, writers and student activists.
Their participation gives the statement particular weight. Some of those signing have themselves experienced imprisonment or political pressure and are now publicly criticizing both state repression and a foreign war against their country.
That distinction is at the heart of their argument. The signatories of the new letter reject the use of human rights violations inside Iran as a justification for military intervention. But they also reject the idea that resisting the United States and Israel requires suspending demands for political rights inside Iran.
In their view, the war does not make executions, imprisonment or censorship less consequential, just as repression inside Iran does not make foreign military attacks more legitimate. The statement places this argument within a longer Iranian history. Its authors point to foreign interventions including Russian involvement in the bombardment of Iran’s first parliament after the Constitutional Revolution and the U.S.- and British-backed 1953 coup against Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh. They place sanctions and the current war within that broader historical experience of external intervention and pressure.
At the same time, they point to Iran’s history of state repression, particularly after the 1979 revolution, including executions, censorship and restrictions on political and civil society activity. The statement gives particular attention to Iran’s political left. Its authors argue that Iranian support for Palestinian rights and opposition to Western intervention long predate the Islamic Republic. Iranian leftist movements developed ties with Palestinian movements and participated in anti-colonial politics before the 1979 revolution.
Yet those same political currents became among the Islamic Republic’s earliest targets after the revolution, with many leftists imprisoned or executed. The statement specifically recalls the mass executions of political prisoners in 1988. The historical argument has a clear contemporary purpose: opposition to U.S. power and foreign intervention does not belong exclusively to the Islamic Republic, just as opposition to the Islamic Republic does not necessarily translate into support for U.S. pressure or military action. That question has become more difficult as the war has continued.
War tends to narrow political space and turn complicated political positions into questions of loyalty. Inside Iran, criticism of the government can become more politically risky when the country is facing foreign attack. Outside Iran, meanwhile, opposition to the Islamic Republic or its actions can be interpreted as support for militaristic approaches toward the country, including the ongoing war. The signatories are trying to resist that polarization.
That does not mean their position represents a new consensus among Iranians or even among opponents of the Islamic Republic. The controversy surrounding the original letter shows how divided Iranian political and civil society remains over the war, sanctions, foreign intervention and the future of the country.
Iran continues to be a dynamic country with a diversity of political views, both inside and outside the country. The authors of the new statement reject both the notion that opposition to the Islamic Republic requires support for the war and that resisting the war requires overlooking the abuses of the Iranian government. For them, the rights of political prisoners cannot be postponed until the war ends, while opposition to repression cannot become an argument for military intervention. The significance of the statement is therefore not that it resolves these divisions, but that it exposes a political debate inside Iranian civil society that is largely missing from international coverage of the war.
Iranian society is not neatly divided between supporters of the Islamic Republic and supporters of its foreign adversaries. There a broad political spectrum, including a current that opposes the government’s treatment of its critics while rejecting the idea that U.S. or Israeli military power can deliver political freedom to Iran.
That distinction matters for the United States as well. Human rights concerns in Iran have repeatedly become intertwined with debates in Washington over sanctions, military pressure and regime change. Iranian officials, meanwhile, have often used the threat of foreign intervention to portray domestic criticism as part of a broader campaign against the country.
For Iranian civil society, those competing pressures can make maintaining an independent political position particularly difficult. The new statement is an attempt to preserve that space. Its signatories reject using the suffering of Iranians either to justify foreign intervention or to excuse repression at home.
There is no reason to assume this position will become dominant. The war has exposed substantial divisions across Iran’s opposition, diaspora, civil society and intellectual communities, and the new statement is itself part of that disagreement rather than its resolution. But the presence of activists and former political prisoners still living inside Iran makes the intervention harder to dismiss simply as another diaspora debate.
Their message is ultimately straightforward: ending the war and defending political rights do not have to wait for one another. Iranians should not have to choose between protection from foreign attack and protection from repression at home.