Oaklandsocialist has just published this article, which starts:
"Below is an assessment of who is likely to replace the Iranian theocratic regime if it falls. It is by by Iranian refugee Siyâvash Shahabi, who also produces the excellent blog site The Fire Next Time. We reproduce it because the Iran revolution is the most important revolutionary development in the world today. What distinguishes it from every other mass movement in the region is that there is little chance for either religious/Islamacist groups not Russian imperialism to influence this movement. Just the opposite, because the revolution is against a theocratic and Russian connected regime."
That is excellent, John. It directly addresses the claims I am hearing that "there are no prospects for emancipating the working classes of the Middle East until the US and Israel are kicked out." This piece shows Iranian workers are building councils right now, not waiting for favourable geopolitics. It also refutes the "any change will just be pro-American dictatorship" fatalism by mapping the actual forces and their social bases. Exactly what we need.
Concrete international solidarity for the 2026 Iranian uprising involves a combination of direct support for Iranian labor organizations, political pressure on both the Iranian and British governments, and material aid through established networks.
Based on recent statements from Iranian activists and British left organizations, the following concrete actions have been proposed:
1. Trade Union and Labor Solidarity
Direct Communication: British trade unionists are encouraged to send emails or letters of protest to the Iranian regime and letters of support to Iranian workers. Campaigners suggest these communications have a significant cumulative impact by showing workers they have international support and pressuring the state to acknowledge labor rights.
Union Motions: Activists are urged to pass motions of solidarity within their union branches to increase the engagement of the British labor movement with Iranian struggles.
Building Direct Ties: Solidarity organizations like the Committee for Defence of Iranian Peoples Rights (Codir) facilitate direct exchanges between British and Iranian youth movements and unions. This includes supporting the demands of specific groups, such as the South Pars oilfield workers, for minimum wage increases and an end to the looting of pension funds.
2. Political Pressure and Advocacy
Targeted Protests: Demonstrations have been organized outside the British Prime Minister’s office and the Iranian Embassy in London to demand the release of political prisoners and an end to state violence, such as the raid on Ilam Hospital.
Legislative Demands: Some sections of the left call on the UK government to support the "legitimate right of Iran’s youth to defend themselves" against repression and to recognize the right of the Iranian people to establish a free, democratic, and secular republic. Others specifically advocate for the proscription of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organization.
Ending "Selective Solidarity": Activists argue that a "consistent internationalism" must reject "liberation by stages," where the needs of Iranian protesters are set aside in favor of other geopolitical goals. This means supporting the internal revolutionary struggle while simultaneously opposing Western military intervention or "rescue" rhetoric.
3. Material and Diaspora Support
Financial Support: Donations to funds such as the ESSF Asia 2026 Solidarity Fund directly support immediate needs, including legal defense for imprisoned activists, medical treatment for injured protesters, and long-term movement building.
Amplifying Independent Voices: Solidarity involves supporting Iranian diaspora organizations that operate independently of governments to raise the institutional cost for those carrying out crackdowns in Iran. Silence from the international community is seen by the Iranian regime as a signal that they have "room to crack down" without external pressure.
Solidarity with Campaigns: The British left can join international campaigns already underway, such as the “Tuesdays against Execution” weekly hunger strikes in Iranian prisons, to amplify their message globally.
This dismissive approach to the revolutionary struggles in Iran is definitely stronger on the hard left and far left. "New Labour" loves the idea of anti-Western governments being made weaker. The left that refuses to recognise what's happening in Iran are people who think in terms of geopolitics rather than classes: people in Your Party, the Socialist Workers' Party and Revolutionary Communist Party who think Iran is progressive, and that saying anything else puts you in the same class as the CIA. For example, someone in my branch of Your Party read this article and commented: "I didn't know this word campist before. I now understand it means those opposed to the goals of the CIA."
If you are a member of Your Party, I presume you understand the nature of New Labour.
As to "puts you in the same class as the CIA" - that is a very real problem of a person only being able to think in terms of "right and wrong" without any shades of nuance in between. It is a very real problem in a country with such a poorly educated population.
Well, the person who made that comment is highly educated. It's mostly a political problem rather than an educational one: think that because the US is competing with China, Russia, Iran etc to exploit other countries, that Iran must be the good guys because the US is terrible. Sadly, they are all terrible exploiters and oppressors.
I doubt that the world is the same as Britain. After all, that is what you implied in your comment. It's the old "if, then" or "good,bad" without any thought for what might lie in between.
If the US is competing with China and Russia, why doesn't it just get on with the job and compete? Why exploit and oppress when you can bring 900 million out of poverty in the way China has? I know, I know, China has to be bad because nobody's ever been there and so everybody thinks that China is in fact the UK.
So they are all terrible exploiters... etc, etc, etc. It gets tiresome.
I don't get your point about the world being the same as Britain, I'm afraid, or China being the UK.
Why doesn't the US want to compete? Well, the US oligarchs want to compete with an unfair advantage: they want some of the benefits of nationalised monopolies, but without the accountability and without profit-sharing. And, of course, that's also what the ruling elites in China and Russia want for themselves: to get unfair political and economic advantages with the resources they have. China has been an economic and social miracle but, at the same time, people are fed and housed in prison too: that's not the same as freedom. The Chinese elite have been on a long journey to becoming oligarchs themselves (See https://redmole.substack.com/i/169602786/the-market-reforms-inevitable-bureaucratic-trajectory) but there are still fools in the West who think the Chinese rulers must be progressive because they compete with the US.
Your answer to US being unwilling to compete is, by and large, the reason that they have failed.
As to China, have you been there to speak with the people there? (I warn you, they do not like the British - because of the things done to them by the Brits. You may find yourself being spat at).
My point here is that you can believe the corporate media, the very same 'corporate' that doesn't want to compete. The problem is that they have no more idea of what is going on in China than you have - the difference being that the media have no need of reality when producing propaganda.
Oaklandsocialist has just published this article, which starts:
"Below is an assessment of who is likely to replace the Iranian theocratic regime if it falls. It is by by Iranian refugee Siyâvash Shahabi, who also produces the excellent blog site The Fire Next Time. We reproduce it because the Iran revolution is the most important revolutionary development in the world today. What distinguishes it from every other mass movement in the region is that there is little chance for either religious/Islamacist groups not Russian imperialism to influence this movement. Just the opposite, because the revolution is against a theocratic and Russian connected regime."
https://oaklandsocialist.com/2026/01/12/irans-theocracy-wobbling-what-might-replace-it/
That is excellent, John. It directly addresses the claims I am hearing that "there are no prospects for emancipating the working classes of the Middle East until the US and Israel are kicked out." This piece shows Iranian workers are building councils right now, not waiting for favourable geopolitics. It also refutes the "any change will just be pro-American dictatorship" fatalism by mapping the actual forces and their social bases. Exactly what we need.
we've asked siyavash to come speak to the Greens in uk. and he is on substack also ive prompted him to post more,
My comrades at Freedom News published an excellent piece featuring an interview with Anarchist Front in Iran:
https://freedomnews.org.uk/2026/01/05/iran-general-strike-genuine-self-organisation-by-ordinary-people/
we use these mostly and the names of the victims, often with an underscore between first and second name - #StopExecutionsInIran #HumanRightsForIran
Concrete international solidarity for the 2026 Iranian uprising involves a combination of direct support for Iranian labor organizations, political pressure on both the Iranian and British governments, and material aid through established networks.
Based on recent statements from Iranian activists and British left organizations, the following concrete actions have been proposed:
1. Trade Union and Labor Solidarity
Direct Communication: British trade unionists are encouraged to send emails or letters of protest to the Iranian regime and letters of support to Iranian workers. Campaigners suggest these communications have a significant cumulative impact by showing workers they have international support and pressuring the state to acknowledge labor rights.
Union Motions: Activists are urged to pass motions of solidarity within their union branches to increase the engagement of the British labor movement with Iranian struggles.
Building Direct Ties: Solidarity organizations like the Committee for Defence of Iranian Peoples Rights (Codir) facilitate direct exchanges between British and Iranian youth movements and unions. This includes supporting the demands of specific groups, such as the South Pars oilfield workers, for minimum wage increases and an end to the looting of pension funds.
2. Political Pressure and Advocacy
Targeted Protests: Demonstrations have been organized outside the British Prime Minister’s office and the Iranian Embassy in London to demand the release of political prisoners and an end to state violence, such as the raid on Ilam Hospital.
Legislative Demands: Some sections of the left call on the UK government to support the "legitimate right of Iran’s youth to defend themselves" against repression and to recognize the right of the Iranian people to establish a free, democratic, and secular republic. Others specifically advocate for the proscription of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organization.
Ending "Selective Solidarity": Activists argue that a "consistent internationalism" must reject "liberation by stages," where the needs of Iranian protesters are set aside in favor of other geopolitical goals. This means supporting the internal revolutionary struggle while simultaneously opposing Western military intervention or "rescue" rhetoric.
3. Material and Diaspora Support
Financial Support: Donations to funds such as the ESSF Asia 2026 Solidarity Fund directly support immediate needs, including legal defense for imprisoned activists, medical treatment for injured protesters, and long-term movement building.
Amplifying Independent Voices: Solidarity involves supporting Iranian diaspora organizations that operate independently of governments to raise the institutional cost for those carrying out crackdowns in Iran. Silence from the international community is seen by the Iranian regime as a signal that they have "room to crack down" without external pressure.
Solidarity with Campaigns: The British left can join international campaigns already underway, such as the “Tuesdays against Execution” weekly hunger strikes in Iranian prisons, to amplify their message globally.
From Iranian-Australian activist.
https://redflag.org.au/article/iran-on-fire-rebellion-returns-to-the-streets
Is this the real British left, or the likes of the extreme-right “New Labour”
There is a chasm between the two.
This dismissive approach to the revolutionary struggles in Iran is definitely stronger on the hard left and far left. "New Labour" loves the idea of anti-Western governments being made weaker. The left that refuses to recognise what's happening in Iran are people who think in terms of geopolitics rather than classes: people in Your Party, the Socialist Workers' Party and Revolutionary Communist Party who think Iran is progressive, and that saying anything else puts you in the same class as the CIA. For example, someone in my branch of Your Party read this article and commented: "I didn't know this word campist before. I now understand it means those opposed to the goals of the CIA."
If you are a member of Your Party, I presume you understand the nature of New Labour.
As to "puts you in the same class as the CIA" - that is a very real problem of a person only being able to think in terms of "right and wrong" without any shades of nuance in between. It is a very real problem in a country with such a poorly educated population.
Well, the person who made that comment is highly educated. It's mostly a political problem rather than an educational one: think that because the US is competing with China, Russia, Iran etc to exploit other countries, that Iran must be the good guys because the US is terrible. Sadly, they are all terrible exploiters and oppressors.
I doubt that the world is the same as Britain. After all, that is what you implied in your comment. It's the old "if, then" or "good,bad" without any thought for what might lie in between.
If the US is competing with China and Russia, why doesn't it just get on with the job and compete? Why exploit and oppress when you can bring 900 million out of poverty in the way China has? I know, I know, China has to be bad because nobody's ever been there and so everybody thinks that China is in fact the UK.
So they are all terrible exploiters... etc, etc, etc. It gets tiresome.
I don't get your point about the world being the same as Britain, I'm afraid, or China being the UK.
Why doesn't the US want to compete? Well, the US oligarchs want to compete with an unfair advantage: they want some of the benefits of nationalised monopolies, but without the accountability and without profit-sharing. And, of course, that's also what the ruling elites in China and Russia want for themselves: to get unfair political and economic advantages with the resources they have. China has been an economic and social miracle but, at the same time, people are fed and housed in prison too: that's not the same as freedom. The Chinese elite have been on a long journey to becoming oligarchs themselves (See https://redmole.substack.com/i/169602786/the-market-reforms-inevitable-bureaucratic-trajectory) but there are still fools in the West who think the Chinese rulers must be progressive because they compete with the US.
Your answer to US being unwilling to compete is, by and large, the reason that they have failed.
As to China, have you been there to speak with the people there? (I warn you, they do not like the British - because of the things done to them by the Brits. You may find yourself being spat at).
My point here is that you can believe the corporate media, the very same 'corporate' that doesn't want to compete. The problem is that they have no more idea of what is going on in China than you have - the difference being that the media have no need of reality when producing propaganda.