Three Narratives of a Political Downfall in Contemporary Iranian History: Tudeh, Mojahed, Pahlavi

Three Narratives of a Political Downfall in Contemporary Iranian History:
Tudeh, Mojahed, Pahlavi

Behrouz Varzandeh

In Iran’s political history, there have been many movements—left and right, religious and secular, revolutionary and monarchist.
Movements that have each spoken in the name of freedom, justice, or the nation.

Yet beneath these differences, a deeper similarity sometimes emerges:
the moment when a political movement, instead of standing with the people and defending the country’s independence, places its reliance on an external power or on domestic despotism.

Contemporary Iranian history remembers at least three clear examples of such a fate.

Three names, three narratives—but a shared destiny in Iran’s modern history:

The Tudeh Party:
A supporter and flatterer of the Islamic Republic and of Ali Khamenei—
a marginalized right-leaning current within the broader leftist movement that distanced itself from the tradition of independence within the left, bowed before religious despotism, and ultimately became its admirer and defender.

The Mojahedin-e Khalq:
An ally and assistant of Saddam Hussein during the war against Iran—
a movement that, in the midst of war, tied its fate to the enemy of Iran and stood alongside the Iraqi army against its own country.

Reza Pahlavi:
An advocate of foreign military intervention against Iran—
a figure who, in political alignment with the government of Israel and certain circles in the United States, described military attacks on Iran as “assistance” and a “humanitarian intervention,” seeking the country’s liberation through external pressure and military force.

Three names, three narratives—but a shared destiny in contemporary Iranian history:

Praise for religious despotism,
alliance with an enemy during wartime,
and welcoming foreign military intervention.

History is not merely a field where slogans compete; it is a place where actions stand side by side and reveal their true meaning.

In that arena, these three experiences—despite their different languages and banners—ultimately converge on the same reality:
a disregard for Iran’s independence and an indifference to the dignity and will of the Iranian people.

For this reason, contemporary Iranian history—despite all apparent differences—has recorded the names of these three currents side by side in one of its darkest chapters.

History’s judgment is clear:
three different paths, but a shared fate.

And the names that have been recorded in this experience in modern Iranian history are:

Tudeh, Mojahed, Pahlavi.

History may forget differences,
but it never forgets betrayal.

At times, the writings and actions of these groups themselves reveal their true nature more clearly than any criticism could.

Below are examples drawn from the writings and actions of these three currents.

*   *   *

The Tudeh Party: Praising Religious Despotism (1)

In the early years following the 1979 revolution, the Tudeh Party of Iran aligned itself with the government of the Islamic Republic and defended its leadership—especially Khomeini.

The party, which presented itself as part of the leftist movement, in practice supported the policies of the newly established regime and justified many of the political repressions of that period, effectively transforming itself into a right-leaning current.

In the official literature of the Tudeh Party at the time, the Islamic Republic was portrayed as “anti-imperialist,” and its leaders were praised.

In one recent text published by circles affiliated with the party, Ayatollah Khamenei is described in laudatory terms as:
“the martyred leader of the revolution,”
“the great leader of the Shiites of the world,”
and “the most prominent national hero of the country”—a historical personality whose “lofty name will supposedly be immortalized at the pinnacle of Iran’s history.”

For a large part of the left, however, as well as for many political observers, such positions were seen as a departure from the independence-oriented tradition of the leftist movement and a transformation into a defender of religious despotism.

For this reason, in the political memory of contemporary Iran, the name of the Tudeh Party is often tied to that historical experience:
praising and supporting religious authoritarianism.

*   *   *

The Mojahedin-e Khalq: Alliance with Saddam During the War Against Iran

The People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran entered one of the darkest chapters of contemporary Iranian history when, during the Iran–Iraq War, it aligned itself with the government of Saddam Hussein.

After leaving Iran, the organization’s leaders not only settled in Iraq but also took part in military operations against Iran in cooperation with the Iraqi army.

In the final years of the war, the organization launched operations against Iranian territory with military and logistical support from Saddam’s government.
The most notable of these was Operation Forough Javidan, carried out with direct backing from the Iraqi army.

During this period, the Mojahedin made extensive use of the resources provided by Saddam’s regime:
military bases, weapons and equipment, military training, and logistical support.

The cooperation between the organization’s leadership and Saddam’s government went so far that many political observers have regarded it as one of the clearest examples of an Iranian organization forming an alliance with a foreign enemy during wartime.

For many Iranians, the act of a political organization joining the army of a country at war with Iran represented the crossing of a line that no political justification could erase.

Thus, for a large segment of Iranian society, the name of the Mojahedin-e Khalq remains associated with that historical memory:
alliance with a government that was at war with Iran.

*   *   *

Reza Pahlavi: Welcoming Foreign Military Attack

In recent years Reza Pahlavi has described military attacks against Iran by Israel and the United States as a “humanitarian intervention,” reflecting clear political alignment with the Israeli government and certain circles in the United States.

He and his advisers have repeatedly called on the United States and Israel to undertake military action against Iran. Reports have even circulated claiming that a close adviser provided them with maps identifying locations that were considered priority targets for bombing in the initial phase.

Pahlavi has justified these attacks even when residential buildings and national infrastructure were targeted, describing them as “humanitarian intervention.”

Following joint U.S.–Israeli strikes on Iran, he stated:
“The assistance that the President of the United States promised to the brave people of Iran has now arrived.”

Pahlavi has also expressed symbolic and political closeness with Israel. During a visit to the country, he wrote in a memorial book:

“I send my blessings to the people of Iran and Israel.”

In examples of rhetoric attributed to some of his more radical supporters in media and social networks, even harsher statements have appeared. For instance, one message reportedly read:

“I wanted to thank Israel and Uncle Netanyahu…”

In his messaging, foreign military attacks are described as “assistance,” and intervention in Iran’s affairs is portrayed as “humanitarian.”

For many political observers, such positions indicate that a segment of the Iranian opposition seeks the country’s liberation through external pressure and foreign intervention.

For this reason, in this historical narrative, the name of Reza Pahlavi has become associated with this stance:
welcoming foreign military intervention in Iran’s fate.

*   *   *

Each of these three currents, in its own way, has contributed to some of the darkest chapters of Iran’s political history; and the experience of their political self-betrayal remains a warning light for future generations.

Behrouz Varzandeh

(1) A Text Published by the Tudeh Party (the “10 Mehr” Group)
4 March 2026

In the early morning of Saturday, the ninth of Esfand, the body of a man was laid to rest who had been a pillar of the structure of our Revolution and of our country’s territorial unity. This time the criminal enemy stained the soil of our land with the pure blood of a fighter who had spent both his youth and his old age in the service of Iran’s dignity and independence.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the martyred leader of the Revolution and the great guide of the Shiites of the world, just as he had lived consciously and knowingly, never for a moment abandoned the trench of struggle despite his full awareness of the intense hostility of Iran’s criminal enemies, and he never feared death. His exalted name will remain forever inscribed at the summit of Iran’s glorious history and will be recorded in the annals of the world as the country’s most outstanding national hero.

Through experience he had come to understand that in the culture and beliefs of the Iranian people, the honorable death of religious and political leaders becomes the source of the release of their creative energy in confronting enemies. The eruption of anger among the millions of Iranians and their determination to break the ramparts of their enemies after the assassination of their leader by the most treacherous murderers in history is precisely that historical reality which traitors and enemies of the Iranian people have always failed to see.

At a time when a handful of clowns, madmen, and petty thieves rule over the political life of Western lands, Ayatollah Khamenei, in the role of an enlightened man, a tireless fighter, a wise statesman, and a patient and high-minded leader, played a key role in shaping the emergence and dynamism of the future world in the East. With his deep understanding of global political developments, he succeeded in turning our country into a principal center of resistance against the imperialist and Zionist system. He is among the notable figures of Iran’s history whose multidimensional personality nurtured both awareness and the spirit of struggle among the present and future generations of the country, while also encouraging the spirit of inquiry, scientific creativity, and attention to the nation’s history, poetry, and literature.

Yet in the midst of the arena of struggle and national resistance, he faced hostility, obstruction, and opposition from capitalists and owners of vast wealth within the country—those who see the path to national survival not in the continuation of revolutionary struggle, but in submission to Western imperialist powers, foremost among them the United States.

In a time of transition toward a multipolar world, he rightly believed that safeguarding Iran’s independence and territorial integrity depended on preserving the entire system of the Islamic Republic. He was therefore compelled to observe certain considerations that sometimes ran contrary to his revolutionary aspirations and goals. For him, the preservation and advancement of the Revolution was possible only on the basis of national unity in the face of imperialism—and from precisely this perspective he was able for nearly four decades to safeguard Iran’s independence and territorial integrity against both foreign and domestic enemies.

Iran’s enemies, aware of such fault lines within the country’s political and social structure, believed that eliminating Iran’s leader and commander-in-chief would enable them to achieve their sinister objective of destroying Iran. They—and unfortunately many opportunistic “leftists” who defend American-style “democracy” and “human rights”—believed, and still believe, that with the martyrdom and disappearance of the revolutionary leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, they could now install in his place a compromising, liberal, and pro-Western leadership.

Traitors to the country—foremost among them Reza Pahlavi—have likewise indulged in this fantasy and, without doubt, have been complicit in this great crime and in the killing of Iran’s senior military commanders, children, and civilian people, as well as in the destruction inflicted upon the country. They must answer for it before the people of Iran.

The heroic defense of the country’s soil by Iran’s military forces over the past six days, together with the uprising of large groups of patriotic Iranian citizens against the enemy, has also demonstrated that the calculations of Iran’s external and internal enemies were mistaken.

Now, as Iranians stand in the arenas of defense and resistance, they are preparing to choose the successor to their slain leader. We hope that the authorities of the Islamic Republic of Iran will transform the vain hopes of domestic and foreign enemies—and of Iran’s misguided friends—into disappointment and despair by selecting a leadership committed to the revolutionary and anti-imperialist path of the martyred leader of Iran’s Revolution. Contrary to the expectations and desires of Iran’s enemies, the future leader of the Revolution should be chosen from among those who, drawing upon past experience, will stand firm against foreign enemies and against the political and economic conspiracies of their domestic collaborators.

There is no doubt that with the continuation of Iran’s resistance in this unequal war, the balance of power in the region and the world will shift against imperialism and in favor of the global front of resistance.

We extend our condolences for the loss of the eminent leader of Iran, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, and the members of his family to all the honorable and faithful people of Iran who have been the great foundation for preserving the ideals of the Revolution and for the defense of the homeland. We also renew our long-standing pledge to the people of our country to defend the nation and to preserve the independence and territorial integrity of our beloved homeland.