From Necro politics to Politics of Life

The Challenges of Building an Independent Peace Movement against USA war against Iran

By Mehrdad Darvishpour *| Mehedeby, Day of Peace | 22 August 2026

The unveiling of the bronze peace bell, A Time for Peace, at the Bethlehem Church Peace Park, Sweden, 22 August 2026.

The present text is the author’s speech delivered at the conference “A Day for Peace,” held on 22 August 2026 at Bethlehem Church, located in the Möhdeby Peace Park in Sweden. Coinciding with the laying of the foundation stone for a new bell tower, a bronze bell entitled A Time for Peace was also inaugurated. The bell was donated by the Swedish/ Norwegian peace organization Lay Down Your Arms. Similar bells have previously been installed in Norway and in the Demilitarized Zone between North and South Korea. The future bell tower has been designed by the Iranian architect Alireza Shahabian, whose work is partly inspired by the experiences and consequences of war.

Arne Ruth, former Cultural Editor of Dagens Nyheter and one of the principal organizers of the conference, delivering the opening speech at the “A Day for Peace” conference, Sweden, 22 August 2026.

At this conference, several scholars, peace activists, and political and civil society figures from various countries participated. Among the speakers were Arne Ruth, former editor of Dagens Nyheter, Sweden’s most influential morning newspaper, and one of the principal organizers of the conference; Omar Barghouti, Palestinian advocate of nonviolent resistance and co-founder of the BDS movement; Ögmundur Jónasson, former Minister of the Interior of Iceland, journalist, and peace activist; Thomas Magnusson, representing the organization Lay Down Your Arms and the campaign against foreign military bases in the Nordic countries; John Kiriakou, former CIA officer and intelligence analyst; and Ola Tunander, former professor and researcher at the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO).

Peace is more than silence

Dr. Mehrdad Darvishpour, sociologist and Associate Professor at Mälardalen University, delivering
his presentation on the challenges facing the peace movement.

Dear friends, peace activists, thank you for inviting me to this Day of Peace in Mehedeby. It is meaningful to speak beside a peace bell. A bell is not only an object. It is a public reminder that we have a duty to act before violence becomes normal. Peace is not only the silence of weapons. Peace means protection of life, freedom, security, social welfare and human dignity. Today I will speak about the challenges of building an independent peace movement against war with Iran. At the same time, I will speak against executions, prisons and repression by the Islamic Republic. My main message is simple: the Iranian people should not be forced to choose between foreign war and domestic dictatorship. We need a third voice: no war, no to dictatorship, and yes to life.

I speak not only as an academic and peace activist, but also as an opponent of the Islamic Republic. I have opposed this regime since the very first days of its establishment, yet I have never regarded war as a path to its overthrow. I support progressive social movements in Iran, particularly the “Woman, Life, Freedom” movement, and I believe that the Iranian people themselves must bring an end to authoritarian rule through their own struggles.

Two forms of necropolitics

The Iranian people are trapped between two forms of necropolitics. By necropolitics, I mean the power to decide whose life is protected, whose life is exposed to death, and whose death is treated as politically acceptable. On one side, bombing and military threats destroy lives, homes, hospitals, water systems, electricity and the future of society. On the other side, the Islamic Republic uses executions, prison and repression to control society. War and execution are not the same, but they share one logic: human life becomes a tool of political power. A real peace movement cannot defend people killed by bombs and remain silent about people facing execution. It also cannot oppose executions while supporting the bombing of the country. The right to life cannot be divided. This double opposition is difficult, but it is necessary. If we ignore either side, we lose the trust of people who want both national safety and political freedom.

The racial hierarchy of human life

Necropolitics is also racialized. In the unequal world order, the deaths of non-white people, people in the Middle East, migrants and people in the Global South are often treated as less important. Their deaths are more easily reduced to numbers or called collateral damage. This does not mean that every government or every society thinks in exactly the same way. It means that global political and media structures often create a hierarchy of grief. A peace movement must challenge this hierarchy and insist that every human life has equal value. We saw this unequal attention in responses to wars in different regions. The purpose is not to compare suffering, but to demand the same ethical standard for all civilians.

Trumpism and political gangsterism

This war must be understood in a wider global context. We live in a period of growing far-right politics, aggressive nationalism and authoritarian populism. In the age of Trumpism, the language of diplomacy is increasingly replaced by threats, humiliation and force. The writer Owen Jones described this as gangsterism fused with colonialism. The message is that powerful states can impose their will by threatening destruction. This weakens international law and the idea that nations have equal rights. Therefore, the peace movement is not only against one war. It is also part of the defence of democracy and a rules-based international order. Gangster-style politics presents compromise as weakness and domination as strength. A peace movement must reverse this idea: preventing death is responsible leadership, and negotiation is a form of political courage.

Post-truth: how wars are sold

Post-truth politics is central to the spread of war. In a post-truth climate, emotional claims, fear and repetition become more powerful than verified evidence. Complex facts are reduced to a simple story: one side is absolute evil, military action is the only answer, and anyone who asks for evidence is treated as naive or disloyal. The war against Iran has been defended by some voices as a humanitarian intervention that would free the Iranian people. Others have called it preventive action needed to remove an Iranian threat before it becomes imminent. These claims must be examined carefully. The repression of the Islamic Republic is real, but real repression does not automatically make foreign bombing humanitarian. A possible future threat is also not the same as an actual or imminent attack. Post-truth propaganda mixes facts, fears and unproven assumptions, then presents the result as certainty. The lesson from Iraq is clear: worst-case scenarios can be repeated until they look like established facts. A peace movement must expose falsehoods, distinguish evidence from speculation, and refuse both state propaganda and opposition propaganda.

Democracy is retreating

The global democratic situation makes this struggle more urgent. According to the V-Dem Democracy Report 2026, about seventy-four percent of the world population lives under autocratic rule. Only about seven percent lives in liberal democracies. War and authoritarianism strengthen each other. War expands executive power, secrecy, censorship and militarization. Authoritarian politics, in turn, makes war easier to start. A strong peace movement can help defend democratic space, freedom of expression and the right of citizens to question political leaders. Democracy needs public discussion, independent institutions and social trust. War weakens all three. That is why defending peace also means defending the conditions in which democratic citizens can act.

Why is the peace movement weak?

Why has a broad peace movement not emerged, even when the danger is so great? The first reason is peace movement fatigue. Before the Iraq War, millions demonstrated around the world. In Stockholm, around seventy thousand people joined one of the largest anti-war protests in Sweden since the Vietnam War, and I helped organize it. But the invasion still happened. This created disappointment and powerlessness. The second reason is the weakening of progressive movements, including peace, feminist, labour and environmental movements. The third reason is polarization. Many people believe they must choose between Western military power and the Islamic Republic. This false choice leaves little space for an independent voice. There is also media fatigue. People live through a constant stream of crises and images. Repeated exposure can create helplessness instead of action, especially when no clear path for collective action is offered.

Why protest still matters

A social movement should not be judged only by whether it stops a war on the same day. Peace movements can challenge the legitimacy of war, expose false claims, change public opinion and increase the political cost of militarism. They can also build lasting networks between unions, civil society organizations, universities, feminist groups and international peace organizations. These networks can react faster in the next crisis. Protest is not useless because it does not win immediately. Silence, however, gives war-makers a much freer hand. The movement’s work is therefore educational as well as political. It must explain the human costs, create simple demands and give people practical ways to join without requiring agreement on every ideological question.

Iran creates a special dilemma

Iran creates a special political and moral dilemma. The Islamic Republic is a repressive state. Many people therefore fear that opposition to war will be understood as support for the government. On the other side, some opponents of the government see every foreign power that weakens the Islamic Republic as an ally. They present war as an opportunity for regime change. This creates a paralyzing situation. We must say clearly: opposing war does not mean supporting the Islamic Republic. And opposing the Islamic Republic does not justify supporting war. Iran and the Islamic Republic are not the same thing. This distinction should be repeated clearly: a country is larger than its rulers. Protecting civilians, infrastructure and territorial integrity is not an endorsement of the state that currently governs them.

Desperation and the rise of the far right

Support for war among some Iranians should not be explained only by labels or moral condemnation. It reflects real desperation. More than four decades of repression, corruption, discrimination, executions and economic crisis have destroyed hope for many people. When internal paths to change are blocked, foreign intervention may appear to be the last option. We must understand this desperation without accepting the conclusion that bombing will bring freedom. Desperation can also strengthen far-right politics, the promise of a saviour and the belief that one strong leader or foreign power can solve everything quickly. The answer to desperation cannot be moral superiority. It must be a credible democratic strategy that gives people hope, supports internal movements and shows that international solidarity can exist without military intervention.

War is not a road to democracy

Democracy cannot be delivered by bombs. Bombs do not make a clean distinction between a government and a society. They destroy infrastructure, jobs, schools, hospitals and social trust. The experiences of Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya show that removing a government from outside does not automatically create democracy, stability or justice. War also pushes social movements backwards. It creates a security climate in which criticism can be called treason. It moves resources away from welfare, health, housing and education. The people of Iran do not need a destroyed country in order to become free. War also changes everyday priorities. When people struggle for water, electricity and physical safety, democratic demands become harder to organize. Survival replaces participation, and military institutions gain more influence.

Israel’s war aims and the risk to Iran

In my assessment, Israel’s war policy is not limited to Iran’s nuclear programme or military capacity. It also risks the long-term weakening of Iran. The consequences may include destroyed infrastructure, weakened state capacity and a greater danger of fragmentation. We should be precise: there is not enough evidence to say that every Israeli decision-maker has a proven plan to divide Iran. But the practical risk of weakening and fragmenting the country is real and should not be ignored. Defending Iran’s people and territorial integrity is not the same as defending the Islamic Republic. Fragmentation can be political, social and economic, even without a formal division of borders. A weakened society may become more dependent on armed groups, foreign powers and competing regional interests.

The danger of lowering the nuclear threshold

There is another serious danger: lowering the nuclear threshold. In 2025, reporting said that some US defence assessments concluded that conventional weapons might not fully destroy very deep underground facilities such as Fordow, and that a tactical nuclear weapon might be technically required. The same reporting said this option was not presented to President Trump and was not under active consideration at that time. In August 2026, former Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene claimed that nuclear use against Iran was discussed in strategy meetings. She did not provide evidence, and the claim has not been independently confirmed. We must therefore present it as an unverified warning, not as a proven decision. But even possible discussion of nuclear use is deeply alarming. The word tactical does not make a nuclear weapon humane or limited. Any nuclear use would also encourage other states to seek nuclear weapons for protection. It would make non-proliferation much harder and place civilians far beyond Iran at risk through escalation and radiation.

Syria, Turkey and the widening geography of war

The geography of conflict is also widening. Israel struck the Abu al-Duhur airbase in Syria and said the aim was to prevent a possible Turkish military deployment that Israel considered a security threat. Turkey and Syria denied that a permanent Turkish base was planned. So the strike and the warning to Turkey are documented, while the claim about a definite Turkish base remains disputed. There is also no reliable evidence that Turkey itself is the next target of an Israeli attack. But the event clearly increases the risk of confrontation between Israel and Turkey. Security cannot be built through a permanent right to preventive attacks on neighbouring countries. This case shows a wider problem: one state’s broad definition of self-defence can deny the sovereignty of other states. Without agreed limits, preventive security becomes an endless permission for attacks.

The far right and European platforms

The invitation of Reza Pahlavi and far-right representatives to European parliaments is not only a ceremonial matter. In April 2026, Pahlavi spoke in the Swedish Parliament after invitations from the Sweden Democrats and Christian Democrats, and later met centre-right and far-right politicians in Rome. When official platforms are given to actors who present foreign military action as liberation, war discourse gains legitimacy. Criticizing these invitations does not mean limiting free speech. It means asking democratic institutions to consider their responsibility when they normalize war and promote an alternative from above rather than listening to plural civil society voices. European institutions should hear many Iranian voices, especially civil society, women’s rights activists, labour groups and human rights defenders. No single exile figure should be presented as the natural voice of an entire society.

The third voice

The third voice is not a middle position between two governments. It is an independent alternative to two forms of necropolitics. It is based on Iranian civil society: the women’s movement and the legacy of Woman, Life, Freedom; workers, students, teachers, pensioners, environmental activists, families seeking justice and the movement against executions. Its international allies are peace movements, democratic movements, feminist organizations, labour unions, human rights groups and anti-racist movements. We do not choose America and Israel against the Islamic Republic. We do not choose the Islamic Republic against America. We choose the power of people, civil action and international solidarity. The third voice requires moral courage because it may be attacked by both sides. Its strength comes from consistency: the same human rights principles are applied to foreign powers and to the Iranian state.

What should an independent peace movement do?

An independent peace movement needs several principles. First, political independence from all states. Second, moral clarity: no to attacks on Iran, no to executions and repression, yes to diplomacy, democracy and social justice. Third, a broad coalition. Republicans, socialists, liberals, feminists, ethnic-rights activists, constitutional monarchists, unions and peace groups do not need to agree on Iran’s future system. They can agree that people should not be victims of foreign bombing or domestic repression. Fourth, international cooperation. Fifth, action: public meetings, academic work, media work, pressure on elected representatives and street demonstrations. We should act before the number of victims becomes larger. The immediate demands should be easy to understand: stop attacks, protect civilians, return to diplomacy, end executions and open space for civil society. Clear demands can unite people who disagree on long-term constitutional questions.

Post-conflict: peace is the beginning

The peace movement must also speak about the day after war. A ceasefire or agreement, even if incomplete, can prevent more death and destruction and allow everyday life to return. Peace alone does not create freedom or justice, but it is a necessary condition for both. Yet post-conflict does not automatically mean stable peace or democratic transition. A fragile order may move between de-escalation and renewed crisis. Hardliners inside Iran, the Israeli government, forces in the United States and war-oriented opposition groups may try to sabotage an agreement. We need hope without illusion. A peace agreement can give people time to mourn, repair family life and rebuild social connections. But an agreement between states must not become an excuse to forget domestic repression or silence democratic demands.

Three post-conflict scenarios

We can imagine three broad scenarios. The first is a rapid return to war if an agreement has no guarantees or conflict-management system. The second is authoritarian stability: lower external tension and perhaps limited economic improvement, while political repression, military power and executions continue. The government may permit limited social freedoms without opening the political system. The third is a gradual reopening for civil society. Lower external pressure can allow people to move beyond daily survival and organize around wages, education, gender equality, the environment, political prisoners and democratic change. This third scenario will not happen by itself. It requires organization, solidarity and continuing social pressure. These scenarios may overlap. Limited social freedoms may appear inside an authoritarian system, while civil society tries to use every opening. The result depends on the balance between state control and organized social pressure.

Reconstruction, justice and shared security

Post-conflict reconstruction is not only about bridges, roads and power stations. Society also needs psychological and social recovery, support for victims, safe return of displaced people, public services and restored trust. Reconstruction funds must not be captured by military institutions or corruption networks. Women, minorities, low-income groups and damaged regions must participate in decisions. We also need truth and accountability for war crimes, executions and repression, without creating a new cycle of revenge. Finally, Iran’s security is linked to the security of people in Palestine, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, Iraq and the Gulf. No country can build lasting security on the permanent insecurity of its neighbours. The principle ‘the worse, the better’ must be rejected. Poverty and collapse do not automatically create democracy. They often weaken citizens, increase dependency and make authoritarian promises of order more attractive.

From necropolitics to the politics of life

The politics of life means that human life comes before the pride and ambitions of states. It means water, food, medicine, housing, education, work and security. It means the right to protest, gender equality, minority rights, freedom for political prisoners and an end to executions. Internationally, it means ceasefire, diplomacy, the gradual removal of sanctions that harm ordinary people, and guarantees against renewed attacks. Our measure of success is not the victory of one state over another. It is the expansion of a free, safe and dignified life for people. Security without freedom is not enough. Freedom without security cannot survive. Peace without justice is fragile. No to war. No to nuclear weapons. No to executions. No to dictatorship. Yes to freedom. Yes to peace. Yes to life. Thank you. Let the sound of the peace bell become a commitment: to protect life before, during and after conflict, and to build a peace that gives society more voice rather than giving states more power.

* Dr. Mehrdad Darvishpour is an Iranian-Swedish sociologist, senior lecturer, and associate professor at Mälardalens University in Sweden. At the beginning of the 1990s, he was one of the leaders of the national anti-racism union Stoppa Racism. Since the student movement in Iran in 1999, he has focused his activities more on human rights by founding the Solidarity Committee with Iranian People. In both the Green Movement in 2010 and the Movement of Woman, Life, Freedom, he organized the largest demonstration in Stockholm to support the Iranian people’s struggles for peace and freedom. He is a well-known figure of the Iranian republican movement. Since the 1990s, Darvishpour has published several books and academic articles on Iranian women, gender issues, ethnicity, discrimination, and integration.