War has a way of revealing truths. Lines that once seemed blurred get drawn when missiles fall and alliances are tested. Israel’s June 13, 2025, decapitation strikes against Iran’s missile command-and-control network and elimination of high-ranking Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) command infrastructure sent shockwaves across the region, stunning even pro-Israel analysts—and exposed something long overlooked in the West: the duplicity of many—not all of them—expatriates who claim to oppose the Islamic Republic in Iran, especially those identifying abroad as “Persian.” Their “Stop the War on Iran!” petition includes signatories such as professors Hamid Dabashi and Alireza Doostdar, and author and self-described dissident Mohsen Kadivar. Meanwhile, social media activists have launched parallel petitions of their own.
Self-styled anti-regime voices champion “regime change” from the comfort of foreign capitals and cities yet balk at anything that might actually disrupt the centers of Persian hegemony—Tehran, Isfahan, Shiraz.
These self-styled anti-regime voices champion “regime change” from the comfort of foreign capitals and cities yet balk at anything that might actually disrupt the centers of Persian hegemony—Tehran, Isfahan, Shiraz. While they chant “We are all Iranians,” their unity rarely extends to acknowledging the demands and rights of non-Persian national minorities: Kurds, Baluch, Ahwazi Arabs, and others. Their silence has been deafening when these groups are bombed, imprisoned, or executed.
When Iran rained missiles on the Kurdistan Regional Government in Iraq—killing Kurdish businessmen, women and children while targeting opposition bases and their refugee camps—these same voices did not chant “No war with Iran.” They issued no outrage, no solidarity. Some even lionized Qasem Soleimani, despite his bloodstained role in Syria and the deaths of American troops in Iraq’s post-Saddam insurgency. Their “anti-regime” posture crumbles when the victims are non-Persian.
This hypocrisy is not accidental—it is part of a broader ideological playbook that mirrors the regime’s own tactics. It is a civilian version of taqiyya—deception institutionalized and deployed to maintain dominance. For them, Israel’s strikes are only condemnable if they touch Persian provinces. When Baluch, Kurdish, or Arab regions are targeted, they respond with silence—or worse, tacit approval.
These expatriates live safely, enjoying democratic freedoms while expecting Kurds, Baluch, or Arabs—non-Persian minorities—to do the dying. Their imagined post-regime Iran is one where they return as saviors, walking over red carpets rolled out by the very peoples they ignored in exile. They do not seek liberation for all peoples of Iran—they seek to reclaim control over a fractured empire, draped in nationalist nostalgia.
The petition refers to “Gaza,” while these people have never condemned the previous and current regimes’ brutal policies against ethnic and national minorities and their plight within Iran, especially over the last four decades. Moreover, they did not sign any petitions opposing Iran’s barrage of drones and missiles on Israel in April and October 2024.
Engaging such bad-faith actors on equal terms only legitimizes their deception.
Engaging such bad-faith actors on equal terms only legitimizes their deception. The future of a post-regime Iran cannot be shaped by those unwilling to confront its internal oppressive policies. Genuine change will come from those who have paid the price—and who continue to defy not just the regime, but the supremacy embedded in its so-called opposition.
Those who are not arguing in good faith do not deserve to be engaged in good faith. They attempt to reconcile a “No to War” stance with an anti-regime posture—but you cannot have it both ways. Many of them likely joined the 2022-23 “Woman, Life, Freedom” protests, only to now wave the regime’s flag on the streets of Europe.
Let them attempt to reform the Islamic Republic on their own terms—so the world can learn from their failure. But they should understand: The problem with Iran is not merely a domestic political issue. It is part of a broader global architecture that trades captive nations, regional prosperity, and freedom of thought for geopolitics built on intercontinental missiles and strategic cynicism. They side with this bloc.
