Interview with Fariba Amirkhizi, Iranian activist in Belgium, member of Revolutionary Collective Woman, Life, Freedom, on revolution, repression and international solidarity.
This interview was conducted before the start of the imperialist war against Iran. Its content is still very much relevant.
Solidarity: Fariba, how are you? Are you still in contact with people in Iran?
Fariba: Honestly? It’s a difficult time. I am physically safe in Belgium, but mentally you are never really far from what is happening over there. I am still in contact with family, friends and political comrades. Some are safe, others have been arrested. Someone close to my family has been killed. That kind of news hits hard. What has happened there is almost impossible for us to imagine here. You can feel that the repression has had a profound impact on people.
Solidarity: That’s terrible to hear about your family member. There have been many victims. Can you tell us more about it?
Fariba: It has been a real bloodbath. People have seen fellow protesters walking beside them in a demonstration being shot down. They stood empty-handed against weapons of war. The brutality has increased again in recent weeks. Violence is not new in Iran, but its scale and openness on the streets mark a turnng point.
Solidarity: How does this wave of repression compare to previous uprisings, such as the one after the death of Jina Mahsa Amini in 2022?
Fariba: It is much more brutal and open than before, and there is a reason for that. The uprising after the murder of Jina Mahsa Amini was the most progressive movement against the regime that we have seen in years. ‘Woman, Life, Freedom’ brought together feminist demands, queer struggles, resistance to theocracy and resistance to the compulsory headscarf. The latter was not the only reason why people took to the streets, but it did become a powerful symbol of resistance against the entire Islamic theocracy.
At the same time, in the aftermath, we also saw the first clear signs of a right-wing counter-movement. Think of slogans such as ‘Man, Fatherland, Prosperity’ – this slogan appeared in certain demonstrations and especially on social media, often spread by monarchist and nationalist circles. It was a deliberate counterpoint to ‘Woman, Life, Freedom’: where women, life and freedom were central, this slogan shifted the focus to masculinity, nation and economic order. This represented an attempt to rally conservative forces in a counter-movement on nationalist and patriarchal terms. These are counter-revolutionary, fascist slogans, intended to intimidate. That should have been a moment when the left should have intervened more forcefully to reclaim the movement, by taking up and reinforcing the women’s battle cry. By not doing so, it gave the regime the confidence to strike back hard.
Solidarity: How does the current repression fit within a larger historical context?
Fariba: After the 1979 revolution, which overthrew the Shah’s dictatorship, what followed was not the emancipation that many people had hoped for, but a counter-revolution which instead took force.
Western imperialism helped to eliminate left-wing activists and revolutionary forces. In the first few years after that, especially around 1980, there was bloody repression: executions in the streets, mass arrests and executions of political prisoners. The difference between now and then is that at that time, the regime had a certain legitimacy and authority. In the beginning, the new theocratic regime still had a certain social base, mainly because it had overthrown the hated dictatorship of the Shah and presented itself as anti-imperialist and socially just. Certain social measures were also introduced in that initial period, such as the expansion of basic benefits and subsidies, which garnered support from parts of the population. But that base was fragile and was quickly undermined by repression against left-wing forces and minorities. Now that legitimacy has almost completely disappeared. This can be seen, for example, in the fact that even sections of the traditional religious base are openly withdrawing their support, that elections are being boycotted, that more and more dress codes are being openly broken, that slogans on the streets no longer call for reform but for the end of the entire system. This makes them weaker, but also more dangerous: those who no longer have legitimacy are quicker to resort to pure terror.
Solidarity: To what extent should we consider the relationship between the Iranian regime and imperialism, in your opinion?
Fariba: Of course, the US and the Iranian regime are at loggerheads. Iran and the US are presenting themselves as enemies, and the Iranian regime is playing on the rivalry between the US and other imperialist blocs, particularly China and Russia.
Imperialism is not just pure colonialism; it is an economic-political system characterised by power and dependence as well as conflict. These are capitalist blocs fighting for control and markets. Within that whole, Chinese and Russian imperialism are also real factors of oppression.
At the same time, we must be specific: for years, the US has imposed heavy sanctions on Iran, officially because of its nuclear programme, among other things. The US does not want a nuclear power in the region that could challenge its hegemony or that of Israel. These sanctions have not weakened the regime in its repressive core, but they have worsened the daily lives of ordinary people. Moreover, the Iranian people have suffered particularly badly from decades of austerity policies imposed by the World Bank and the IMF, both of which are dominated by Western capitalism and implemented by the Iranian government. These policies include the privatisation of public services and the abolition of subsidies for food and other basic necessities. The flagrant inequality and corruption in Iran are therefore partly the result of these international capitalist relations and partly the result of the regime’s own policies.
Solidarity: At the same time, the question is being asked whether the protests in Iran are not strengthening the position of the US, the dominant imperialist bloc.
Fariba: It is so tiring and painful to see how some people dismiss the revolutionary movement in Iran as a “pro-imperialist protest”, simply because it is directed against an enemy of the US. But “the enemy of my enemy is not my friend”!
It is as if, because you are against Western imperialism, you suddenly have to relativise or minimise the crimes of the Iranian regime. You cannot be a Marxist and support a criminal state – what I mean by that is that you cannot rally behind a regime that oppresses, tortures and executes its own people and working class, simply because it belongs to a different geopolitical camp than the US. That is a form of campism: the reasoning that you must automatically choose the camp that opposes the dominant imperialist bloc. But such logic ignores the concrete class struggle in that country itself and betrays the people who are fighting for their rights there. Dialectical materialism is not a dead doctrine; it is a way of understanding living reality. Class struggle also exists in Iran, just as it does everywhere else. Just as everywhere else, there is an objective need for workers, young people and women to resist the regime responsible for their difficult living conditions. Those who deny this are denying the reality of global capitalism today.
The genocide in Gaza is about colonialism, ethnic cleansing and the destruction of land, so comparing massacres makes no sense. But when we talk about thousands of deaths and estimates of tens of thousands of victims in Iran, it must be clear that support for the Iranian regime is not an act of revolutionary solidarity. Campism can lead to minimising crimes or remaining silent about repression, simply because the regime is in conflict with the West. That is not internationalism, that is political blindness.
Solidarity: Western media places a great deal of emphasis on the fact that ‘the Iranian people are hoping for intervention from the West’, sometimes even explicitly from Trump. Do you recognise that sentiment?
Fariba: It is not the majority, but you cannot deny that this sentiment exists, especially among parts of the diaspora and also among some people in Iran who are exhausted and see no way out. People are tired. There has been resistance for decades, and each time it has been brutally suppressed. At a certain point, some people start to think: ‘Perhaps only external power can break this regime.’ I understand that despair, but politically that is dangerous logic. ‘The enemy of my enemy is not my friend’ also applies here. The fact that the Ayatollah regime is our enemy does not mean that any power that opposes it is automatically on our side.
Solidarity: Why is it dangerous to think that?
Fariba: Because imperialism does not bring liberation. The West, or Israel, or anyone else, will never intervene for the sake of our freedom. Israel’s cynicism is particularly great, of course: the Israeli state sees Iran primarily as a geopolitical opponent, not as a society whose people need to be liberated. Their project is control, influence and stability for their own benefit. You can already see a kind of “soft war”: media, money, promoting right-wing opposition figures, pushing forward leaders who fit perfectly into their geopolitical agenda. This stifles revolution, rather than enabling it.
Solidarity: In Belgium, we are seeing right-wing politicians and commentators suddenly declaring their solidarity with the Iranian protests, often with a strong anti-Islam discourse. How do you view this?
Fariba: That is pure instrumentalisation. Parties such as the N-VA and figures from extreme right-wing circles are trying to reduce the Iranian struggle to “being against the headscarf”. They even fly the Shah’s flag and pretend it is the flag of “Woman, Life, Freedom”. It is not. That monarchist flag stands for a patriarchal, nationalist and oppressive regime. Kurdish minorities and other oppressed groups do not accept that flag.
And let’s be honest: anyone who remained silent about Gaza or minimised the genocide there, but suddenly presents themselves as an ‘ally of the Iranian people’, is not credible. People, especially young people and activists, are very sensitive to these double standards. This also causes confusion: who is truly showing solidarity, and who is using our struggle for their own agenda?
Solidarity: How do the divisions within the diaspora affect international solidarity?
Fariba: Strongly. Part of the diaspora consists of outspoken monarchists, sometimes with extreme right-wing tendencies: lion and sun symbolism, Israeli flags alongside Iranian nationalist slogans. Even Netanyahu misuses the slogan ‘Woman, Life, Freedom’. That makes solidarity complex. People in the West see that and think, ‘Ah, that’s the Iranian opposition.’ But that is only part of it – and as mentioned earlier, they often espouse conservative and patriarchal slogans. We need to discuss this openly, otherwise our struggle will be hijacked. And again, that makes it difficult for young people and activists here to know how to show solidarity without using right-wing or imperialist logic.
In Brussels, we have seen demonstrations against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard where far-right figures have spoken, with video messages from figures such as George Bush. It’s about ‘Make Iran great again’. That’s not solidarity, that’s counter-revolution. These are the people who defend the Shah’s macho patriarchal order. It is an attempt to channel people’s anger in a right-wing, nationalist direction, and ultimately also into a pro-imperialist project.
Solidarity: You often emphasise that different forms of oppression come together in this movement: class, gender, nationalities, queer struggles. Why is that so crucial?
Fariba: Because that is the reality in Iran. The regime is simultaneously religiously oppressive, authoritarian, capitalist and patriarchal. Women, queer people, national minorities such as Kurds – they are all on the front line.
Solidarity: Yet you sometimes hear criticism from parts of the left that ‘Woman, Life, Freedom’ is too ‘bourgeois’, not radical enough.
Fariba: Movements do not arise in a pure ideological form. You cannot expect people from ‘Woman, Life, Freedom’ to jump straight to communism. Social movements are built through engagement, experience and organisation. It was often young working-class girls who took to the streets. That is revolutionary. The problem is that the counter-revolution – monarchists, nationalists – is better organised today than the left and the labour movement in Iran. If we don’t build a credible alternative, the way is open for the right and ultimately for imperialist interference.
Solidarity: What concrete actions can people here in Belgium take?
Fariba: We are organising “Tuesday against executions in Iran”, solidarity actions with a clear political line: “Ni shah, ni mollah” (Neither Shah nor Mullah). We are working together with feminist groups, queer collectives, Kurdish organisations. And we are connecting our struggle with other places: Rojava, Gaza, Venezuela. Not because everything is the same, but because oppression and resistance are internationally connected.
Solidarity is more than a hashtag. It is also refusing to swallow right-wing appropriation, critically questioning media frames, and supporting progressive voices within the Iranian movement.
Solidarity: If you could give one message to people here, what would it be?
Fariba: That true solidarity means refusing to choose between two oppressive powers. That you can be against the Ayatollah regime and against Western imperialism at the same time. We are not only fighting against repression, but for a world without capitalism. For life. For freedom that is not exchanged for a new form of oppression. It is true that many in Iran are exhausted, that despair sometimes weighs heavily on their shoulders. But something else is also growing: a new revolutionary generation that is rising up and claiming its place. Our responsibility here is not to surrender that budding hope to fascist or imperialist forces.