POPULAR FRONT
🇮🇷 New podcast episode out now
Today we speak to a protester in Iran who took part in the recent uprising, that was brutally crushed by the regime. Due to the internet shut down there, we could only speak sporadically via voice clips. Apologies for the audio. Also the guest sometimes wrote down their response to be careful in what they say.
"No Master, No King, No God. The power belongs to us, not them"
Sticker spotted in Iran
..
https://todon.eu/@RadicalGraffiti/116066387778607049
Sticker spotted in Iran
..
https://todon.eu/@RadicalGraffiti/116066387778607049
❤7
"We want neither king nor (supreme) leader; neither bad, not worse"
Seen in Iran
..
https://todon.eu/@RadicalGraffiti/116010169069630482
Seen in Iran
..
https://todon.eu/@RadicalGraffiti/116010169069630482
❤2
Audio
This is the free version of the podcast episode "Popular front: On the ground for the Iran uprising"
OUR STRUGGLE IS FOR ALL IMPRISONED JUSTICE-SEEKERS AND THOUSANDS OF POLITICAL PRISONERS!
I am a supporter and comrade of Farah – Farah (Masoumeh Nassaji), that brave imprisoned worker who, in the women’s ward, stood facing Fa’ezeh [daughter of Hashemi Rafsanjani] and shouted: Shame on anyone who was even for a single day complicit with these destructive criminals; shame on those who justify the crimes of their parents; shame on the agents of a class divide deeper than the valleys of history!
I am a supporter of [all fighters like] Arjang and Nazem – those tireless fighters who have stood against reaction and coercion, whether from the so-called principlists or the corrupt reformists. I believe in Arjang, who said “Death to the oppressor” to [Mohseni] Eje’i face to face, whose property was confiscated, who endured exile and boycott, yet remained on the right side of history – a side that surrenders neither to state power nor to the monopoly of capital.
I fight for people like “Nazem Bariehi” – that prisoner who went on hunger strike for the demands of his cellmates, who accepted stomach bleeding, yet the glittering pseudo-opposition did not consider him “human.” They ignored the trampling of the rights of people like Nazem, because he did not fit within their monopolistic framework – a monopoly that even turns the title “human” into private property.
Real divisiveness is where we close our eyes to class and gender discrimination; real separatism is where we label anyone who does not think like us as enemy and traitor. Our unity must be with all those who fight against every form of oppression – from labor exploitation to state domination, from patriarchy to neo-colonialism. This unity is not based on hierarchy, but on voluntary solidarity and collective ownership; a place where power lies not in the hands of the state or capitalists, but in the hands of self-governing and equal communities.
In this world polluted by capitalist and state monopolism, there is only one real polarity: between the supporters of monopoly and the fighters against it – monopoly over people’s property, monopoly over knowledge, monopoly even over the concept of “human” – which belongs only to those who serve the system. This polarity is rooted in class struggle; where workers, women, minorities, and the oppressed unite against the global oligarchy, not to reform the system, but to destroy its roots.
The rest of the polarities are false and misleading: the reformist/principlist polarity [fundamentalist], both branches of the same tree of despotism; the Mullah/Shah polarity, both symbols of hierarchical domination; the unvarnished right and the right concealed under titles such as “national-religious,” “civil activist,” or “petitioners to the prison chief” – those who think that by complaining about the smaller jailer to the prison chief, the cycle of torture will stop. These polarities are tools of the system to disperse forces; convergence for the destruction of all borders – class, national, gender borders – to build a world without master and slave is logical and, of course, imperative.
This struggle is not only for Farah (Masoumeh Nassaji), Arjang, and Nazem, but for all imprisoned justice-seekers: Manouchehr Fallah, Pouya Qobadi, Danial Dabiri, Davood Abbasi, and thousands of political prisoners who are buried in the silence of the system.
I am a supporter and comrade of Farah – Farah (Masoumeh Nassaji), that brave imprisoned worker who, in the women’s ward, stood facing Fa’ezeh [daughter of Hashemi Rafsanjani] and shouted: Shame on anyone who was even for a single day complicit with these destructive criminals; shame on those who justify the crimes of their parents; shame on the agents of a class divide deeper than the valleys of history!
I am a supporter of [all fighters like] Arjang and Nazem – those tireless fighters who have stood against reaction and coercion, whether from the so-called principlists or the corrupt reformists. I believe in Arjang, who said “Death to the oppressor” to [Mohseni] Eje’i face to face, whose property was confiscated, who endured exile and boycott, yet remained on the right side of history – a side that surrenders neither to state power nor to the monopoly of capital.
I fight for people like “Nazem Bariehi” – that prisoner who went on hunger strike for the demands of his cellmates, who accepted stomach bleeding, yet the glittering pseudo-opposition did not consider him “human.” They ignored the trampling of the rights of people like Nazem, because he did not fit within their monopolistic framework – a monopoly that even turns the title “human” into private property.
Real divisiveness is where we close our eyes to class and gender discrimination; real separatism is where we label anyone who does not think like us as enemy and traitor. Our unity must be with all those who fight against every form of oppression – from labor exploitation to state domination, from patriarchy to neo-colonialism. This unity is not based on hierarchy, but on voluntary solidarity and collective ownership; a place where power lies not in the hands of the state or capitalists, but in the hands of self-governing and equal communities.
In this world polluted by capitalist and state monopolism, there is only one real polarity: between the supporters of monopoly and the fighters against it – monopoly over people’s property, monopoly over knowledge, monopoly even over the concept of “human” – which belongs only to those who serve the system. This polarity is rooted in class struggle; where workers, women, minorities, and the oppressed unite against the global oligarchy, not to reform the system, but to destroy its roots.
The rest of the polarities are false and misleading: the reformist/principlist polarity [fundamentalist], both branches of the same tree of despotism; the Mullah/Shah polarity, both symbols of hierarchical domination; the unvarnished right and the right concealed under titles such as “national-religious,” “civil activist,” or “petitioners to the prison chief” – those who think that by complaining about the smaller jailer to the prison chief, the cycle of torture will stop. These polarities are tools of the system to disperse forces; convergence for the destruction of all borders – class, national, gender borders – to build a world without master and slave is logical and, of course, imperative.
This struggle is not only for Farah (Masoumeh Nassaji), Arjang, and Nazem, but for all imprisoned justice-seekers: Manouchehr Fallah, Pouya Qobadi, Danial Dabiri, Davood Abbasi, and thousands of political prisoners who are buried in the silence of the system.
❤3👍1🔥1
Homeland, the song of the prisoner…
With eyes full of tears of joy, I write: one of our comrades has returned,
with hope for the freedom of all prisoners by the people.
#Danial_Dabiri has been temporarily released from Greater Tehran Prison pending the final verdict.
This anarchist student had been arrested in the month of Dey (December–January) during the street protests in the Narmak neighborhood.
With eyes full of tears of joy, I write: one of our comrades has returned,
with hope for the freedom of all prisoners by the people.
#Danial_Dabiri has been temporarily released from Greater Tehran Prison pending the final verdict.
This anarchist student had been arrested in the month of Dey (December–January) during the street protests in the Narmak neighborhood.
❤5
#TahaAliMirzaei is just 17 years old and he is on death row.
They plan to execute him on Friday.
Executing a child is a grave violation of international law and a crime against humanity.
The world cannot look away. Silence is complicity.
#StopExecutionsInIran
#IranMassacre
They plan to execute him on Friday.
Executing a child is a grave violation of international law and a crime against humanity.
The world cannot look away. Silence is complicity.
#StopExecutionsInIran
#IranMassacre
💔4
Author: Hasse-Nima Golkar
An anarchist analysis of the authoritarian slogan “One Nation – One Flag – One Leader,” which was chanted at the gathering of supporters of the monarchy of Reza Pahlavi on 25 Bahman 1404 (14 February 2026) in Munich, Germany, through the loudspeaker of the organizers’ official podium, at least by three speakers—Aran Kamangar, Saeed Bashirtash, and Iraj Mesdaghi—during this event.
DO YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE, WHICH IS VERY CLOSE TO ITS ESSENCE?
1 – This slogan was used to emphasize the idea of a unified and homogeneous German state under the absolute authority of Adolf Hitler, reflecting the extreme nationalism, authoritarianism, and totalitarianism of Nazi ideology, which sought to consolidate power and control over all aspects of German society.
Slogan of Adolf Hitler’s supporters for an authoritarian state in Germany (1938):
“Ein Volk – Ein Reich – Ein Führer”
“One Nation – One Empire – One Leader”
2 – This slogan was used (Munich, February 14, 2026) to emphasize the idea of a unified and homogeneous Iranian state under the absolute authority of Reza Pahlavi, reflecting the extreme nationalism, authoritarianism, and totalitarianism attributed to the Pahlavi ideology, which seeks to consolidate power and control over all aspects of Iranian society.
“Ein Volk – Eine Flagge – Ein Führer”
“One Nation – One Flag – One Leader”
From an anarchosydicalist perspective, the core issue is not only the names or the flags, but the structure of power itself, not content of these slogans but their shared logic: the centralization of power in one state, one homogeneous people, and one leader. So, anarchism:
• opposes all forms of concentration and authority
• views the idea of a unified nation as exclusionary and oppressive
• sees charismatic leadership as a reproduction of hierarchy
The similarity between the slogans lies in the fact that they:
• dissolve individuality into the abstract collective of “the nation”
• replace social plurality with enforced unity
• impose power from above rather than organizing it horizontally
The real question is not who the leader is, but why should there be a leader at all.
Bakunin warned that every state — even when speaking in the name of the people — ultimately becomes an instrument of domination, because centralized power inherently tends to reproduce itself.
Kropotkin opposed the myth of enforced unity with the idea of voluntary solidarity and horizontal organization: a living order emerging from free communes and associations, not from the command of a center.
Goldman went further, showing that the nation, the leader, and authority are psychological patterns of obedience that dissolve individuality into an abstract collective.
From this viewpoint, slogans invoking one people, one flag, and one leader — regardless of their historical context — rest on a common logic: the erasure of plurality, the denial of self-organization, and the transformation of human beings into a mass.
Anarchism responds: freedom lies not in imposed unity but in free multiplicity; order grows not from command but from cooperation;
and society needs not a leader, but relationships.
No Mullah! No Shah!
Woman-Life-Freedom!
An anarchist analysis of the authoritarian slogan “One Nation – One Flag – One Leader,” which was chanted at the gathering of supporters of the monarchy of Reza Pahlavi on 25 Bahman 1404 (14 February 2026) in Munich, Germany, through the loudspeaker of the organizers’ official podium, at least by three speakers—Aran Kamangar, Saeed Bashirtash, and Iraj Mesdaghi—during this event.
DO YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE, WHICH IS VERY CLOSE TO ITS ESSENCE?
1 – This slogan was used to emphasize the idea of a unified and homogeneous German state under the absolute authority of Adolf Hitler, reflecting the extreme nationalism, authoritarianism, and totalitarianism of Nazi ideology, which sought to consolidate power and control over all aspects of German society.
Slogan of Adolf Hitler’s supporters for an authoritarian state in Germany (1938):
“Ein Volk – Ein Reich – Ein Führer”
“One Nation – One Empire – One Leader”
2 – This slogan was used (Munich, February 14, 2026) to emphasize the idea of a unified and homogeneous Iranian state under the absolute authority of Reza Pahlavi, reflecting the extreme nationalism, authoritarianism, and totalitarianism attributed to the Pahlavi ideology, which seeks to consolidate power and control over all aspects of Iranian society.
“Ein Volk – Eine Flagge – Ein Führer”
“One Nation – One Flag – One Leader”
From an anarchosydicalist perspective, the core issue is not only the names or the flags, but the structure of power itself, not content of these slogans but their shared logic: the centralization of power in one state, one homogeneous people, and one leader. So, anarchism:
• opposes all forms of concentration and authority
• views the idea of a unified nation as exclusionary and oppressive
• sees charismatic leadership as a reproduction of hierarchy
The similarity between the slogans lies in the fact that they:
• dissolve individuality into the abstract collective of “the nation”
• replace social plurality with enforced unity
• impose power from above rather than organizing it horizontally
The real question is not who the leader is, but why should there be a leader at all.
Bakunin warned that every state — even when speaking in the name of the people — ultimately becomes an instrument of domination, because centralized power inherently tends to reproduce itself.
Kropotkin opposed the myth of enforced unity with the idea of voluntary solidarity and horizontal organization: a living order emerging from free communes and associations, not from the command of a center.
Goldman went further, showing that the nation, the leader, and authority are psychological patterns of obedience that dissolve individuality into an abstract collective.
From this viewpoint, slogans invoking one people, one flag, and one leader — regardless of their historical context — rest on a common logic: the erasure of plurality, the denial of self-organization, and the transformation of human beings into a mass.
Anarchism responds: freedom lies not in imposed unity but in free multiplicity; order grows not from command but from cooperation;
and society needs not a leader, but relationships.
No Mullah! No Shah!
Woman-Life-Freedom!
Why don’t we believe in Pahlavi?
1. The coalition under his leadership claims to believe in four principles. One of them is equal citizenship rights. This equality should exist regardless of lineage or gender. However, the source of Reza Pahlavi’s political legitimacy is his relationship to his father and his being male; therefore, his political base itself contradicts the principle of equal citizenship.
2. In Pahlavi’s discourse, Iran is portrayed as great, honorable, and noble, yet the agency of the people living in this geography is not respected. If an Arab or Kurd calls for independence or federalism, Pahlavi labels them as foot soldiers of the enemy, and his supporters attack those who believe in other ideas — even though they, too, are Iranian.
3. He frames his struggle as one to gain political power, rather than to manage the ongoing catastrophe. Much of his and his team’s effort appears focused on legitimizing the political current they belong to, and so far they have shown no real will to address urgent issues such as internet shutdowns.
4. In his strategy, Pahlavi relies on political and military forces that operate beyond his control and sphere of influence, in whose decisions he plays only a minor role. As a political figure, this draws society into a state of waiting and disappointment vis-à-vis those forces, and in relation to the dead, the costs incurred, and his previous claims, he has not acted responsibly.
5. Although his supporters claim that after the fall of the Islamic Republic they will believe in freedom and the ballot box, in present reality they do not tolerate criticism or opposition. Instead of political competition, they resort to character assassination, threats, and even physical assaults against their opponents. Belief in freedom is not secondary; it must begin today.
6. Reza Pahlavi’s own political record has not been particularly successful. He and his team have managed, at considerable expense, to secure a certain level of social acceptance, but in advancing coalitions and at key historical junctures they have not acted effectively or realistically.
7. The issue of identity and solutions:
The concept of “Iranian-ness” in Iran-shahr thought is tied to a level of mythological concepts. While the *Shahnameh* and other mytho-religious cultural products undoubtedly have cultural value, they cannot serve as references for making political and economic decisions. Monarchists, through constant references to myths and grand identity narratives, simultaneously avoid offering rational solutions and lay the cognitive foundation of an Iranian identity that does not correspond to the concrete and immediate realities of a vast and diverse society. In this sense, they are aligned with the Islamic Republic.
No mullahs! No shah!
Woman – Life – Freedom!
Anarchist Front of Iran and Afghanistan
1. The coalition under his leadership claims to believe in four principles. One of them is equal citizenship rights. This equality should exist regardless of lineage or gender. However, the source of Reza Pahlavi’s political legitimacy is his relationship to his father and his being male; therefore, his political base itself contradicts the principle of equal citizenship.
2. In Pahlavi’s discourse, Iran is portrayed as great, honorable, and noble, yet the agency of the people living in this geography is not respected. If an Arab or Kurd calls for independence or federalism, Pahlavi labels them as foot soldiers of the enemy, and his supporters attack those who believe in other ideas — even though they, too, are Iranian.
3. He frames his struggle as one to gain political power, rather than to manage the ongoing catastrophe. Much of his and his team’s effort appears focused on legitimizing the political current they belong to, and so far they have shown no real will to address urgent issues such as internet shutdowns.
4. In his strategy, Pahlavi relies on political and military forces that operate beyond his control and sphere of influence, in whose decisions he plays only a minor role. As a political figure, this draws society into a state of waiting and disappointment vis-à-vis those forces, and in relation to the dead, the costs incurred, and his previous claims, he has not acted responsibly.
5. Although his supporters claim that after the fall of the Islamic Republic they will believe in freedom and the ballot box, in present reality they do not tolerate criticism or opposition. Instead of political competition, they resort to character assassination, threats, and even physical assaults against their opponents. Belief in freedom is not secondary; it must begin today.
6. Reza Pahlavi’s own political record has not been particularly successful. He and his team have managed, at considerable expense, to secure a certain level of social acceptance, but in advancing coalitions and at key historical junctures they have not acted effectively or realistically.
7. The issue of identity and solutions:
The concept of “Iranian-ness” in Iran-shahr thought is tied to a level of mythological concepts. While the *Shahnameh* and other mytho-religious cultural products undoubtedly have cultural value, they cannot serve as references for making political and economic decisions. Monarchists, through constant references to myths and grand identity narratives, simultaneously avoid offering rational solutions and lay the cognitive foundation of an Iranian identity that does not correspond to the concrete and immediate realities of a vast and diverse society. In this sense, they are aligned with the Islamic Republic.
No mullahs! No shah!
Woman – Life – Freedom!
Anarchist Front of Iran and Afghanistan
❤2
Disarm the patriarchy, create feminist peace worldwide! – Take to the streets on Feminist Struggle Day!
Wars destroy lives – here and everywhere. In many parts of the world, war means the destruction of families, cities, and livelihoods. It means displacement, violence, and daily survival under bombs and occupation. At the same time, billions are being invested in rearmament here, while social infrastructure is neglected and sexualized violence is increasing. This policy is no “coincidence” – it aims to push Germany back to the forefront of imperialism and to profit from our lives. We say: Enough is enough!
We are fighting for a society in which wars, weapons, and nationalist power politics do not determine how we live, but where solidarity, care, self-determination, and peace are at the center. For us, feminist peace does not simply mean the absence of war, but the end of a patriarchal and capitalist system that produces wars. It means taking our lives into our own hands and creating a politics that protects life instead of destroying it.
We stand in solidarity with all those suffering from wars – with people in conflict regions, with refugees, and with feminist movements worldwide who continue to fight for dignity and self-determination despite bombs, displacement, and violence. These struggles of solidarity are inseparable from our own. The struggles against patriarchal violence, for social rights, for decent working conditions, and against racism belong together with the struggle against war and militarization.
That is why we are taking to the streets together on March 8 – for feminist peace, for social justice, and for a world without patriarchy. For us, this means:
1. Stop rearmament – invest in social and feminist infrastructure!
Billions for weapons and the military increase insecurity and violence. Instead, we demand massive investment in care work, education, healthcare, protection from patriarchal violence, and social security for all.
2. Feminist peace instead of patriarchal war politics!
There can be no peace without overcoming patriarchy and capitalism. We must build a politics based on international solidarity, civilian conflict resolution, and self-determination instead of militarization, nationalist power politics, and profit.
3. Solidarity with refugees and feminist struggles worldwide!
Protection, rights, and safe escape routes for all people fleeing war, violence, and persecution. Feminist movements worldwide must be strengthened, not criminalized.
Only if we fight together can we win together!
Take to the streets on Feminist Struggle Day!
Wars destroy lives – here and everywhere. In many parts of the world, war means the destruction of families, cities, and livelihoods. It means displacement, violence, and daily survival under bombs and occupation. At the same time, billions are being invested in rearmament here, while social infrastructure is neglected and sexualized violence is increasing. This policy is no “coincidence” – it aims to push Germany back to the forefront of imperialism and to profit from our lives. We say: Enough is enough!
We are fighting for a society in which wars, weapons, and nationalist power politics do not determine how we live, but where solidarity, care, self-determination, and peace are at the center. For us, feminist peace does not simply mean the absence of war, but the end of a patriarchal and capitalist system that produces wars. It means taking our lives into our own hands and creating a politics that protects life instead of destroying it.
We stand in solidarity with all those suffering from wars – with people in conflict regions, with refugees, and with feminist movements worldwide who continue to fight for dignity and self-determination despite bombs, displacement, and violence. These struggles of solidarity are inseparable from our own. The struggles against patriarchal violence, for social rights, for decent working conditions, and against racism belong together with the struggle against war and militarization.
That is why we are taking to the streets together on March 8 – for feminist peace, for social justice, and for a world without patriarchy. For us, this means:
1. Stop rearmament – invest in social and feminist infrastructure!
Billions for weapons and the military increase insecurity and violence. Instead, we demand massive investment in care work, education, healthcare, protection from patriarchal violence, and social security for all.
2. Feminist peace instead of patriarchal war politics!
There can be no peace without overcoming patriarchy and capitalism. We must build a politics based on international solidarity, civilian conflict resolution, and self-determination instead of militarization, nationalist power politics, and profit.
3. Solidarity with refugees and feminist struggles worldwide!
Protection, rights, and safe escape routes for all people fleeing war, violence, and persecution. Feminist movements worldwide must be strengthened, not criminalized.
Only if we fight together can we win together!
Take to the streets on Feminist Struggle Day!
IS THE SHADOW OF WAR GROWING OVER IRAN?
Author: Hasse-Nima Golkar
In recent days, the United States has significantly reinforced its air and naval presence in the Middle East. According to U.S. officials, this move is aimed at increasing political pressure, strengthening deterrence, and keeping a military option available if diplomacy fails.
At the same time, Donald Trump has once again taken a hard line against the Iranian government and has described “regime change” as a desirable outcome.
Media outlets such as CNN report that military plans are in place and forces are in a state of readiness, but no final decision to launch an attack has been made.
Reuters has also reported preparations for a potential operation that, if carried out, could last several weeks.
However, there has been no official announcement of war, and the diplomatic track remains open.
Possible Scenarios:
1- Continued pressure without war
The military buildup serves mainly as leverage in negotiations and as a deterrent.
2- Limited, targeted strike
A short-term operation against specific targets (e.g., military or nuclear facilities) without a full-scale war.
3- Escalation into regional confrontation
Proxy clashes or retaliatory actions that could destabilize the wider region.
4- Return to diplomacy
Military pressure used as a tool to reach a political agreement.
Bottom line:
The tension is real, but war is not inevitable. The outcome will depend on political decisions, developments on the ground, and the course of negotiations.
War is the business of capitalist governments, because peace is not profitable for them!
Author: Hasse-Nima Golkar
In recent days, the United States has significantly reinforced its air and naval presence in the Middle East. According to U.S. officials, this move is aimed at increasing political pressure, strengthening deterrence, and keeping a military option available if diplomacy fails.
At the same time, Donald Trump has once again taken a hard line against the Iranian government and has described “regime change” as a desirable outcome.
Media outlets such as CNN report that military plans are in place and forces are in a state of readiness, but no final decision to launch an attack has been made.
Reuters has also reported preparations for a potential operation that, if carried out, could last several weeks.
However, there has been no official announcement of war, and the diplomatic track remains open.
Possible Scenarios:
1- Continued pressure without war
The military buildup serves mainly as leverage in negotiations and as a deterrent.
2- Limited, targeted strike
A short-term operation against specific targets (e.g., military or nuclear facilities) without a full-scale war.
3- Escalation into regional confrontation
Proxy clashes or retaliatory actions that could destabilize the wider region.
4- Return to diplomacy
Military pressure used as a tool to reach a political agreement.
Bottom line:
The tension is real, but war is not inevitable. The outcome will depend on political decisions, developments on the ground, and the course of negotiations.
War is the business of capitalist governments, because peace is not profitable for them!
❤1