Anti-imperialist Left or the “Axis of Resistance” Left?
A crucial intervention by the Iran-based economist Dr. Mohammad Maljoo
I do not and will not watch the Lego animation produced by Explosive Media throughout the US/Israel war on Iran. It’s not because I don’t have a sense of humor, which I do and plenty of. It’s because I increasingly find these shorts morally reprehensible. I have been thinking a lot about why that is the case and I hope to write about that in a future post.
In a piece published on his telegram channel and translated below, the Iran-based economist, Dr. Mohammad Maljoo provides a framework to think about both why those animations are so popular outside of Iran and yet why they are so problematic. He identifies a distinction between anti-imperialist left and what in Persian is called chab-e mehvar moqavemati or “Axis of Resistance left,” with Axis of Resistance referring to an amorphous coalition of Iran and its regional allies (sometimes carelessly called “proxies”) such as Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis, etc.
This distinction is a crucial intervention in understanding why throughout the war and beyond (this beyond, which is not post-war considering all that is happening as I type), so many who consider themselves anti-imperialist left could not or would not articulate an anti-war position. This continues during this ceasefire whereby the Islamic Republic is celebrated for standing up to the US and Israel, and for including Lebanon and Palestine as part of their peace conditions, even as Iranians suffer and continue to suffer and will continue to suffer increasing political repression, communications shutdown, inflation of roughly 70% (and more on basic food items), surging unemployment, etc. Iran’s return of fire onto countries in the Gulf during the war (and again beyond) is not considered, or when it is, it is again celebrated as another form of anti-imperialist resistance as if humans don’t live near these bombed out military bases, as if the environmental impact of this awful regional war will remain limited to only those we don’t like. If you rightfully condemn the hollowness of targeting “military sites” on one side, then surely you must also condemn it on the other.
It is possible to occupy an anti-imperialist/progressive/whatever you want to call it position that holds the humanity of all these people in the region in its purview and that does not celebrate the Islamic Republic in order to condemn imperialism. We know it is possible because so many people already do that.
But the challenge is in articulating that position.
While Dr. Maljoo’s text is focused on a specific Iranian phenomenon, in distinguishing between anti-imperialist left and axis of resistance left along four axes—”the relation to the Islamic [Republic] system, the place of political democracy, the evaluation of internal repression, and the comprehension of the agency of societal forces”—he provides a way forward to think more expansively on this issue.
This post is part of a collaborative effort to engage with perspectives and analyses from inside Iran. I invite you to read them, incorporate them into your understanding of Iranian politics, and help distribute them widely.
Anti-imperialist Left or the “Axis of Resistance” Left? by Mohammad Maljoo published on May 4, 2026.
“Axis of Resistance left” is a more appropriate term than “anti-imperialist left” for describing heterogeneous groupings such as “Group 10 Mehr,” “Jedaal Internet TV,” “Danesh va Omid Magazine,” and “Communist Preparation,” and the like.1 Why? Because many leftists are critical of imperialism, but they do not necessarily, in a political and practical sense, align themselves within the formation known as the Axis of Resistance. What distinguishes the Axis-of-Resistance left is not merely opposition to imperialism, but a specific way of linking their opposition to a particular geopolitical configuration.
To understand anti-imperialism, one must attend to its empirical context. This tendency has not emerged out of a vacuum. The harmful effects of imperialism in the lives of Iranians are not abstract; they are part of their lived experience, an experience whose roots extend through the destructive interventions of imperialist powers across contemporary history, and which in recent decades has been reproduced in the form of sweeping economic sanctions, chronic regional destabilization, and ultimately war. The totality of these intertwined factors has led to the formation of a justified opposition to imperialism.
However, opposition to imperialism does not necessarily lead to alignment with the Axis of Resistance. There is an important distinction between recognizing the structural role of imperialism and supporting the foreign policy of the Islamic Republic, a distinction arising from four axes, each of which on its own can set the left on different paths: the relation to the Islamic system, the place of political democracy, the evaluation of internal repression, and the comprehension of the agency of societal forces.
One can be anti-imperialist while simultaneously holding a critical or even opposing stance toward the force that defines itself as the head of the Axis of Resistance. The Axis-of-Resistance left is not like this: it is opposed to imperialism and aligned with the entirety of the Axis of Resistance.
From a methodological perspective, the difference between the Axis-of-Resistance left and other anti-imperialist lefts begins at the point where one important reality, namely, imperialist pressure, gradually becomes their sole lens of analysis. Imperialism, which at first was rightly considered an important explanatory factor gradually turns into the main and determining factor of everything. In the view of the Axis-of-Resistance left, the world at this point is reduced to a simple image: on one side imperialism, and on the other side the Axis of Resistance.
It is here that the first slippage of the Axis-of-Resistance left occurs. Internal issues such as poverty, inequality, repression, and the crisis of representation are no longer regarded as problems arising from within society itself; rather, they are often attributed to the direct or indirect role of imperialism. The real lived experience of the people is not seen as it is, but is instead poured into a ready-made explanatory mold.
When social reality is compressed into such a pre-fabricated mold, the next conclusion is to be expected: the role of the people themselves on the scene is downplayed. Although Axis-of-Resistance leftists consider social protests as signs of real issues in society, they mostly dismiss them quite quickly with the label “tools of imperialism.” Thus, society’s voicing of its demands and reflecting actual contradictions within it are largely portrayed as an opportunity for exploitation by an external enemy. The people are not recognized as the primary agents of change but are mostly reduced to secondary elements in a larger global game. History, in such a narrative, is not the result of human action and choice, but the product of large-scale geopolitical structures.
When the role of the people is pushed to the margins in this way, the view of change naturally changes as well. In such a framework, political caution, which under conditions of external threat is both reasonable and necessary, gradually becomes a permanent rule. The result is that the judgment “now is not the time” is no longer a temporary response but becomes a constant refrain. Since the external threat is, in principle, endless, every demand and every change is continually deferred to an indefinite future. The present is always the time of postponement, and the future always a distant horizon to which change is referred.
When change is continually deferred to the future, another outcome emerges for the Axis-of-Resistance left: disagreements themselves change their meaning. In this space, opposition is not merely a different opinion; it readily takes on a political coloring. Critics are not seen as intellectual rivals but are often regarded as people who are either naïve or who, knowingly or unknowingly, are playing on the field of the imperialist enemy.
Such an outlook cannot be described merely as “anti-imperialist left.” It must be named more precisely and more bluntly: the Axis-of-Resistance left.
On a Separate Note:
I appeared on the Iran-based program, Panorama, which is part of what I have called Iran’s “grey media,” i.e. media that is not officially sanctioned by the government and is independently produced. Panorama is a socio-political talk show created and produced by Sobhan Yahyaei, a media researcher who created Panorama during the 12 day war in 2025, where a wide variety of topics are openly and honestly discussed by a spectrum of Iran’s fearless thinkers and researchers. Like other such media, Panorama occupies a precarious place in Iran’s media landscape: On the day before we recorded, they had to find a new space since they had been kicked out of their usual studio inside the university. I was invited to the program as part of a new initiative by Panorama to be in conversation with researchers and thinkers outside of Iran and to think through the notion of Iranian diaspora together. You can find my interview and scores of others (only in Persian) here.
The groups mentioned here are all small Iranian leftist political that define themselves as Marxist and anti-imperialist, and from within that stance, as strongly supportive of the Islamic Republic’s regional policies.
Good points!
As one that has zero understanding of the complex dynamics of these two movements, reading this is incredibly insightful. Your continued posts are invaluable insights beyond the soundbite media landscape and much appreciated.