In a recent joint meeting of a number of Italian parliamentarians, John Bercow, former speaker of the UK Parliament, said, “You will notice in the dishonest lexicon, the dishonest use of the dictionary by the Iranian regime, how they say that there is no united opposition, no united opposition. They’ve stopped saying there’s no meaningful alternative. They say there’s no united opposition alternative… If what the butchers, the tyrants, and the demagogues from Iran’s government are saying is that there isn’t unanimity, well, of course, there is not unanimity… Mrs. Rajavi and her mass movement cannot be expected to unite with the enemies of democracy, with people who don’t favor pluralism, people who don’t want democratic change, who don’t believe in equality, who don’t think there should be a right to regular and independently monitored elections, but amongst the mass of people for whom the flame of freedom will never be extinguished and for whom that flame burns brightly, there is mass support for change.”
The words of the former speaker of the UK Parliament are a clear answer to the deceptive “all together” slogan which was introduced by Khomeini on the eve of the 1979 revolution and is being used again in this day and age to remove the historical demarcation of rejecting the dictatorships of the Shah and mullahs’ regime.
This demagogic trick justified by the “united opposition” seems to claim sympathy for the opposition and the need for unity of all forces to fight against the regime. But the truth of the matter is that under the banner of “united opposition” are the seeds of division.
In other words, when you remove the lines between those who believe in true freedom and those who want to preserve the current dictatorship or restore the old one, then the real freedom fighters and anti-dictatorial forces will not be able or willing to take part in this so-called “united opposition.”
The fact is that the unity and cohesion of any freedom-loving force is formed not out of claims but in the course of a common struggle to overthrow the regime. This is a struggle that can only bring together people who are willing to make great sacrifices and will not compromise with any form of tyranny, be it the religious fascism of the mullahs or the dictatorship of the shah.
As the Iranian people clearly saw in the past few months, attempts to assemble opposition movements under the banner of unity and solidarity without answering fundamental questions of freedom and sovereignty are doomed to fail, even if they are highly promoted by state-backed media outlets with millions of viewers. Those who are here to gain something for themselves will eventually be eliminated from the course of the struggle for freedom. Those who have joined the struggle to give everything they have for their people will find common ground and overcome tyranny.
The conclusion is that emphasizing on the demarcation of “neither Shah nor the mullahs” and denouncing the demagogic claims of unity that only sow division among freedom-fighting forces is incidentally the necessity of today’s struggle against the mullahs’ regime.
The necessity of neither the Shah nor the mullahs is not only about the future and the necessity of the democratic structure of tomorrow’s Iran, but before that, the necessity is the overthrow of the religious tyranny.