A Warning to Israel’s Left: Stop Misreading Iran
Shallow “solidarity” with the wrong forces only strengthens the Islamic Republic
In recent months, parts of Israel’s left-leaning media and online circles have revealed a dangerously superficial grasp of Iran’s internal struggle. Under the pretext of “supporting the Iranian opposition,” some have lent credibility to groups that most Iranians view as anti-national, separatist, or outright terrorist.
This is not solidarity—it’s self-sabotage. Far from helping Iran’s democratic cause, it undermines it. Worse still, it harms Israel’s image among ordinary Iranians and hands the Islamic Republic an easy propaganda tool: the claim that every dissident is “an Israeli agent.”
The Left’s Confused Solidarity
Israel’s left often champions the language of “human rights” and “anti-authoritarianism.” Yet when it comes to Iran, many of its commentators blur the line between genuine democratic opposition and violent sectarian movements. What they call empathy is, in truth, confusion disguised as virtue.
Take Israel Hayom’s portrayal of Mowlavi Abdolhamid—a Sunni cleric linked to fundamentalist and ethnocentric politics—as “a potential bridge to Iranian society.” That’s not strategy; it’s naiveté masquerading as insight.
Even more troubling was Haaretz’s sensational claim that some pro-Pahlavi activism was being coordinated from Israel using artificial intelligence. Whether true or not is beside the point. The framing blurred the boundary between journalism and psychological warfare, gifting Tehran exactly what it craves: an excuse to brand every Constitutional monarchist or secular activist as an Israeli pawn.
Worse still, certain leftist-linked accounts have praised extremist groups such as the MEK, PJAK, and Jaish al-Adl, romanticizing them as “resistance forces.” To most Iranians, these are not symbols of resistance but of violence, foreign servitude, and betrayal. Glorifying them is not solidarity—it’s ignorance. It erodes Israel’s moral credibility among Iranians and poisons any future chance for trust between the two peoples.
The Strategic Role of Constitutional Monarchists
Amid this fog, Constitutional monarchists stand out as one of the few Iranian forces consistently defending secularism, national unity, and territorial integrity—while maintaining a pragmatic and forward-looking stance toward Israel.
They are uniquely positioned to rebuild trust and correct false narratives. Through open dialogue with Israeli journalists—left, right, and center—they can help convey the real character of Iranian society: its wounds, aspirations, and complexities. With factual, reasoned commentary, they can show that empowering separatist or terrorist factions serves neither the Iranian people nor Israel’s long-term security interests.
Above all, Constitutional monarchists can remind Israel’s media and policymakers that any future relationship with Iran must rest on mutual respect and recognition of Iran’s sovereignty. Every attempt at “political engineering,” no matter how well-intended, will backfire in a nation as historically proud and politically bruised as Iran.
What Israel’s Left Must Understand
If Israel’s left truly cares about liberty and democracy in Iran, it must abandon its sentimental and selective approach. Backing armed or separatist movements is not an act of courage—it’s an act of confusion that strengthens the regime’s hand.
Iranian society is layered, wounded, and deeply wary of foreign meddling. After decades of propaganda, national pride has become both a shield and a trigger. When Israelis, even with good intentions, appear to side with groups despised by most Iranians, the regime wins the narrative battle without firing a shot.
The real allies of Israel—and of Iranian democracy—are those who stand for a secular, unified, and independent Iran. These are the nationalists, secularists, and Constitutional monarchists who represent the country’s future and its only viable path toward stability and partnership with Israel.
Toward a Smarter Strategy
Israel’s policymakers, too, must show greater strategic sensitivity. Iran is not simply another regional adversary—it’s a nation of more than eighty million people, many of whom do not hate Israel but resent being misrepresented. Genuine goodwill requires precision, patience, and respect.
Israel should craft a responsible communication strategy that amplifies Iran’s authentic democratic voices rather than fringe groups that feed the regime’s propaganda.
Only through such an informed approach can Israel lay the groundwork for a genuine relationship with a post-Islamic Republic Iran—one built not on opportunism or media theatrics, but on clarity, shared interests, and mutual respect.
For now, Israel’s left would do well to listen less to its ideological reflexes and more to the Iranian people themselves. They are not asking for pity, hashtags, or interference—they are asking to be understood truthfully.
And that, more than any slogan or headline, would be the most meaningful act of solidarity Israel could offer.