From common enemy to common cause: Iran's opposition must find its footing.

The Iranian opposition faces an urgent task in overcoming its historical divisions to forge a united front against the Islamic Republic.

4 min readThe Atlantic
From common enemy to common cause: Iran's opposition must find its footing.

The Iranian opposition faces a pivotal moment marked by both division and potential for unity. The recent gatherings in Grapevine, Texas, where former Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi addressed a crowd at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), and the Iran Freedom Congress in London, illustrate a significant dichotomy within the opposition. While Pahlavi is seen by some as a beacon of hope for a "free and democratic Iran," his close ties with the American right and ardent support for military intervention have alienated many within the diaspora. This schism is emblematic of a broader struggle within the Iranian opposition, as seen in the varied perspectives on the conflict in Iran and the future direction of the movement. For further context, the challenges faced by the opposition in articulating a cohesive agenda have been explored in articles like ‘You Want to Leave Us Alone With Mojtaba?’ and others focusing on national security.

The urgency for a unified front is underscored not just by Pahlavi’s polarizing stance but also by the dire situation within Iran itself. The Iranian regime's brutal response to protests and its hardening tactics signal a regime that is not only deeply unpopular but also increasingly desperate. The waves of protests since 2017 demonstrate a populace yearning for change, but without a cohesive opposition organization, these sentiments risk being fragmented and ineffective. The recent London meeting, which brought together a diverse array of voices—from monarchists to secular feminists—represents a hopeful step towards collaboration, yet the challenge of reconciling differing ideologies remains daunting. The desire for unity must navigate the complexities of historical grievances and ideological divides, as many participants have previously clashed in public forums.

What makes this moment particularly compelling is the realization that the division within the opposition could paradoxically serve as a catalyst for healing. As the Iranian diaspora grapples with the realities of their fragmented identities, there is a growing recognition that a collective approach may be the only viable path forward. The London gathering, organized by a coalition of activists and thought leaders, exemplifies a shift in thinking—a willingness to explore common ground despite past conflicts. However, as the article notes, the path to unification will be fraught with challenges, including differing views on the ongoing war and the legitimacy of Pahlavi’s claims to leadership. This is where the stakes become incredibly high. The opposition must cultivate a disciplined and unified force capable of articulating a clear vision for Iran’s future.

Looking ahead, one must ponder whether the Iranian opposition can truly overcome its historical rifts to forge a united front against an increasingly oppressive regime. The potential for a new political coalition, as hinted at during the Iran Freedom Congress, could provide a platform for a more organized and effective challenge to the current government. As activists reflect on past failures and seek new strategies, it’s crucial to consider what concrete steps will be taken to bridge ideological divides and build a sustainable movement. Can the diverse voices within the opposition find common purpose, or will the shadow of Pahlavi's influence continue to sow discord? The coming months will be critical in determining whether this renewed sense of urgency can translate into actionable unity.

From The Atlantic

The Iranian opposition has never lacked for a common enemy. The Islamic Republic has furnished no end of shared grievances, frustrated hopes, and collective traumas. And yet, its adversaries have long sorted themselves into mutually hostile subgroups. Now the deepest rupture is between those who support former Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi as a transitional figure and those who oppose him.

Perversely, this division might prove to be the one that heals.

Read the original at The Atlantic

Briefing

Source
The Atlantic
Published
April 5, 2026

Related

  • Peace Won't Fix This: Iran's Fear of What Comes After the War

    Sign up for our newsletter about national security here. The war in Iran has horrified many inside the country, but some worry that peace could be just as frightening. “I am shit-scared,” Shaghayeh, a 32-year-old living in Tehran, told me last week. “But I won’t cheer if the war ends now. You want to leave us alone with Mojtaba?” Shaghayeh, a left-wing activist, was referring to the new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, whose regime continues to impose a near-total internet blackout. Contacting anyone within Iran’s borders is a challenge, but I have managed to speak with more than a dozen people over the past three weeks. (To protect their safety, I am referring to them by pseudonyms.) I was struck by how many people in Iran expressed the same paradox: They fear the continuation of the war, yet they also fear its end. Iran is a country of 90 million people, and I can’t claim that the ones I spoke with are representative. But very few of them told me they were content with their lives before the war. At first, some saw America and Israel’s intervention as a sign of hope—a possible escape from economic ruin and social repression. Now some of those same Iranians have begun to fear that the United States and Israel have locked them into a worse fate: Either the war persists and bombs keep falling on their heads, or it ends, giving way to an even crueler regime. [Read: Iran is trying to defeat America in the living room] Some Iranians began our phone calls with a dark joke: “As you can see, I am still alive.” Others wasted no time, mindful that the line could cut out at any moment. “We are under bombardment, Arash,” Ali, a left-wing anti-regime activist in Tehran, told me earlier this month. “Get our voice to the world: No to war, no to killing, no to Israeli and American bombs.” After more than three weeks, the war has killed at least 1,443 Iranian civilians, including 217 children, according to the Human Rights Activists News Agency, a U.S.-based nonprofit run by Iranians. Some in Iran told me that the costs of the war have been so severe that no end could justify them. Ziba was crying uncontrollably when she left me a voice message. She was staying at her grandmother’s house in Tehran, and a bomb had just broken the windows. “Why can’t people understand that these conditions are no better than a lack of freedom?” she asked. “Fuck freedom if this is the price we pay for it. I was about to have a heart attack. Fuck this freedom. I still can’t breathe.” When I spoke with Nastaran, her windows had recently shattered too. Still, she was optimistic. “Hope must not die,” she told me. Nastaran, who is 26, said she’d barely had enough money to survive in Tehran before the bombs started falling. “I hate this war. But something better can follow.” Hassan, 32, went further. “I’ll just tell you one thing,” he said. “I am only unhappy when I don’t hear the sound of missiles.” That may be the strongest endorsement of the war I’ve heard. Most of the people I talked to have soured on the conflict, and not only because of the destruction it has wrought. Shahrzad moved to Europe several weeks before the war. I had spoken with her in January, days after the regime had massacred protesters. Back then, the 29-year-old told me that she was in favor of foreign intervention, hoping it would dislodge the Islamic Republic. But last week, Shahrzad said she no longer believes that America and Israel care about achieving that result. [Franklin Foer: Trump is betraying Iran’s pro-democracy protesters] “I can now see that their intention is perhaps to make Iran weaker than before, even if the regime stays in power.” She pointed to America’s apparent willingness to negotiate with Khamenei and his inner circle. “I thought they had concluded that an Iran without the Islamic Republic was in their best interests too. Now I know this isn’t their priority.” Melika, a 21-year-old, also recently left Iran for Europe. Back in January, she told me that she wanted to see the supreme leader killed, but now she opposes the war. “When Khamenei died, I was happy, but only for a moment—like you get a hit from a drug,” Melika said. “It didn’t even last a day. After that I’ve only felt one thing: fear, fear, fear.” Some Iranians said that they had expected anti-regime forces to revolt after the death of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei—a hope that Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu had expressed too. Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of the last Shah, has called on Iranians to help bring down the regime. But some of those I spoke with have lost faith in him. “I think people haven’t risen up because they don’t have a proper leader,” Shahrzad said. All Pahlavi does, she said, is “try to placate Trump.” Even if they did have a proper leader, protesters would still have to contend with American and Israeli bombs, as well as the ample security forces that the regime has mobilized. Dissidents would also face resistance from their fellow citizens, some of whom back the regime. I spoke with one man in his 40s who supported Mojtaba Khamenei and said he would “fight to death to not let Pahlavi come back.” Some anti-regime Iranians cannot imagine the war yielding any positive outcome without an organized opposition. Melika and Shahrzad both reiterated the grim paradox I’d heard from others: They fear the fighting, but they also fear its conclusion. “I am amazed at how strong the regime has been,” Melika said. “Even though I want the war to stop, I know they’ll be really brutal once it does.” Shahrzad echoed her alarm. “The war upsets me, of course,” she said. “But I am worried that when it ends, the regime will be even worse.”