Strange Bedfellows: How Islamists and America’s Left Are in Cahoots

Protests at American university campuses may have had other goals, but their narrative instead served as clear evidence of how Islamists and Marxists can collaborate against Western values and US interests.

The Iranian regime's support of the demonstrations and subsequent invitations by Islamic Republic officials for these students to relocate to Iran were further demonstrations of the deep connections between the Western left and Islamist states and movements.

Indeed, Iran under the rule of the mullahs seems to represent the utopian ideal for Western Islamists.

For American "wokes" and leftists, considering a move to Iran might now really be a viable option, although none appear to be willing to relinquish their comfortable lives under capitalism to live in a country whose national currency has lost value 9,000-fold in 45 years.

Under the mullahs' enlightened rule, men and women in Iran are segregated and separated – making sure everyone can have their respective "safe spaces." If you hate America and Israel, congratulations, you're in for a treat! And, let’s not forget the ubiquitous hijab, praised and flaunted at every turn, making even the most hijab-centric American media ads seem modest by comparison.

But, the list of Iran as an ideal destination for America’s left doesn’t stop there.

Criticism of Sharia is forbidden, with dissenters labeled as racist and subjected to prosecution. Beef consumption has decreased by approximately 50% in the past year due to poverty, resulting in a reduced carbon footprint. Long lines form for bread, reminiscent of Bernie Sanders' utopia.

All media platforms in Iran are actually state-affiliated or state-controlled media. Under the regime, political correctness is at its peak and people who violate will be prosecuted and imprisoned. Palestinians are praised when they kill Israeli kids and women. The Islamic Republic believes in black reparations in the US and even has a very good relationship with Venezuela and Cuba.

The Marxist world of socialist societies and that of Islamists in Iran and the West are mirroring each other these days. An examination of their respective discourses, ideologies, and policies reveals why Western Islamists and America’s left are so closely aligned.

Shared discourse

Marxists/leftists and Islamists often prioritize their own freedoms over those of others, showing little regard for freedoms such as speech, religion, media, assembly, and association. History has shown that when they gain power, they frequently suppress these freedoms for anyone who opposes their ideology. They often reject tolerance because they view themselves as unequivocally correct on the moral high ground – while others are entirely mistaken.

Conspiracy theory serves as the overarching belief that influences every perspective towards their adversaries, with the dominant tendency to assign blame to America first. Both present their ideologies as scientifically grounded and factual, asserting their ideas as the ultimate truth.

They portray history as the struggle between classes, whether economic or ideological. For them, the infrastructure of society consists not of civil society, law, ethics, or public opinion, but rather nuclei of power constructed around economics or ideologies, which they perceive as easily manipulable. People are often regarded as tabula rasa, blank slates that those in power can mold according to their desires. Those in positions of authority essentially hold carte blanche, allowing them to play God.

Marxists/leftists and Islamists both advocate for the resurgence of strong, centralized states, favoring them over modern states founded upon pluralistic civil society. They reject the notion of international borders and the nation-state model. In their belief system, there is a prominent role of the state in their utopia. Both thought systems have been historically violent and totalitarian. They have been good students of the tactics employed by fascist propaganda machine administrators and agitators.

Shared ideology

Although Marxists and Islamists have been trying to tear each other apart in the Middle East, they share remarkably similar belief systems. They are historicists, meaning they believe that history, akin to a divine force, is aligned with their cause, leading them to anticipate global conquest. Their vision of an ideal society entails a classless and mass structure governed by a charismatic leader reminiscent of figures like Lenin, Mao, or Khomeini. In this society, people are comrades and subjects – not individuals and citizens with rights. Islamism and Marxism look at human beings as an atom (not an individual) and society as a mass or collective. This atom is stripped of rights and becomes alienated. Governments are viewed as capable of either rescuing individuals or ushering them into a form of utopia. The road to happiness is paved by the government. They both are internationalists (globalists) and vie for world domination.

While Christians and the Western tradition have managed to separate religion and politics, Islamists see no necessity for such a division and have not developed a corresponding doctrine, much like Marxists who do not distinguish between ideology and policymaking.

Shared policies 

More than a century of leftist policies, implemented in Europe, Latin America, and East Asia, along with half a century of Islamist policies in Iran, Afghanistan, and by ISIS, offer ample evidence of the similarities between these two ideologies. Islamists go so far as to believe that their ideology not only meets the needs of society but also has the capacity to accommodate or direct the social changes that Marxism seeks to achieve.

Here is a list outlining these shared characteristics:

Economy: They both pursue nationalization of big business and over-regulation, aiming to involve the government in every facet of people’s lives from birth to death, and seeking government control over all human and natural resources.

Society: According to both, due process is considered unfair; cash bail is deemed racist; the rule of law is perceived as benefiting only the rich and powerful, with poor people having no agency. They tolerate the "soft bigotry of low expectations," advocating for the replacement of equal opportunities and "equality before the law" with "equity," which entails equal distribution of wealth and status. They support pro-discriminatory measures such as affirmative action and oppose meritocracy, viewing them as essential for social progress. They both believe that parents should have no say in what is taught in schools.

Culture: They both view cancel-culture as necessary, advocating for restrictions on freedom of expression. They believe that the progressive elite should endorse filtering, political correctness, safe spaces, and the cancellation of cultural appropriation. They assert that criticism in society should be constructive, as interpreted by the left, and advocate for the avoidance of "incorrect" words in favor of those suggested by authorities. Furthermore, they contend that art should reflect progressive activism.

Media: The elimination of private independent media is paramount with both arguing that the government should control all mass media, whether financially, bureaucratically, or in substance.

Politics, domestic: Both ideologies endorse pro-mob behaviors, reject the rule of law and dialogue, manipulate elections, and engage in ballot harvesting as necessary means to consolidate and retain power, all under the guise of democracy. They see the primary objective of the government as rebuilding every aspect of society and culture according to ideological principles—this process is termed Islamization and socialization.

Politics, foreign: These are the fundamental tenets: hostility towards Jews; anti-Western, anti-American, and anti-Western powers sentiments; support for state-sponsored global terrorism; endorsement of militia actions; and promotion of anarchism in the international arena until a revolutionary globalist regime assumes control.

The opinions expressed by the author are not necessarily the views of Iran International.