As global liberal circles remain largely muted on Iran’s bloodiest uprising in decades, a growing number of commentators from the Muslim world and diaspora are openly condemning what they describe as selective morality and ideological hypocrisy.
In a widely shared Facebook post, commentator Khalid Umar launched a scathing attack on Western protest culture, questioning why campuses and city streets that have echoed with “Free Palestine” slogans for nearly two years have fallen silent as Iran burns.
Umar wrote that while Gaza has become the “latest moral theatre,” there are no mass marches or viral slogans demanding “Free Iran,” even as cities revolt and mass graves reportedly emerge.
“The absence is not accidental. It is revealing,” Umar wrote, accusing liberal activism of being driven not by universal ethics but by ideological alignment. He argued that condemning Tehran would expose uncomfortable truths about political Islam and the global networks that have shielded it for decades.
According to Umar, Iran sits at the strategic core of Islamist militancy, naming Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Houthis and proxy militias across Iraq and Syria as beneficiaries of Iranian funding, training and ideological backing.
“When students in elite Western universities don green bandanas and chant liberation slogans, they are not opposing power—they are laundering it,” Umar wrote, asserting that Iran’s role as a financier of militant movements makes it untouchable for sections of the Left.
He claimed that condemning Tehran would shatter long-held narratives portraying political Islam as a resistance ideology rather than, in his words, “a governing catastrophe.”
Umar further argued that the current uprising represents something unprecedented in the modern Muslim world: a mass rejection of theocratic rule itself.
He described Iran’s movement not as a reformist struggle but as a “civilisational rupture,” with millions rejecting clerical authority outright.
“They are not reforming Islam. They are rejecting it,” he wrote, calling the uprising a declaration of freedom rather than a protest.
Similar sentiments have been echoed by Luai Ahmed, a Yemeni writer and journalist who has lived under Islamist rule.
In a widely circulated Instagram video, Ahmed praised the bravery of Iranian protesters, comparing their struggle to life under Islamic dictatorships in Yemen, Iran and Saudi Arabia.
He explained how criticism of religious authority in these societies can lead to immediate imprisonment, stressing that religion is routinely used as a tool of oppression.
“The fact that Iranians are going out every single day, risking their lives, is a sign of bravery we should be inspired by,” Ahmed said, urging people in the West to stand in solidarity with protesters who do not enjoy freedom of speech.
He described Iranian demonstrators as “beautiful and brave,” adding that he wished Arab societies showed similar secular resistance to defend minorities and women.
In another post, Ahmed directly attacked those supporting Iran’s clerical establishment, stating: “Anyone who supports the Islamic regime in Iran instead of the Iranian people needs to stay out of Middle Eastern politics for good. I don’t want to hear you say ‘Gaza’ or ‘Palestine’ ever again, you self-righteous hypocrites.”
Together, these voices are intensifying scrutiny on what critics describe as the Left’s selective outrage—loud when confronting Western governments, but conspicuously quiet when violence is carried out by Islamist regimes.
Their comments have resonated widely online, adding to the growing backlash against progressive silence as Iran’s streets continue to run red.
Rejection of Islamism and the crux of Iranian protesters’ demands
Central to the protests is the rejection not merely of economic hardship but of theocratic governance itself.
Across Iran, demonstrators are demanding freedom from rigid religious rule that they see as underpinning systemic repression.
Protest chants often call for the downfall of Khamenei’s regime and an end to religious authority in state affairs.
The widespread use of slogans like “Death to Khamenei” underscores this deep rejection of the political role of clerical Islam in Iran.
Internal dissent is not limited to secular economic concerns; it tackles the foundational role of religious authority in policymaking, civil liberties, and everyday life — challenging an 86-year-old Supreme Leader whose regime blends political power with religious legitimacy.
A test for Khamenei: Can the regime withstand this uprising?
The scale and intensity of the protests — spanning dozens of cities, sustained for weeks, and resulting in thousands of deaths and tens of thousands of detentions — mark this as one of the most significant internal challenges to Iran’s theocratic structure since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
Iran's supreme leader Seyyed Ali Hosseini Khamenei. Photo: Wikimedia Commons/Khamenei.ir
Some analysts view the unrest as a critical stress test for Supreme Leader Khamenei’s hold on power; provincial strikes, bazaar closures, and defiant street actions suggest broad societal discontent beyond isolated protests.
While Iranian state media and officials frame the unrest as foreign-influenced and under control, on-the-ground pressures — from daily life frustrations to broad ideological dissatisfaction — pose enduring risks to the regime’s stability.
