Statement by Over 100 Iranian Activists: Iran’s People Should Not Be Forced to Choose Between Foreign War and Domestic Repression

More than one hundred former political prisoners, human rights activists, writers, journalists, academics, and civil society activists in Iran and abroad have issued a joint statement declaring that the Iranian people should not be forced to choose between military attacks and foreign economic pressures on one hand and government repression on the other. The statement, released in support of a recent letter by The Guardian newspaper concerning Iran’s political prisoners, emphasizes the need to stop executions, free political prisoners, and end war and collective punishment of the Iranian people.

The statement was issued in response to a letter published in The Guardian on August 20, 2026, titled “To Iran’s Political Prisoners, Trapped Between the Two Blades of a Scissors.” In that letter, more than 20 academics, writers, political activists, and former political prisoners expressed concern about the condition of detainees in Iran while simultaneously condemning both the Islamic Republic’s repression and military attacks by the United States and Israel against Iran.

The authors of the Guardian letter had argued that Iranian political prisoners find themselves in conditions where they face imprisonment, torture, execution, and government repression on one hand, while war and foreign attacks threaten their lives and those of other Iranian citizens on the other. They had called for an end to executions, the release of political prisoners, and an end to war and sanctions by the United States and Israel.

However, the use of the metaphor “the two blades of a scissors” quickly became a point of contention and criticism. Critics argued that this expression might create a kind of political or moral equivalence between Islamic Republic repression and foreign attacks. In response, supporters of the letter argued that the intention behind this expression was not to equate the parties involved, but rather to describe the situation of people who are simultaneously experiencing the consequences of two forms of violence.

The new statement enters the debate at precisely this point, attempting to clarify the distinction between “simultaneously condemning two forms of violence” and “treating them as equivalent.”

The signatories stated explicitly: “The Iranian people should not be forced to choose between foreign military-economic aggression and state repression.”

They also addressed the criticisms raised regarding the “two blades of a scissors” metaphor, writing: “The use of the metaphor ‘the two blades of a scissors’ to describe the predicament that Iranians face simultaneously with war and government repression does not mean treating these two as morally or politically equivalent.”

The statement then emphasizes that condemning different forms of violence does not necessarily mean treating their origins, nature, or objectives as identical. Within this framework, the signatories listed examples of what they consider domestic repression: from execution and imprisonment of opponents to forced hijab, censorship, restrictions on civil society, and pressure on ethnic and religious minorities.

Another section of the statement reads: “Iran’s history testifies to various forms of foreign intervention—Iran’s history also testifies to state repression, before and after the 1979 Revolution—including the repression of political prisoners, executions, compulsory hijab as a form of gender apartheid, censorship, suppression of civil society, religious minorities, and systematic domination of Kurds, Baluchis, Arabs, and Turkic peoples of Iran. Justice, freedom, and democracy should not be delayed or sacrificed in the name of the Islamic Republic’s ‘anti-imperialist resistance’ against foreign enemies.”

The signatories also emphasized that a government can simultaneously be the target of foreign attack and continue to repress its own citizens domestically. From their perspective, accepting one of these realities should not lead to ignoring the other.

This debate in Iran’s public sphere and among political and human rights activists has become a serious controversy, particularly following the publication of The Guardian letter. Some critics argue that comparing the two situations could downplay the distinction between the Iranian government’s responsibility for domestic repression and foreign powers’ responsibility for military operations. In response, defenders of the letter argue that their starting point is the situation of victims, not a comparison of power or the political responsibility of states.

Some analyses published after The Guardian letter have also recalled that the metaphor “the two blades of scissors” had been used among political prisoners and their families before this letter was published. In an analysis of this debate, Farah Mokhtarizadeh referred to writings by Keyvan Mehrtash, a labor activist and former political prisoner, following the attack on Evin Prison, where he had written about concern for prisoners who had been “caught between the two blades of scissors.” Similarly, Siamak Namazi, a former political prisoner, had reported using this same expression to describe the situation of detainees during the attacks.

On the other hand, the publication of The Guardian letter was not met with support alone, and critical reactions emerged among various political and civil movements. Some critics specifically argued that placing the Islamic Republic on one side of the scissors and the United States and Israel on the other could conceptually create a kind of “false symmetry.” In response to this criticism, defenders of the letter emphasized that the text did not intend to compare the power, history, or responsibility of these actors, but rather focused on the situation of Iranian prisoners and citizens.

The new statement has also gone beyond theoretical debate about the scissors metaphor to discuss specific demands. The signatories have called for an immediate end to executions, the release of all political prisoners, an end to war, and prevention of collective punishment of the Iranian people. The text supporting The Guardian letter was also centered on these demands and called on the international civil society to support Iran’s political prisoners.

Among the signatories of the new statement are names such as Saeed Madani, Mohammad Habibi, Mohammad Reza Nikfar, Nasim Khakssar, Ali Banuazizi, Touraj Atabaki, Mansoureh Behkish, Nahid Tagavi, Niloofar Towhidi, Reza Khandan, Atena Daemi, Faraj Sarkohi, Parastou Forouhar, and Kazem Alamdari.

The importance of this statement lies not only in the number of its signatories but in its effort to present a position opposed to duality: according to the signatories, opposition to foreign war should not be interpreted as support for domestic repression, and opposition to the Islamic Republic’s repression should not require support for foreign military attacks.

Ultimately, the signatories have attempted to redirect the debate from a choice between two sides to the situation of people caught in the middle of this crisis. Their main message is that freedom, justice, and human rights should not be postponed to an uncertain future because of war or claims of countering a foreign enemy. Similarly, opposition to foreign attack should not result in ignoring repression and violations of citizens’ rights within Iran.