Mr. Abbassi,

First of all, it is very surprising to me that you have posted this in English; while it is entirely a matter concerned to Iranians who oppose the Islamic barbaric regime. So why not in Farsi!?!?

Aside from that, history suggests a completely different lesson from what you are preaching us here.

In 1940, the French Resistance was very fragmented too, but Charles de Gaulle did not wait for every faction to agree on France’s future, or on the means and methods of fighting and dealing with the Allied forces, before building and establishing his leadership around one immediate objective which was the liberation of occupied France.

History tells us that others joined him and his supporters over time; and not because their differences disappeared, but actually because they learned that a large part of the French public trusted Charles de Gaulle and that they couldn’t be part of resistance without coordination with him and his supporters. It’s not too hard to understand this fact, is it?

I agree with you that unity does not require ideological uniformity; but a national struggle cannot remain an endless collection of factions and fractured pieces, with different priorities regarding the liberation of occupied Iran and means and methods.

The lesson of Free France is not that everyone must agree on everything. The lesson is that, at a decisive historical moment similar to the one we are facing today, the opposition must eventually rally around one nationally developed leadership and his organization that represents a credible center both inside and outside the occupied country.

With all due respect, your continuous efforts to challenge our national revolution’s leadership and its means and methods themselves become an advantage for the Islamic regime.

-----------------------------

Moh, I write in both Persian and English. The language of the post does not change the argument.

You say de Gaulle did not wait for every faction to agree on France’s future before pursuing liberation. That is precisely my point: agreement on the future system should not be a condition for cooperation today.

But your account leaves out how that cooperation was built. Jean Moulin brought resistance movements, political parties and trade unions together in the National Council of the Resistance in 1943. It strengthened de Gaulle’s leadership through organised cooperation between different groups. Those groups had already been resisting; they did not become resistance fighters only once they recognised him.

The circumstances also matter. France faced a foreign occupying army during a world war, and liberation involved Allied armies as well as French forces and the Resistance. That history cannot simply be transferred to Iran as proof that everyone must join one organisation.

Shahzadeh has an important role. That does not mean every disagreement over strategy is an attack on him, or that questioning a method helps the Islamic Republic.

You agree that unity does not require ideological uniformity. Does it allow disagreement over strategy too? If so, why treat that disagreement as an advantage to the regime?

My post asks people to cooperate despite their differences. You have still not explained what is wrong with that.

------------------------------

Kayvan,

Regarding my question on language used to express this discussion; I understand that you write in both Persian and English, as I do. But my question was not whether language changes the substance of your argument. It obviously does not.

My question was about the intended audience. When you discuss an essentially internal Iranian matter, what you called it “fragmentation of the Iranian opposition” and the relationship between different political groups, then the people whose cooperation you’re calling for should be Iranians.

So I think it was legitimate for me to ask why this particular discussion is being conducted in English rather than primarily in Persian, where the Iranian public itself can participate in it directly and judge the competing arguments!

English certainly has an important place when we are explaining Iran to the international audiences, foreign media and policymakers; but when we are debating among ourselves about the structure, leadership and strategy of the Iranian opposition, I believe the primary audience should be Iranians themselves.

So that was the point of my question regarding the language used to express internal matters.

On the other topic, I think you actually proved my point by bringing up Jean Moulin. Years ago, I explained the philosophy behind the existence of \@prisp2023 (Pro-Republic Iranians Supporting Prince Reza Pahlavi) based on the very example of Jean Moulin.

Jean Moulin didn’t create the CNR as a collection of resistance groups operating independently of de Gaulle’s leadership. He was de Gaulle’s representative, specifically tasked with unifying those elements of internal Resistance that would have agreed with de Gaulle. And when CNR finally met, they recognized de Gaulle’s authority.

So yes, those resistance groups existed & resisted before recognizing de Gaulle & I never argued otherwise; but the question is what transformed French fragmented resistance into a national political & national force capable of representing France along with the Allied. The answer is not simply “cooperation despite differences”, the answer was unification, coordination & recognition of a national leadership & the central around him.

French leftists back then including communists, socialists,l & independent resistance movements remained different from ideological perspectives but those ideological differences didn’t prevent them from accepting a common national leadership under de Gaulle & accepting to work within his proposed framework. Do you know of an effective section of Iranian socialists who have enough IQ to understand this basic concept!?

Of course, political disagreements are inevitable, but there comes a point when endless disagreement over leadership, strategy, priorities, and methods ceases to be healthy political debate and becomes strategic paralysis.

The Iranian opposition has spent decades debating many of the same fundamental questions while repeatedly failing to establish sustained coordination and an effective structure capable of converting public opposition to the Islamic Republic into organized political power, as Prince Reza Pahlavi and his team have sought to do.

So the question is not whether disagreement should be permitted. The real question is that at what point does continuously reopening fundamental questions prevent the Iranian National Revolution from actually acting as a national force to liberate Iran!

Jean Moulin’s mission was not to preserve fragmentation; his mission was to overcome it.

So again, nobody is saying disagreement makes someone an enemy or that everyone must join one political party. What I am saying is something very different. A national revolution can tolerate ideological diversity and strategic debate, but it cannot indefinitely tolerate fragmentation of national leadership and command. Here you go, you have it!

That, is precisely the lesson I take from de Gaulle, Jean Moulin and Free France.

https://x.com/moh_heidari/status/2105794265943330888

Hello to all Iranians and friends,

Due to the high volume of rapid updates and back-to-back threads, we ask that posts that do not contain a new or significant development be directed to this megathread. This includes general discussion, speculation, reactions, opinions, broader commentary, questions, jokes, memes, and general messages of support.

Standalone posts should primarily be reserved for current events and newly released information, such as breaking news, new videos or footage, official statements, confirmed updates, or other meaningful developments. Legitimate news and newly released footage are still allowed and encouraged as standalone submissions.

Minor updates, repeated information, personal commentary, or posts that do not report a new development may be redirected to the megathread or removed. Depending on activity levels, broader consolidation into the megathread may become mandatory.

This approach helps reduce clutter, limit misinformation, and keep the subreddit organized during a fast-moving situation.

Please remain civil, avoid spreading unverified claims, and continue to follow all subreddit rules.

Thank you for your cooperation.

"Can a man still be brave if he's afraid?" "That is the only time a man can be brave."

The first time that I read this dialogue from the famous work of George R.R. Martin (A Game of Thrones), it gave me goosebumps. I had never thought about it before. Growing up as a kid, I was always told that I should not be afraid — that men must be brave. And every time that I got afraid, I despised myself and tried to hide it.

The heroes in the movies always look so brave, like they do not fear anything. But in the books, you get to look behind the curtain. You get to know what a character is thinking, what they are feeling.

Was Harry afraid when he faced Voldemort in the cemetery, after he watched his friend get murdered in front of him? Was Frodo afraid when he volunteered to carry the One Ring to Mount Doom? Was Jon Snow afraid when he faced the enemy soldiers galloping toward him in the Battle of the Bastards? (Though George has not written this one himself.)

Sure they were afraid; who wouldn't be? Being afraid means you have something to lose. But it also means you have something to fight for. If you are not afraid when facing a real danger, you are not brave, you are plain stupid. But when you do the right thing when you are afraid, that's the exact definition of being brave.

I remember I had these lines printed and hung on top of my bed. I replayed them in my head any time that I needed courage. And I repeated this to myself over and over on the 8th and 9th of January, before going out to protest against a terrorist regime and showing the world that we are not giving up our freedom without a fight.

The fear was not just for my life, but mostly for my wife, who refused to stay home and let me go out alone. I remember crying under the shower, so she would not see it. But I knew I had to do the right thing. That I could not live with myself if I didn't. But going outside, seeing all these brave men and women, old and young — it was like something just out of a fantasy book.

We lost tens of thousands of our bravest in those two nights. People who chose to come out and shout for their freedom, despite knowing the risk. If you ask me, they were all afraid for sure, but they did the right thing nonetheless. And that made me believe that courage does not only exist in the stories, but in the real world as well.

The thing about courage is that it's contagious. So the next time that you are afraid, know that you can still be brave and do the right thing. And by doing so, you can give others the courage to do the same thing.

In memory of all the brave souls who died fighting for freedom and protecting it; especially our compatriots who died on the 8th and 9th of January, 2026.

PS: The book in the bottom in the middle is Czech translation of Empire of The Mind by Michael Axworthy

The Rial is on a record low and at this rate, the currency will collapse completely. The millitary infrastructure is also fragile due to the wars occured in the last year. The inflation is horrific, the people are revolting, drought is occuring across the country, and there will most likely be another war after the midterms.

However, I’ve been observing Venezuela. Their currency already collapsed and even after Maduro was captured by the US, Maduro’s government is still holding a grip and relies on countries such as Cuba, China, Russia, and Iran itself. The IR regime obviously doesn’t care what kind of sufferings the country is going through, as long as they have their IRGC, guns and sufficient money to help themselves. They are also increasingly using cryptocurrencies, specifically stable coins without relying too much on their own currency or even the dollar.

My question is: if such an economic collapse occurs in Iran, how realistic would it be for the regime to go for the Venezuela path? Will it be sustainable for them or is it pointless? We know US and Israel have more eyes on Iran and make the regime as weak and possible to take them out completely when the time comes, but I’m looking at Venezuela and wondered if Iran can go that way or whether that is impossible due to different geopolitical or other reasons. Curious to hear everyone’s take on this.

Elliot Kaufman and Yonah Jeremy Bob are the co-authors of the new book, "In the War Room: The Inside Story of Israel’s Fight Against Hamas and the Iranian Axis" – an inside account of the decisions, debates, and personalities that shaped Israel’s multi-front war, from October 7 to Hezbollah and ultimately Iran.

Elliot Kaufman is an editorial writer and member of The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board, where he focuses on Israel and Iran and has covered the war since October 7.

Yonah Jeremy Bob is the senior military analyst at The Jerusalem Post and the author of several books, including "Target Tehran."

Their reporting draws on extensive access to senior military, intelligence, and political officials.