In a typical course of action, Vijay Prashad has hit out at a letter by a number of prominent left intellectuals in The Guardian criticizing both the Iranian government and the forces of Western imperialism, which calls instead for solidarity with Iranian political prisoners. Prashad is, of course, predictably an apologist for the Iranian regime–which killed tens of thousands earlier this year under the cover of Internet blackouts to little international reporting.
Predictably, Prashad denounces the letter as a sloppily executed intelligence operation. In particular, it appears as though some of the letter’s signatories, such as Robin DG Kelley, withdrew their signatures from the letter. This may have occurred after an Internet dogpile onto signatories by campist authoritarian leftists who somehow see the Iranian theocratic government as an anti-imperialist force.
Prashad also asserts that Mumia Abu-Jamal did not consent to sign the letter, having previously produced what he purported to be a statement from Abu-Jamal written on two paper plates. In the purported statement, Abu-Jamal instead suggests that Iran has successfully stood up to Western imperialism in the same manner as Vietnam. Prashad, citing this apparent statement, goes on to suggest that The Guardian should have verified all of its signatures, and was remiss in doing so–and that this shows that The Guardian was, instead, engaged in disinformation.
Such a claim is, of course, quite funny coming from Prashad. Prashad was previously caught citing AI-hallucinated papers that purported to be from Chinese leftist nationalist scholar Wang Hui. Wang later confirmed that he had not written the papers cited by Prashad, which did not, in fact, exist. As such, it bears examining as to the veracity of the purported letter.
This would not be the first time that Prashad has defended Iran in the most glowing of terms. A preceding letter signed by leftist intellectuals, ranging from Prashad to Ajamu Baraka, read:
“What stands before it is not merely a nation, but a civilisation that has weaponised its own DNA—ancient organisational genius fused with 21st-century scientific sovereignty. This is the reality of active deterrence by Iran; a global pole of power that dictates the terms of engagement, forcing strategic retreat by rewriting the very rules of active defence. Now, its adaptive reorganisation, civilisational continuity, and social unity have fused into a singular, unbreakable force.”
The letter went on to claim that Iran was literally invincible in the face of the US.
“Iran’s all-encompassing defence and active deterrence represents a golden opportunity to end global hegemony. The historical and civilisational doctrine of Iran is absolute: power does not confer right, and domination cannot serve as a foundation for justice. This is recognised as the bedrock of Iran’s invincibility. The world may avail itself of this historic turning point, drawing upon this very doctrine of liberation, to bring an end to domination and oppression wherever they may exist.”
Indeed, it proves bizarre to see supposed leftists defend Iran in terms of “ancient organisational genius”, “DNA”, or “civilisational continuity,” usually terms used by right-wing blood-and-soil nationalists–such as befits the Iranian regime more than supposed leftists. This also proves bad analysis when, of course, if the US threw the full force of its military at Iran–God forbid, seeing as this involves nuclear weaponry–Iran would not survive. The Iranian regime is hardly invincible, as its own domestic purges go to show.
More generally, this proves another case of campists defending autocratic regimes and idealizing them in the rosiest of terms, simply because they claim to oppose US empire. In the case of Prashad, this would extend to praising such regimes in starkly nationalistic terms.
Notably, some of the signatories of the preceding letter were shared with the current letter, which may be why Prashad reacted so immediately. Nevertheless, in attempting to peel off some signatories and then casting doubt on the credibility of the letter as a whole, it would be Prashad who is engaged in a time-old tactic used by authoritarian regimes to delegitimize critics.
But, in general, one expects little from the so-called leftist intellectuals of the West, whose parochialism and lack of international perspectives are usually such that any regime critical of the West appears in a positive light to them. While aiming to cast doubt on some struggles and in the meantime elevating authoritarian regimes, they then engage in very little, if any, activity to end what they claim to be the dominance of the prime evil of the world, the US empire. All the more disappointing that such attention goes to them, individuals who simply take up too much space in discourse and then do little, rather than the nameless dead.
Brian Hioe is a freelance journalist, translator, and one of the founding editors of New Bloom.
This article originally appeared in New Bloom, an online magazine featuring radical perspectives on Taiwan and the Asia-Pacific.
More content from this blog
- Gaza: An Extreme Militarization of the Class War in Israel-Palestine. Interview with Emilio Minassian – 30 October 2023
- Welcome to Fatteh, by Beza Lealem – 1 August 2025
- The Repercussions of the Regional War on Iraq, by Jamal Al-Sayigh – 3 March 2026
- A critical review of Walter Mignolo’s ‘Politics of Decolonial Investigations’, by Kavish Chetty – 30 July 2023
- Late Neoliberalism. Interview with Quinn Slobodian – 1 February 2025