Ahmadinejad’s Comeback: Why He Hurts Iran but Helps Israel

Blog

Why a Reactionary Iranian Politician Matters to Your Love Life

What does an ultra-conservative former Iranian president have to do with dating, love, and building a more just world? More than you might think.

When we talk about relationships on a progressive dating app, we’re not just talking about who you match with. We’re talking about the kind of world you and your partner are building together — what you care about, how you show up for others, and how your values extend beyond your own bubble.

A recent investigation from The Intercept digs into a story that sits at the intersection of global power, propaganda, and the lives of ordinary people: the role of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — Iran’s infamous former president — in both oppressing Iranians and conveniently serving the interests of the Israeli government and its allies. It’s a reminder that authoritarian figures often function as “useful villains” for other states, and that “freedom” rhetoric from powerful governments can be deeply selective.

This isn’t just about foreign policy. It’s about how we understand solidarity, how we resist being manipulated by fear, and how we build relationships — romantic, platonic, and political — rooted in actual care for human beings, not in narratives crafted by those in power.

Read the full article: Ahmadinejad Is Still Bad for Iranians — and Still Great for Israel (The Intercept)

What the Intercept Story Reveals

Ahmadinejad: Still Dangerous at Home

The Intercept’s report revisits Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the former Iranian president best known for:

Brutal crackdowns on dissent, especially during the 2009 Green Movement
Inflammatory rhetoric about Israel and the Holocaust
Populist posturing at home, while overseeing deepening repression and corruption

According to the investigation, Ahmadinejad remains a destructive figure for Iranians. Even after leaving office, his politics and legacy continue to:

Legitimize hardline factions within Iran’s power structure
Undermine democratic aspirations and grassroots movements
Provide cover for ongoing surveillance, censorship, and gender-based repression

For everyday Iranians — especially women, queer people, and political dissidents — Ahmadinejad’s continued relevance means the same old story: a state that polices bodies, crushes protest, and treats demands for dignity as “threats to national security.”

Great for Israel’s Narrative

Here’s where the story gets more complicated. The Intercept argues that while Ahmadinejad is terrible for Iranians, he has been very useful for the Israeli government and its allies in Washington. Why?

Because Ahmadinejad embodies the perfect villain for a particular narrative: that Israel is a small, democratic outpost surrounded by irrational, genocidal enemies — and therefore must be supported unconditionally, no matter what it does to Palestinians or its neighbors.

His Holocaust denial, threats against Israel, and aggressive posturing made it easy for Israeli leaders to:

Frame any criticism of Israel as naïve or dangerous in the face of such “evil” enemies
Push for harsher sanctions and military threats against Iran
Deflect attention from their own human rights abuses, especially in Gaza and the West Bank

The Intercept’s report suggests that, in practice, Israel and the U.S. were less interested in supporting genuine democratic movements inside Iran and more invested in maintaining a convenient enemy — one that justified endless militarization, surveillance, and “emergency” politics at home and abroad.

“Freedom” Talk vs. Actual Freedom

The core bombshell of the piece is this: for all the lofty rhetoric about “supporting the Iranian people,” U.S. and Israeli policy repeatedly prioritized strategic advantage over actual liberation.

According to the report, this played out in several ways:

Selective outrage: Western leaders loudly condemned Iranian repression when it aligned with their geopolitical goals, and stayed quiet when allies committed similar abuses.
Sanctions that hurt people, not regimes: Broad economic sanctions devastated ordinary Iranians while leaving the ruling elite relatively insulated, and were often justified using Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric as proof of an existential threat.
Undermining grassroots movements: Genuine Iranian democratic movements were sometimes sidelined, misunderstood, or even harmed by being framed as tools of foreign powers.

The result: a system where authoritarian figures like Ahmadinejad are both condemned and quietly relied upon. They are the “monsters” that justify an entire apparatus of military spending, surveillance, and fear — while the people living under those regimes are treated as props rather than partners in their own liberation.

Why Progressive Daters Should Care

Love and Solidarity Are Political

If you’re on a progressive dating app, chances are you care about more than just vibes. You might be looking for someone who:

Believes in bodily autonomy, including reproductive and gender justice
Supports racial, economic, and climate justice
Thinks deeply about power, privilege, and solidarity

The Intercept’s story is a case study in how power works — and how easily the language of “freedom” can be weaponized. For progressives, it’s a reminder that solidarity means centering people, not states. It means asking: who actually benefits from this narrative? Who is being erased? Who is being harmed?

When you and a match talk about politics — whether it’s over a first-date coffee or a late-night text thread — stories like this help move the conversation beyond surface-level takes. It’s not just “Iran bad, Israel good” or vice versa. It’s: how do we resist being manipulated into supporting policies that hurt ordinary people, whether in Tehran, Tel Aviv, or Tulsa?

Patterns of “Useful Enemies”

The Ahmadinejad story fits into a much larger pattern. Throughout modern history, powerful states have relied on “useful enemies” to justify repression, militarism, and inequality. Think of:

How the “War on Terror” was used to justify mass surveillance and Islamophobia
How “tough on crime” rhetoric fueled mass incarceration in the U.S.
How “protecting women” has been used as a pretext for wars and immigration crackdowns, even by governments hostile to women’s rights at home

In each case, real harms exist — terrorism, crime, gender-based violence — but they’re weaponized to expand state power, not to address root causes or empower communities. Ahmadinejad’s role in Israeli and U.S. narratives is another example of this dynamic.

For progressives, recognizing these patterns is essential. It’s what separates genuine solidarity from performative outrage. It’s what helps us say: we can oppose authoritarianism in Iran and oppose occupation and apartheid in Palestine. We can care about antisemitism and Islamophobia. We don’t have to accept the zero-sum logic that politicians and pundits push.

Connecting the Dots: Progressive Values in a Global Context

Intersectional Foreign Policy

The Intercept’s piece pushes us toward what some activists call an “intersectional foreign policy” — one that:

Centers human rights and dignity, not national prestige
Recognizes how racism, colonialism, and capitalism shape global power
Refuses to treat some lives as more valuable than others

For example, a genuinely progressive approach to Iran and Israel would:

Support Iranian civil society, labor organizers, feminists, and queer activists — not just opposition figures acceptable to Western governments
Oppose broad sanctions that punish ordinary people, while targeting the wealth and mobility of elites
Challenge Israeli policies of occupation, siege, and apartheid, while also opposing antisemitism and supporting Israeli and Jewish activists fighting for justice
Reject Islamophobic narratives that paint Iranians — or any Muslims — as inherently violent or irrational

This isn’t about picking a “side” between governments. It’s about picking the side of people — especially those most marginalized — and being consistent about it.

Historical Echoes

The story also echoes earlier moments when Western powers claimed to “support” oppressed people while undermining their actual movements:

The U.S. backing dictators in Latin America while branding leftist movements as threats
European powers using “civilizing” rhetoric to justify colonial rule
Western governments praising the Arab Spring in public while quietly supporting regimes that restored authoritarian control

Ahmadinejad’s usefulness to Israel and the U.S. fits this pattern: the rhetoric of liberation paired with the practice of control. For progressives, knowing this history helps us spot when we’re being sold a story — and ask better questions.

Different Perspectives and Hard Conversations

Within Progressive Spaces

Even among progressives, there are real debates about how to approach Iran, Israel, and the broader region. Some perspectives include:

Anti-imperialist focus: Emphasizing opposition to U.S. and Israeli military power, worrying that any criticism of Iran will be co-opted to justify war or sanctions.
Human rights focus: Highlighting state violence in Iran, including against women, workers, and queer people, and insisting that solidarity must include criticizing those abuses.
Diaspora perspectives: Iranian, Palestinian, Israeli, and Jewish diasporas often carry personal and familial trauma that shapes how they see these issues — and they don’t all agree with each other.

The Intercept’s story challenges all of us to hold multiple truths at once: Ahmadinejad is bad for Iranians; he is also useful to Israel; and the U.S. and Israel’s stated concern for Iranian freedom has often been shallow or cynical.

Progressive spaces — including your dating life — need room for these nuanced conversations. That means:

Listening more than we speak, especially to people directly affected
Being willing to say “I don’t know enough about that yet”
Rejecting both simplistic “good vs. evil” narratives and nihilistic “everyone’s equally bad” takes