News Center — Five Kurdish parties have announced the formation of a new political coalition in a move described as a notable development in the Iranian landscape, given the challenge it poses to entrenched traditions of centralism and its attempt to reorganize political forces from the grassroots level.

Today, Saturday, February 28, the Transnational Democratic Women’s Platform issued a political analytical statement in response to the formation of the coalition of five Kurdish parties, describing the step as a “historic event” against the traditions of centralism in Iran. The statement read:

“The coalition of the five Kurdish parties is not an ordinary partisan event; rather, it is a decisive blow to the historical pillar of centralism in Iran. In a multi-national land where Kurds, Turks, Baloch, Arabs, Lurs, and other peoples have lived—each with its own historical memory, language, and culture—any independent and collective organization has long been portrayed merely as a security matter. For this very reason, the historical significance of this coalition lies in demonstrating that authority can be formed from the grassroots, without permission from a monarchy, without approval from the center, and without a royal decree.”

The statement noted that the response of Reza Pahlavi to this alliance represents nothing more than a reproduction of the logic of centralization, control, and security dating back a century. In his “emergency charter” for the transitional period, he speaks of “peace through strength” and security cooperation with neighboring states to contain “unrest.” This language, the statement argued, is not unfamiliar to the Iranian people; it mirrors the terminology used by the Islamic Republic to suppress protests and the same logic employed during both the first and second Pahlavi eras to silence independent and national voices. “Changing names does not change the nature of the project.”

The statement affirmed that centralism in Iran has consistently followed a fixed pattern of subjugating peoples, controlling diversity, and viewing any independent organization as a threat. From Lorestan and Baluchestan to Khuzestan and Azerbaijan, the message of central governments has been the same: remain within the framework defined by central authority or be considered a security threat. The 1979 Revolution, although it erupted against the monarchy, reproduced the same individualistic and centralized logic in a religious form, resulting in political siege, ethnic repression, and widespread suppression.

It emphasized that the importance of the coalition of the five Kurdish parties is amplified in light of the current critical conditions in Iran. The country is passing through one of the most sensitive stages in its contemporary history, facing the specter of war, military threats, regional tensions, deep economic crisis, and a collapse of political legitimacy that has led to fragility. Under such circumstances, the danger lies not only in the continuation of the status quo, but also in a managed transfer of power from above, foreign intervention, or the reconstruction of authoritarianism in a new form.

The statement pointed out that “the experience of the region has shown that in the absence of popular organization, the future of states is not determined in the arena of public participation, but in security and regional agreements made behind closed doors. If the independent political forces and peoples residing in Iran are not organized, centralist projects or externally driven scenarios may impose themselves as the only possible option. At such a moment, the alliance of the five Kurdish parties is a historic preemptive step—a declaration that we will determine our destiny before others determine it for us.”

It further explained that the tense and threat-laden reactions following the coalition’s announcement revealed that the monarchist project relies more on an internal network of praise and media coverage than on a genuine popular base. “The inner circle works to manufacture an artificial image of the ‘future leader’ through exaggerated flattery, yet this image quickly collapses in the face of any real collective organization.” The statement added that authority lacking popular support naturally resorts to security restrictions and intimidation practices.

According to the statement, defenders of the monarchy attempt to present themselves as an alternative to the Islamic Republic. However, when their language and logic align with concepts such as “control,” “containment,” and “hard power,” where does the difference lie? If the response to organized and collective political action is a promise of security cooperation and repression, this is not a transition to democracy but a reconstruction of the same authoritarian structure of the past.

The statement also highlighted the role of women and how they may be instrumentalized in authoritarian projects. Historical experiences, it said, have shown that central governments sometimes exploit the symbolic presence of women to gain legitimacy, while decision-making remains confined to a security-driven logic. Any project that does not recognize the genuine and independent participation of women and instead reduces them to a decorative role will ultimately reproduce the same cycle of domination.

It concluded that the coalition of the five Kurdish parties is not merely a regional rapprochement but carries a national message. If other parties, civil organizations, women’s movements, workers, students, and representatives of various peoples move toward forming genuine, horizontal, and independent coalitions, the likelihood of Iran’s future being exploited through individual projects or imposed scenarios will be significantly reduced. Only a broad network of independent alliances can stand against war and intervention and prevent the re-emergence of authoritarianism in a new guise.

The statement stressed that Iran’s historical experience has shown that concentrating power in the hands of an individual—even if it creates an appearance of stability—ultimately leads to social explosion. Iranian society has repeatedly paid a heavy price in the form of political siege, cultural repression, and the silencing of independent voices. Now, with the formation of this alliance, an opportunity has emerged to break this vicious cycle. “The coalition of the five Kurdish parties has raised the banner of a new path—one in which Iran is not a command center, but a network of free and equal wills. This is not a threat to Iran, but a threat to authoritarianism. And that is precisely why it is met with fear and hostility.”

Finally, the network stated that the most important question today is not who will take power, but whether Iran will once again fall into the trap of individual centralism or choose the path of collective participation and power distribution. The answer lies in organization and unity. The Kurdish alliance has proven that this path is possible and practical. Now it is the turn of freedom-seeking forces, political parties, civil society organizations, and representatives of different peoples to strengthen this path by overcoming divisions. “Power stems from the grassroots—not from royal decrees, emergency booklets, or nostalgic reconstructions of a centralized past. Iran’s future will only be shaped through a network of genuine alliances that respect national plurality and maintain organizational independence. In a time of crisis and the threat of war, this alliance is no longer a choice, but a historical necessity.”