When you are facing a literal dictator or an oppressive regime, you cannot afford the luxury of ideological purity. To topple a monolith, you need every hand on deck. History shows that broad-tented coalitions are often the only way to achieve significant systemic change. If various factions hadn't united during moments like the Iranian Revolution, the monarchical status quo would have likely continued for decades more. We see this in many liberation movements: you unite for the common goal of liberation first, and then you negotiate the future of the state. While the outcome in some cases is tragic, the failure isn't in the alliance itself, but in the subsequent failure to secure democratic safeguards during the transition. You can't blame activists for trying to end a tyranny using the only tools available to them—numbers and unity. To say we should never work with those we disagree with is to say we should accept the status quo forever, because a 'perfect' ally rarely exists in the heat of a revolution. Pragmatism is the only way to move the needle.
The Iranian Revolution serves as the ultimate cautionary tale against the 'unholy alliance' between secular progressives and religious fundamentalists. It is a fatal mistake to believe that you can control a tiger by helping it kill a lion. When groups with diametrically opposed worldviews join forces, they aren't building a future; they are just clearing the path for the most ruthless faction to take total control. By lending their organizational skills and intellectual weight to a movement led by extremists, moderate or leftist groups often build the very gallows that will eventually be used against them. Real progress requires a foundation of shared values, not just shared hatreds. If your partner in revolution views your core identity or beliefs as 'sinful' or 'counter-revolutionary,' you aren't part of a coalition—you are a useful idiot. History repeats itself when groups prioritize 'the enemy of my enemy' over their own principles. Tactical alliances with authoritarian movements always end with the more ruthless side purging the more idealistic one once the common enemy is gone.