Shehzad Arshad
A primary stated reason for Israel’s and the US war on Iran was its nuclear capability, but this was a blatant fabrication. Multiple sources, including US intelligence agencies, indicate that Iran was not actively building nuclear weapons and would still require several years to acquire this capacity. Israel’s extensive aerial campaign, which targeted state broadcasters, hospitals, and residential buildings, including key military commanders, clearly demonstrated that destroying nuclear weapons was not its prime objective. Urging civilians in Tehran and other cities to evacuate showed this was only a justification for the actual objectives. The goal was to weaken Iran further as a regional player and, if possible, install a pro-Western government. In effect, the whole war was aimed at removing or undermining a significant barrier to Zionist genocide, the occupation of Palestine, Israeli expansion into Syria and Western dominance in the Middle East.
To achieve this, Israel launched an aggressive war against Iran in clear violation of international law. The US also participated in these bombings, Britain, Germany, France, Italy and the EU backed the attack. This is because Israel serves as the watchdog for US imperialism and its European allies in the Middle East, safeguarding their geostrategic and economic interests. While there is no complete consensus among them currently, supporting Israel remains a core part of their state policy.
The victory of Israel and the US is, in essence, a collective victory for the Zionist state and its Western imperialist allies. It’s hardly surprising that Iran, already debilitated by sanctions, could not withstand the far more powerful forces of the attackers. This also underscores that this was not a war between equals, but rather against a semi-colonial country that, despite its aspirations to become a stronger regional power, is in no way on a par with imperialism and its supporters.
Confusion within the Left Regarding the Iran-Israel War
There is considerable confusion within the Left regarding the Iran-Israel war. For some, while they oppose Israeli aggression, they do not acknowledge Iran’s right to self-defence. According to them, supporting Iran’s resistance would equate to supporting the Mullahs, whose hands are stained with the blood of women, Kurds and communists. They point to the fact that the Iranian regime is not genuinely anti-imperialist. From this, in itself entirely correct, observation, they conclude that revolutionaries and all genuine working class forces could not call for the defence of Iran against an imperialist attack.
A section of the Left argues that, since both Israel and Iran are capitalist states, this is therefore a war between ruling classes, meaning no side should be supported. They question how one can support Iran, claiming the conflict is merely a struggle for regional dominance between two equally reactionary states.
Again, while it is true that Iran is a capitalist state with regional ambitions, its economy and political landscape clearly demonstrate that it is not an imperialist power of any sort. Instead, its position within the global capitalist system is that of a semi-colony. The error in their perspective is that it treats capitalism as a uniform system within which all capitalist states are equal, overlooking the control and exploitation of imperialism within the global capitalist system.
In such a system, even the ruling class of a semi-colony lacks true independent governance. However, as Lenin points out in his work on imperialism, the division between oppressed and oppressing nations is a fundamental, essential feature of capitalism at this stage. Of course, this relation can take different political forms; from colonial rule, which was the norm at Lenin’s time, to semi-colonial forms of dominance. However, the global economic and political imperialist order – including the global division of labour – assigns the place of different states within that order. This is not to say that, as in the case of China, a country cannot move from an oppressed nation in the early imperialist epoch to a global imperialist power today. This,
however, requires a real political, economic and military development, which, despite all its peculiarities, we can see in the case of Russia and China.
A segment of the Left argues that this war’s roots lie in the competition between Israel and Iran for regional power and influence. They claim that, because of this rivalry, Iran is also a minor imperialist power alongside Israel. It is true that Iran has regional ambitions, but it is not a dominant force. Rather, it strives to maintain its existence in opposition to Israel and the Arab states. Iran is by no means a dominant power even at the regional level, rather it faces extensive international sanctions. While it is true that it supported the tyrannical government of Bashar al-Assad, that regime collapsed in December, and Iran now holds no influence there. Similarly, while Iran has support in Iraq, it does not hold a dominant position there either.
Iran’s economy
As we will demonstrate below, Iran’s economy clearly is not that of an imperialist state, it has not developed a globally acting finance capital of its own. An imperialist state typically possesses a powerful economy and military strength that enables it to dominate and exploit other countries. However, the fundamental reason for Iran’s economic backwardness is its semi-colonial position within the global capitalist system, which has led to severe economic problems and rendered it extremely underdeveloped. It relies on Chinese imperialism for oil sales, often selling oil at below-market prices. Due to international sanctions, its oil exports have significantly declined. Iran’s exports primarily consist of raw materials, including natural gas, oil, and related products, as well as iron, steel, and plastics.
Generally speaking, the industrial base of Iran is declining and weak. For almost two decades, the regime failed to renew the technological basis of production. Key sectors of the bourgeoisie are located in trade and commerce and aim rather to benefit from the precarious situation by currency manipulation or investing in real estate, for example, in Turkey, rather than in the Iranian economy.
According to the World Bank, Iranian GDP peaked at 2010 with US$644 billion, reflecting the fact the economy grew in the 1990s and early 2000s. Since then, it has shrunk. In 2024, it was down at US$437 billion, while GDP was lowest in 2020 as a result of the pandemic. In 2023, its GDP ranked at place 41 (according to the IMF), similar to that of Malaysia, Egypt, South Africa, Colombia or Rumania or Pakistan (but for example, significantly smaller than Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Argentina and Taiwan or even Israel or the United Arab Emirates). Iran’s GDP per capita was around $4,771.40 in 2024, ranking it at 123 globally in 2023. This clearly points to the semi-colonial state of the economy. Its decline is reflected in declining incomes of the masses and in massive employment, in particular amongst youth and women and therefore at a weakening social basis. Of course, the Iranian regime acts in oppressive and aggressive ways internally, including the systemic oppression of national minorities. This demonstrates the reactionary character of the Islamist regime, but it does not make the country imperialist, rather, if this were the criterion for making a country imperialist, most of the semi-colonies of this world – including some of the most impoverished and crisis ridden – would be imperialist. We have pointed to these figures in order to demonstrate that Iran is clearly a semi-colony.
Israel is a settler-colonial state established by displacing Palestinians. It has been at war with Arab states since its inception and occupies territories in Syria and Lebanon. Israel receives strong support from Western powers, and this military aid enables the ongoing genocide in Gaza. However, Israel is no longer as economically dependent on the West as it was in the past. Western aid allowed Israel to develop economically, particularly in its technology and military industries, which saw significant investment. This implies that while Israel remains a watchdog for Western imperialism in the Middle East, it now also makes more independent regional decisions.
Similarly, over the past decades, US imperialism has attacked Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, and still maintains military bases in these and other countries in the region. Anyone who views this war as merely a struggle for regional supremacy between two states fundamentally misunderstands how the US and Israel control the region, eliminating every obstacle in their path, while Iran consistently retreats.
For the defence of a semi-colonial country
Therefore, when imperialism attacks a semi-colonial country, to say we will support neither side, fails to understand the real character of this war. To say that only workers‘ politics and revolution can counter wars, genocide, and Zionism is avoiding the concrete questions posed by the Zionist and imperialist attack. A victory of these attackers would strengthen these powers, it would not only weaken the Iranian regime, but it would also weaken the working class and the oppressed in all countries, including Iran, since they would face a stronger global dominant enemy.
Therefore, to argue that only a workers’ revolution can stop imperialism and Zionism is not enough for a Marxist answer, it rather repeats the mistakes of economism or imperialist economism against which Lenin and the Bolsheviks polemicised and against whom they built a revolutionary communist party in Russia.
In the end, economism is a position detached from Marxism. It is a stance that prevents the workers‘ movement from siding with the oppressed during an imperialist crisis and war, simply because our politics is “anti-capitalist” and does not endorse any ruling class. This approach leaves the mantle of anti-imperialism to the Mullahs and other bourgeois or petty-bourgeois forces, who find themselves in conflict with imperialism or capital, thereby rendering revolutionary politics irrelevant. Such a position stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of capitalism, its wars, its oppression, and the relation between the struggle for democratic demands (including national independence) and the struggle for socialism. The reality is that in the imperialist era, anti-imperialism in wars and state conflicts is crucial for building revolutionary struggle.
In the 1930s, Trotsky supported Chinese government forces against the Japanese imperialist invasion, despite the leadership of Chiang Kai-shek, who had massacred 250,000 Chinese workers and communists in the late 1920s.
Trotsky articulated this position very clearly regarding Brazil in 1938. He wrote:
„In Brazil, there now reigns a semi-fascist regime that every revolutionary can only view with hatred. Let us assume, however, that on the morrow England enters into a military conflict with Brazil. I ask you, on whose side of the conflict will the working class be? I will answer for myself personally – in this case, I will be on the side of ‚fascist‘ Brazil against ‚democratic‘ Great Britain. Why? Because in the conflict between them, it will not be a question of democracy or fascism. If England should be victorious, she will impose another fascist in Rio de Janeiro and place double chains on Brazil. If Brazil, on the other hand, should be victorious, it will give a mighty impulse to the national and democratic consciousness of the country and will lead to the overthrow of the Vargas dictatorship. The defeat of England will at the same time deliver a blow to British imperialism and will give an impulse to the revolutionary movement of the British proletariat. Truly, one must have an empty head to reduce world antagonisms and military conflicts to the struggle between fascism and democracy. Under all masks, one must know how to distinguish exploiters, slave-owners, and robbers!“
Are Iran’s Proxies the Reason for the War?
When Iran is portrayed as imperialist within the Left, one justification given is its „Axis of Resistance“ proxies: Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis. It is argued that these are terrorists who threaten Israel’s existence. However, in reality, these organizations emerged as national resistance movements during Israeli aggression. While they are indeed Iranian allies, they are not mere proxies. Hamas, for instance, is currently the sole symbol of Palestinian resistance, fighting against Israel’s massacres. Hezbollah is a significant force in Lebanon because it successfully resisted Israeli aggression. In Yemen, Houthi rebels have been successfully resisting Saudi Arabia’s external aggression since 2015. Finally, it is very clear that the Iranian regime was not prepared or able to defend its proxies in recent years, it rather wanted to avoid any real conflict with Israel. It was rather Israel who attacked Iran as well as Syria or Hezbollah despite the fact that all of them actually did not want to defend the Palestinians in reality.
China and Russia’s Relationship with Iran
Some on the Left suggest this war was a result of imperialist contradictions. Whilst, of course, the US and its allies welcome the chance of weakening an ally of Russia and China, this certainly was not the reason for the Israeli attack. Moreover, the Iranian Mullahs received no significant material aid from their „imperialist allies“ Russia and China. While it is true that they criticized the Zionist and US attacks and called for a ceasefire and peace talks, both countries prioritized their own interests rather than fully supporting their ally. This further highlights Iran’s semi-colonial position within the global capitalist system, where the nature of China and Russia’s relationship with Iran is highly exploitative.
For Russia, maintaining good relations with the US and independent action in its war against Ukraine, as well as preserving ties with Israel, were more important than jeopardizing all this for Iran’s sake. China, similarly, did not want to risk another conflict with the US. Both major powers made it clear that they view their allies as a means to an end, and when convenient, they will abandon them without hesitation.
Iran is a semi-colony within the global capitalist system, currently facing an imperialist war. Therefore, despite the reactionary and anti-revolutionary nature of the Iranian Mullahs, we support Iran in this war. It is in the direct interest of the Iranian and Kurdish people to defend Iran against imperialism, but without for a single moment abandoning their just struggles for national freedom, democracy, and class emancipation. During the war, they should have proposed a military united front against the attacking imperialist forces. In practice, this would require the regime to cease all repression against progressive forces.
However, regardless of the regime’s actions against progressive forces, imperialism remains the main enemy as long as the armed conflict continues. Forces must be rallied from within the war effort to overthrow the Iranian Mullahs and establish a workers‘ and peasants‘ government. Proceeding with an armed insurrection to achieve this goal during the course of the war with imperialism must be considered in light of the need to secure a military victory against the main enemy—namely, Israel and the United States.