Attack On the World Proletariat 

The fundamental starting point for interpreting the events surrounding the war front that has opened up in the Middle East is that this constitutes yet another act of aggression against the world proletariat.

For revolutionary communists, in an imperialist war, the victim under attack is always and only the proletariat.

 This conception is not the result of an analysis based on a certain morality set against the barbarism of capitalism. It arises precisely from the dynamics of this mode of production, which can only emerge from its cyclical crises of overproduction through the massive destruction of surplus commodities and proletarians.

If, in the wars of capital, the only victim is always the proletariat, then it is so on both sides of the front, and the aggressors are all the bourgeois states involved in the war—both those that attacked first, and those claiming to defend themselves. Therefore, the position of the communists is to oppose any attempt to rally the proletariat in favor of one bourgeois state against another, or to support one front against an enemy one. The only possible demand is revolutionary defeatism, which means that the proletariat must fight its own bourgeoisie and its own state.

Therefore, all arguments that seek to identify, as in the Ukrainian conflict, one country as the “victim” and another as the “aggressor” must be rejected. In the current war that has broken out in the Middle East, class betrayal consists precisely in dividing the bourgeois states at war according to the “victim-aggressor” dichotomy, identifying Iran as the victim and subordinating the proletarian forces to its defense. Such is the meaning behind the proclamations of those who, posing as communists, prattle on about “defending Iran” against the war of aggression waged by the United States and Israel.

In the era of imperialism, wars are always wars of plunder aimed at dividing up world markets, and while this is most evident in American imperialism’s campaign in the Middle East, the bogus “defense of Iran” is exposed for what it is by Iran’s demands to bring an end to the ongoing fighting. Demands such as the establishment of a new regime for the Strait of Hormuz, which would enshrine Iran’s right to charge a toll on ships crossing the strait—a truly predatory act akin to a bandit who, with weapons in hand, controls the passageway. 

In this war, all the parties involved—whether directly, such as the United States, Israel, and Iran, or indirectly through support for one of the warring sides—are enemies of the proletariat, which in Iran, as in Israel, Lebanon, and even the Gulf States, is caught in the crossfire and suffers all the horrors of war. Furthermore, it is not only the proletariat of the region that is under attack, but that of the entire planet, upon which the economic costs of the war will be offloaded onto them. This leads to a rise in energy prices (and consequently in the prices of all goods), along with the potential for a severe food crisis that could plunge tens of millions of workers around the world into starvation.

On all war fronts, from the Middle East to Ukraine, the wars being fought are not our wars; they are imperialist wars, wars of plunder and partition. Our war is the class war, and our only watchword is revolutionary defeatism on all fronts, with the aim of transforming the war between states into a war between classes, in order to seize power and establish the dictatorship of the proletariat. 

Another Front in the Imperialist War

The current phase is characterized by a gradual intensification of the struggle for the division of the world, in which the old imperialist powers, led by the United States, find themselves threatened by the rise of new imperialist powers; the latter’s economic growth over recent decades has also led to greater political and military strength, placing on the agenda the need to redefine the world order that emerged from the wars of the last century. This creates a situation in which the old imperialist powers are driven to fight to maintain their privileges in the world market, which their imperialist rivals seek to challenge by virtue of their increased influence. 

The new war in the Middle East forms part of this broader process, characterized first and foremost as an attempt by American imperialism to maintain its global dominance through control of energy resources and their flow to markets, thereby reinforcing the role of the dollar. This is the so-called petrodollar system, under which oil-producing countries accept payments in dollars and then reinvest them in USA financial markets. This system serves as one of the pillars of the United States’ dominance. The Middle East, which holds about half of the world’s oil reserves and about 40% of its natural gas reserves, is therefore a region of critical strategic importance for control over these resources.

Iran is the only real obstacle to American imperialism having complete control over the Middle East. The overthrow of the Shah’s monarchy in 1979 caused the USA to lose an important ally in the region. The Islamic regime that succeeded it has, over the years, posed a threat to American regional interests by extending its influence in the region through the formation of the so-called “axis of resistance,” which linked Iran to Hamas in Palestine, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Shiite militias in Iraq, the Houthis in Yemen, and until recently, the Assad regime in Syria. 

A pro-American Iran would cement the unchallenged dominance of US imperialism in the Middle East. This would be a powerful lever in Washington’s hands to counter the rise of China, one of the world’s leading energy consumers, among other imperialist powers. The war that the United States has launched in the Middle East is essentially a war against China. 

For American imperialism, China is the main enemy on the world stage, and Iran is a key country for the Chinese economy and its projection beyond its borders. China and Iran had reached an agreement in March 2021 that provided for Chinese investments in Iran of up to $400 billion in sectors such as energy, infrastructure, and technology, in exchange for a stable supply of oil. Iran is also a key country in China’s New Silk Road initiative, which is vital for connecting China with the Middle East without having to pass through the Strait of Malacca, thereby reducing the Chinese economy’s dependence on maritime routes.
In general, if Iran were to fall under the influence of American imperialism, it would not only affect China, but all the powers that challenge the global supremacy of the United States. Russia would therefore be affected as well, which would lose an important ally in the Middle East and have to abandon the economic corridor project linking Iran to India, reducing transportation times and costs compared to the route through the Suez Canal.

But if the war against Iran is first and foremost a war against the United States’ main imperialist enemies, especially China, its continuation is directed against Europe. Having already suffered the severing of its energy ties with Russia, Europe now faces a blocked Strait of Hormuz and rising energy costs, dealing a severe blow to their economy—to the distinct advantage of the United States. The USA can continue to sell its expensive energy products to Europeans and capitalize on the crisis facing European industry, which stands as its competitor.

In any case, the initial intentions of Washington’s “strategists” came up with a reality quite different from what they had imagined, ultimately triggering a storm with very serious consequences for the entire global economy. On the front lines of the global conflict, the maneuvers of the various imperialisms—acting in concert with one another—elude any attempt at crisis management by the leaders of bourgeois states (including mediation efforts), resulting in a chaotic situation that ultimately overwhelms all the world’s powers. The new war in the Middle East is drawing all the major powers among others into the ongoing conflict, with repercussions extending to the already active front in Eastern Europe and the not-yet-active front in East Asia. 

Now that the Middle Eastern conflict has joined the one in Ukraine, the clash between imperialist powers has intensified. 

Step by step, one war front after another opens up, until it erupts into a third world war. 

The Illusion of a War Lasting Only a Few Days

Underlying the joint US-Israeli attack on Iran was the belief that they could bring about a “regime change,” perhaps by repeating the Venezuelan operation through which the United States gained control of the country with the world’s largest oil reserves, without any serious military effort. According to American plans, a well-planned intervention consisting only of aerial bombardments would have toppled the current bourgeois Iranian regime, led by Shiite priests hostile to the USA and its loyal ally Israel, at a nonexistent human cost (to the USA!).

But the joint American-Israeli «special military operation» in Iran has practically failed. Not only was there no regime change, but Iran’s military response also dealt a severe blow to the United States, Israel, and their allies in the region. 

Iran responded immediately to the Israeli and American attack by launching missiles and drones at Israel and USA bases in the Middle East, thereby also striking American allies in the region: the Gulf countries that host American military bases. It also took control of the Strait of Hormuz, threatening and attacking ships from hostile countries that were attempting to cross it. 

In the anti-Iranian campaign, not even the substantial ethnic and religious minorities in Iran (including the Kurds, Azeris, and Baluchis) have taken any action. In this regard, it is significant that the theory of Kurdish militia involvement, which had been floated in the immediate aftermath of the attack, has not materialized so far. This would have involved the same militias whose leaders have always been willing to sell themselves out to serve the interests of other bourgeoisies. More than the recent American betrayal in Syria (which sacrificed the Kurds to maintain good relations with the new government in Damascus), what weighed heavily on the Kurdish reluctance to act against Iran was their military response, which demonstrated its readiness to wage a long and bloody war. 

What began as the prospect of a brief war has escalated into a regional conflict. Meanwhile, the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz has disrupted oil and gas flows from the Gulf region (severely impacting the world economy), carrying the risk that the Houthis in Yemen (who are aligned with Tehran) might also close the Bab el-Mandeb Strait. The war that was expected to last only a few days has quickly turned into a war of attrition, in which its continued progression puts a severe strain not only on the military supplies of the governments involved in the conflict, but also chiefly on their ability to withstand the economic consequences of the war, which go far beyond the warring states and affect the rest of the world. 

Israel’s War 

With the initial plan having failed, the war necessitates a shift in the objectives to be achieved. While the Americans and Israelis were in agreement on the objective of regime change in Iran, in this new context, their positions are bound to diverge.

For Israel, the aim is to eliminate Iran as a state capable of countering its expansionist ambitions in the Middle East. This objective can either be achieved by overthrowing the current regime, even going as far as bringing about the collapse of the entire state apparatus and creating a situation similar to that in Syria or Iraq, or by inflicting such extensive destruction on the country as to render it irrelevant on the Middle Eastern stage.

But Israel also aims to resolve outstanding issues along its borders. Following the attack on Iran, it launched a military operation on its northern front, sending its army into southern Lebanon.

For some time now, Israel has been committed to expanding its influence throughout the Middle East and dismantling the so-called “axis of resistance,” striking Iranian allies in the region and engaging militarily on many fronts, including the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and pro-Iranian Shiite militias in Iraq. Now, however, Israel cannot do without direct military involvement by the United States ever since the war was brought directly to Iran (as had already occurred with the “12-Day War” in June 2025). 

Israel’s interest is to keep the USA involved in the war against Iran, standing in the way of any possibility of an agreement between the Americans and the Iranians. And indeed, as soon as the Americans and Iranians agreed on a two-week ceasefire to sit down at the negotiating table, Israel immediately obstructed the negotiations by continuing its military campaign in Lebanon.

For Israel, having the United States involved in a major war in the Middle East means the opportunity to reshape the balance of power in the region. Should the conflict end favorably, this would establish Israel as the leading power in the area. This is an advantageous outcome for American imperialism, which, through its loyal ally in the Middle East, would be able to control the entire region. But while Israel is willing to commit all its resources to a war for its hegemony in the Middle East, the United States instead must consider the repercussions that its involvement in a major Middle Eastern war could have on the imperialist struggle in the rest of the world. 

American Imperialism in the Quagmire 

The war in the Middle East poses at least three major problems for the United States.

First of all, from a military point of view, the course of the war has revealed serious difficulties on the American side. The war cannot be won by air power alone, as the situation in the Strait of Hormuz and the problems faced by American aircraft carriers highlight the operational challenges faced by their naval carriers. There has also been speculation about sending ground troops, but it is clear that this option would drag the Americans into a bloody war.

From an economic standpoint, the continuation of the war could jeopardize the entire energy sector in the region, causing the global economy to collapse.

Then there are the repercussions on the diplomatic front—specifically regarding relations with Washington’s traditional allies, who are paying a heavy economic price due to the prolonged war. Relations with the Europeans are already strained, as they have refused to join a military campaign to liberate the Strait of Hormuz.

Above all, the military situation and the serious repercussions on the economy are forcing the USA to find a way out of the quagmire it has gotten itself into as soon as possible. The problem is that all the options they have before them involve significant risks.

The United States cannot simply “declare victory” and stop waging war against Iran, because withdrawing from the battlefield does not necessarily mean that Iran will cease hostilities; at that point, Iran would have a freer hand, with the opportunity to greatly expand its influence in the region.

However, the high costs that would likely be incurred if the USA were engaged in a long war against Iran suggest that one way out might be to bring the war to an end and reach an agreement. But here we face the same problem as with the war in Ukraine: the Iranians, just like with the Russians, are willing to reach an agreement only if the deep-rooted causes of the war are eliminated.

In the meantime, the United States and Iran agreed to a two-week ceasefire starting on April 8 and held talks in Pakistan on April 11 and 12. The starting point for the consultations was the 10 points put forward by Iran, which included a definitive end to the war on all fronts (such as in Lebanon), the withdrawal of American troops from the region, payment of war reparations, and recognition of Iranian authority over the Strait of Hormuz; conditions that amount to the recognition of an Iranian victory and of Iran’s hegemonic role in the region. But even if Iran were to drop some of its demands, any potential agreement would only lead to a deterioration of the USA’s position in the region.

Following the breakdown of negotiations, the USA responded by imposing a naval blockade on ships traveling to and from Iranian ports, now attempting to strangle the Iranian economy. However, it is clear that Chinese ships would be the first to be blocked, resulting in cutting off China’s oil supply and making a Chinese reaction inevitable. At the time of writing, the first Chinese ship has broken through the American blockade and crossed the Strait of Hormuz.

Regardless of how the conflict plays out on the ground, whether hostilities resume after the ceasefire ends or the parties return to the negotiating table, what is at stake is the American presence in the Middle East, with the risk of losing its grip on a key region where a large portion of the world’s energy resources are concentrated. Iranian control of the Strait of Hormuz opens up catastrophic scenarios for American imperialism. It would force the Gulf states to comply with Iran’s demands, including the possibility of transporting oil paid for in yuan rather than dollars. The end of the petrodollar system poses a serious threat to the USA that could severely damage its economy.

The United States has gotten itself into a big mess. If they end their intervention this way, they will jeopardize their global dominance to the point of risking a collapse on a massive scale. If they go ahead with it, they’ll pay a very high price for uncertain results.

In any case, the inter-imperialist conflict has accelerated. Due to the fact that all of the world powers are involved in the ongoing war in some way, the likely time frame until a general war has shortened significantly.

The Maneuvers of Other Imperialist Powers

China and Russia cannot abandon Iran because of the economic and political implications of unchallenged American imperialist dominance in the Middle East. They therefore have every reason to support Iran, certainly by providing valuable intelligence via their satellites, and likely also by shipping weapons. 

But while there is a convergence of interests among China, Russia, and Iran in weakening American imperialism, every imperialist aggressor acts in accordance with its own national interests. 

There is no doubt that China would benefit enormously from a prolonged American commitment in the Middle East. 

First, the war against Iran is already diverting resources from East Asia to West Asia, with the transfer of THAAD missile defense interceptors from South Korea, thereby weakening the American military presence in the region—much to the benefit of Chinese expansionism. 

Next, the crisis into which the Gulf countries have been plunged by the American intervention against Iran, coupled with the lack of protection provided by the USA military umbrella, could push the Gulf states to distance themselves from the United States in favor of China. 

On the other hand, however, a disruption in energy supplies from the Middle East poses a major risk to the Chinese economy. The threat of a severe economic crisis is alarming its ruling class, since China is a fully capitalist country, and needs to flood the world market with goods produced by its own industries while constantly find new outlets for its capital. Hence the interest in facilitating mediation. 

Russia, however, is already reaping the benefits of the war in the Middle East and the resulting energy crisis caused by the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, as it is able to sell its oil at higher prices. The United States was forced to grant a 30-day exemption to all countries to purchase Russian oil that had been subject to sanctions. As a result, one weapon used in the war against Russia in Ukraine has been rendered ineffective; that is the economic sanctions which, according to the overly optimistic predictions of Kyiv’s supporters, were supposed to cripple the Russian economy and lead to Russia’s defeat in the war in Ukraine. Furthermore, a prolonged energy crisis would have economic repercussions primarily on European countries, which are already burdened by their support for Ukraine; this support would cease in the event of a severe economic crisis, making it impossible for Ukraine to sustain the conflict with Russia.

At the moment, European countries are among the main losers of the war in the Middle East. 

While the European countries had readily fallen in line with their American master in the early days of the war, its development has clearly highlighted the difficulty of defeating Iran militarily. This has been pushing Europeans to back down; so much so that they now try as much as possible not to be involved in the war. For now, they have refused to join the United States in a military operation aimed at opening the Strait of Hormuz. The fact that even the most faithful followers of Washington’s directives—that is, the European states which already stand at attention, ready to follow the USA in the war against Russia—have held back from a military expedition against Iran is a sign of the quagmire the Americans have gotten themselves into. This has created a rift with the American ally, which could have repercussions for the stability of NATO. 

As the energy and economic crises worsen, what will become apparent is a tendency among European governments to go their own way. 

Rising energy costs will lead European countries into economic disaster, exacerbating the crisis in industry and driving them to pursue social welfare cuts and rearmament even more resolutely.

As is the case with European countries, the negative repercussions of the war in the Middle East are also affecting many Asian countries. India comes out weakened, as it is among the countries most dependent on the flow of oil and gas from the Middle East, where it imports about half of its oil and 90% of its LPG. Countries in East and Southeast Asia are also being hit hard by rising energy costs and declining oil flows. The first instances of rationing and industrial disruptions are already being reported. The Philippines has even declared a national energy emergency and imposed a four-day workweek to reduce fuel consumption.

Furthermore, the situation in the Gulf states has highlighted the difficulties the United States faces in defending not only European countries but also states such as Japan and South Korea; as loyal allies of Washington, they are consequently faced with the need to reconsider their relationship and position on defense with the USA.

The Weak Link in the Imperialist Chain

The situation is even more dire in the Gulf countries, where the regimes are in danger of collapsing.

If the war drags on for too long, the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz will bring these countries to their knees, as they depend on energy exports. But this dangerous situation will also bring everything else to a standstill, including construction and tourism, since the influx of people to these luxury havens will come to a halt.

Then there is also the possibility of a food and water crisis, caused by a lack of supplies and the destruction of desalination plants. 

In this context of war and crisis, the “weak link” is precisely Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait.

In the case of the Gulf countries, war and the economic crisis reverberate across highly fragile states that have very small native communities relative to rest of their inhabitants. The demographic makeup of these countries is a very serious problem for the ravenous bourgeoisies that govern their countries with an iron fist, due to the extremely high number of foreigners: 90% in the Emirates, 80% in Qatar, 60% in Kuwait, and 40% in Saudi Arabia. Not only are the foreigners vast in their numbers, they are also very young.

They are proletarians who live in conditions bordering on slavery due to the so-called “kafala” system, which requires workers to hand over their passports to their employers, effectively relinquishing all control over their own livelihood. The proletarians in these countries are completely in the hands of their bosses, which they depend on not only for their wages, but also the ability to work elsewhere or return to their home country. 

The Middle Eastern crisis will profoundly affect the proletarian masses of the region. There is a risk that the escalation of the conflict could lead to the destruction of desalination plants. A food shortage isn’t such a distant possibility. Of course, it is clear that there are no class-based organizations defending workers here, but the social upheaval could be disruptive. 

The Need to Revive the Class Struggle

The hope is that the proletariat, which has been inactive until now, will start moving to make economic demands. 

The possibility of a mass wave of class struggle in all the world’s largest hubs of commerce, from those of capitalistically mature countries, to those of emerging capitalisms, is determined by the severity of the economic crisis striking the global economy. A crisis in which the proletarians of the whole world will pay the price.

Already in the first few weeks of the war, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz highlighted the fragility of global capitalism. The blockade of a strategic hub of global trade was enough to cause panic in all the major hubs of the capitalist world. With the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, up to 20% of global oil and LNG consumption is lost. The impact of the crises in the Persian Gulf do not just impact energy products; they will extend beyond them and affect a significant portion of global fertilizer production. The prolonged blockade will not only have consequences stemming from the drastic drop in oil and gas supplies—impacting all economic activities and causing a skyrocketing rise in the prices of all goods—but it will also affect global food production itself. We can expect food shortages and rising costs that millions of proletarians will be unable to afford.

While the proletariat of Ukraine and Russia are being thrown into the hell of war, joined now by the Middle East, the rest of the world’s proletariat is also under attack, facing a drastic deterioration in their living conditions and paying the price for imperialism’s crises and wars.

Just the same as it is for the proletariat already at war, the only way out for the class is revolutionary defeatism and the transformation of the war between states into a revolutionary war of the proletariat. Even in major cities, where the crisis of capitalism will strike hardest, the working class must reject any call for national unity or for self-sacrifice for the sake of the country’s economy; it must shatter the peace of Capital and establish its own class-based organizations—led by the Communist Party—to wage its own class war, all the way to the dictatorship of the proletariat.