International

The United States and Israel have gone to war against Iran, which has responded by firing missiles into Israel and US bases in the region. On the first devastating day of the war, the Iranian ‘Supreme Leader’, Ali Khamenei, as well as dozens of key figures in the Iranian military and political leadership were killed.

While socialists can give no support whatsoever to the theocratic regime of the mullahs in Tehran – a government that has only recently murdered thousands of Iranians who dared to protest against their economic conditions – we are completely opposed to the war conducted by Israel and the US against Iran.

We have come to expect bare-faced hypocrisy and lying from the mainstream media, but it is notable what little coverage was given to the bombing of a girls’ school in Tehran, leading to two hundred casualties. Had a similar school been bombed in Jerusalem, it would have been the headline on every single newspaper in the west, without exception.

We must stand in opposition to the bombing of Iran and to the support given to the military assault by Britain and other NATO states and we should demand an end to the attacks. That view holds despite the regime in Tehran. It is for the Iranian workers and youth to decide when, where and on what conditions they overthrow a hated regime.

The ‘decapitation’ of the Iranian state will dislocate and diminish the capabilities of a government which was already weakened militarily, largely as a result of the war last June. Iranian firepower has no answer to the overwhelming combined force of the US and Israel.

The Trump administration is hoping that the onslaught would be so devastating as to require a relatively short time to meet its objectives. The war last year lasted only 12 days and Trump has spoken in this instance of four weeks, but that is probably an outside limit. Israel, however, will want to ensure that Iranian military capabilities are completely neutralised and that could take a lot more time.

False narratives rolled out

But what exactly are the war aims of the United States and of Israel? What are the reasons for this war?  Much has been made in world media about the absence of clearly defined objectives on the part of the Trump administration, and about the obviously false narratives being rolled out to justify the war. In the first four days, at least three different and contradictory reasons have been cited by US spokespersons for launching a war.

For instance, Trump has constantly raised the issue of the need for a “deal” over the Iranian nuclear industry and the danger of Iran developing nuclear weapons. The White House is repeating the same mantra – “weapons of mass destruction” – that was falsely used to justify the attack on Iraq in 2003.

Yet for decades, and repeated only last week, the Iranian regime has maintained that it has no interest in developing nuclear weapons, unlike Israel, which is already a nuclear-armed state. The Iranian government, however, has not been shy to use the possibility of nuclear capability as leverage in negotiations with western governments to remove economic sanctions.

Ten years ago, in 2016, negotiations had led to an agreement involving all the major powers in the world arena: the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China and Germany, and which was unanimously adopted by the UN Security Council. As part of this agreement, the International Atomic Agency monitored all activities related to Iran’s nuclear programme, with Iranian agreement and cooperation, to ensure no moves were being made towards a nuclear weapons programme. Several key nuclear facilities were transformed for civilian purposes, such as medical research. In return, a timetable was set to lift the UN embargo on arms and other materials.

Crippling economic sanctions

The Israeli and Saudi governments did not like this agreement because it tended to stabilise Iran as a major regional power, bringing it into the “concert of nations”. It was in answer to Israeli and Saudi insistence that Trump ripped up the agreement in 2018, replacing it by a series of crippling economic sanctions known as the “maximum pressure campaign”, which Trump made even more stringent after his return to office in 2025.

Clearly, the central issue in this conflict is not a deal over Iran’s nuclear industry. A deal had already existed, and it was Trump, doing Israel’s bidding, who tore it up.

After the air strikes against Iranian facilities last June, Trump claimed that “monumental damage was done to all nuclear sites in Iran, as shown by satellite images. Obliteration is an accurate term!” So we are now being asked to believe – as many western politicians like Starmer seemed to have done – that  these “obliterated” nuclear facilities are an immediate danger and a justification for war.

Another false narrative is Trump’s concern for the “brave” people of Iran. This comes from the same administration that armed and financed the horrific genocide in Gaza, killing over 73,000 people (the official figure), including 20,000 children, and leaving the survivors to face mass starvation and homelessness. Can anyone seriously believe that Trump and Netanyahu care about the Iranian people?

To find the real motives for this attack, we must look beyond the fog of official pretexts and lies, because there are, in fact, real motives. Trump might express himself on this matter, as on all others, in his usual inarticulate, ignorant, and contradictory manner. But this does not mean that there is no rationale for this war from the point of view of Israeli and US interests. Indeed, in the midst of all the bluster in his statements, Trump has nonetheless given away, about what the war is really for.

Gulf states closely aligned to USA

The foremost aim of the United States and Israel is to disarticulate and paralyse the Iranian state, in order to strengthen the regional hegemony of Israel. The attack on Iran and the destruction of its military capability is intended to also shift the balance of power among Muslim countries in the region towards Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, which are closely aligned to the USA and which all host US military bases. Israel wants, and the US accepts, that there should be no threats to its regional dominance, and no-one to stand in the way of the “Greater Israel” project.

The Gulf states pretend ‘friendship’ with Iran and complain about Iranian missile attacks now, but all of them host US bases used in the assault on Iran. And not only is Iran in their sights: the US and Israel will seek to destroy Iran’s international allies, Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthi militia in Yemen. Its other ally, Hamas, has been largely destroyed.

Despite some tensions on secondary issues, United States governments, both Democrat and Republican, have consistently supported Israeli imperialism. Some commentators opposed to Trump have even said that the Israeli lobby “owns” Trump, and they are not far wrong.

Israeli money provides the most effective political lobbying machine in the world, buying many politicians, including in the UK, as well as heads of state. But the overriding reason why the major capitalist powers support Israeli dominance in the Middle East, building it into a regional superpower, is because it serves as an powerful bulwark for the military, strategic, and economic interests of western imperialism. Moreover, it is an important obstacle and a diversion to the workers’ movement and revolutionary movements across the whole Arab world. That will not change, even if the Democrats win the next presidential elections.

If Iran has been attacked now, it is not because of its strength, or the threat it might represent to Israel and western interests, but precisely because it is at its weakest, militarily and economically. After the blows delivered to its economy by sanctions, the devastating bombing campaign last June and now faced with massive internal opposition from workers and students, the regime is at its weakest. Its proxy forces in Lebanon and Yemen are in a state of dislocation, those in Gaza are destroyed.

Bombers cannot install a puppet regime

Trump has made it clear that this war is aimed at bringing about a “regime change”. Indeed, it might appear that this has already been achieved to some degree, in that Ali Khamenei is out of the picture. But it is also true that the USA cannot easily install a power of their choice without troops on the ground and a long, deadly and costly war of conquest.

No matter how devastating they may be, US and Israeli fighter-bombers cannot install a puppet regime from the air. The US aim is not so much to do away with the regime in Iran, but to bring it to heel, as has been done with Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. Probably the best option that Washington can hope for is that the existing regime survives, but in a different, post-Khamenei form, battered and bruised, and cowed into an arrangement with US imperialism.

When Trump called on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to surrender and “lay down their arms”, it was an empty gesture, because they have no-one to whom to surrender. Likewise, Trump’s appeal to the Iranian people to “take over the government”, as he says, “when we’re done”, is a cynical public relations stunt to pressure the regime to come to a post-war accommodation.

The White House might be emboldened by their success in Venezuela, although in that case American intelligence was helped by key figures in the Venezuelan regime, including Delcy Rodriguez, prior to the strike. Now, under instructions for the US Secretary of State the Venezuelan government is attempting to roll back the reforms of the Chavez years. And as with Venezuela, Iranian oil reserves, the fourth largest in the world, are a strategic factor in the equation.

Unforeseen developments may arise

For the moment, as we write, the regime is still intact, albeit with different leaders, many of them in hiding. However, all kinds of unforeseen developments could arise out of the present situation, including a popular uprising. This is the last thing Trump and Netanyahu want and if ever the present chaos did lead to a mass revolutionary insurrection, the USA and Israel would attempt to derail it, and, if necessary, crush it.

Wars and their outcomes are notoriously unpredictable. Trump and Israel want to bring Iran to heel, to have a weak, intimidated, and compliant regime in Tehran. That might happen. But, then again, it might not. As damaging as the present bombing campaign is, it may not be enough to bring about sufficiently tangible results from their perspective. And then what? More attacks? A longer war?

Trump and the Pentagon are gambling that this war will be resolved relatively quickly in their favour, but it could end up dragging on months. The longer the war goes on – especially if a weakened Iranian regime is still capable of sending missiles into Gulf countries, across the Straits of Hormuz and elsewhere – then the greater will be the political fallout in Jerusalem and in Washington. This is particulary true, if there is a significant number of American casualties.

The political repercusssions for Trump and for those western politicians who have backed him, will be greater still if there are significant economic consequences from this war. A fifth of all global oil exports go through the Straits of Hormuz and at this moment, as we write, that waterway is closing, causing world oil and gas prices to soar. (See Michael Roberts’ article on the possible economic fallout, here)

If the Gulf States continue to be targeted by Iran, even episodically, or if Iran sinks into internal chaos, as did Libya, Iraq, and Syria, it will require greater resources and broader involvement by the US to try to bring the situation under control. This would lead to very serious complications for Trump on the home front.

Opinion polls show US voters against Iran war

We should not forget that the programme on which Trump was elected was specifically against overseas miltary adventures and opinion polls still show that the American people – including Republican voters – have no appetite for becoming embroiled in new conflicts in the Middle East or anywhere else.

Millions of Americans are being thrown into financial difficulties under the impact of Trump’s tariff wars, job losses and attacks on Health Insurance, not to speak of the horrific racist rampage by ICE thugs. Before  his first election in 2016, Trump claimed that Obama was going to attack Iran to save his flagging popularity ratings, but now Trump’s ratings are so bad that he is doing what he accused Obama of only wanting to do.

Spending hundreds of millions of dollars on foreign wars will not go down well, especially because the various “explanations” for the attack just don’t add up in the public mind. Many will be inclined to see them as a diversion from other issues, such as falling living standards and the Epstein files.

For Trump, this new venture is replete with risk. The Financial Times, a more sober and serious voice than most pro-capitalist newspapers, pointed this out. The military offensive against Iran, its editorial pointed out, is called Operation Epic Fury. “Epic Gamble“, it suggests, “would be more appropriate“.

However this latest war pans out, it is yet another sign that the world has entered a period of increasing social, economic, diplomatic and military instability, as rival imperialist predators seek to redraw frontiers and spheres of influence to their own advantage. Such is the nature of world capitalism, a system in which war, suffering and death are endemic.

Feature photograph from Wikimedia Commons, here