On the escalation of war in the Middle East

Introduction

Toward the end of March, the ICC held an international online public meeting on the implications of the US/Israeli attacks on Iran/Lebanon. A close sympathiser has sent us his thoughts on the meeting, showing that the lack of planning by US imperialism for the consequences of the offensive reflects the decline in US power that has driven it since 1989. Apart from touching on some alternative analyses, he looks at the serious economic and environmental impacts of the war, and the historic situation of capitalism, where the bourgeoisie can only exacerbate the contradictions of its economic, political and social system. We welcome this contribution as part of the necessary process of clarification within the working class.

o-O-o

It was important to hold this meeting about the US, Israel and Iran war, its meaning and its consequences.

I welcome the involvement of comrades from around the world (US, Sweden, Moldavia, India, Philippines, Indonesia from what I heard). This is a real strength of these meetings as it enables information and analyses from different parts of the world to be shared. I salute the quality of the interventions, especially by comrades for whom English is not their first language. Several participants were new to these discussions, suggesting the war may be stimulating reflection within a minority of the class. If the development of class consciousness is understood as a process, often unseen, these open, direct expressions can be taken as symptomatic of a wider reflection and questioning since participation in a public discussion, particularly if in a foreign language, is a significant step. However, the meeting was smaller than I thought it might be, given the subject and timing. I look forward to hearing about the reports from other meetings organised by the ICC and, hopefully, other groups of the PPM.

The significance of the war

There was general agreement on the gravity of the war at the imperialist and economic levels but there were some significant differences of interpretation.

The majority at the meeting agreed that the war was an expression of the chaos that has been growing within capitalism in recent decades, especially at the imperialist level. The ICC has been analysing the gradual disintegration of the old western bloc since the collapse of its eastern counterpart in 1989 removed the rationale for its existence. Initially, the US was able to draw large numbers of states into war in the Gulf, but the numbers steadily declined and former allies began to assert their independent imperialist goals. This war is especially marked by the refusal of every major European power to join in, including Washington’s most loyal ally, London. Even today, the UK is not directly participating in the war, although its claim to be only allowing the US to use its airfields for defensive actions is hollow. Other countries, notably Spain, have been much more forthright in their condemnation of the war and refusal to participate.

The US, especially under Trump, will not tolerate such insubordination but neither tariffs nor military muscle have worked. The godfather is looking weaker. Its military might alone, which remains overwhelming, is not enough. Today, the Iranian state, despite the destruction of much of its military equipment and the killing of its senior leaders, not only still exists but continues fighting and, with the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, has the advantage to some extent. On 28 March the Houthis entered the war (although it is unclear if they have engaged beyond the initial salvo). Trump’s claims of fruitful talks and an imminent deal seem designed to calm the markets at best and, at worst, are an expression of desperation and frustration from the self-proclaimed greatest deal maker who cannot make a deal. The interspersing of these claims with threats to lay Iran to waste reflects a realisation that he is not in control and risks being his worst nightmare: a “loser”.

However, this is not about the psychology of any individual. The evident lack of planning and consideration of alternative strategies reflects the decline of the US bourgeoisie. This is certainly most advanced within the Trump faction, which is marked by stupidity, greed, hubris and the celebration of cruelty, but it is the product of the longer-term decline of the right of the American ruling class, from the election of stooges such as Reagan to the incompetence of the Bushes. Nor is this restricted to the right. While the Democratic Party under Obama was certainly more competent and serious it maintained many of the strategies, such as assassinations of enemies and mass deportations (albeit without the performative cruelty of today), while the scandals surrounding Bill Clinton and the maintenance of Biden in office despite his cognitive decline reveal it is affected by much the same immorality and clinging to power as the Republicans. In short, the current American ruling class is affected by similar delusions as other powers that have passed their peak, such as Britain through much of the first part of the twentieth century until it crashed into reality with the Suez crisis (albeit conducted with more English reserve and before the phase of decomposition).

The war is also a diversion from the struggle against China, which has been acknowledged as the most important challenge facing US imperialism, prompting the pivot towards Asia several years ago. China still cannot challenge the US militarily, but it is expanding and modernising its forces rapidly. It pushed back successfully against Trump’s tariffs, forcing a reduction, partly by threats to withhold supplies of the rare earth metals that it currently has a near monopoly of. It has long used its economic strength to build links with significant parts of the world. To this extent, it appears as the most likely leader of a rival bloc. However, as was pointed out during the meeting, it is facing its own economic challenges, with an aging population and severe imbalance between the working and nonworking population. Its rate of growth has fallen, and it faces challenges of overproduction and, I assume, declining rates of profit. Furthermore, the global situation is such that the redivision of the world into rival blocs paving the way to another world war may never arise. The proliferation of smaller wars, environmental catastrophe and social collapse may destroy humanity before this happens.

Two comrades at the meeting put forward alternative analyses.

The first of these was that the war against Iran is a proxy war between China and America. The implication of this analysis is that the reformation of blocs is already sufficiently advanced for wars to be subsumed within this division. This is not the case for several reasons:

• China has not yet established itself as a pole of regroupment at the imperialist level because it is not strong enough to require countries to accept its dominance. It is true that China is the dominant economic power in its region, but this does not translate mechanically into political leadership, especially as its military strength is not sufficiently mature.
• A bloc system requires two poles, but this war shows that the US for all its military might, has lost the allies that gathered around it during the Cold War. Its actions increasingly amount to mere lashing out in anger and frustration at a world slipping beyond its control. The refusal of substantial parts of its old allies to play any part in the war and even to call it illegal and accuse the US of war crimes, shows it too is unable to cohere a bloc around itself. Israel alone cannot compensate for this and is, anyway, an unreliable ally, prone to striking out beyond what Washington desires.
• The centrifugal forces of decomposition have been at work for thirty years, with states pursuing their own immediate interests. For example, the EU has never worked as a military entity and even its economic coherence has been questioned by rogue members such as Hungary and, before that by Brexit.

For these reasons, while we may face “a world of wars” as a recent article on the ICC website puts it, we are not about to face a third world war. This is no comfort however, as slaughter and carnage grow.

The second analysis depicted the conflict as a war against the proletariat intended to pull it back into line following ‘uprisings’ in some countries. This is incorrect because these ‘uprisings’ were not proletarian and posed no threat to the ruling class. If the class struggle were at such a pitch that the bourgeoisie saw war as the only way out it would at once run up against the reality that a working class so mobilised to defend its class interests would be most unlikely to pivot to accepting mobilisation in the interests of its class enemies. As the ICC has long argued the working class must be defeated before it can be recruited as canon-fodder.

The economic and environmental impacts of the war

The discussion of the economic impact of the war benefitted significantly from the contributions of comrades from varying parts of the world. This and the environmental impact have been widely reported as they have grown and begun to directly affect the working class and other exploited strata, so I will limit myself to a few points.

Most immediately, the significantly increased cost of petrol and diesel has made travel more expensive and, as it works through the economy, will affect the costs of production, transport and storage of all commodities, in particular food.

This will affect all countries, including those like the USA that are largely energy self-sufficient, because oil and gas prices are set globally. Petrol has gone above $4 a gallon, which is high by American standards.

Some states are already implementing measures to manage the situation, such as the introduction of a four-day week in the Philippines; while others, such as UK, are making known plans to manage demand and provide targeted support, presumably to prevent panic buying.

The blockade of the Straits of Hormuz means that fertiliser, much of which requires natural gas to be produced, will also be sharply restricted threatening the amount of food produced in the next growing season and thus raising the prospect of escalating prices and shortages that could lead to hunger and even starvation. Even if the war ends soon these consequences cannot be ended by the stroke of a presidential sharpie pen.

There have been comparisons to the oil crises of the 1970s and the crisis of 2007/8 but parts of the bourgeoisie have speculated openly that the present crisis could outstrip them all with an unparalleled global recession. There has been a release of supplies from emergency stocks to try and stabilise the market, but the price has continued to rise. International financial institutions, such as the IMF and the World Bank have not acted decisively yet, although they have now announced the setting up of a body including the International Energy Agency to coordinate their response.

The environmental impact of the war was touched on by several comrades and may be a major legacy of the conflict, including:

• the release of toxic chemicals from the targeting of oil production, storage and transportation sites threatening human and animal life both immediately and in the long term;
• the reduction in agricultural output due to the poisoning of the land;
• the direct emissions due to war;
• threats by both Iran and the US to target the desalination plants that millions in the area rely on for fresh water. The Iranian regime thinks it has nothing to lose while the American doesn’t care (it’s history of environmental warfare stretches back at least as far as the use of Agent Orange during the Vietnam war).

Perspectives

At the time of writing, the war continues with contradictory actions and messages from the main participants but with indications that rather than being contained it is spreading.

The US is making claims of ending the war in weeks, not months, that Iran is desperate for a deal, that there are substantive negotiations and that “hell will break loose” if a deal is not made. However, the war has not gone as imagined: Trump’s strategy of threat, deception and sowing confusion, has not worked. The Iranian bourgeoisie, unlike New York investors and businessmen, cannot be bullied by second rate mafia tactics. This is also the case with the Chinese, Russian and, for that matter, Israeli bourgeoisie. Trump is emerging weakened from the conflict, shown to be unable to control things as bragged and eroding support amongst his base by breaking the promise to end wars.

Iran is continuing to fight; the closure of the Strait of Hormuz continues; most recently its Houthi ally has begun firing missiles at Israel. This raises the possibility of the flow of oil from the Red Sea, which Saudi Arabia has been using as an alternative route, being disrupted and has prompted Saudi Arabia to threaten to enter the war.

The current Iranian regime will remain in power unless the US launches a ground offensive comparable to the Gulf war when it ended up committing 300,000 troops. Currently, it only has, perhaps, some tens of thousands involved in total.

No ‘popular uprising’ of the ‘Iranian people’ is likely as they know too bitterly the cost of protest and are still reeling from the most recent slaughter. There are media reports of individuals saying that US and Israeli bombing is a price they are willing to pay for liberation from the clerics, but one suspects they are a minority.

Iran has a history of class struggle, which played a significant role in the 1979 overthrow of the Shah. There seemed to be signs workers were involved in the recent protests but it is clear they were subsumed within the ‘popular’ movement rather than being an autonomous force. The working class in Iran has been brutally repressed over the years and is not likely to appear as a major force in the immediate future.

Israel is continuing and even accelerating its offensive. It has its own aims to destroy Hezbollah and is openly talking of annexing part of Lebanon. Its previous occupation did not end well and the current attempt to eliminate the threat may ultimately multiply it, as it may in Gaza too.

It is not true that Israel tricked Trump into the war. Antipathy towards Iran is shared by much of the American ruling class, but the same need to assert itself against the ebbing of its power that has driven it since 1989 remains the primary cause. Israel’s persuasion and Trump’s own incompetence and folly may have played a secondary role. Previous presidents played a more careful political game, informed by the knowledge of what Iran could do.

Ukraine has sought to bolster its position by offering its expertise in drone warfare to Arab states (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar), showing once again that the war and the Ukrainian state are fully integrated into global imperialism.

In the longer term, at the imperialist level, China and Russia gain from this. The US appears as a global bully whereas China presents itself as a friend. Russia has already gained relief from oil sanctions and is also benefiting from the diversion of military aid from Ukraine.

The war is likely to contribute to further increases in military spending, at the cost of other things (eg further cuts to the UK aid budget with soft power traded for hard), offering another opportunity for China to step in as a friend, as it has been doing in many parts of world through the belt and road scheme.

Is this the end of NATO, even as a pretence? The conflict may be formally outside the area covered by the treaty, but it is ultimately another expression of the process made evident by the collapse of the Eastern bloc and the centrifugal forces that were unleashed. This process is the result of the historic situation of capitalism in which the bourgeoisie is unable to overcome the contradictions of its economic, political and social system while the working class is unable to overthrow it. Every nation state is an active participant in this.

The working class does not support this war, other than possibly in Israel where there is, reportedly, high popular support. In the US, most of the population oppose the war. But lack of support does not translate into active opposition to the war and, indeed, attempts by groups such as the Stop the War coalition amount to no more than calls to pick a side or accept the illusion of a peaceful capitalism. The only effective struggle against war today is for the working class to defend its wages and living conditions and to refuse to make sacrifices for the ruling class

To reiterate, in conclusion, I think the ICC is right that the conditions do not exist for a global war[1]:

• firstly, because of the strategic alignment of the major powers: China is not yet ready to directly challenge the US; Russia lacks the ability and the US is no longer has a solid bloc to lead;
• and secondarily because of the balance of class forces: if nothing else, 2022 showed that the passivity of the proletariat cannot be taken for granted.

This does not mean the conflict cannot yet spread and its consequences around the world are substantial and growing.

PW, 2 April 2026. Amended 28 April.

 

---

[1] Interestingly, some parts of the bourgeoisie have argued it is already underway, (eg Evelyn Farkas, former security adviser to Obama on BBC Radio 4, “PM” 30 March  2026).