Even without winners or losers, the barbarity of war can only worsen

The war between the United States and Iran is bogged down, punctuated by a daily dance of contradictory statements: one day, the end of hostilities and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz are announced with great fanfare; the next, further strikes are promised. These sham ceasefires change nothing: as always, Tehran and Washington continue to exchange deadly fire around the Strait of Hormuz, the naval blockade continues, and ships that dare to defy it are sunk. There is widespread chaos throughout the region, where nearly twenty countries have been swept up in a war with no clearly defined objective—a war from which even the United States no longer knows how to extricate itself. It was against this backdrop that, in early summer, an agreement was signed between three regional powers indirectly involved in this war: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. An agreement that isn’t making headlines, but is nonetheless deeply significant.

In the powder keg that is the Middle East, this pact deals a fatal blow to the 2020 Abraham Accords—signed under Washington’s auspices between Israel, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain—which were meant to cement cooperation and peace between the Jewish state and Arab countries in the face of the so-called Iranian Shiite threat. Hamas’s terrorist attacks against Israel on October 7, 2023 clearly marked the failure of this umpteenth attempt at “pacification” of the region under American and Israeli leadership, just as it highlighted the deadlock these powers face with Iran. The USA’s word is no longer worth much: its credibility has been severely undermined, both as a force of persuasion and as a guarantor of the interests of its regional ‘allies.’

Toward more bloodshed and instability

This pact, known as the Mecca Pact, signed in early August, confirms the emergence of an alliance among countries that now openly display their distrust of traditional security partnerships with the major powers—first and foremost with the United States. This distrust has been growing for nearly a decade and the war against Iran in 2026 has taken it to a new level. This pact also underscores that these countries have decided to openly play their own imperialist hand. For behind the joint statements about their good intentions regarding “collective deterrence” in the face of regional chaos, the three signatories state in black and white that “any act of aggression, any armed attack against one of the three states will be considered an attack against all of them.”

Given that Pakistan is a nuclear power, that Turkey fields one of the region’s most powerful and battle-hardened armies, and that Saudi Arabia brings its financial clout to the table, one can gauge the true weight of these promises of peace. The three signatories, of course, insist that their pact is purely defensive—a diplomatic formality required of any nascent alliance. But the commitment itself is unambiguous: by pooling their military resources, these three states ensure that even the slightest border skirmish, the most isolated strike, or the most minor incident at sea ceases to be a local matter and immediately becomes a three-way affair. This pact does not herald the end of war—it broadens the scope of future wars in advance!

Each country reacts on a case-by-case basis to defend its immediate imperialist interests, even if it means unhesitatingly renouncing the alliances of yesterday. Pakistan, yesterday a direct ally of China, offered to act as a mediator between Washington and Tehran, and now finds itself playing its own hand alongside Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Turkey, until recently NATO’s black sheep, intends to assert its desire for autonomy vis-à-vis Europe, Israel, and the United States, while maintaining good relations with Russia.

Behind such agreements lies no solid geostrategic restructuring, but rather the defence of short-term imperialist interests. And this is no accident: it is the very nature of the historical situation for all imperialist powers, without exception. Today, as in the future, there will be no consolidation of lasting alliances, no bloc aligned behind an American, Russian, Chinese, or European leader. Opportunity makes the thief, in an imperialist game that is constantly reshaping itself day by day and adding chaos upon chaos.

Where is U.S. control over the Middle East today? Let us imagine for a moment a war between Israel—the supposedly unwavering ally—and Turkey, a NATO member (with a theoretical obligation for the United States to intervene); it would be utter and utterly unpredictable chaos! The Middle East is a perfect illustration of this, and it confirms, point by point, the analysis that the ICC has been developing for years regarding the evolution of imperialist wars and confrontations.

No blocs, no defeated proletariat

The facts confirm this more and more every day: the formation of stable imperialist alliances or blocs, dominated by an undisputed leader and heading toward a new world war, is not on the agenda. Certainly, a major rivalry pits the United States against its Chinese challenger. But this dynamic is constantly hampered by the rise of military clashes between second-tier imperialist states, and even among the great powers themselves.

The prospect of a third world war is nonetheless drummed into people’s heads at every turn, as soon as the war situation escalates in Ukraine, the Middle East, or the South China Sea. The bourgeois media never miss an opportunity to cry wolf in order to lend credence to the idea that the ‘camp of democracy’ must be defended above all else. All of this serves a single purpose: to justify astronomical military spending and intensified attacks on the working class, in the name of ‘necessary sacrifices.’

Leftists add another layer to this, one that is even more insidious: to hear them tell it, autocratic leaders of all stripes (Trump, Netanyahu, Putin, Milei…) are all stepping stones toward the return of fascism and world war, against which the working class must stand united. A united front with whom, if not with bourgeois democracy? This is the class struggle, pure and simple, being dissolved into the defence of the existing disorder and capitalist barbarism!

Even more regrettable: groups within the revolutionary movement are following suit with this analysis, arguing—like the Internationalist Communist Tendency (ICT)—that “the growing anarchy among nations seeking advantages raises fears of a full-scale world war.” By proclaiming that the world is heading toward World War III, these groups not only mislead the working class—they obscure its own strength, demoralise it, and contribute nothing to the development of its struggle.

Does this mean there is no escalation of war on a global scale? Of course not. Chaos is already here—growing, irrational—dragging the entire planet into a deadly ‘every man for himself’ scenario. Whether the United States intensifies its encirclement of China, whether China reacts by invading Taiwan, or whether Washington responds militarily: the risks of uncontrolled nuclear escalation are already very real. The same is true of a Russia that is increasingly on the defensive in Ukraine, utterly incapable of admitting defeat in a conflict that is costing it thousands of dead and wounded each month. The hundreds of thousands of deaths in Ukraine over the past four years, the carnage in Gaza or Iran—these are not prospects for tomorrow: they are immediate realities! These war-induced catastrophes are deeply rooted in the very process of every man for himself and growing imperialist chaos—without even needing to wait for the devastating fires of a world war.

It would therefore be irresponsible to underestimate the gravity of the global situation. But as we wrote in January 1990: “This is why it is essential to emphasise that, while the proletariat’s solution (the communist revolution) is the only one capable of opposing the destruction of humanity (which constitutes the only ‘response’ the bourgeoisie can offer to its crisis), this destruction would not necessarily result from a third world war. It could also result from the continuation of this decomposition to its extreme consequences (ecological catastrophes, epidemics, famines, unchecked local wars, etc.).”

Refusing to immediately consider the prospect of a third world war and asserting the worsening of widespread chaos that could lead to the destruction of humanity is not a matter of words, nor is it a scholastic debate on the evolution of barbarism and the dynamics of conflict. Two decisive conditions are missing from this perspective.

A necessary debate for the future 

A world war requires stable blocs. It presupposes that the bourgeoisies are capable, on a global scale, of demonstrating a minimum of coherence and organisation in the game of imperialist domination, under the aegis of leading powers. Each bloc formed with a view to a world war must be sufficiently powerful economically and militarily, as well as in terms of strategic coordination. Nothing of the sort exists today, in a context dominated by centrifugal forces and an every man for himself mentality: current alliances—fluctuating and constantly shifting—in no way meet the conditions of stability and reliability that the preparation for a merciless global war would require. We cannot forget that, in current conditions, today’s allies to become tomorrow’s adversaries, and vice versa. Failing to recognize this difficulty the bourgeoisie faces in imposing the logic of blocs is not a mere circumstantial detail: it means condemning oneself to a complete failure to understand historical dynamics, the growing irrationality of the bourgeoisie on all fronts (military, economic, political…), and the consequences for the working class.

A world war also requires a defeated proletariat. It implies that the bourgeoisie has been able to mobilise the majority of the working class in the central countries, enlist it in the war effort, and lead it in a disciplined manner into mass slaughter. This is not the case today. The working class remains very vulnerable in its ability to react directly to the war in Ukraine or the Middle East, but in many countries it is already refusing to endure the worsening of its living conditions under the weight of the war economy. We have seen this since 2022 in Great Britain, France, Belgium, and the United States. We are seeing it even today in Spain and the Netherlands, where workers by the thousands are rejecting the consequences of a war economy that forces companies like Airbus to increase production rates and cut back on working conditions.

To assume that World War III is upon us and that it constitutes the major threat to the working class is to commit a double error. First, it underestimates the gravity of the current war-induced chaos and its immediate consequences. Second, it underestimates the proletariat’s reactions and potential in the face of economic attacks, as well as the maturing consciousness within its ranks. Recognising this reality as clearly as possible is not a theoretical exercise: it is the way to prepare for revolutionary action. In this context, the duty of revolutionaries is not to stand on the sidelines, but to help clarify the perspective of the revolutionary struggle.

Stopio, September 10, 2026