International public meeting: Defend internationalism in the face of war in Iran!

On 12 June, Israel launched a massive bombing raid on Iran, which immediately retaliated. Thousands of missiles, rockets and drones lit up the sky. Underneath, homes and hospitals were destroyed. The international press spoke of an extremely serious situation that could plunge the Middle East into chaos.

During the night of 21 June, the United States entered the conflict, dropping 13-tonne penetrating bombs to destroy Iranian nuclear sites. Such powerful weapons had not been used since the Second World War.

It is in this situation of escalating war and barbarism that our organisation decided to organise an international online public meeting. While the aim of this gathering is obviously to discuss, analyse and understand the situation, there is something even more important: to bring together revolutionary forces, isolated from each other in many countries, to assert together the proletarian voice of internationalism.

In this sense, we can say from the outset that this international public meeting was a real success. Organised in just a few days, many comrades responded to the call, denounced the imperialist nature of all sides and all nations involved in the conflict, and forcefully defended the idea that the only future for humanity is the solidarity and unity of workers across borders, racial divisions and religions.

Our only regret is the absence - with the exception of Internationalist Voice - of other revolutionary groups of the Communist Left, whom we had warmly invited. 1 [1]

An extremely serious world situation

All participants affirmed that the current accumulation of wars is the product of the capitalist system and imperialist rivalries between powers, large and small. As one comrade pointed out: “Pandora's box was opened in 1914”. But how can we explain the current rise in tensions? Why are wars beginning to spread again and threaten ever larger regions of the planet? Why is arms production exploding everywhere?

Many comrades highlighted the growing polarisation between the US and China:

– “This is a global struggle between two great powers: China and the United States.”

– “The United States is refocusing its imperialist attention on China, and this has been very clear since the AUKUS agreements with Australia, in particular.”

Other contributions also highlighted the pursuit of economic interests:

– “This conflict is fundamentally linked to trade routes and economic gateways.”

– “These powers are fighting for economic control, trade routes and technological superiority.”

Other speakers emphasised what they saw as the rational and political vision of the bourgeoisie: “[wars] are political tools of the ruling class, used to delay revolutionary movements, exploit societies and guarantee capitalist interests.”

Other comrades, on the contrary, highlighted that the root of the current dynamic was the development of growing chaos. One speaker emphasised this point, pointing to the reality of “fragmentation” and “every man for himself”’, highlighting “the fluctuations in Trump's politics, which reflect the struggles within the bourgeoisie”. We fully agree with this response that emerged in the debate. The dynamic of the discussion then made it possible to begin to address the question behind the whole current global dynamic: are we facing the formation of two new imperialist blocs, as during the First World War, the Second World War and the Cold War? In other words, are we heading towards the Third World War? This question is important because such a global conflagration, given the capacity for annihilation of so many powers, would be synonymous with a widespread nuclear holocaust and therefore the end of humanity. The majority response in the debate was NO! One comrade stated very clearly: “We are not heading towards blocs like in the First and Second World Wars, but towards fragmentation, as we are seeing in Ukraine, Africa and the Middle East.” Another added: “As for blocs, I don't see them forming. It's interesting to see the extent to which Netanyahu is acting on his own initiative: it will be interesting to know whether the ICC thinks that the United States is using Israel as an attack dog or whether it is rather a case of Netanyahu following an ‘every man for himself’ policy”. 2 [2]

To fully grasp the significance of the dynamics of chaos, we must start from the historical phase of capitalism: decomposition. It was at the end of this discussion that the ICC intervened to defend this idea, which we believe is essential: "From 1945 to 1990, the world was structured into two blocs with two superpowers [...] In 1989, with the collapse of the USSR, one might have thought that the United States would emerge as the great victor and dominator, but the American bourgeoisie immediately understood the difficulties that would arise. There was the great speech by Bush Senior emphasising the need for a ‘new world order’ and there was the demonstration of military force in the Gulf. […] Why this demonstration? The American bourgeoisie told the world, and in particular its allies, ‘you owe us obedience, we have overwhelming military force’. In the immediate term, the first Gulf War was a huge military victory. But only two years later, Yugoslavia exploded: the former allies (France, Germany, the United States) played their own cards. […] And that blew Yugoslavia apart into four or five countries. That sums up what has been happening for 35 years now. In other words, the United States has increasingly overwhelming military power compared to all its competitors, and it is widening the gap. It invests as much each year as the rest of the world. And they are striking harder and harder. We can see this with Iran. And yet this does not calm all their opponents. On the contrary! It fuels dispersion. It fuels the desire of every imperialist to play their own card. This is the real historical dynamic that will not stop, and that is why what is happening in Iran is extremely serious and historic."

With the observation that Iran is weakening having been acknowledged by several speakers, the discussion was able to go further: "Iran is humiliated and weakened, but the mullahs remain in control. The question is one of destabilisation in the region, the importance of the working class in Iran and the ability of the mullahs to remain in power. Their lack of air power […] emboldens its neighbours."

Ultimately, this new conflict between Israel, Iran and the United States marks a qualitative step in the acceleration of chaos and warlike barbarism. For the first time since 2003, when the United States wanted to strengthen its position in the Pacific, it has once again been forced to intervene militarily, further evidence of the decline of its hegemony. The show of force through bombings, intended to impress China and (in a completely illusory manner) to impose its authority, is a clear sign of this. Furthermore, this new war involves two regional powers, one of which, Iran, is threatening to collapse. The extreme weakening of the mullahs' power is contributing to an unprecedented destabilisation of the entire Middle East and even more broadly of the whole world. 3 [3]

What should be the response of the working class?

Faced with growing barbarism and the threat of widespread war, it was clear that all participants were looking for a forum to defend proletarian internationalism. This was reflected in the following statement: “I am delighted that we are seeking a coherent proletarian internationalist line.” This search made it possible to state clearly that "internationalism is a position we defend. The working class is international, and our strategy and tactics are based on this principle.” The discussion then focused on how to implement this cardinal principle of the workers' movement, which has been stated since the Communist Manifesto of 1848, emphasising that “the proletarians have no country." The shared view was to emphasise, as one comrade put it, that “in the face of the barbarism of imperialist war, we call on the proletariat not to support one country over another. Against war, we call on workers around the world to unite and adopt a class position, not a nationalist position”. Everyone recognised that this was a demanding task, a difficult struggle in the face of intense bourgeois propaganda. The discussion continued, attempting to identify the ideological traps and obstacles set by the bourgeoisie for the working class, denouncing the democratic mystifications and false friends that are the left, the trade unions and particularly the leftists who are currently riding high: “leftism can mobilise to support for nationalism or anti-Trump demonstrations”.

In the face of all this propaganda, the discussion was a source of reflection on how the working class is fighting today and what lessons can be learned:

– The first lesson was the clear recognition that the working class “is not defeated”. This is the context in which the meeting highlighted the need to assess the reality of “a subterranean maturation of consciousness” within the proletariat and a dynamic of “rupture”’ in the face of the stagnation of recent decades. 4 [4]

– The second essential lesson is that the working class does not have the strength to oppose war in the belligerent countries where it is caught in the crossfire and the logic of revenge. Similarly, in the peripheral countries, it remains too marked by democratic mystification and the weight of nationalism. As one comrade points out: “Nationalism is a serious disease that affects the working class and Third Worldism in underdeveloped countries. Look at the illusions, for example, about Nasser, Mugabe, etc. They were brutal oppressors, not defenders of freedom. The scenes of people celebrating Hamas attacks on Israel are a disgrace to the working class.”

– The third lesson is to recognise the importance of the experience of the proletariat in Western countries, the reality of its struggles, even if these do not yet make it possible to oppose the war, let alone stop it: "Faced with the development of wars, we may want there to be a real working-class response that stops the wars. In fact, for the time being, and for a long time to come, this is not possible!"

– The fourth lesson we can draw is that despite its struggles, the weaknesses of the proletariat are still too great for it to develop its consciousness to the point of politicising its struggle. This will be a slow, difficult and very long process, fraught with obstacles and pitfalls.

– The final lesson, in the face of this difficult reality, is that the ICC has insisted on the danger of giving in to impatience. This is indeed a scourge that is the mark of the influence of petty-bourgeois ideology and a vector of opportunism within the workers' movement. As an ICC speaker put it, "Trevor [a participant] said that Marx would understand the need to avoid impatience, and that's true. In the workers' movement, the question of immediacy and impatience has been a real problem. In the Communist League, during the confrontation between Marx and the Willich-Schapper tendency, [...] Willich and Schapper said that the revolution had to be made now. Marx said that this was a dead end, that the proletariat would have to struggle for many decades to be able to confront the bourgeoisie. This was already a problem in the 19th century. Impatience is at the root of opportunism. There is a famous text by Rosa Luxemburg which explains that for many years we went from victory to victory, and then we suffered terrible defeats. Among true revolutionaries, the idea is that we cannot solve problems now. There are many disasters, massacres, barbarism: we cannot prevent that now. This idea must be present in our minds. This is a distinction from leftists: leftists say ‘now’; in 1968, the slogan was ‘revolution now’, a petty-bourgeois idea. We are working for the future, for the long term. After 1968, many disappointed young people who wanted revolution right away were lost to the struggle (there was even talk of suicide among disappointed young people). We must return and fight firmly against immediate action. The workers’ movement has existed for two centuries, we do not know when the revolution will take place, but the only way to prepare the perspective is to prevent the destruction of the potential that exists in a minority of the class; we must say that we need to be patient.”

One of the last interventions insisted that “it is very important that comrades do not become discouraged by the absence of mass strikes in the heart of Europe; it will take a long time. Today, a step forward has been taken: revolutionaries and internationalists have come together to clarify a dimension of the class struggle.” We consider that the concern and spirit expressed in this intervention are important for resistance and struggle.

To conclude this article, we reiterate our call for discussion and encourage all our comrades and readers to come and participate in our next meetings. To do so, simply keep an eye on our website, where we regularly publish the dates and locations of these debates. We also call for the distribution of our recently published leaflets on the question of war, as well as those on the class struggle (which are available on our website in PDF format).

WH, 29 June 2025

1 [5] We agree with the very accurate remarks of one of the participants: “It is regrettable that no comrades from other organisations of the Communist Left are present. It is important that organisations maintain polemics, discussions and correspondence. Only within the framework of the Communist Left will the working class be victorious.”

2 [6] We believe that these two aspects are not contradictory: Biden and then Trump had to deal with the ‘every man for himself’ logic that is inflaming the Middle East, including the Israeli government, which favours its own interests over those of its American ally. In this context, however, the United States has pursued policies that seek to maintain its grip on the situation as best it can.

3 [7] Iran is undermined by the centrifugal forces of its minorities, the Azeris in the north and the Baluchis in the south, and by its religious divisions, not to mention the border powers lying in wait, whose imperialist tensions are sharpening, as illustrated by the tensions between India and Pakistan. These are only initial reflections that will need to be pursued in further discussions in order to better understand the geopolitical context and the chaos in which the proletarian struggle will have to develop.

4 [8] See in particular International Review No. 173, “The historical roots of the ‘rupture’ in the dynamics of the class struggle since 2022 (Part I) [9]” and Part II [10] [10](April,  2025).