On 28 February 2025, in the Oval Office of the White House, Trump met with Zelenskyy. During the meeting, Trump accused Zelenskyy of showing insufficient gratitude for the aid and support provided by the United States, and implicitly blamed him for the ongoing war. As the transfer of Ukraine’s mines had not progressed according to Trump’s wishes, he went so far as to humiliate Zelenskyy in a manner reminiscent of a bandit. Ultimately, Zelenskyy was asked to leave the White House.

Trump is now attempting to employ the same gangster-style tactics against Iran. Like a full-fledged bandit, he sent a threatening letter — via the United Arab Emirates — to figures in Iran with a similarly gangster-like disposition, warning: either agree to a deal, or face an attack. Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, echoed these threats just one day before the negotiations were set to begin:

“All options are on the table, and Iran has a choice to make. You can agree to President Trump’s demand, or there will be all hell to pay.”[1]

Trump, adopting the persona of a gangster, flaunted the military, economic, and political power of the United States to his Iranian counterparts — the Iranian bandits — and, with a tone of contempt, emphasised: “We do what we want to do.” He warned that if the negotiations failed, Iran would face a devastating threat:

“If it requires military, we’re going to have military. Israel will obviously be very much involved in that — it’ll be the leader of that,” But he appeared to partially walk back the comment in his next breath. “But nobody leads us. We do what we want to do.”[2]

Ali Larijani, senior adviser to the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic, responded to speculation about a possible U.S. military strike with rhetoric as threatening and bandit-like as that of Donald Trump. He warned that, should such a scenario materialise, domestic public pressure could push the government towards expanding its nuclear weapons programme — a decision that, under those circumstances, might be cited as a secondary justification for pursuing atomic capability.

The belief that the West’s disagreements with Iran are solely rooted in ambiguities surrounding its nuclear programme is a naïve one. In reality, Iran — like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Israel — aspires to regional power. This ambition is not confined to the era of the Islamic bourgeoisie; a similar pursuit was also evident during the period of monarchical bourgeoisie.[3]

Had Iran not pursued regional ambitions, it might have been able to acquire nuclear weapons without facing significant opposition from the West — as evidenced by Pakistan’s case. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), signed with the world’s major powers in 2015, effectively represented a tacit acknowledgment of Iran’s claim to regional power status. However, Trump’s 2018 withdrawal from the JCPOA signalled that his administration no longer recognized such a claim.[4]

Iran has warned regional countries, including Iraq, the UAE, Qatar, and Turkey, that any cooperation with the United States in an attack on Iran will be viewed as a hostile act. In such an event, these countries would be considered potential targets for Iranian retaliation and would face a robust response from Tehran.

On the other hand, regional countries are equally reluctant to allow their territory to be used as a base for an attack on Iran. The United States’ potential objective, in collaboration with Israel, in the event of military action, would not be a full-scale war like those in Iraq or Afghanistan, but rather a series of extensive, multi-stage bombings of Iran. Due to the dispersed nature of Iran’s nuclear and military facilities, many of which are situated deep underground, this operation would need to be executed in several phases to achieve effectiveness.[5]

In this context, the United States faces significant challenges in carrying out its threats. To this end, the US has deployed B-2 bombers to the Diego Garcia base, located approximately 5,000 kilometres from Iran. Since Iran’s missiles and drones lack the range to target this base, this move is viewed as part of the US’s strategy to gain a one-sided advantage in any potential attack. In this regard, US Secretary of Defence, Pete Hegseth, stated:

“It’s a great asset … it sends a message to everybody…President Trump’s been clear … Iran should not have a nuclear bomb. We very much hope – the President is focused on doing that peacefully.”[6]

It appears that the United States is pursuing an agreement akin to the “Libyan model,” although the US negotiating team did not explicitly present all its demands during the initial meeting, instead adopting a more cautious approach. Nevertheless, Hassan Kazemi Qomi, former ambassador of the Islamic Republic to Iraq and Afghanistan and a former commander of the Quds Force, outlined America’s demands in a television programme on the Ofogh network as follows:

“The United States doesn’t just want Iran to halt its nuclear programme; it also demands the disarmament of regional resistance groups, the dissolution of post-revolutionary institutions, and the elimination of the principle of Velayat-e Faqih (Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist). Missile range must be reduced to 200 kilometres. Iran must not have two armies.”[7]

The Islamic bourgeoisie has repeatedly emphasised that it is not seeking to acquire nuclear weapons and is willing to offer full transparency on the matter. Within this framework, indirect negotiations between Iran and the United States, mediated by Oman, were held in Muscat on Saturday, 11 april. Abbas Araghchi and Steve Witkoff represented Iran and the United States, respectively. The Supreme Leader of the Islamic bourgeoisie, citing the United States’ unilateral withdrawal from the JCPOA in 2018, has opposed direct negotiations. Nevertheless, he has made it clear that he has no objection to American investment in Iran. Both China and Russia have welcomed the talks.

Iran is grappling with a severe economic crisis, and public discontent is steadily growing. On one hand, the global capitalist crisis is having harsher and more destructive effects on peripheral countries; on the other, the West’s ‘maximum pressure’ policy—led particularly by the United States—has imposed crippling sanctions, creating dire conditions for the working class and the most disadvantaged segments of society, and setting the stage for potential social unrest. As a result, the Islamic bourgeoisie’s greatest fear is not the threat of foreign war, but internal collapse and popular uprising. In such circumstances, and despite opposition within its own ranks, the Islamic bourgeoisie has been forced to engage in negotiations. Iran’s key demands in these talks are the swift lifting of sanctions and the unfreezing of billions of dollars in assets held in foreign banks.

Meanwhile, the regional influence of the Islamic Republic has visibly declined, and its affiliated proxy forces across the region are facing mounting challenges. Syria has effectively slipped from Iran’s sphere of influence. In Lebanon, Hezbollah has suffered significant losses following recent clashes with Israel, with many of its senior leaders killed. The group is now grappling with serious difficulties in securing arms and financial resources, and its influence has waned.

In Iraq, the United States is increasing pressure on the Baghdad government to disarm Iran-affiliated militia groups. The Iraqi government is working to integrate these forces into the national army, and talks are ongoing between the Iraqi Prime Minister and the leaders of these groups. Despite these developments, the Houthis still retain the capability to launch attacks on American and Israeli positions. However, in recent weeks, they have been targeted by heavy and repeated strikes from the United States, the United Kingdom, and Israel, suffering significant losses.

Following airstrikes by the United States and its allies on Houthi positions in Yemen, Senator Marco Rubio described the action as “a clear message to Iran,” asserting that the Houthi attacks would not have been possible without Tehran’s support. He and other American officials warned that if Iran continues to back the group, Tehran will be held accountable for the consequences. In response, Iran has denied any involvement in the Houthis’ military operations and condemned the American strikes. Meanwhile, in an attempt to de-escalate tensions with the United States and the West, rumours have emerged suggesting that Iran has urged the Houthis to reduce tensions, and that Iranian military advisors have recently departed Yemen.

Although Russia, China, and Iran have seemingly adopted a unified stance against U.S. policies, each country pursues its own imperialist interests, which at times conflict with one another. For Russia, a weakened Iran that remains dependent on Moscow aligns with its imperialist objectives. From Russia’s perspective, a subservient Iran serves its strategic goals, as evidenced by the telephone conversation between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin on March 18. According to a statement from the White House, the discussion covered topics such as the Middle East, preventing future conflicts, and other matters. The statement noted:

“The two leaders shared the view that Iran should never be in a position to destroy Israel.”[8]

Recently, the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Agreement between Russia and Iran was approved. This treaty establishes a legal framework for long-term cooperation between the two countries, including provisions for technical-military collaboration and military interactions. Despite this, Andrey Rudenko, Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister, stated in a speech to the Russian State Duma that the agreement is not a military alliance. He emphasised that, in the event of military tensions between Iran and the United States, Russia is not obligated to provide military assistance to Iran, adding:

“In the event of such a scenario, Russia is not obligated to provide military assistance.”[9]

Russia’s lack of support for Iran—whether in the ‘den of thieves’ (the United Nations), in Syria, or through its refusal to sell advanced military equipment—has become a significant issue for the Islamic Republic. Ali Motahari, the former Deputy Speaker of the Islamic bourgeois parliament, had previously commented on Iran and Russia’s military cooperation in the Ukraine war, stating:

“They dragged us into the Ukraine war, and the first to disclose that we had supplied drones to Russia were the Russians themselves.”[10]

One could argue that military campaigns and wars have always been a part of the history of capitalism in decline, and particularly after the collapse of the Eastern Bloc, they have become a central component of the United States’ efforts to maintain its hegemony. However, there is a fundamental difference between the current situation and the periods of the Gulf War, Afghanistan, and so on. During those times, the United States, through demagoguery and by relying on humanitarian rhetoric and the eloquence of human rights, was able to garner some support from other countries, particularly European nations, and align them behind its cause. Today, however, each of the gangsters is pursuing its own imperialist interests, and fewer people are able to speak so easily of human rights, as Israel, with direct support from the United States and the complicity of European countries, has been able to carry out a genocide in Gaza in a manner unprecedented before the eyes of the world.

Recent developments on the global stage are so evident and clear that even bourgeois media outlets have been compelled to acknowledge them. In last week’s issue, the British publication The Economist featured an image of Donald Trump on its cover with the headline “THE AGE OF CHAOS”[11] However, it seems this headline has omitted one important and crucial word. A more precise and accurate headline would read: “THE AGE OF CAPITALIST CHAOS!”

Both negotiating parties have described the first round of talks as positive. Following this, the Tehran Stock Exchange experienced an upward trend, and the national currency was somewhat strengthened. The second round of negotiations is scheduled for 19 April 2025 in Rome, the capital of Italy, although Iranian officials have stated that the next round will still take place in Muscat. In line with the objectives of the negotiations, signs of a shift in the atmosphere can also be observed in Iran. For instance, efforts have been made in universities and public spaces to temper anti-American sentiment. As an example, some anti-American slogans have recently been removed from public areas.

Even if this round of negotiations results in an agreement, it is unlikely to ease tensions in the future, as both the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran are driven by their own imperialist interests. In this context, Iran’s imperialism has played a destabilising, disruptive, and war-provoking role at the regional level, while the United States has fulfilled the same role on a global scale, continuing to do so by fuelling unrest and instability, inciting wars, and engaging in direct military interventions. By pursuing imperialist policies that inevitably lead to the escalation of military tensions, both governments have contributed significantly to global instability and will undoubtedly continue down this path in the future.

Even if an agreement is reached in this round of negotiations, the future outlook remains one of heightened tensions. As we have previously noted, any potential agreement between the United States and Russia regarding the Ukraine crisis would essentially mark a reversal of the ‘Kissinger policy’—a strategy that, in its time, helped facilitate the withdrawal of American troops from Vietnam by driving a wedge between China and the Eastern Bloc. In this context, Trump’s policy towards Iran, particularly the ‘Deal or Attack’ strategy, can also be seen as part of the broader objective of containing China and isolating Iran from Chinese influence.

Iran, with its claim to regional power, and the United States, with its assertion of global dominance, both play a central role in the emergence of new tensions, including military conflicts, and will continue to do so in the future. Both are equally unapologetic in advancing their interests through a predatory, almost gangster-like approach—one in which each portrays itself as the embodiment of absolute good, while depicting the other as the epitome of evil.

War and social tensions are not merely the result of decisions made by dictatorial, mad, and adventurous leaders like Khamenei and Trump, but a reflection of the deep and structural crisis within the capitalist system during its period of decline. In the era of capitalist decay, avoiding war is no longer possible, as capitalism has nothing to offer but destruction, violence, and the slaughter of the working class. Even if today’s warmongers reach a temporary agreement, it does not mean that peace will prevail in society; rather, it signifies that both sides have been given the opportunity to prepare for a new round of tension and conflict. In fact, they are already planning for future massacres.

Unfortunately, in both countries, the ideological poison masquerading as ‘democracy’—whether in opposition to Trump or to Khamenei—poses a serious threat to the working class. The left of capital and pro-democracy forces, by promoting radical slogans and calls, seek to draw the working class into democratic movements. However, this ‘poison of democracy’ compels workers to defend the democratic bourgeoisie and obstructs the development of an independent, conscious, and class-based struggle. In reality, the role of the working class is not to support one faction of the ruling class, but to engage in an independent struggle to advance its own class interests and goals. The working class must fight for its own class interests.

Undoubtedly, the struggle of the working class begins with defending its standard of living and everyday needs, gradually challenging bourgeois policies and structures. As this struggle progresses, the working class will gain the power to question the capitalist system and, ultimately, to dismantle it. Only the global working class, through an internationalist struggle and by overthrowing capitalism via a communist revolution, has the potential to end the vicious cycle of tensions, competition, and imperialist wars, and to pave the way for a world free from war, exploitation, and the barbarity of capitalism.

Internationalist Voice

15 April 2025

 

Notes:

[1] Reuters

[2] The Times of Israel

[3] This issue is explored in detail in the following pamphlets:

• Imperialist Tensions Between Iran and the Democratic Gangsters: Internationalist Position and Duties
• Imperialist Tensions and Agreements: Position and Internationalist Perspective

[4] For further details, please refer to the article “Escalating Imperialist Tensions: Only the Working Class Can Offer a Future.”

[5] There is speculation that the United States has developed specialised bunker-busting bombs specifically designed for an attack on Iran—bombs containing depleted uranium, which would enable them to target deep underground facilities.

[6] Reuters.

[7] America’s demands.

[8] National Post.

[9] Russian News Agency.

[10] Radio Farda.

[11] The Economist.

 

Download as PDF