The War Criminals’ Ceasefire: Just an Interlude in the Imperialist War

by Admin

With the announcement of a ceasefire on the morning of 24 June 2025, the three main actors in the recent war in the Middle East — Israel, the United States, and Iran — each claimed victory. That evening, the Islamic Republic held a celebratory rally in Tehran’s Revolution Square to showcase this ‘victory’, with the commander of the Quds Force in attendance. One could argue that this situation amounted to a kind of victory for the ruling classes of all the main parties involved — not due to any military gains, but because this imperialist war was not met with a serious response from the global working class. In effect, the war criminals agreed to a ceasefire in order to rebuild their military capacities and recalibrate their war strategies for the continuation of imperialist conflict.

Despite the surrounding bourgeois rhetoric about peace, the evidence suggests that the world is heading towards increased military tensions — and that this ceasefire is nothing more than an interlude in the broader trajectory of imperialist wars. To ensure that this assessment does not remain a mere abstract assertion, what follows is a more detailed analysis of events, grounded in concrete developments.

Contrary to the demagoguery of the ruling class, we have repeatedly emphasised and demonstrated that the conflict between the Western bourgeoisie and its regional allies, on the one hand, and the Iranian bourgeoisie, on the other, has nothing to do with the nuclear programme. The real issue is that the Iranian bourgeoisie harbours ambitions of becoming a regional power — an aspiration it has long pursued, even during the period before 1979, when Iran was regarded as the West’s principal ally in the region. At that time, Western powers openly acknowledged and accepted Iran’s imperialist ambitions.

Today, however, the West and its allies are no longer willing to recognise the Islamic Republic’s imperialist ambitions as those of a regional power. They prefer Iran to remain a weak and compliant state. This policy can also be understood within the broader, long-term objectives of the Western bourgeoisie: namely, containing the expanding influence of China and isolating Russia. In this context, barely a week after the outbreak of war between Iran and Israel — on 19 June 2025— French President Emmanuel Macron outlined his country’s demands, which extend beyond Iran’s nuclear programme. He called for Iran’s return to the negotiating table and claimed that France, Germany, and the United Kingdom had presented the Iranian regime with four key points aimed at reaching a diplomatic solution, as follows:

The first would foresee a resumption of work by the UN atomic agency, with the capacity to go to all the sites, so that Iran moves to zero enrichment of uranium.
The second aspect would comprise oversight of Iran’s ballistics activities
The third aspect how it finances proxies in the region.
The fourth would be the release of jailed foreigners.[1]

Israel, owing to its superiority in air power as well as its intelligence and security capabilities—bolstered by the comprehensive support of Western countries and their allies—has consistently favoured swift, lightning-fast warfare. The objective is to incapacitate the opposing side before it has a chance to mount an effective response, thereby ensuring Israel’s victory. Israel’s strengths are precisely where Iran’s weaknesses lie. This becomes even more apparent when one considers that Iran’s landmass is approximately 75 times larger than that of Israel.

Israel’s small geographical size makes the defence of its airspace easier for itself and its allies. However, this very spatial limitation can also become a vulnerability. In other words, Iran was able to target a relatively confined area with its missiles and drones. The presence of advanced warning systems, shelters, and Israel’s relative preparedness to respond to such attacks meant that the country’s human casualties remained very limited. In fact, the total number of people killed in Israel was only slightly higher than the number of children killed in Iran, or roughly equivalent to half the number of women killed there.

Nevertheless, the destruction caused by Iran’s attacks in Israel was significant. The myth of an “impregnable fortress” was shattered—this was a fortress protected by some of the world’s most advanced nations, including Israel, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and others, using cutting-edge technologies ranging from satellites and advanced radar systems to defence systems such as Patriot, Iron Dome, David’s Sling, and more. Although the number of Israeli casualties during Egypt’s aerial attacks in 1948 was higher than in the recent conflict, this was the first time in Israel’s history that areas of Tel Aviv and Haifa experienced scenes reminiscent of Gaza. In this regard, Douglas Macgregor, former adviser to the US Department of Defence, stated:

“Don’t be fooled, Israel is in worse shape than people think. Approximately one-third of Tel Aviv has been damaged or destroyed. As far as their military installations are concerned, I’m told many Israeli aircrafts are being flown to Cyprus to avoid being struck. Israel was not prepared for Iran’s response.”[2]

Trump also, in an interview on the sidelines of the NATO summit, effectively confirmed the account given by Douglas Macgregor, former adviser to the US Department of Defence:

“Israel was hit really hard, especially in the last couple of days. Those ballistic missiles, oh boy, they took out a lot of buildings.”[3]

Israel’s war with Iran was costing the country approximately one billion dollars per day. As previously mentioned, Israel has always favoured short-term conflicts, and entering into a prolonged war of attrition at the state level reduces its ability to secure victory. Israel could not sustain such a situation for long; completing its military operations against Iran required not only the full support of Western countries and regional allies, but also the direct involvement of the United States, which appeared essential for achieving Israel’s strategic objectives. This was particularly relevant given that only the United States possesses the specialised bunker-buster bombs which, according to recent revelations, were originally designed and produced specifically to target the Fordow facility.

Nevertheless, Trump launched his election campaign with the slogan “No New Wars” and promised that his priority would be American interests — a position that placed entering a new conflict in direct contradiction with his campaign rhetoric, particularly given his personal aspiration to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. Pakistan had even recently nominated him for the prize due to his role in de-escalating military tensions between Pakistan and India. However, a senior Ukrainian lawmaker who had previously nominated him has since withdrawn the nomination.

“Donald Trump Nobel Peace Prize Nomination Withdrawn”.[4]

Trump initially intensified his hawkish stance by using the rhetoric of “unconditional surrender” from Iran, and subsequently called for the complete evacuation of Tehran by all its residents. He was well aware that this demand was, in essence, part of a psychological warfare strategy, as in practice, evacuating a capital city like Tehran — even without taking its suburbs into account, which bring the population to around 10 million — is simply impossible to carry out with a single order[5]. On this matter, Trump stated:

“Iran should have signed the ’deal’ I told them to sign. What a shame, and waste of human life. Simply stated, Iran can not have a nuclear weapon. I said it over and over again! Everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran.”[6]

Although the Vice President and the Defence Secretary in Trump’s administration emphasised that their aim was not regime change in Iran but rather to end the country’s nuclear programme, Trump, on the very afternoon that the US bombed Iran, made the following statement as part of psychological warfare:

“It’s not politically correct to use the term, “Regime Change,” but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn’t there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!”[7]

Did the criminal Trump, by forcing the evacuation of Tehran and bombing various parts of the country, intend to restore greatness to Iran? It is not Trump who has lost his balance and makes strange remarks moment by moment, but rather the capitalist system that has spiralled out of control. Trump’s instability as the president of the world’s largest economy and military power reflects the crisis-ridden condition of capitalism. By the way, what became of the slogan “Make Iran Great Again”? Is Trump still pursuing that goal? Has America ever truly “made great again” Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, or any other countries before?

Before continuing, another important reality must be acknowledged: During the war in Ukraine, European countries rallied behind the United States. However, with Trump’s return to power, a deep rift emerged between the US and Europe. With the outbreak of war between Israel and Iran, European nations once again — albeit temporarily — aligned themselves with the United States. The remarks made by the German Chancellor, which in fact reflected the broader position of the European bourgeoisie, clearly illustrate this situation:

“This is dirty work that Israel is doing for all of us.”[8]

Other European politicians echoed the same stance, although there is no need to name them all. The peak of this approach came after the US attack on Iran, when Mark Rutte, the Secretary General of NATO, sent a message of congratulations and thanks to Trump — a gesture marked by repugnant sycophancy. Trump, in turn, made the message public.

Following the bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities, the Islamic Republic lodged a complaint with the den of thieves (the United Nations). The emergency session of the Security Council, convened at Iran’s request, ended without the adoption of any resolution. Within the American ruling class, opposition to U.S. involvement in the war was voiced not only by Democrats but also by a number of Republicans. However, this opposition did not result in any serious division within Republican ranks. Iran had no desire for the United States to enter the war, but once America became involved, it found itself confronted with a fait accompli. As a result, Iranian officials continued issuing threats against the United States, despite being fully aware that they were now caught in a difficult position. One Iranian military officer addressed Trump in English, saying:

“Mr Trump, the gambler, you may start this war, but we will be the ones to end it.”

Following the U.S. attack and in an effort to escalate tensions, the Islamic bourgeois parliament reviewed a proposal to close the Strait of Hormuz and referred it to the Supreme National Security Council for a final decision.

“The Islamic Consultative Assembly has reached the conclusion to close the Strait of Hormuz; however, the final decision on this matter lies with the Supreme National Security Council.”[9]

Closing the Strait of Hormuz could have had far-reaching consequences for the global economy and would undoubtedly have escalated the war to a much more severe stage. If the Islamic bourgeoisie ever faces an existential threat, it will almost certainly resort to such a measure in the final stages. Even the mere threat of closing the Strait led to a relative increase in oil prices. In response, Trump warned that oil prices must be kept low:

“EVERYONE, KEEP OIL PRICES DOWN. I’M WATCHING! YOU’RE PLAYING RIGHT INTO THE HANDS OF THE ENEMY. DON’T DO IT!”[10]

Iran was compelled to respond to the United States, even if only symbolically, especially as it was under internal pressure. Before the operation, Iran informed Qatari officials of the impending attack, and the base was evacuated prior to the strike. Subsequently, Iran launched Operation “Glad Tidings of Victory,” targeting the empty American Al-Udeid base in Qatar with a missile attack. Following this symbolic strike, Trump informed the Emir of Qatar that Israel had agreed to a ceasefire and requested him to mediate in order to secure Tehran’s approval. In response, Qatar contacted Iranian officials and succeeded in obtaining Tehran’s agreement to establish a ceasefire between Iran and Israel.

Trump appreciated Iran’s symbolic response and regarded it as a positive step towards de-escalation. He congratulated the world and declared that the time for peace had arrived:

“Congratulations to the world, it’s time for peace. I would like to thank the esteemed Emir of Qatar for all his efforts to achieve peace in the region. Iran has officially responded to our Obliteration of their Nuclear Facilities with a very weak response, which we expected, and have very effectively countered. There have been 14 missiles fired — 13 were knocked down, and 1 was “set free,” because it was headed in a nonthreatening direction. I am pleased to report that NO Americans were harmed, and hardly any damage was done. Most importantly, they’ve gotten it all out of their “system,” and there will, hopefully, be no further HATE. I want to thank Iran for giving us early notice, which made it possible for no lives to be lost, and nobody to be injured. Perhaps Iran can now move forward towards peace and harmony in the region, and I would enthusiastically encourage Israel to do the same.”[11]

Once again, Trump the warmonger appeared as a peacemaker and demagogically claimed that a war which could have lasted for years and destroyed the Middle East had now ended in peace. At the same time, he congratulated both Israel and Iran for their courage and resilience during the 12-day war:

“During each CEASEFIRE, the other side will remain PEACEFUL and RESPECTFUL. On the assumption that everything works as it should, which it will, I would like to congratulate both Countries, Israel and Iran, on having the Stamina, Courage, and Intelligence to end, what should be called, “THE 12 DAY WAR.” This is a War that could have gone on for years, and destroyed the entire Middle East, but it didn’t, and never will!”[12]

Following the bombing of Iran’s nuclear sites, and based on a leaked Pentagon document, CNN and The New York Times—citing initial intelligence assessments—reported that the US strike on Iran likely did not destroy the country’s nuclear programme but merely delayed it by a few months. In response to these reports, Trump wrote:

“FAKE NEWS CNN, TOGETHER WITH THE FAILING NEW YORK TIMES, HAVE TEAMED UP IN AN ATTEMPT TO DEMEAN ONE OF THE MOST SUCCESSFUL MILITARY STRIKES IN HISTORY.”[13]

Indeed, Iran also confirmed that its nuclear facilities had sustained severe damage, although it remains unclear whether this statement was made to deter potential further attacks or if the facilities had in fact suffered serious damage.

Following the announcement of the ceasefire, Western democracies, on the one hand, rearmed Israel to ensure it did not face a shortage of military resources, and on the other, increased pressure on the Islamic bourgeoisie. It appears that the United States is attempting to draw the Islamic Republic back to the negotiating table by partially easing sanctions—just a very small amount. The primary aim of these negotiations is for the Western gangsters to persuade the Islamic bourgeoisie to abandon its imperialist ambitions.

France has reiterated its previous demands and called for immediate negotiations to realise them. Pat McFadden, Minister for the Cabinet Office in the UK, also stated that Iran must enter negotiations with a credible plan demonstrating that it is not seeking to develop nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran has announced that, while assessing the damage sustained at its nuclear facilities, it has taken the necessary measures and is evaluating the extent of the harm to prevent any disruption to the progress of the nuclear industry.

“We have planned to ensure that no disruption occurs in the progress of the nuclear industry.”[14]

The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Rafael Grossi, has called for the return of the agency’s inspectors to Iran’s nuclear sites to conduct inspections and audit uranium stockpiles. He emphasised that resuming negotiations is a priority and that inspectors must be granted access to Iran’s nuclear facilities, including approximately 400 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 percent. This request also aims to assess the impact of the US and Israeli military strikes on the nuclear sites.

In contrast, the Islamic bourgeoisie believes that the Agency has failed to protect Iran’s nuclear facilities from attacks and is suspicious of the Agency’s potential role in intelligence cooperation with Western countries. Accordingly, the Islamic bourgeoisie’s parliament had previously approved a bill obliging the government to suspend cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, which was also ratified by the Guardian Council on 26 June, thereby compelling the government to suspend its collaboration with the Agency. Meanwhile, some voices within the ruling Islamic bourgeoisie have called for Iran’s withdrawal from the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), arguing that this membership has not only been of no benefit to Iran but has also resulted in restrictions and harm.

After examining various aspects of the recent developments in the Middle East, we now return to the main question: Will the ceasefire between Iran and Israel—and more broadly, in the Middle East—hold? Within Iran, a faction of the Islamic Republic’s ruling establishment is dissatisfied with the outcome of the recent war, believing they have failed to decisively ‘punish’ Israel. This dissatisfaction also extends to the US attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Although the Islamic bourgeoisie is currently significantly weakened, it still maintains its ambitions and seeks to restore its regional position—a process that will undoubtedly be marked by ongoing tension.

On the other hand, Israel, the only nuclear power in the Middle East, has explicitly stated that it reserves the right to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, Revolutionary Guard bases, and other targets whenever it feels threatened in order to ensure its security. In other words, Israel will carry out bombings without hesitation whenever it deems necessary. In this context, General Amir Baram, Director-General of the Israeli Ministry of Defence, stated on 26 June:

“We are approaching the next conflict with Iran, and Israel must maintain its considerable technological superiority.”[15]

Apparently, Israel, with the support of Western gangsters, has established a sort of “air highway” across the skies of Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq to advance its imperialist objectives. Jordan is also, in practice, serving Israel’s interests along this route. Israel is continuously striving to remove any potential obstacles in the path of this air corridor. In this context, on 24 June 2025, the Iraqi army announced that several small drones, which had penetrated sensitive targets, caused significant damage to two of the country’s radar systems. Sabah Numan, spokesperson for the Iraqi army, stated in an official statement:

“Two army radar systems that have been severely damaged are located at Taji Camp, north of Baghdad, and at the Imam Ali base in Dhi Qar province, southern Iraq.”[16]

The new circumstances will likely push Iran even closer to China; this undoubtedly aligns with China’s strategic interests as well. Ming Jinwei, a former journalist for China’s official news agency Xinhua, wrote in an analytical note that Iran must accept the reality that, to counter increasing military threats — especially from the US and Israel—it requires comprehensive strategic cooperation with China. He emphasised that the Islamic Republic must fully rely on China’s military modernisation to establish an effective air defence system and develop a reliable capability for retaliatory strikes. According to Jinwei, only through technology transfer, military training, and the acquisition of advanced equipment from China can Iran achieve a meaningful level of deterrence. This analysis comes amid rising regional tensions and the evident weaknesses of Iran’s air defence systems against recent attacks. In this context, on 25 June 2025, Iran’s Minister of Defence led a military delegation to Beijing to attend the meeting of Defence Ministers of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation member states.

A ceasefire among warmongers cannot lead to lasting peace because, within the framework of capitalism, the material basis necessary for achieving sustainable peace does not exist. The issue is not merely the warmongering nature of certain political leaders, but the very internal logic of capitalism that drives leaders towards war. This reality is clearly evident in recent NATO decisions: at the Hague summit, member countries agreed to increase their military budgets from 2 percent to 5 percent of GDP by 2035. The weapons to be produced with this enormous budget are not designed for storage, but for use; otherwise, from a capitalist perspective, they would lack ‘use value’. And this use is nothing other than war by its very nature.

War is no longer an exception but has become a means for the continuation of capitalism’s existence in its period of decline. Therefore, ceasefires that occur within such a system are nothing more than temporary pauses on the path to another war. The wars in the Middle East reflect the brutality of capitalism, and their consequences are by no means confined to the region, as capitalism is a global system. Ultimately, all these wars are waged against the working class — whether in Iran, Israel, Europe, or America. Under such circumstances, the duty of internationalist communists is to defend proletarian internationalism and to relentlessly expose the imperialist nature of these wars.

Only the working class can, as a social force, challenge the warmongering policies of bourgeois governments. During the heroic and widespread strikes in late 1978 and early 1979 in Iran’s oil industry, it was the working class that declared it would halt oil exports to South Africa and Israel. After exports to South Africa were cut off, that country was forced to implement an energy rationing programme. The cessation of oil exports to Israel also caused a widespread crisis, as at that time Iran supplied more than half of Israel’s oil needs, creating serious concerns for that regime.

As expected, the current wartime atmosphere and imperialist conflict have temporarily impacted the Iranian working class. Since the outbreak of the war, worker protests and strikes have subsided; several workers have lost their lives, and many others have become unemployed. Unfortunately, the Israeli working class has also been positioned behind the warmongers’ front line, to the extent that even the popularity of war criminals such as Netanyahu has increased following the conflict with Iran.

There are no shortcuts. Workers in all countries must draw on their historical memory and advance the struggle based on their class interests and objectives, on their own class terrain. Throughout these struggles, it is necessary to raise the level of organisation and resistance through the establishment of general assemblies, factory committees, and local committees. Only through such a struggle can the working class, as in 1978–79, challenge the warmongering policies and war-mongering governments.

True peace is only possible when the global working class transforms capitalism’s wars into a war against capitalism itself and extends class struggles beyond national borders. Any class struggle, no matter how powerful or widespread, if confined within the borders of a single country, is ultimately doomed to fail. Only by overthrowing capitalism on a global scale can wars be ended and lasting peace for humanity achieved. This goal can only be realised through a global revolution.

Workers have no country!

Down with the imperialist war!

Long live the war between the classes!

Intransigeant defence of internationalism everywhere!

Internationalist Voice

27 June 2025

Notes:

[5] The fact that some of the most foolish criminals are at the helm of the world’s most advanced countries is a reflection of the current state of capitalism. Here, we mention just two examples. Donald Trump’s absurd remarks closely resemble those made by Annalena Baerbock, Germany’s Foreign Minister, during the 2023 Munich Security Conference. In response to the question of whether Ukraine would be secure in the long term if Vladimir Putin remained in power, she replied: “If he doesn’t change 360 degrees, then no.” A statement that is, of course, contradictory—since a 360-degree change implies returning to the starting point. Returning to the issue of evacuating Tehran: the city has roughly 60 exit routes. Assuming an average of four people per car evacuating the city, about 2.5 million vehicles would be required. Considering an average car length of 4 metres, this would demand a total of 10 million metres of road. If each exit route consists of two lanes, this would mean over 83 kilometres of traffic at each exit.