Since 7 April 2026 (8 April US time), a temporary ceasefire has been in place in the Middle East war. This is despite the fact that hostilities in Lebanon continue, and the ceasefire is expected to last until around 21 April 2026. Following the announcement of the ceasefire, the three principal actors in the recent Middle East war—Israel, the United States, and Iran—each proclaimed themselves the victor. However, it can be argued that this situation reflects less a genuine military victory than a form of political success for the ruling classes on all sides of this imperialist conflict. This is not due to the military achievements claimed by these belligerent powers, but rather because the war, despite its scale, has not encountered a serious or organised response from the global working class.

In reality, the temporary ceasefire represents less a genuine halt to the war than an opportunity for the parties involved to rebuild their military capabilities and recalibrate their war policies in order to sustain imperialist conflict, both in the short term and in the future.

Meanwhile, Iranian criminals had previously stated that they would only participate in negotiations if a ceasefire were established across all fronts. At the same time, people in Lebanon believed that the ceasefire would also apply to their country and hoped to finally take a breath. However, at that very moment, Israeli forces launched a rapid and large-scale attack within ten minutes, deploying dozens of fighter jets. The scale of the bombing recalled the most intense moments since Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982, with hundreds killed in a single day and over a thousand wounded.

Meanwhile, the criminal Netanyahu declared that ‘there is no ceasefire in Lebanon’. This situation has also created problems for the Islamic bourgeoisie on multiple levels. Contrary to its stated precondition, the Iranian criminals participated in negotiations due to their own imperialist interests—a move that has even generated dissatisfaction among some of their supporters.

Hezbollah entered the war in order to relieve pressure on Tehran. The Lebanese front is now under heavy attack, while Iran is effectively in a state of temporary ceasefire, or a form of non-military confrontation. If Iran does not respond, there is a risk that it will lose credibility with its most important proxy force and expose the conditional nature of its deterrence model.

On the other hand, if Israel continues to weaken Hezbollah while Iran remains in a state of ceasefire, Iran’s influence will diminish, affecting its bargaining power in negotiations. Conversely, if Iran responds, there is a risk of the ceasefire collapsing before any gains are achieved.

On 10 April 2026, in Islamabad, Pakistan, Iran and the United States began talks following the establishment of a temporary ceasefire, which ended without any result. Prior to these negotiations, American warmongers had presented a 15-point list of demands, while Iranian warmongers had also put forward a 10-point list of demands for a potential agreement.

Mahmoud Nabavian, a Member of Parliament and a member of the expert delegation involved in the negotiations in Islamabad, identifies three factors as the reasons for the failure to reach an agreement. First, the US demand for a shared stake with Iran in the Strait of Hormuz; second, the demand for the removal of 60 per cent enriched uranium from Iran; and third, regarded as the most significant, the complete suspension of uranium enrichment in Iran for 20 years—in other words, acceptance of zero enrichment. He outlines these points as follows:

1. A demand for a shared stake with Iran in the benefits of the Strait of Hormuz.
2. A demand for the removal of 60 per cent enriched uranium from Iran.
3. A demand to strip Iran of its right to enrich uranium for 20 years.[1]

At least in Iran and Israel, there are factions that oppose the temporary ceasefire and believe that the war should continue until a decisive victory is achieved. According to Israel’s Kan TV network, citing a senior security official, Israel intends to resume the war with Iran and is awaiting Trump’s decision in order to launch renewed attacks:

“Israel wants to renew the war on Iran and awaiting a green light from Donald Trump.”[2]

The reality is that the war has not ceased on all fronts; it continues in Lebanon, while in other theatres, during the period of the ceasefire, the confrontations have taken on a non-military form, including naval blockades, cyberattacks, and other forms of tension. Moreover, the possibility of a renewed outbreak of war, whether in the short or long term, has not been ruled out. In fact, the war has not stopped but has continued in different and more dispersed forms. The ceasefire situation and the post-ceasefire regional conditions are such that Foreign Policy describes them as follows:

“The Iran Cease-Fire Has Only Divided the War. Instead of ending the fighting, the current deal has mostly managed to complicate it.”[3]

Contrary to the propaganda surrounding bourgeois pacifism, in which efforts are made from all sides to preserve the ceasefire and steer it towards a lasting peace, the reality is that the world is moving towards greater military tensions, and this ceasefire is merely an interlude in the course of imperialist wars. Military tensions are spreading across the globe, and states are, in one way or another, pursuing forms of war economy.

Contrary to the ruling class’s demagoguery, we have repeatedly emphasised and demonstrated that the conflict between the Western bourgeoisie and its regional allies and the Iranian bourgeoisie is not fundamentally related to the nuclear programme of the Islamic bourgeoisie. A clear example is Pakistan, a country that possesses nuclear weapons and whose official name is the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. This can be compared with the Islamic Republic of Iran, where Islam plays a significant role in both cases, with the difference that Iran is, in some respects, considerably more secular than Pakistan. Like Iran, Pakistan does not recognise Israel and regards it as an enemy; nevertheless, the Western bourgeoisie does not have a fundamental problem with Pakistan.

The main issue here is that the Iranian bourgeoisie claims regional power status, a claim that Pakistan does not make. This imperialist ambition to act as a regional power has a long history, dating back even to the period before 1979, when Iran was considered the West’s principal ally in the region and this role was recognised by Western powers.

Today, however, the West and its allies are unwilling to recognise the Islamic Republic’s imperialist ambitions as a regional power and prefer Iran to be reduced to a weak and compliant state. This policy can also be analysed within the framework of the Western bourgeoisie’s long-term objectives of containing China’s expanding influence and isolating Russia.

At the beginning of the Middle East war, Trump adopted a hardline stance towards Iran, using the rhetoric of ‘unconditional surrender’ and escalating his warmongering position. However, after failing to realise these threats, his tone and slogans shifted; from calls such as ‘make Iran great again’ to threats of ‘returning Iran’s civilisation to the Stone Age’. Since such a scenario could have produced extremely widespread and destabilising consequences not only in the region but also globally, this approach subsequently shifted towards the option of a naval blockade of Iran. Accordingly, the United States began its naval blockade on 13 April 2026; the consequences of this action will be examined below. In this context, the United States Central Command (CENTCOM) stated:

“The blockade will be enforced impartially against vessels of all nations entering or departing Iranian ports and coastal areas, including all Iranian ports on the Arabian Gulf and Gulf of Oman.”[4]

CENTCOM has deliberately used the term ‘Arabian Gulf’ instead of ‘Persian Gulf’ in an apparent attempt to humiliate the Islamic bourgeoisie. In response, the Islamic bourgeoisie—acting much like bandits stationed at the strategic chokepoint of the Strait of Hormuz and controlling passage through this key waterway—described the naval blockade imposed by other bandits, namely the Americans, as ‘piracy’, and warned that if the situation continues, no port will be safe. In this context, the Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters issued the following threat:

“The Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran clearly and decisively declare that the security of ports in the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman is either for all or for none. If the security of the ports of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the waters of the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman is threatened, no port in the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman will remain safe.”[5]

The reality is that Iran, due to its unique geostrategic position, has always been one of the key players in regional and, to some extent, global affairs. Situated at the crossroads between the Middle East, Central Asia, and international waterways, the country has been able to influence political and economic flows, although the intensity of this influence has varied over time.

In this context, the Strait of Hormuz holds a special place as one of the world’s most important energy transit routes; a significant proportion of the world’s oil and gas passes through it, and any disruption could have immediate consequences for global energy markets. For this reason, the ability to influence this waterway is regarded as one of the strategic tools in Iran’s regional policy.

Some Western media outlets and news networks also emphasise that the geopolitical importance of the Strait of Hormuz, compared with certain other elements of Iran’s power, can have a more direct and immediate impact on the global economy. From this perspective, some characterise this capacity as one of the key levers in imperialist policy, even more effective than the nuclear programme of the Islamic bourgeoisie:

“‘Worth more than the nuclear program’: Iran flexes its new power over Strait of Hormuz.Iran has found a weapon that allows it to ‘take the global economy hostage’ — and exposes the failure of the Trump administration’s war plan.”[6]

The Islamic bourgeoisie has produced a significant quantity of oil that has not yet been sold. This oil is stored in tankers and in areas outside the scope of the US naval blockade, with China being the main buyer. The volume of these reserves is estimated at around 160 million barrels.[7]

As a result, this situation allows the Islamic bourgeoisie, even in the event of a halt in exports from Kharg Island and the continuation of the US naval blockade, to continue selling oil until July 2026. However, it remains to be seen how effective the US naval blockade has been in practice.

At the time of writing this text, the CENTCOM commander announced that “the blockade of Iran’s ports has been fully implemented.” However, shipping data shows that at least four Iran-related vessels, including two ships that had previously called at Iranian ports, passed through the Strait of Hormuz on the second day of the blockade. It is still not entirely clear whether factors such as a lack of adequate preparedness or disruptions to vessel tracking systems played a role in this situation, or whether the United States is in fact facing limitations in implementing a full naval blockade.

Should the naval blockade of Iran by the United States become more severe, it is possible that the Islamic bourgeoisie would directly, or through its proxy forces, attempt to close the Bab el-Mandeb Strait. Such an action could not only add a new layer of pressure on the global shipping industry but also deal a serious blow to the global economy. For example, there are reports indicating that the Bush task group has chosen a longer route to reach the Middle East—namely, circumnavigating the African continent—in order to avoid the risk of missile attacks by Yemen’s Ansar Allah movement.

The Islamic bourgeoisie has estimated that, during the course of the United States and Israel’s attacks on Iran, at least $270 billion in damages were inflicted. On this basis, the ambassador of the Islamic bourgeoisie to the den of thieves (the United Nations) sent a letter to the Secretary-General of the den of thieves, requesting that the issue of the responsibility of certain regional countries, including Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Qatar, be examined. The letter claims that these countries, through certain actions in breach of their international obligations towards the Islamic Republic of Iran, have committed internationally wrongful acts, and that their international responsibility has therefore been engaged. On this basis, it is requested that these countries provide full reparation for the damages inflicted upon the Islamic Republic of Iran, including payment of compensation for all material and moral losses resulting from their internationally wrongful acts.

One undeniable reality is that after the end of the war, conditions in the Middle East—and particularly in the countries bordering the Gulf—will no longer be the same as before. Iranian warmongers, in the days leading up to the temporary ceasefire, wrote phrases such as “Dear, when America leaves, it’s just us and you” on missiles fired towards Gulf states. The messages inscribed on the missiles not only indicated the continuation of war but also outlined a vision of the future from a bourgeois perspective.

The consequences of this war, extending beyond a temporary confrontation, will affect the geopolitical configuration of the region and, in particular, alter the position of the Gulf states and the balance of power. These countries, despite spending trillions of dollars on purchasing military equipment and hosting numerous American, French, and British bases, have been unable to secure their own safety through these means. On the contrary, these very weapons and bases have become targets during the war, exposing the vulnerability of the existing power structure, to the extent that they are now even facing the risk of compensation claims being raised by forces of the Islamic bourgeoisie.

In this context, what becomes increasingly evident is the weakening position of the United States—a process that has been further intensified by the Middle East war.

In such circumstances, the relative stability previously attributed to the Gulf states has become increasingly fragile. Tensions are no longer confined to the level of proxy warfare; rather, these countries have become directly involved and have suffered serious damage not only in economic and infrastructural terms, but also in political, security, and social terms.

As a result, the threat emanating from the Islamic bourgeoisie will weigh over these countries like a persistent nightmare—an indication of the deepening crisis within the broader regional and global capitalist order.

Will the temporary ceasefire be sustained? The answer lies not in the will or belligerence of the leaders of the United States, Israel, and Iran, but in the material conditions that gave rise to this imperialist confrontation. These underlying conditions have not disappeared with the outbreak of war; on the contrary, they have become more complex and acute over its course.

In Iran, a section of the ruling apparatus of the Islamic bourgeoisie is dissatisfied with the ceasefire, as it believes it has failed to decisively “punish” the United States and Israel. Although this bourgeoisie has been weakened under current conditions, it continues to pursue its regional ambitions and has, at the same time, managed to inflict significant blows on the interests of the United States, Israel, and their allies in the Gulf states.

As a result, the Islamic bourgeoisie is now seeking to rebuild and strengthen its regional position—a process that is likely to be accompanied by renewed tensions.

A ceasefire between warmongers cannot lead to lasting peace, because within the framework of the capitalist system, the material conditions necessary for such peace do not exist. The issue is not merely confined to the belligerence of certain political leaders; rather, it is the internal logic of capitalism that drives them towards war. In this context, war is no longer an exception but has become a means of sustaining capitalism, particularly in its period of decline. As such, ceasefires that emerge within such an order amount to nothing more than temporary pauses on the path to further wars.

Wars in the Middle East reflect the barbarism of capitalism, and their consequences, due to the global nature of this system, affect the entire capitalist world. Ultimately, these wars are waged against the working class: whether in Iran and Israel, or in Europe and the United States. The working class in the Middle East pays the price of these wars with its lives, while in other parts of the world it also faces consequences such as mass unemployment and declining living standards through war-driven economies and the resulting austerity policies.

In such circumstances, the task of internationalist communists, particularly the communist left, is to firmly defend proletarian internationalism and consistently expose the imperialist nature of these wars.This position requires the rejection of any alignment with bourgeois camps and an emphasis on the class independence of the proletariat.

In this context, it is also essential to expose the nature of bourgeois democracy: how this form of rule, through the rhetoric of “defending democratic institutions”, calls upon the working class to sacrifice itself in defence of democracy, while in reality such sacrifice serves the reproduction of capitalist relations and the continuation of bourgeois class domination.

Only the working class can, as a social force, genuinely challenge the warmongering policies of bourgeois states. There are no shortcuts. Workers in all countries must draw on the historical memory of their struggles and advance their fight on the basis of their class interests and objectives, on an independent class terrain.

Within these struggles, raising the level of organisation through forms such as general assemblies, factory committees, and local committees is essential. It is only through such processes of self-organisation and independent struggle that the working class can challenge not only warmongering policies, but also the very states that pursue war.

From this perspective, genuine peace is only possible when the global working class is able to transform capitalist wars into a war against capitalism itself and to extend the class struggle beyond national borders. Any class struggle, however powerful or widespread, if confined within a single country, is ultimately doomed to failure. Therefore, ending wars and achieving lasting peace for humanity is only possible through the overthrow of capitalism on a global scale, a goal whose realisation depends on a world proletarian revolution.

Workers have no country!

Down with the imperialist war!

Long live the war between the classes!

 

Internationalist Voice

15 April 2026

 

Notes:

[1] Tabnak.

[2] Kan News.

[3] Foreign Policy.

[4] U.S. CENTCOM press release.

[5] Irna.

^{[6] MS Now.}

[7] The Wall Street Journal.

 

Download as PDF