by Salmon Shelter
The United States-Israeli aggression towards Iran has entered its second week, yet there are numerous analyses about what led the US to start this illegal war. Here we will examine two different theories about what is happening.
The first suggests that due to a variety of influences, the US was led into the war unaware of, or unconcerned with, the negative outcomes. The reasoning being that despite the blowback, certain elements of the global capitalist class would prosper, particularly those aligned with arms production or those affiliated with Israel, who would stand to gain if both Iran and the US came away from the region heavily weakened.
The second theory suggests that US strategists were mostly well-aware of the internal ramifications the war would have, but saw it as a fast fading opportunity to re-exert pressure on West Asia and then through it onto its ascendant peer-competitor, China. In this framing, rather than exerting pressure, Israel is pressured into becoming just another geographical flak jacket for the US to wear in the region as it advances eastward.
However, because of the geographical and economic entanglements of the countries involved in the war, time is on the side of the IRI and the AoR and ultimately the enemy of the US, Israel and the Gulf Arab States.
All of the countries involved in the war besides the US, Iran, and Iraq, are very small. Gulf Arab states are completely dependent on export of energy resources and import of food, particularly through the Strait of Hormuz, which has now closed due to the war. This closure also dramatically influences the world economy through limiting oil flows and inflating its price, causing cascading inflationary effects. At time of writing the price of oil has effectively doubled from before the beginning of the war, rising to over $120 per barrel. It’s also important to note that oil by-products have a wide range of uses, such as technology production, building and agriculture – this is not simply a fuel crisis.
US and Israel’s military structure also relies on very expensive equipment. Only one day of war costs the US more than one billion dollars in military expenditure. More importantly, the aforementioned Gulf States are among the main investors in the US AI and other industries, as their economies face significant crises due to restricted imports and exports, capital flow and investment into US industries also slow. The more the war goes on, the more the whole imperialist bloc loses.
From the above, it is clear that the imperialist bloc wants to finish the conflict, that is at least achieving their stated goals, as soon as possible. On the other hand, Iran seeks to endure the war as long as possible. Now let’s have a look at conditions that need to be met for the imperialist bloc to fulfill their stated goal. Not only do they need to know where that 400kg of highly enriched uranium and Iran’s missiles are. And they need to get to those places and take the uranium or destroy the missiles. There’s no evidence of them knowing the place or places of the enriched uranium. And almost certainly they do not know the location of all the missiles simply because there are so many of them spread all over the vast geography of Iran, with many hidden in Iran’s numerous ‘underground cities’ and military bases.
Even under the assumption that the US knows the location of the enriched uranium and many of the underground cities – what is their best bet to get there? There’s speculation about sending ground units alongside special forces to operate and evacuate quickly. Supposing that the US commits to this option, despite the numerous difficulties imposed by Iran’s varied terrain and decentralised military intelligence operations, Iran has made further efforts to conceal or even destroy entrances to these facilities.
With all this in mind, this theoretical special forces operation would need to be well-informed of various decentralised military apparatuses and bases, well-manned and widespread in order to hit all of the sites, well-equipped in order to penetrate any Iranian military defenses and concealments, and more than anything, quick, as we’ve recognised time is not on the side of the imperialists.
Therefore, the ‘minimalist option’ of quick operation and quick exit is not an option. For them to be able to fulfill their goal, the IRI would need to be destabilized enough to lose control over at least the western and central regions, or collapse as a whole.
This means that the message Trump began the war with was absolute nonsense. Trump’s plan was to destroy Iran’s missile capacity, and once that was achieved seek to change its regime. In fact, for them to do what they’ve come for, the IRI would need to collapse first. And like during the 12-day war, they’re relying on an internal uprising to help them get what they want.
Now let’s consider the chances of the IRI and the AoR holding on and exerting pressure on the Gulf countries,while facing imperialist aggression over a long period of time. The revolutionary guard (IRGC) has been practicing for this scenario for about 20 years. Their cadres as well as those of the Iraqi Islamic Resistance, Hezbollah, and Ansar Allah have rehearsed organizing de-centralized military operations in Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen for decades. And this is of course particularly true in Iran – these resistance groups belong to their respective countries, they know their own geography. Iraqi fighters have fought the US troops on ground for years in Iraq. Hezbollah has been contending with Israeli attacks and bombardments non-stop. And just last year, Yemeni fighters turned away US aggression and claimed victory in the Red Sea.
Relative to the military technological capacity available to a country that spends 1.5 Trillion USD on its military, as compared to the Iranian 10 Billion, these small groups by necessity operate much cheaper drones and missiles in their area of responsibility. Iran in particular has a massive stock of drones and a good number of missiles. But more importantly, these various weapons are indigenously produced. While states like Russia, China, or the DPRK have offered and given Iran various forms of military support over the years, one of Iran’s greatest projects has been to foster the growth of an incredibly effective domestic military arms development and production sphere. A truly sovereign military. Therefore, materially the IRI and IRGC can sustain for a long time if they want to. But are they willing to? In other words, do they have the motivation to resist under the tough conditions?
Most likely they do. One reason is in fact because of the assasination of Khamenei and the energy his martyrdom has created for the hardline IRI supporters. The second, and perhaps more important reason, is the sense of ownership they have towards Iran. The IRI and its supporters have shaped the country for decades based on their beliefs and desires. This gives them a sense of ownership and belonging – and they’ll fight for a country that they belong to, and belongs to them. What about the rest of the population who are not necessarily hardline IRI supporters? Would they start an uprising against the IRI? Most likely not. As the war unfolds, Iran’s cities become more and more damaged with various organisations reporting up to 10,000 domestic spaces have been destroyed. The US weapon stock is running low and many observers have stated that they’ve started using less precise munitions as the war as progressed. Though the US was clearly unconcerned with collateral damage or civilian targets from the start, notably instigating the war with a series of strikes, one of which killed an estimated 170 schoolchildren at an Iranian girls school. Besides domestic apartments and abodes, historical buildings, hospitals, famous squares and now oil depots and desalination plants have been destroyed only little over a week into the war. The more the country gets saturated by war, the more people hear explosions loud in their ears, the more their cities are covered in fire, smoke, and oil, more their ‘setting’ shifts to focusing on their survival.
In such a situation, even critics of the government are likely to align themselves in support of it. Street agitation against economic crises, perceived authoritarianism or repressive legislation becomes relatively unimportant in the context of an imperial country happy to commit war crimes on your country. In many cases, supporters of the government have proven themselves incredibly resolute, holding rallies and demonstrations, or leading prayers, even as US missiles fall nearby.
Therefore, the more the war goes on, the less is the likelihood of popular uprising. Even if such uprisings happen, the IR supporters have more resources and stronger will to smash the protesters than the protesters fighting against them.
In lack of any uprising, the only remaining way to attempt to meet the stated goals is, rather than a ‘minimalist’ limited special operation, ‘maximalist’ large-scale ‘boots on the ground’. This option is very unlikely as only 20% of the Americans agree with the war, as opposed to 60% for invading Iraq, and the result of 20 years of boots on the ground in the region is an Iran-aligned Shia government in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan. And both the US and Saudi Arabia certainly spent much more than the IRI on their proxies and allies in the region. Moreover, if there’s any rationality among the European leaders, they should beg the US to not attempt further escalation, particularly a full-scale invasion of Iran. Because while Israel and the US have been the sole beneficiaries of the decades of war in West Asia, the EU has suffered continuous losses to its political prestige as well as significant economic decline, particularly following the war on Ukraine and the destruction of the Nordstream. Further weakening of the European energy market in particular could prove disastrous.
For all of these reasons, if the first theory about how this act of aggression started is correct, then the Trump administration has made a huge mistake taking the military path with Iran. They are not going to accomplish any of their goals. Iran is going to suffer a lot, and although it will be weaker than before, the IRI can sustain the war.
But the US position in the region is going to be significantly weaker as well. Their grip on Iraq is looser than ever. The Gulf countries have learnt their lesson that giving military camps to the US not only does not keep them safe, but also increases their risk. They realize that while it is their petro dollars that pump the US economy, when it comes to defense against missiles, Israel receives all of the resources – though it seems even they will find this defense inadequate – and the rest of the states that are supposedly US allies come in a distant second place. They’ll diversify their security agreements and will work towards more regional cooperation. This means less US influence in the region.
However, according to the second theory, things are not what they appear. This war is not a war against Iran that the US was dragged into by Israel, but it’s a war the US has started deliberately, with the intention to contain China. Israel is just taking the blame for it. In this view, it’s not Israel that dictates to the corrupted US politicians what to do, but the other way around. Israel is just part of the empire and it plays its role accordingly. According to this theory, despite all of the odds mentioned in the first theory, the US is taking this risky path to attempt its last chance to contain China before China surpasses them completely.
Proponents of this view argue: the US is planning for a long blockade of the Strait of Hormuz to impact China. Of course, its Gulf Arab allies, the EU, Japan, and South Korea and the US population are going to suffer perhaps more than China, but once China is contained, all of the harm can be fixed in time. Apparently, China has about 100 days of oil reserves and about 40% of its economy still relies on oil coming from West Asia. Of course, South Korea and Japan are 75% and 90% dependent on this resource, but who cares about them and the EU? The point is that the US wants to create a situation like WW2 where everyone suffers except them because they are not relying on external sources of energy.
In this scenario, what happens to Iran is more of a secondary matter, the first goal is harming China by keeping the Strait of Hormuz closed as long as possible. If the IRI cannot endure the war and surrenders, then the US would be able to exert full control over the flow of oil and therefore of energy, and can enforce its dollar as the currency and by doing so retain its ‘exorbitant privilege’. This in midterm would cover some of the expenses of this expensive war. If the IRI theoretically survived the war, under this strategy it would only be ruling a ruined country with minimal infrastructure and would therefore ‘remain defeated’ for decades especially when China is tamed.
This theory depends on the fact that the US does not produce much anymore but rather maintains its dominance through control of energy resources to enforce the usage of the US dollar as the world currency. This gives it the ability to afford the costs and damages caused by this war, whilst China as a country that relies on production for economic growth, does not have such advantages. China will become unable to overtake the US and then become further encircled militarily once the US finishes its job with Iran. It’s likely too early to judge which of these two theories explain this act of aggression more correctly. Evidence supporting the first theory is that Trump’s administration does not seem very organized or clear about what they’re doing, and that Saudi Arabia is still able to sell oil through the Red Sea much of which goes to China, South Korea, Japan, and India. Though of course it remains to be seen whether an intervention by Yemen may close this shipping route. Moreover, as Russia is the main provider of oil for China, along with supply from Saudi Arabia, it seems that China should be capable of handling the closure of the strait of Hormuz.
Evidence supporting the second view is that Iran is currently trying to close the Strait of Hormuz in the strictest sense; but they are undertaking what they call a ‘smart management’ of traffic. This means that they have pledged to allow supply for their allies including China to continue. Despite this, however, nothing is passing through the Strait right now.
This suggests that the US and its allies are at least presenting as though the restriction of oil supply from the strait is a storm they can weather. If we accept the war as a situation in which the destruction of some capital is unavoidable and what instead needs to be preserved is the relative accumulation of capital in the Global North, this may prove true, and the impending crises may provide the opportunity for a capitalist reconsolidation.
Other evidence is that President Pezeshkian, the effective interim leader of Iran, issued a video apologizing to the neighboring countries for Iranian attack on their non-military targets. A move that was likely orchestrated behind the scene with the Arab leaders to initiate de-escalation of the war, but it was met with more aggression from Trump’s administration.
The new announcement of Mojtaba Khamenei, the second son of Ali Khamenei as the next Supreme Leader of Iran can be understood in this context. Most likely, the more moderate candidates were rejected as leaders of the country in a situation with no genuine signs of reconciliation being sent from the other side. As a result, and as affirmation of Iran’s continued distrust for the US, leadership went to a hardliner.
These two theories about the act of aggression against Iran draw two different pictures of how the global economy is connected. In the first view, because the US economy is relying on foreign investment by the rich Gulf countries, the closure of the strait of Hormuz is harmful to the US economy. In the second view, the US economy relies on the control of energy and the hegemony of the US dollar more than anything else, and will take short-term pain or destruction of capital in order to achieve relative accumulation afterwards.
When it comes to understanding the war situation, the two theories differ in estimating how determined the US is to continue this aggression. According to the second view, the US is prepared to continue its aggression much longer, despite the high expenses, to achieve the goal of overthrowing the IRI. What both views agree on though is that whoever can sustain their war effort better, will come out victorious at the end. In this war of attrition, who can last longer depends on many elements, from material to non-material factors. From the material point of view, while the US war machine is much more expensive and requires more regular maintenance (for example, jets and carriers need servicing and maintenance, and the supply of quality interceptors is limited), they have a massively bigger budget and supply sources than Iran.
In regard to non-material factors such as the willingness to continue and determination to keep going, the new elected Supreme Leader suggests that Iran is also determined to continue resistance. And so is the rest of the Axis of Resistance. At this stage, Hezbollah is showing great strength against the Zionist attempts to enter the Lebanese territory and in effect they’ve firmly blocked their path, and have potentially even taken hostages.
However, the stark reality is that the Axis of Resistance is punching way above their weight and no matter how willful and skillful they are, their resources are much more limited than that of the whole imperialist bloc. It must be remembered that both the US and Israel are in possession of nuclear weapons. Beyond that it is also worth recognising that while this is an existential war for Iran, in many ways the war also threatens the basis of US hegemonic power, both its military power projection through the region, but also the underlying structure of its economic privilege – while this is heartening, it also means that the US may be willing to go further, and act more heinously than ever before.
With this in mind, if we understand that the imperialists are very determined in their aggression, that if they are allowed to do what they want, despite the resilience of the resistance thus far and the damage it has inflicted on the imperialist forces, that same resistance can break.
And so this is our duty as the people living in the global north, to raise our voices against this aggression and to not let the war mongers who rule over us act with immunity. We cannot simply just sit back and cheer for the resistance. The Left and the working class in imperialist countries like Australia has a huge responsibility – not only would it be politically opportunistic, but morally unforgivable to leave the burden of change in the world on the already over weary shoulders of the people in the Global South.
Leave a Reply