On Saturday the United States of America attacked Iran. They weren’t alone, they were joined by their sidekicks in the region, Israel.
I’ll be honest. I had a busy weekend planned and wasn’t in the mood to tune in to the perpetual dread that is the news these days so I’ve had to do a lot of reading the last two days.
Trump took aim at Iran’s nuclear ambitions, saying America had “obliterated” key nuclear facilities across the country, using 125 aircraft and 75 precision bombs. You have to question these precision bombs, as one of the first things they did was bomb a girls school in Minab killing 168 people. The school was adjacent to the local Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps barracks, which has previously been a target.
Before we do a quick trip through history I would like to apologise for putting in the branch email that former Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh was a socialist – he wasn’t. I was rushing on Monday to get the email out. My mistake. I’m going to fly through history so if there is anything anyone wants to discuss further we definitely can!
Where did this all start? Where does anything start when everything is so interconnected? Britain has meddled in Iran since the 18th century, using the country as a buffer to protect the colonial empire in India. To frame this conflict I think the 1950s is the place to start.
In 1953 Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and his Popular Front movement pushed for nationalisation of their oil industry, which passed through parliament in a near unanimous vote. Who was the biggest shareholder of the major oil company? None other than our very own British Government, through the Anglo Iranian Oil Company.
Prior to this Mossadegh had wanted to split the profits from the oil 50/50, something the British refused to entertain, but in hindsight looks like a great deal. This was the deal the Americans had struck in Saudi Arabia with Aramco. The oil fields were nationalised but Britain placed an embargo on Iran.
What followed were a couple of years of hardship due to the economic tensions that the embargo brought. In the political upheaval the CIA and MI6 helped orchestrate demonstrations which culminated Mossadegh turning himself over to the army, bringing his career to an ignominious end.
The demonstrations also re-installed the Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi front and centre again, this time as an absolute monarch. The Shah started the White Revolution, a top down reorganisation of society and a step towards Westernisation. The Shah’s reforms quadrupled the size of the urban working class. But their resentment of the Shah also grew, as the Shah’s dictatorship had now stripped them of organizations that had represented them in the past, such as political parties, professional associations, trade unions, and independent newspapers. The land reforms introduced to hopefully ally the peasants with the Shah instead created large numbers of independent farmers and landless labourers, the result of which backfired as it meant they had no loyalty to the Shah.
In theory, oil money funneled to the elite was supposed to be used to create jobs and factories, eventually distributing the money, but instead the wealth tended to remain concentrated in the hands of the very few at the top”. This was exacerbated by the oil boom of the 1970s, which produced inflation and sped up the gap growing between the rich and the poor. By 1976 the Shah had accumulated upwards of $1 billion, and his family that consisted of 63 princes and princesses had accumulated between $5 and $20 billion.
As Iranian historian Ervand Abrahamian pointed out: “The White Revolution had been designed to preempt a Red Revolution. Instead, it paved the way for an Islamic Revolution.
During the period of the White revolution the Shah was regularly challenged by the Ayatollah Khomeini. I’m not going to go into too much detail on the Islamic revolution – there have been thousands and thousands of words dedicated to this over the years. What I’ve found interesting about the points already mentioned are nationalisating the means of production, and changes to the working classes. These things are relevant to us today. The communist Tudeh party was part of the opposition that brought down the Shah, and while the Ayatollah did work to bring together the opposition he refused to work with the “atheistic Marxists”
What is interesting is that the Islamic Iranian state always made a point of teaching that the enemy was the United Kingdom and the United States of America, it was these people that had imposed the Shah on them. The people of Iran know America is an enemy.
When the Shah fell ill in 1979 he was allowed to enter the United States for medical treatment, this angered the new Iranian State who wanted him returned for trial and ultimately execution. The fury spilt on to the streets and 50 hostages were taken at the American Embassy – but it’s worth mentioning that all black hostages (bar one) were released as the Ayatollah felt that the blacks of America were also oppressed. (The other black hostage was held back as it was believed they were a spy)
What should we, as socialists, think about this? Marx would likely see the 2026 Iran-US war as a tragedy where the workers of both nations are being sacrificed to resolve the contradictions of a decaying global capitalist order. Marx himself would likely view the 2026 strikes as a “war of aggression” intended to eliminate any regional power that refuses to integrate into the global financial system.
“The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere.” — The Communist Manifesto
The assassination of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and other officials would be seen by Marx as a “bourgeois” attempt to reshuffle the management of a state without addressing the underlying class structures.
Marx famously noted that when the ruling class faces domestic unrest, they often turn to foreign adventurism to unify the “proletariat” under a false banner of nationalism.
President Trump’s sudden shift to military action is a “Bonapartist” move, a way to consolidate power and distract the American working class from domestic economic inequality and political polarization.
Marx would likely argue that this conflict is driven by the needs of American and global capital rather than “democracy” or “security. With the closure of the Strait of Hormuz causing a spike in global oil prices, Marx would see the war as a struggle for control over the “means of production”—in this case, the energy resources vital to the survival of industrial capitalism. He would point to the massive profits made by the “military-industrial complex.” To Marx, war is often a way for the state to burn through “surplus capital” and create demand for new production (missiles, jets, and technology), essentially using the lives of workers to reset the economic clock.
I think all of this meant that Iran was a thorn in the side of the United States of America since 1979. They took their own path, and as we’ve seen in their neighbours Iraq, that is unacceptable to the States.
For those that want to dive deeper there are dozens and dozens of books but for ease can I recommend watching the Storyville documentary Decadence and Downfall: The Shah of Iran’s Ultimate Party. It shows the Shah celebrating the 2,500 year (fuck knows where that date came from) monarchy anniversary. He spent millions and imported over 15,000 trees from Versailles and made a paradise in the desert. The footage is spectacular and gives a real view into why the Shah was so goddamn unpopular. Our very own King Charlie can be seen in the footage.
Also worth a watch is Argos – an Oscar winning film that dramatizes the hostages from the American embassy in Tehran. Good Hollywood blockbuster for those that enjoy them.
To finish, it also goes without saying, that this could also be a big distraction to the Epstein files. I’m not a conspiracy guy, far from it. When in doubt I think of Occam’s razor. The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is usually the correct one.