Iran the killing of Qassem Soleimani oppose US imperialist aggression

Marxist Theory · 2020-01-03

Core Argument

The central thesis is that the US assassination of Qassem Soleimani was not an act of defensive self-preservation but a brazen imperialist aggression driven by the narrow interests of the American capitalist class. The article argues that Trump's decision was motivated by domestic political calculation — diverting attention from impeachment proceedings and compensating for perceived weakness after Iran shot down a US drone and attacked Saudi oil facilities without US retaliation — rather than any genuine security threat. Far from strengthening US imperialism, the killing reveals its relative decline: the US is unable to launch a major new war in the Middle East due to war-weariness at home, a $23 trillion national debt, and Iran's formidable military capacity. The assassination paradoxically strengthens the Iranian regime, which had been facing powerful revolutionary movements across Iran, Iraq, and Lebanon, by allowing it to rally nationalist sentiment and divert attention from its own internal crises.

Theoretical Grounding

The analysis is grounded in the classical Marxist theory of imperialism, drawing on Lenin's understanding of imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism, where the state acts as the instrument of the capitalist class in the global struggle for markets, resources, and strategic influence. The article rejects liberal framings that distinguish between "good" and "bad" imperialist policies — it explicitly argues that the Democratic Party's objection to Soleimani's killing is not a principled anti-war stance but a tactical disagreement over how imperialist policy is conducted. This reflects the Marxist understanding that both wings of the US ruling class serve the same capitalist interests, differing only on method.

The analysis also deploys a conjunctural assessment of relative imperialist decline. While acknowledging that no single power rivals US military might, the article argues that US imperialism is weaker in relative terms than in previous decades — a position consistent with Trotsky's theory of uneven and combined development and the Marxist understanding that interimperialist rivalry intensifies as the hegemonic power's dominance erodes. The reference to the "extreme short-sightedness" of the ruling class points to the anarchic, crisis-ridden nature of capitalist decision-making, where individual capitalists and state managers pursue immediate interests in ways that destabilise the system as a whole.

Conjunctural Relevance

The article was written in the immediate aftermath of the 3 January 2020 assassination, and its analysis is tightly bound to that conjuncture. It identifies three interconnected crises that shaped the event:

First, the domestic political crisis facing Trump — impeachment proceedings were underway, and the killing served as a diversionary tactic. Second, the crisis of US imperial prestige after a series of humiliations: Iran's shooting down of a US drone in June 2019, and the September 2019 attack on Saudi oil facilities, both of which went unanswered militarily. Third, and most significantly, the revolutionary crisis across the Middle East: mass movements in Iraq (the "October Revolution"), Lebanon (beginning September 2019), and Iran itself (November 2019 protests, where the regime killed at least 1,500 people) were challenging US-backed and Iranian-backed regimes alike. Soleimani had been personally coordinating counter-revolutionary efforts across these countries.

The article's assessment that a US invasion of Iran was "out of the question" proved correct — no such invasion occurred. Its prediction that the assassination would strengthen the Iranian regime in the short term by enabling nationalist mobilisation was also borne out by the massive funeral processions. However, the broader strategic assessment — that US imperialism would be "forced to play a smaller role" in the Middle East — requires qualification in light of subsequent developments, including the continued US military presence and the normalisation agreements between Israel and several Arab states.

Where the Argument Continues

The article leaves several questions open. Most significantly, it identifies the strengthening of the Iranian regime as a short-term consequence but does not fully explore how the revolutionary movements in Iran, Iraq, and Lebanon would re-emerge once the nationalist moment passed. This question is taken up in subsequent IDOM articles analysing the 2022-2023 Iranian protests (the "Woman, Life, Freedom" movement), which demonstrated that the regime's underlying crisis of legitimacy had not been resolved.

The article's claim that the US is in relative decline but remains the dominant imperialist power is a recurring theme in Marxist analysis of the Middle East. Later IDOM pieces on the Ukraine war and the shifting global order develop this argument further, situating US decline within the broader crisis of global capitalism and the rise of multipolar rivalry.

The article does not develop a detailed analysis of the internal class dynamics of Iranian society — the relationship between the regime, the bazaar bourgeoisie, the working class, and the revolutionary opposition. This is addressed in other IDOM articles on Iran, particularly those analysing the 2022 protests and the regime's economic crisis under sanctions.

Connections

This article should be read alongside Lenin's Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism for its theoretical framework, and Trotsky's writings on the relationship between war and revolution for its conjunctural method. Within the IDOM corpus, it connects to articles on the US withdrawal from Afghanistan (2021), the Ukraine war (2022-), and the broader crisis of US hegemony. The analysis of how imperialist aggression can temporarily strengthen reactionary regimes by enabling nationalist mobilisation echoes Marxist analyses of the 1991 Gulf War and the 2003 Iraq invasion.

For a fuller picture of the Iranian regime's internal contradictions, readers should consult IDOM's coverage of the 2022-2023 Iranian protests and the economic crisis under sanctions. The article's critique of the Democratic Party as equally imperialist connects to the broader Marxist analysis of US electoral politics developed in IDOM's coverage of US elections and foreign policy.

Key Quotes

1. "This was nothing but a brazen imperialist attack with the aim of beating two nations into submission. It is the duty of all class fighters, trade unionists and revolutionaries to forcefully oppose this attack and any further imperialist aggressors in the Middle East."

2. "It is true that some Democrats, led by Nancy Pelosi, have opposed Trump's action. But their objection is not the imperialist US policy in Iraq, but rather how this imperialist policy is carried out! The Democratic Party, so often presented as the soft hand of US capitalism, oversaw a massive increase in bombings and foreign campaigns during the Obama presidency. They are no less imperialist than Trump."

3. "The events of the past days have more than anything been a sign of the weakness of US imperialism rather than its strength. There is no power nearly as strong as US imperialism, and yet in relative terms this imperialism is not as strong as it used to be."

4. "Although Soleimani was a key figure for the Iranian regime, his assassination has only played into its hands. In the past months, Iran and its allies in Lebanon and Iraq have been swamped by powerful mass movements with revolutionary implications."

5. "The US population is weary of war, which is why one of Trump's own key campaign promises in 2016 was to withdraw from the Middle East. Furthermore, the US National debt stands at more than $23 trillion. A new war costing $5-10 trillion more is out of the question."

6. "Like an earthquake that reveals contradictions that have been accumulating under the surface, Trump's erratic behaviour will bring to the fore the new balance of forces that has developed in the Middle East. In this new situation, US imperialism will be forced to play a smaller role. But this will not mean more stability or improved conditions for the masses of the region."