Skip to content

Obamas Middle East Policy Still Imperialist

Marxist Theory · 2026-05-13

Core Argument

The article argues that Barack Obama's Middle East policy, despite being presented as a break from the Bush administration, represents no fundamental change in US imperialist strategy. The central claim is that Obama is compelled by objective conditions — military overextension, economic crisis, and growing rivalries with other imperialist powers — to adopt a tactical shift in method (diplomacy, partial troop withdrawals, multilateral posturing) while preserving the strategic goal of US domination in the region. The "change" is a matter of form, not content: a necessary retreat to preserve the position of US capital, not a departure from imperialism itself.

Theoretical Grounding

The analysis is rooted in the Leninist theory of imperialism as the monopoly stage of capitalism, drawing on the understanding that the modern state is an instrument of the capitalist class, and that foreign policy is determined by the needs of the big banks and monopolies. The article invokes Palmerston's dictum that nations have permanent interests, not permanent friends — a classic realist formulation that Marxists adopt to strip away the ideological veneer of "democracy promotion" or "humanitarian intervention." The argument sits within the Marxist tradition that rejects the notion that a "better" or "more enlightened" faction of the ruling class can resolve the contradictions of imperialism. It aligns with Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution in its insistence that genuine liberation in the Middle East requires breaking with capitalism entirely, not reforming US policy. The piece also implicitly draws on the Marxist understanding of combined and uneven development, as it situates the Middle East as a region where imperialist rivalries, local class struggles, and geopolitical competition intersect.

Conjunctural Relevance

The article was written in August 2009, at a moment when:

  • The global financial crisis of 2007–2008 was still unfolding, with capitalism in its deepest downturn since the 1930s.
  • Obama had been in office for six months, having campaigned on ending the Iraq War and restoring US moral leadership.
  • The US was still occupying Iraq with approximately 130,000 troops, plus 133,000 private security contractors — a figure the article highlights as deliberately obscured.
  • The "surge" in Afghanistan was underway, with Obama authorising 17,000 additional troops in February 2009 and planning two new permanent bases in the south.
  • The post-election uprising in Iran (June 2009) had just occurred, exposing the regime's instability and the US ruling class's ambivalence toward mass movements from below.
  • Russia and China were asserting greater influence in Central Asia, with Iran joining the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation as an observer — a direct challenge to US/NATO dominance.
  • Turkey was being courted by multiple powers, reflecting the shifting balance of forces in the eastern Mediterranean.

The article correctly identifies that the "withdrawal" from Iraqi cities was a tactical redeployment, not an end to occupation, and that the contractor army was expanding even as troop numbers were nominally reduced — a pattern that would continue and deepen under subsequent administrations.

Where the Argument Continues

This article opens a line of analysis that the RCI has developed extensively:

  • The character of US imperialism under successive presidents — Bush, Obama, Trump, Biden — is a recurring theme in In Defence of Marxism articles, each demonstrating that the imperialist content remains unchanged regardless of the party in power.
  • The analysis of private military contractors as a structural feature of modern US imperialism is taken up in later pieces on Blackwater/Academi and the privatisation of war.
  • The question of Iran and the "Green Movement" is developed in subsequent IDOM articles that analyse the 2009 uprising, the nuclear deal, and the 2022–2023 protests, always insisting that the working class must build its own independent leadership rather than rely on either the Islamic Republic or US imperialism.
  • The broader argument about the impossibility of "reforming" US foreign policy is a thread running through the RCI's analysis of every US administration, and is connected to the strategic perspective of building a revolutionary workers' party in the United States.

Connections

  • Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism — the theoretical foundation for the article's understanding of imperialism as monopoly capitalism.
  • Trotsky, The Permanent Revolution — the strategic conclusion that national liberation requires socialist revolution.
  • IDOM articles on the Iraq War (2003–2011) — the broader corpus on the occupation and its consequences.
  • IDOM articles on Afghanistan — particularly those analysing the 2021 withdrawal as a defeat for US imperialism, not a victory for "peace."
  • Against the Stream episodes on US foreign policy — the RCI's podcast regularly updates this analysis for the current conjuncture.
  • Jeremy Scahill, Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army — the article cites Scahill's reporting on private contractors, which is essential for understanding the privatisation of US military power.

Key Quotes

  1. "Obama is being forced by the objective conditions to change the specific approach of US imperialism without changing the general course whatsoever."

  2. "For the time being, his strength lies in presenting the current objective weakness as a 'change in policy,' while at the same time, not altering any policy in any meaningful way."

  3. "While having a policy of regime change for Iran, they know a genuine mass movement organized from below, which could spread throughout the region, is not in their interests."

  4. "The 'policy change' that we really need is a change in class rule. The capitalist class is no longer fit to rule humanity; it's therefore high time the working class majority ran the show."

  5. "The presence of US imperialism in any country in the Middle East is a threat to all, and to the world."

  6. "Sharp changes in the balance of world forces are on the agenda. The task for Marxists is to be prepared, rather than caught off-guard by events."