Skip to content

Core Argument

Against The Stream · 2025-06-26

The central thesis of this episode is that the 12-day US-Israeli war on Iran was not a decisive victory for imperialism but a fragile, inconclusive intervention that exposed the limits of both American and Israeli military power. The hosts argue that Trump entered the war reluctantly, was dragged into it by Netanyahu's manoeuvring, and then cut it short when the costs became clear — only to declare victory prematurely. The war's stated aims — destroying Iran's nuclear programme, degrading its missile capacity, and achieving regime change — were not accomplished. Instead, the episode contends that the war has strengthened the Iranian regime in the short term, pushed it toward accelerating its nuclear programme, and revealed Israel's dependence on the United States and the unsustainability of its strategy of regional hegemony.

The deeper claim is that this war represents a symptom of the crisis of American imperialism: unable to maintain its dominance through negotiation or coercion, it lurches into military adventures it cannot finish, then retreats into rhetorical bluster.

Theoretical Grounding

The analysis draws on the classical Marxist theory of imperialism, particularly the understanding that inter-imperialist rivalry and wars of aggression arise from the competitive logic of capitalist states seeking to dominate markets, resources, and strategic territory. The hosts explicitly frame the conflict not as a clash of civilisations or a defence of democracy, but as a struggle between two capitalist ruling classes — the Israeli Zionist bourgeoisie and the Iranian national bourgeoisie — for regional hegemony.

The episode also deploys a Trotskyist framework for understanding wars of imperialist aggression. It references Trotsky's position on the Italo-Ethiopian war of the 1930s: revolutionary communists must oppose their own ruling class's imperialist adventures and defend the sovereignty of the attacked nation, without offering political support to its reactionary regime. This is the key theoretical move — the hosts reject both uncritical support for the Iranian regime (which they characterise as a corrupt capitalist state) and the liberal position that would oppose the regime by backing US imperialism.

The analysis also implicitly draws on the Marxist concept of the relative autonomy of the state and the role of personality in history. Trump's erratic behaviour is not explained psychologically but as the product of contradictory social forces pulling him in different directions: the anti-war sentiment of his working-class base, the war drive of the neoconservative establishment, and the relentless pressure of the Israeli ruling class. The episode thus avoids both voluntarism and economic reductionism.

Conjunctural Relevance

The episode is set in a specific conjuncture — late June 2025 — and makes several concrete claims about the balance of forces:

Militarily, the hosts argue that the war exposed the limits of Israeli missile defence. They cite data from Arms Control Wonk showing that intercepting just six Iranian missile strikes cost $67 million, while the annual production rate of Israeli interceptor missiles is only 12. The interception rate fell from 90% to 65% over 12 days, suggesting that a longer war would have depleted Israeli defences entirely. This is presented as evidence that Israel's strategy of regional hegemony is unsustainable for a country of 10 million surrounded by hundreds of millions.

Politically, the episode notes that Trump's MAGA base — particularly figures like Tucker Carlson — opposed the war, forcing Trump to cut it short. The leaked DIA report contradicting Trump's claim of having "obliterated" Iran's nuclear programme is presented as evidence of a struggle within the US state between the neoconservative war party and the more cautious Trump faction.

Geopolitically, the hosts connect the war to the broader crisis of US hegemony. They trace the roots of the current conflict back to the 2003 Iraq invasion, which destroyed the Iraqi state and inadvertently allowed Iranian influence to expand across the region. The war is thus framed as an attempt to restore the status quo ante — a status quo that US imperialism itself destroyed.

Domestically, the episode links the war to the NATO summit decision to increase military spending to 5% of GDP, arguing that imperialist aggression abroad is the other side of austerity at home.

Where the Argument Continues

The episode deliberately leaves several threads open:

  1. The internal crisis of the Iranian regime — The hosts note that Khamenei has not been seen publicly, that a new generation of Revolutionary Guards commanders is rising, and that the liberal bourgeoisie is pushing for concessions. This is left as an open question for future developments.

  2. The fragility of the ceasefire — The episode ends with the observation that nothing fundamental has been resolved and that the peace could break at any point. This is an invitation to track the next phase of the conflict.

  3. The question of Iran's nuclear programme — The hosts argue that the logic of the situation pushes Iran toward acquiring a bomb, but they do not predict whether this will happen. This connects to broader Marxist debates about nuclear proliferation under capitalism.

  4. The class struggle inside Israel — The episode notes that Israeli society is split on Gaza but united on Iran, and that Netanyahu's popularity bump is temporary. This thread continues in other Against the Stream episodes covering the internal crisis of Israeli Zionism.

Listeners should consult the previous episode (referred to as "last week's episode") for the pre-war analysis, and future episodes for post-ceasefire developments. The broader Marxist framework for analysing such wars is developed in the Spectre of Communism series and in the RCI's theoretical publications.

Connections

  • Trotsky, "The War and the Fourth International" (1934) — The theoretical basis for the position that revolutionary communists must defend the attacked nation without supporting its ruling class.
  • Alan Woods, "The Middle East: A Permanent War" — Referenced in the episode for the argument that Iran's capitulation on nuclear enrichment would lead to the same fate as Libya.
  • Vladimir Lenin, "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism" — The foundational text for understanding inter-imperialist rivalry as the driving force of modern war.
  • Against the Stream episodes on Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria — These provide the broader context for understanding Israel's strategy of regional hegemony and the role of Iran's network of allied forces.
  • The Economist and Financial Times articles cited in the episode — Gideon Rachman's "Trump's Fragile Peace in the Middle East" and the Economist's analysis of Israel's overreach are useful bourgeois sources that corroborate the Marxist analysis.

Key Quotes

  1. On the nature of the war:

    "The Israeli ruling class want to be the only dominant imperialist power in the region that tells everyone else what to do. And from that point of view, Iran is not complying."

  2. On the failure of the war aims:

    "They have not destroyed the nuclear program. They have partially destroyed some of the missile launching batteries. But they have not destroyed Iranians' missiles by any stretch of imagination. There's still thousands of them."

  3. On the logic driving Iran toward nuclear weapons:

    "The only actually not having a bomb, not having a nuclear bomb was what got them attacked. So barring a total capitulation, the only solution you have now is to double down."

  4. On the exposure of Israeli military limitations:

    "The Israeli Zionist ruling class has always based themselves on the idea that the air defences are completely hermetic, impenetrable. And this has now been proven to be not completely true at the very least."

  5. On the revolutionary alternative:

    "The best way to defend an oppressed country against imperialism is for the workers to put themselves at the head of the whole nation. That will really rally not only the people of Iran but will be an example and an inspiration for the people of the whole region."