A critique of the Communist Party of Iran/Komalah, LIS/ISL, IMT/RCI, CWI and ISA

 

By Michael Pröbsting, Revolutionary Communist International Tendency (RCIT), 16 June 2025, www.thecommunists.net

 

 

 

As Trotsky pointed out, war and revolution are the fundamental test for the policy of all self-proclaimed socialist organisations. The war which Israel currently wages against Iran is such a decisive test.

 

This is a conflict about redrawing the map of the Middle East. If Israel wins this war and defeats Iran, this would be a serious setback not only for the Mullah regime but also for the Iranian people, the Palestinians and all oppressed peoples in the region. It would strengthen the hegemony of the imperialist settler state as well as of the U.S. However, if Iran manages to repel the Zionist aggression, this would be a terrible blow for Israel and would immediately open a major domestic crisis. Weakening the Zionist state would aid the liberation struggles of the Palestinian, the Syrian, the Lebanese and the Yemeni people. And it would also weaken the hegemonic position of U.S. imperialism in the region. [1]

 

It is therefore the primary duty of socialists to defend Iraq and to call for the defeat of Israel. While we side with the military struggle of Iran, we lend no political support for the reactionary Mullah regime. The RCIT and all authentic socialists have supported past mass protests against the repressive regime and will continue to do so. Our goal is to replace this regime with a workers and peasant government. ^[2]

 

However, in the current war, the primary duty for Marxists is to defend Iran – a capitalist semi-colony – against the Zionist aggression. In this situation, the main enemy is not the Iranian regime but Israel and U.S. imperialism. A correct policy during the war – defending the country while remaining politically independent – should help the working class to strengthen its forces and to prepare for a future uprising. It is only the proletariat which can wage a consistent anti-imperialist struggle, in contrast to corrupted bourgeois-theocratic regime. [3]

 

 

 

The anti-imperialist united front tactic

 

 

 

Naturally, such defence does not mean to drop our political criticism of the regime. Socialists need to advocate, as much as this is possible under the conditions of war and repression, a policy of working-class independence. This should be combined with the approach of the “anti-imperialist united front tactic”. With such tactics, elaborated by the Communist International in the times of Lenin and Trotsky, revolutionaries aim at joint practical collaboration with (petty)bourgeois and reformist forces against the imperialist enemy while retaining political independence.

 

Such stated the Theses on the Eastern Question, adopted at its Fourth Congress in 1922, about the importance of the anti-imperialist united front tactic:

 

“The expediency of this slogan follows from the prospect of a prolonged and protracted struggle with world imperialism which demands the mobilization of all revolutionary elements. This mobilization is the more necessary as the indigenous ruling classes are inclined to effect compromises with foreign capital directed against the vital interests of the masses of the people. And just as in the West the slogan of the proletarian united front has helped and is still helping to expose social-democratic betrayal of proletarian interests, so the slogan of the anti-imperialist united front will help to expose the vacillation of various bourgeois-nationalist groups. This slogan will also promote the development of the revolutionary will and the clarification of the class consciousness of the working masses and put them in the front ranks of those who are fighting not only against imperialism, but also against the survivals of feudalism.” [4]

 

Likewise, Trotsky’s Fourth International stated in the “Transitional Program” adopted at its founding conference in 1938:

 

“But not all countries of the world are imperialist countries. On the contrary, the majority are victims of imperialism. Some of the colonial or semi colonial countries will undoubtedly attempt to utilize the war in order to east off the yoke of slavery. Their war will be not imperialist but liberating. It will be the duty of the international proletariat to aid the oppressed countries in their war against oppressors. The same duty applies in regard to aiding the USSR, or whatever other workers’ government might arise before the war or during the war. The defeat of every imperialist government in the struggle with the workers’ state or with a colonial country is the lesser evil. (…) In supporting the colonial country or the USSR in a war, the proletariat does not in the slightest degree solidarize either with the bourgeois government of the colonial country or with the Thermidorian bureaucracy of the USSR. On the contrary, it maintains full political independence from the one as from the other. Giving aid in a just and progressive war, the revolutionary proletariat wins the sympathy of the workers in the colonies and in the USSR, strengthens there the authority and influence of the Fourth International, and increases its ability to help overthrow the bourgeois government in the colonial country, the reactionary bureaucracy in the USSR.” ^[5]

 

Consequently, Marxists defended semi-colonial countries like China against Japan or Ethiopia against Italy in the 1930s. It is on the basis of such principles that the RCIT (resp. its predecessor organisation) has always lent critical but unconditional support to the struggles of (semi-)colonial countries or nationally oppressed people led by (petty-)bourgeois forces. We did so in Argentina during the Malvinas War against Britain, despite the fact that it was led by a reactionary military regime; in Iraq in the two wars 1991 and 2003 (and the subsequent occupation) against U.S. imperialism and its allies, despite the fact that the resistance was led by (petty-)bourgeois Baathist and Islamist forces; the Taliban-led resistance in Afghanistan against the imperialist occupiers in 2001-21; the Irish resistance, led by Sinn Fein / IRA, against the British occupiers, the Palestinian resistance led by Hamas and other nationalist and Islamist organisations or the resistance of the Ukrainian people, led by the pro-Western Zelensky government, against the Russian invasion. [6]

 

 

 

The Stalinist CPI/Komalah

 

 

 

Unfortunately, there are a number of so-called Marxists who reject the principles of anti-imperialism and refuse to defend semi-colonial countries against imperialist aggressors. The current war of Israel against Iran demonstrates this once more.

 

The Communist Party of Iran, affiliated with one faction of the Kurdish Komalah, has published a statement which explicitly refuses to defend their country against the Zionist aggression. “The war operation that began with Israel's attack on Iran is a military confrontation between the two religious fascist states of Iran and Israel. This confrontation is anti-people on both sides.” Consequently, the party considers it as the current priority to work for the overthrow of the regime in Teheran. “In the current situation where Islamic rule has been weakened and is tuning its war machine for further destruction, the overthrow of this reactionary and anti-people regime will prevent the devastating consequences of the reactionary war between Israel and the Islamic Republic.” [7]

 

Such a position is utterly reactionary. Socialists in Iran who refuse to defend their country can not but discredit themselves among the masses. However, such a shameful position is not at all surprising for a Stalinist organisation. Already in 1948, Stalin supported the Zionists who expelled the Palestinian people from their homeland and made sure that they did receive a large number of weapons (via Czechoslovakia) for their crimes. [8] Likewise did the Iraqi Communist Party support the US occupation of Iraq in 2003 and participated in the colonial government.

 

The position of the CPI/Komalah indicates that this party also rejects the anti-imperialist defence of Iran but rather considers the regime as the main enemy. This is only consistent with their policy in the past where Komalah, an organisation which exists since more than four decades, collaborated with the U.S. as well as with Iranian monarchists. [9]

 

 

 

LIS/ISL

 

 

 

Unfortunately, the comrades of the International Socialist League – which main sections are the Argentinean MST, the Pakistan “Struggle” group and the Italian PCL – essentially share such an approach. Both articles on the Israel-Iran War, which they have published until now on its website, bear the same characteristic: while the LIS/ISL denounces Israel’s aggression as well as the Mullah regime, they shamefully refuse to call for the defence of Iran.

 

“From the International Socialist League (ISL) we repudiate the Israeli attacks on Iran. We reject and demand the cessation of aggressions in the whole region: Palestine, Lebanon, Yemen, Syria and we reject any imperialist interference. We demand the rupture of all types of government relations with the State of Israel.” [10]

 

“The unnatural Zionist state has been nurtured as a brutal and ruthless enforcer to maintain foreign imperialist control over this oil-rich region. As long as it exists, the region cannot hope for stability or prosperity. However, the theocratic state of Iran, born out of a bloody counter-revolution in 1979, holds no progressive credentials either. Granting it political legitimacy or support under the guise of being “anti-imperialist” is a blatant ideological crime. The hands of this sectarian religious regime are also stained with the blood of countless innocents – both within Iran and beyond – including tens of thousands of communists, workers, and women. In the past decade and a half alone, Iran has witnessed at least ten major protest movements, all of which were brutally crushed. Yet the right to determine Iran’s future belongs solely to its people, and only they – through class unity and revolutionary action – can confront and overthrow this oppressive theocratic state while replacing it with something better. A fundamentalist, grafted, illegitimate, and imperialist thug-state like Israel can never be a liberator of the Iranian people, nor does it have any right to intervene in or launch “pre-emptive strikes” on any country in the region. Strategically, every blow landed on Israel is welcome. However, the present situation also makes it clear that Israel cannot be defeated on religious-ideological or capitalist-economic grounds. This is not merely a military issue, either. This cancer—whose roots also lie deep within the reactionary and subservient Arab regimes—requires revolutionary surgery to be eradicated.” [11]

 

All anti-imperialist rhetoric is completely worthless if it does not result in a correct position in imperialist wars. To the question of “which side are you on”, LIS/ISL simply replies “neither as both are reactionary.” It is not without interest that the comrades have taken a correct position in the past years of defending the Palestinian people against Israel as well as Ukraine against Russian imperialism. But why do they defend Ukraine against Russia but not Iran against Israel/U.S.?! What is the principle behind such a position? Is it opportunist pragmatism as we saw already in their advocacy of “peaceful” struggle for the liberation of Kashmir? [12] Well, it is certainly not the principle of Marxist anti-imperialism!

 

 

 

The Grantites (IMT/RCI, CWI, ISA)

 

 

 

Those organisations which stand in the tradition of Ted Grant – the IMT/RCI, CWI and ISA – are no better. The IMT/RCI spends 1,800 words describing the development of the war [13]; the CWI limits itself to say “No to the Israel-Iran war” [14]; and the ISA holds forth about the terrible nature of imperialism and militarism:

 

“A number of factors will decide how far the war will develop. Most probable in the coming days and weeks is continued Israeli attacks on Iran, with Tehran retaliating. (…) The world has become even more dangerous, with fear of even greater wars as conflict spreads. Trump and Netanyahu have lowered the threshold for new wars, and together with Putin and the Ukraine war turbo-charged militarism and a new arms race. For socialists, workers and anti-war activists this proves the need for consistent and organized international struggle against war and militarism, and the system of capitalism and imperialism that is breeding them, for an alternative of peace and international socialism.” ^[15]

 

However, none of these three organisations calls for the defence of Iran against the imperialist aggression! Again, this is not surprising as their tradition is characterised by the refusal to side with those oppressed peoples which are fighting imperialism. To give only a few examples we refer to the Malvinas War between Argentina and Britain in 1982, the resistance of the Irish nationalists against the British occupation in the North, the U.S. aggression against Afghanistan and Iraq or Russia’s invasion against Ukraine since 2022. In all these conflicts, the Grantites never sided with the oppressed peoples! [16]

 

Alan Woods’ IMT/RCI tries to justify its neutral position in such wars by claiming that Iran (and other countries of the Global South) would be “regional imperialist powers”. As we did show in a recently published pamphlet, such a position is based on a complete distortion of the Marxist theory of imperialism. In fact, such a “theory” serves a justification for the IMT/RCI to deny the class difference between imperialist powers and semi-colonial countries and, therefore, to take a neutral position in conflicts between these states. [17]

 

In the case of Israel-Iran it is completely absurd to put these two states on the same level. Iran is a backward country compared with Israel and the U.S. If one looks at the GDP per head – as a measure of wealth – Iran ranks only as 124^th country (in nominal terms and as 83^rd by PPP). In contrast, Israel has the 13^th highest in the world. It plays an important role in the global IT, arms, diamond industries and has one of the strongest armies in the world with 90 nuclear missiles. Iran, on the other hand, largely depends on the production and export of oil and gas and its corporations play no role in the world economy. (We hope to deal with the character of Iran as an advanced industrialised semi-colony in more detail soon.)

 

We conclude by emphasising that it is impossible to be a communist, a Marxist, a Trotskyist without taking an unambiguous anti-imperialist position. Those who refuse to defend Iran against the Zionist aggression are betraying the most fundamental principles of Marxism. To quote Trotsky who polemicised against a group which advocated a similar policy of hostile opposition to liberation struggles led by non-revolutionary forces: “The Eiffelites counterpose the policy of “class struggle” to this “nationalist and social patriotic” policy. Lenin fought this abstract and sterile opposition all his life. To him, the interests of the world proletariat dictated the duty of aiding oppressed peoples in their national and patriotic struggle against imperialism. Those who have not yet understood that, almost a quarter of a century after the World War and twenty years after the October revolution, must be pitilessly rejected as the worst enemies on the inside by the revolutionary vanguard. This is exactly the case with Eiffel and his kind!” [18]

 

Today, forces like the CPI/Komalah, LIS, IMT/RCI, CWI and ISA are no better.