By Michael Pröbsting, Revolutionary Communist International Tendency (RCIT), 7 July 2025, www.thecommunists.net

 

 

 

The 12-day war of Israel/U.S. against Iran has been a major test for Marxists. It has been a key component in the Zionists’ war of aggression against the oppressed peoples in the Middle East. In this conflict, it is the duty of all socialists to unconditionally side with those forces which resist the Zionist-American attacks, i.e. the armed forces of the Palestinian people in Gaza, the West Bank, of Iran, Lebanon, Yemen, etc. While socialists stand for the military victory of these forces against the Zionist-American aggressors, we lend no political support to their leaderships, i.e. to petty-bourgeois forces like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah or Houthis and even less so to the capitalist Mullah dictatorship in Teheran.

 

Based on such an approach, the Revolutionary Communist International Tendency (RCIT) has raised the following slogans during the recent war: Defend Iran – Defeat the Zionist-American Monster! Expel the U.S. forces from the Middle East! Victory to the Palestinian resistance! Boycott Israel! ^[1]

 

The International Marxist Tendency which recently renamed into Revolutionary Communist International (IMT/RCI) took a different position. As we did already show somewhere else, while these comrades clearly opposed Zionist-American aggression, they failed to take an anti-imperialist stance in defence of Iran. [2] The slogans which they raised throughout the war were: Hands off Iran! Down with US-Israel imperialism! Down with the war on Iran! Hands off Gaza! Down with the Israeli occupation! [3]

 

In an article published a week after the ceasefire between Israel/U.S. and Iran began, the IMT/RCI published another article which retrospectively stated: “Revolutionary communists stand fully on the side of Iran, even though we have no sympathy for the political regime of the ayatollahs, which is a reactionary, anti-working class regime.” ^[4] It further claimed that this would have been the meaning of the slogans which it had raised during the conflict. “This is why our slogans in this war have been, ‘Hands off Iran! Down with US-Israel imperialism!‘”

 

While we welcome the IMT/RCI’s brief statement that they “stand fully on the side of Iran”, it is clearly a belated course correction. In our view, this rather reflects the programmatic confusion and theoretical inconsistency of this organisation.

 

 

 

Two types of wars

 

 

 

First, it is simply not true that the slogans “Hands off Iran! Down with US-Israel imperialism!” would mean to side with the military resistance of Iran. Communists always oppose imperialist wars. However, this does not automatically mean that we support the opposing camp. As the Marxist classics elaborated there exist basically two types of war: wars of aggression and wars of liberation. A conflict between two imperialist camps (or between two reactionary forces in the Global South or in a civil war) is a war of aggression on both sides. In such a conflict, Marxists oppose both camps, i.e. they take a position of revolutionary defeatism against both sides.

 

In such conflicts, the well-known slogan “the main enemy is at home” applies to both camps as Lenin and Trotsky emphasised.

 

“A revolutionary class cannot but wish for the defeat of its government in a reactionary war, and cannot fail to see that the latter’s military reverses must facilitate its overthrow. Only a bourgeois who believes that a war started by governments must necessarily end as a war between governments, and wants it to end as such, can regard as “ridiculous” and “absurd” the idea that the socialists of all the belligerent countries should express their wish that all their “own” governments should be defeated. On the contrary, it is a statement of this kind that would be in keeping with the innermost thoughts of every class-conscious worker, and be in line with our activities for the conversion of the imperialist war into a civil war.“ ^[5]

 

“In this struggle [against imperialism and its war] the basic principle is: “the chief enemy is in your own country” or “the defeat of your own (imperialist) government is the lesser evil.” ^[6]

 

However, there are also conflicts where one camp fights for a progressive cause – opposition to imperialist aggression against a (semi-)colonial country, against national oppression, against a reactionary coup d’état, against fascism, etc. In such a conflict, Marxists do not oppose both camps but support the progressive camp as it is waging a war of liberation. [7] The slogan “the main enemy is at home” applies only to the imperialist, reactionary camp but not to the camp of the oppressed.

 

Consequently, our tactics differ in such a war of liberation. Marxists do everything possible – from mass protests, opposition within the armed forces to boycott and sabotage – to weaken the imperialist or reactionary enemy so that it suffers defeat in such conflict. At the same time, Marxists aid the struggle of the oppressed by any means necessary – from serving in the armed forces of the progressive camp, to mass solidarity campaigns and calls for armament supply.

 

Naturally, such support must be combined with political opposition to the (petty-)bourgeois leadership of the oppressed as well as efforts to build independent organs of the masses in order to prepare the replacement of such leadership with authentic proletarian forces. However, as long as Marxists are too weak to replace the existing leadership, they will be obliged to fight under the command of non-revolutionary forces. During China’s war of liberation against Japanese imperialism in the late 1930s and early 1940s, the Trotskyists advocated support for this struggle albeit it took place under the leadership of Chiang Kai-shek, a reactionary general who had killed tens of thousands of communists during the revolutionary uprisings in 1927.

 

“In participating in the military struggle under the orders of Chiang Kai-shek, since unfortunately it is he who has the command in the war for independence – to prepare politically the overthrow of Chiang Kai-shek . . . that is the only revolutionary 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.” ^[8]

 

„Quite so: as against imperialism it is obligatory to help even the hangmen of Chiang Kai-shek.“ ^[9]

 

 

 

Revolutionary defeatism

 

 

 

In short, in an inter-imperialist or reactionary conflict, Marxists take a revolutionary defeatist position on both sides, i.e. a dual-defeatist position; in a conflict between a oppressors and oppressed peoples, Marxists take a revolutionary defeatist position only towards the reactionary camp but a revolutionary defencist position towards the camp waging a war of liberation.

 

As we can see, calling for “Hands off Iran! Down with US-Israel imperialism!” states opposition against the Zionist-American war but does not express taking the side of the victim of imperialist aggression. Only unambiguous slogans like “Defend Iran!” or “For the military victory of Iran!” make clear that communists take a side in this conflict – the side of the oppressed people. Hence, only such slogans express a clear anti-imperialist position.

 

Let us take an analogy. If there is a strike of workers in an enterprise, Marxists would unambiguously support thus struggle. We would not only denounce the boss by saying “Down with the exploiter!”, we would not only say “Hands off the striking workers!“ in case police tries to smash the strike; we would also call for the victory of the strikers and the fulfilment of its demands.

 

Ask yourself: would workers at the picket line take a socialist group serious which only denounces the boss but does not actively support the strike to achieve victory?! Well, it is the same with the oppressed people. Those who seriously support the anti-imperialist struggle must not only denounce the enemy but also state their active support the camp of the oppressed. In this case, one cannot do this without explicitly calling for the military defence or the victory of Iran.

 

Unfortunately, the IMT/RCI’s failure to defend Iran is not an accident but based on a decades-long tradition of this organisation. The late Ted Grant and Alan Woods – the historic leaders of the IMT/RCI – never supported the program of revolutionary defeatism. As we did show somewhere else, they falsely claim that Lenin and Trotsky would have dropped this program after 1917. [10]

 

Likewise, they repeatedly failed to support defend semi-colonial countries which faced imperialist aggression – e.g. Argentina during the Malvinas War against Britain; Iraq in the two wars 1991 and 2003 against U.S. imperialism and its allies; 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. [11]

 

It is for these reasons that we are not sure if the IMT/RCI’s latest interpretation – that the slogan “Hands off Iran! Down with US-Israel imperialism!” would mean to “stand fully on the side of Iran” – represents the beginning of a serious correction of a long-standing political mistake or rather an attempt to cover their tracks given the strong anti-imperialist sentiments in the pro-Palestine movement.

 

 

 

What is the class character of Iran?

 

 

 

There is most likely also another reason for the refusal of the IMT/RCI to defend Iran during the war. As we did show somewhere else, since a number of years it characterises Iran as a “regional imperialist power”. [12] In our view, this is a serious mistake as Iran is a capitalist semi-colony, not an imperialist country. [13]

 

It is logical that in a conflict between two “regional imperialist powers” – in the long theoretical essay which we discussed in our above-mentioned pamphlet, the leadership around Alan Woods (correctly) characterised Israel also as such a power – the IMT/RCI would support neither one nor the other side.

 

Interestingly, the IMT/RCI comrades do not repeat such a characterisation of Iran in any of the above-mentioned articles which they published during and after the 12-day war. It is worth mentioning that only a few months ago, their Russian section called Iran as a “formidable regional imperialist”. [14] What has changed? Is Iran no longer a “regional imperialist power”? If this is the case, the IMT/RCI should say so and explain what has caused such a correction. If it still considers Iran as imperialist, how is it possible for them to side with such a country?! Are there bad (Israel, U.S.) and not so bad imperialists (Iran)? Surely, this would be an approach which is in total contradiction of the ABC of communism! So, what is the actual assessment of the IMT/RCI of Iran’s class character?

 

In our view it is highly urgent that the IMT/RCI comrades re-discuss their approach to wars between imperialist powers and semi-colonial countries. Do they defend the latter – which is the correct Marxist approach – or not? If they side with Iran in the 12-day war, they should correct the method of the IMT/RCI which, until now, was to refuse the defence of semi-colonial countries against imperialist aggression. Furthermore, they should also clarify their analysis of Iran’s class character.