Iran, the Israeli Occupation, and the Violence of the Capitalist State

“...[R]evolution arises only out of a situation in which the [crises of the ruling class] are accompanied by a subjective change, namely, the ability of the revolutionary class to take revolutionary mass action strong enough to break (or dislocate) the old government, which never, not even in a period of crisis, ‘falls,’ if it is not toppled over.” V.I. Lenin, 'The Collapse of the Second International, Ch. II' 

What stands between the workers and revolution? Historically, the exploitation of the proletariat plays a secondary role to the oppression of the state. Exploitation degrades the conditions of life and exhausts the energies of those who need to organize. But even the most bitter exploitation has seldom been an insurmountable barrier to proletarian organization. Workers almost inevitably organize and they almost inevitably make gains in the struggle over surplus value. 

On the other hand, when it has reached the point of naked reaction, the bourgeois state, through the calculated use of extreme violence, which kills and incarcerates the leadership of the proletarian movement, smashes large gatherings of workers, destroys printing presses, offices, etc. — makes proletarian organization most difficult. 

How do we assess the strength of the current bourgeois state? The recent conflict with the Islamic Republic of Iran offers valuable insight. 

Contradictions of the apartheid regime

The US maintains the Israeli occupation because it serves imperialism by launching attacks on the major oil producing countries of West Asia. We see this most notably with the bombing of Iraq in the early 90s, the regular assassinations of Iranian scientists, and the bombing of Syria over the past decade. 

The occupation also politically delegitimizes the leadership of these countries. The people of West Asia have witnessed the horrible violence the occupation has brought on the Palestinian people and they have shown their outrage in recent demonstrations. The Arab states which show an inability to resist the occupation, or even a willingness to normalize relations, abdicate their duty to protect their citizens and neighbors. The material reasons for this abdication — primarily the military capacity of the US — is no balm for a wounded population which witnesses outrageous atrocities on a daily basis. 

Because these nations are weakened both militarily and politically, they are not able to defend themselves against US imperialism. The discord and constant threat of attack also prevents them from leveraging their economic strength to form alliances and economic-political-military blocks in West Asia. Such alliances would cause the end of US hegemony in West Asia and could trigger a general decline for the empire globally.

The motivations of the Israeli occupiers are not exactly the same as those of the US, and this results in contradictions. The Israeli occupation has little in the way of legal standing or political legitimacy. Any sustained resistance from the Palestinian people serves as a reminder to the world that the occupation is a criminal state — increasing economic and political pressure from the international community. The Israeli apartheid state is neither geographically or economically large. It cannot withstand the economic penalties that were visited on apartheid South Africa. Therefore, as long as there is resistance, the occupation is not secure.

The only means of eliminating the resistance is to expand the occupation. However, Israeli occupation forces have not been successful in defeating the current level of resistance in Gaza, the West Bank, and southern Lebanon. Any expansion would require direct US intervention. 

This places the imperialist and its vassal in contradiction, a contradiction which has only increased since the uprising of October 7th. The US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were costly in lives and materiel. Sustained resistance in those countries prevented the US from maintaining their occupation. Launching another invasion in West Asia at the behest of the Israeli occupation would further weaken the US military and its grip on global power. The Israeli occupation needs the US to start a conventional war in order to survive, but a conventional war would hasten the destruction of the US empire. 

Israel’s attack and Iran’s response

Iran is one of the few countries in West Asia which can exercise a degree of independence from the US. The 1979 revolution destroyed the US-puppet regime of the Shah. With the compradors defeated or contained, the Islamic Republic of Iran has been able to rely on its large and well-trained military, its geographic size and challenging terrain, and its oil wealth to act as a deterrent against open US aggression. 

Iran understands that without the ability to wage open war against them, the imperialists must rely on the Israeli occupation as their primary weapon. Iran counters this with support for resistance movements which slow the advance of the occupation. The Israel occupation for its part, knows it cannot defeat the resistance without destroying its Iranian material support. 

With the genocide facing increasing international resistance, the occupation looked to force a direct confrontation with Iran by assassinating several Iranian diplomats and military officials at an Iranian embassy in Syria, which is sovereign Iranian territory. Iran’s response showed that attacks on its territory would be met with direct attacks on Israeli occupied territory. At the same time, Iran’s response was calibrated to avoid significant casualties.

Weakness exposed

Iran’s response left the imperialists with two choices. Accept that Iran’s response was moderate and restrained and do nothing, or initiate conventional attacks against Iran which would lead to a conventional war. Thus far, the imperialists seem to have chosen the former. Why?

The imperialists lack the economic, military, and political power to engage in conventional warfare. Conventional war requires large scale manufacture of ammunition, large numbers of fresh troops, and political support or neutrality from other powers. 

Economically, the US bourgeois empire is weak due to de-industrialization. While the US is still a leading commodity producer, it no longer holds the number one position, which now belongs to China.  

Militarily, the imperialists are weak due to twenty years of war, which has burned through equipment and soldiers. The violence wrought by the US has eroded its political support, depriving it of allies who can share the military burden. 

Politically, the US has been weakened by internal contradictions. US capital is no longer able to provide a decent standard of living for the working class. The elected servants of capital are both unwilling and unable to resolve this problem. The result is the aggravation of contradictions meant to divide the working class, and the rise of fascist movements seeking to intimidate the increasingly militant proletariat.

What lesson can we take from the inadequacy of the imperialists in the face of a resolute Iran? Vicious and blustering one day, cowardly and conciliatory the next, the bourgeoisie is rife with contradictions and incapable of decisive action. 

Meanwhile, the Israeli occupation cannot destroy Gaza and is terrified of Hezbollah. Regarding Iran, the occupation’s only strategy is to lash out wildly, bluff, and retreat. All the while, the mostly unscathed soldiers of Yemen watch, laugh, and dismiss out of hand the imperialists’ attempt to pay them with their own coin. 

These are not the actions of an ascendant empire. Nor the actions of an empire in control of its exploited class. These are the actions of an empire in decline with an uncontrolled economic system and an overstretched military. 

Responsibilities and tasks

State violence is the greatest threat to proletarian organization. If the current bourgeois state, in spite of its incredible wealth, is on the decline, what stands in the way of our proletarian movement?

It is the task of revolutionaries to analyze current conditions and contradictions and seize the opportunity presented. It is our task to see that which is dying and that which struggles to be born. We must further embed ourselves in the working class because we have been presented with a world-historic opportunity. The pathway for the growth of socialist revolution is beginning to be cleared away, much as it was in Russia following its devastating failure in the 1904-1905 Russo-Japanese war. 

If we do not organize workers now, with the aim of mobilizing them towards more and more militant action, we will have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. No serious communist can refrain from this work. 

“For the first time in world history, the revolutionary struggle [of the 1905 Russian Revolution] attained such a high stage of development and such an impetus that an armed uprising was combined with that specifically proletarian weapon — the mass strike. This experience is clearly of world significance to all proletarian revolutions. It was studied by the Bolsheviks with the greatest attention and diligence in both its political and its economic aspects...

The mass strikes and the armed uprisings raised, as a matter of course, the question of the revolutionary power and dictatorship, for these forms of struggle inevitably led — initially on a local scale — to the ejection of the old ruling authorities, to the seizure of power by the proletariat and the other revolutionary classes, to the expulsion of the landowners, sometimes to the seizure of factories, and so on and so forth. The revolutionary mass struggle of the time gave rise to organizations previously unknown in world history, such as the Soviets [ed. Russian for ‘Councils’] of Workers’ Deputies, followed by the Soviets of Soldiers’ Deputies, Peasants’ Committees, and the like.” - V.I. Lenin, ‘A Contribution To The History Of The Question Of The Dictatorship’.