WeeklyWorker

19.06.2025
Rallying to the flag

Peering into the darkness

Yassamine Mather questions the western nuclear bomb narrative, discounts the chances of managed regime change and insists that Israel’s war is not only against the regime. Millions of ordinary Iranians are in danger and must be defended

In its compliance with the US agenda, the media keep telling us that Israel’s current attack on Iran is a preventive war. There is, of course, a distinction between ‘preventive’ and ‘pre-emptive’ - those of us who have debated the Iran-Iraq war ad infinitum have argued that maybe Saddam Hussein’s attack on Iran was pre-emptive. He knew Iran was going to attack Iraq.

You could say that pre-emptive war is legitimate then - but ‘preventive war’ is not. That is when it is claimed that, at some undetermined time in the future, we will be at risk because a particular state might attack us. In this case, Israel and its allies, including G7 leaders, are arguing that at an indeterminate time in the future, Iran might have a nuclear bomb and will be able to launch a devastating attack. It is unbelievable that such nonsense is peddled by western governments and accepted by their subservient press and media. When I am interviewed by reporters about the existential threat posed by Iran, I ask, “Well, where exactly is this atomic bomb?”

Let us start with last week’s meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Even the compliant, pro-US mass media cannot deny the fact that this meeting, which apparently - at least, according to Benjamin Netanyahu - is the reason this attack took place, did not conclude that Iran has achieved nuclear weapons capability.

Non-compliance

The report is clear, Iran has 408.6 kg of 60% enriched uranium, while the uranium used in a nuclear weapon needs 90% enrichment. Yet this was presented as non-compliance with the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, which many European countries had signed up to. On the other hand, Israel, which has always refused to join the NPT, has some 140 nuclear warheads, and it possesses fissile material (mainly plutonium) for up to 200-300 more. It has the delivery system for these weapons too, with the Jericho II/III ballistic missiles, as well as Dolphin-class submarines capable of launching nuclear-armed cruise missiles.

There was another bizarre thing about this meeting. IAEA claims that Iran had stolen some of its secret documents. It is difficult to see how this could have happened, but all we know is that Iran hacked an Israeli nuclear document file. Some commentators have pointed out that IAEA is saving its nuclear documents that were stolen during the hacking of Israeli papers. In other words, no-one should have any trust in IAEA. There seems no end to the hypocrisy shown by global capitalism and its international institutions.

The current Israeli onslaught has multiple components and is very well-programmed and rehearsed. Stage one was the IDF attack on Iran’s top leaders. Then nuclear installations were targeted, while the latest stage is the attack on oil and gas reserves.

The Iranian government now claims this resulted in a victory for itself. Even by the standards of Iranian propaganda, this is ridiculous. They were taken by surprise, fooled by the nuclear negotiations in Oman. The reason I say this is that reliable information indicates that the reformist faction set to lead the negotiations on June 15 were under the impression that a deal with the US was possible - they told others that a final deal was imminent. That was total nonsense. However, if there was progress in the US-Iran talks, this could explain Netanyahu’s timing. He was keen to scupper the talks at all costs.

The question remains: how far did the US support the initial attack? Trump gave the green light, as he admitted on June 13. His post on Truth Social read, “Israel is likely to attack shortly”, and added: “I still think we should carry on with negotiations.” The real issue is whether Trump knew the full extent of the attack. Probably. Some argue he believed a limited strike would give the US and its Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, leverage in Oman. Trump has repeatedly said that Iran is a difficult negotiator, but he has also insisted that applying pressure can yield progress.

If the US now joins Israel in attacking nuclear plants, the consequences will be severe. Mohamed El Baradei - former IAEA head - has stated clearly that attacking nuclear facilities is irresponsible due to the risk of radiation. His comments referred to Israel’s previous strikes on above-ground support structures. However, an assault on the underground enrichment sections would be an entirely different matter.

Bunker-busting bombs are believed to be the only conventional weapons capable of penetrating up to 60 metres of reinforced concrete. These munitions can only be delivered by the B-2 stealth bomber. The United States has recently stationed a squadron of them on Diego Garcia, an island some 2,400 miles from Iran’s southern coast - well within operational range.

In the last few days, members of my family have frequently asked me, “Are we going to be poisoned by nuclear radiation?” The answer, at this stage, is probably not. The reasoning is simple: although the facilities have sustained damage, it appears to be superficial or at a low level. Most uranium enrichment takes place deep underground. If those inner sections had been hit, we would know. IAEA chief Rafael Grossi was quoted as saying on June 17 that they are monitoring the situation and have observed “no damage to the basics.”

However, this could all change if the 30 warplanes sent by the United States to the region on June 16-17 - reportedly including bunker-buster-equipped bombers - are used.

Regime change

Netanyahu, for his part, appears eager for the war to escalate and is seeking active involvement from the US and possibly European states. If such an attack occurs and radioactive material is released at the scale experts anticipate, it could be far worse than Chornobyl, where a catastrophic nuclear accident occurred in 1986. As the Qataris and other Gulf Arab states have warned, it would place millions of civilians at grave risk. That is an extremely serious issue - and, to be honest, I do not have a clear answer.

We also have the concept of ‘regime change’. Netanyahu has recently appealed to the Iranian people on what I call ‘Mossad Persian TV’ (Iran International TV), saying, “Fight your regime and join our war against the Islamic Republic.” Of course, he also said that there was the possibility that “We’ll burn the capital flat to the earth” - hardly a good tactic. If you are trying to turn a population against their government, telling them you could well destroy their homes if they do not “join our war” does not help. In addition the US president has told Tehran’s population of ten million to leave town!

Having said that, I think regime change is more in the imagination of the Iranian rightwing opposition: the Iran Zionists, royalists or the Mojahedin-e-Khalq. Most ordinary Iranians, even non-political ones, hate MEK more than the regime. They remain Islamist, and they stand no chance, despite financial support from Arab countries and political support from prominent US Republicans, as well as Liz Truss! Meanwhile, the royalists have some supporters, gained by relentless pro-Zionist western media propaganda portraying Israel as a ‘poor little democracy surrounded by barbarians’.

However, they are hardly a serious option. The regime will not collapse in the next few days, unless we see a major escalation, with the direct involvement of the USA or the assassination of Khamenei, as Trump threatens. However, none of this will be ‘regime change’, because there is no viable alternative. While sustained attacks could eventually lead to chaos or even civil war, supporters of the royalists, including those groomed by Israel, have been notably absent from major cities since the bombings started. This may be because the level of support for the royalists had been grossly exaggerated by propaganda outlets like Iran International TV. Alternatively, it could be that their leaders are simply too afraid to go public.

One thing is clear: the wave of bombing has fuelled nationalism. While most ordinary people dislike the regime, they are unlikely to support Netanyahu, Trump or anyone associated with them, when they are under aerial attack and forced to abandon their homes.

That said, the regime’s infrastructure is clearly under pressure. Those who can afford to are fleeing the major cities, and many shops are running out of basic supplies. If the current level of attacks continues, the regime will likely lose its grip on power. However, in the absence of any alternative, one can envisage chaos and eventual civil war.

If the US fails to broker a deal, Israel’s goal of destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities can only be achieved via direct American intervention. Only the US has the necessary military capability for such a strike. In that scenario, Iran might attempt to block the Strait of Hormuz - through which 20% of the world’s oil supply passes. However, I assume the US would respond with overwhelming force, destroying any Iranian naval or military units attempting to do so.

I think Netanyahu has given a gift to the Islamic Republic. Anti-Israel demonstrations (probably originally organised by the government) are now huge in Tehran and other major cities. The overwhelming sentiment in Iran is nationalism - a deep-seated pride in Iran’s 3,000-year (or, according to some, 7,000-year) history. Nationalism trumps everything else: underestimating it is a serious mistake.

Options

What are Iran’s options? None look good, especially as Iran has lost its allies. When recent attacks were launched against Hezbollah and Syria, we said that this was not really about them - the main enemy is Iran. Hamas is weak (and its relationship with Iran is tumultuous - allies during some periods, enemies during others, like the Syrian civil war). Hamas recently complained publicly about the lack of support from Iran as well as Hezbollah after October 2023.

Iran and Syria have been allies, but with contradictions. The Assad regime was useless, but Iran had Revolutionary Guard bases in Syria - not because they loved Assad, but in order to be closer to Israel if Tehran was attacked by the Zionist state. As for Hezbollah, it is very much weaker now: Lebanon’s new government restricts it, and the assassination of its leader, Hassan Nasrallah, combined with heavy losses (like the Beirut port explosion, which terrified ordinary Lebanese citizens), limits its capability. Iran has the Houthis - on June 13, videos showed large crowds in Yemen supporting Palestine and clapping during Iran’s attack on Tel Aviv. But that is strategically insignificant. There can be no Iranian victory in this conflict, given the total imbalance.

As Moshé Machover has pointed out, Netanyahu has focused on this for years. He claimed Iran’s nuclear bomb was “years away” 30 years ago, “months away” five years ago, and now “days away”. The reality is, Iran is far from full nuclear capability - it is not just a question of nuclear enrichment, but weapons delivery, which remains problematic. Comparing military capabilities, Iran has just over 90 million people, as opposed to Israel’s 10 million, so, yes, Iran has more soldiers, but this war will be fought with drones, missiles and air power - areas where Israel is far better equipped. Some Iranian ballistic missiles have penetrated the Iron Dome, but most are destroyed before they get there.

Iran’s options are limited:

The mistakes we should not make include the following. First, separating the war from the Iranian people: an Iranian ‘left’ group recently declared: “This is a war between Israel and Iran. Nothing to do with the Iranian people.” How stupid! Iranian people are dying; their houses are being destroyed. Israel (an extreme rightwing state) is attacking another country. If this war continues, many thousands will die.

An IDF leaflet reads: “Iran is now priority one; Gaza second” - yes, because in Gaza they are not fighting: they are starving people and forcing them to move and move again. For Netanyahu, this is yet another benefit of the war headlines having shifted from Gaza to Iran, while Gaza’s suffering has not stopped.

This war is with the Iranian people. The first victims will be Iran’s working class. One Israeli target on June 15 was Tabriz with its factories - places where workers have held strikes and demonstrations against the Islamic Republic in recent months. Will they now take Netanyahu’s flag and support the royalists? No. The Tabriz Tractor Company and Asaluyeh factory have historically been left strongholds. Stupid leaflets separating the people from the war will not help the Iranian left.

I also object to the kind of mislabelling of Iran by groups like the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty, which calls Iran a “sub-imperialist” or “regional imperialist” power. Of course, that might have been true under the shah. Today, however, Iran’s Islamic Republic is barely surviving. It cannot defend its capital or even feed its people. Decades of western sanctions have wrecked the economy and profoundly weakened the working class. Moreover, the Iranian left is fragmented, confused and in many ways compromised. Globally there will be solidarity with Iranian people - not the regime. Apart from saying that, what happens in the short to medium term is impossible to predict at this moment in time.

Articles by Yassamine Mather and Moshé Machover are edited versions of their June 15 Online Communist Forum talks.