WeeklyWorker

05.03.2026
Israel got what it wanted

Defeat US-Israeli aggression, defend the peoples of Iran

Numerous bogus excuses have been concocted for an extraordinarily dangerous war. We reject them all. This is a nakedly imperialist war by America designed to weaken China and ensure the regional hegemony of Zionist Israel. Yassamine Mather calls for revolutionary defencism

There has been much speculation in the US about the abrupt turn from jaw, jaw to war, war.

In many respects, the precise trigger matters less than calling it what it is: an act of imperialist aggression. Since the launch of ‘Operation Epic Fury’ on February 28, the Trump administration’s ‘justifications’ have shifted repeatedly. While the core themes - the nuclear programme, regime change and alleged threats to the US - have remained, the specific ‘reason of the day’ has varied. Everything depends on the audience and the speaker.

In his February 24 State of the Union address, Donald Trump claimed that Iran was rebuilding its nuclear programme. That after the June 2025 ‘Operation Midnight Hammer’ strikes. He also accused Iran of developing ballistic missiles capable of threatening Europe and US Middle Eastern bases. However, this was not presented as a matter of urgency. There were talks in Geneva where the US government sought a deal curbing Iran’s nuclear and missile programmes and an end to its backing for regional ‘proxies’ such as Hezbollah.

There were reports that the Geneva talks between the US and Iran were making “significant progress”. Oman’s foreign minister, Badr Albusaidi, who acted as the chief mediator, told the media that negotiations would resume in Vienna to discuss the finer details of a possible agreement.

Regime change

Now Trump promises regime change … but what exactly that means and how it is to be brought about remains vague, and, as is often the case with Trump, never consistent.

As the war expanded, US officials introduced a ‘ticking clock’ narrative: senior officials claimed that intelligence indicated Iran was preparing imminent missile strikes against US bases and those of its allies, presenting this as a justification for preemptive action. This followed questions from members of Congress, the Canadian premier and several European governments about the immediacy of the threat - noting that Iran’s intercontinental missile capability was reportedly years away. Administration spokespersons subsequently reframed the argument, shifting the emphasis from preventing an imminent strike to averting a future nuclear war.

A newer justification, articulated by secretary of state Marco Rubio, suggested that the US acted because Washington believed Israel was already preparing its own strike on Iran and that, if Israel acted alone, Tehran would retaliate against US forces. Therefore, by joining the initial assault, the US claimed it was preempting Iranian retaliation by weakening Tehran’s capacity to respond. An explanation that is as baseless as it is labyrinthine.

On February 27, and again on March 3, Trump cited the repression of Iranian protesters and an exaggerated death toll as a moral rationale for war, framing the conflict as part of a broader ‘liberation’ effort. The problem with this constant dishonesty is that no-one with any intelligence can take such claims seriously.

This is a war of aggression and should be condemned, regardless of the brutal and repressive character of the Islamic Republic. Contrary to the simplistic comments made by sections of the Iranian left, this is not merely a war between two reactionary states, Iran and Israel (the latter backed by the US). One of the many factions of the Worker-communist Party of Iran (Hekmatist) is even echoing Trump’s claim that Iran was not serious about negotiations, and that this is why the war began!

In Iran, the initial attack happened on Saturday morning, the first day of the week. People were going to work and school. Soon after the first bombs and missiles struck, I received a photo of schoolchildren taking refuge in a shelter. But many were still in the streets. This was partly because everyone assumed an initial attack would happen overnight. So they were surprised. I spoke to relatives on the phone saying they had to rush and pick up their children from school. On that same day, reports came in of at least 148 children having been killed in Minab, in the south of the country. By Tuesday we had at least 1,000 civilian deaths. Clearly, when the US and Israel say they have targeted specific sites and institutions such as the Revolutionary Guards, that their weapons have pin-point accuracy, this is a comforting lie. It is impossible to separate ‘legitimate’ state targets from the surrounding civilian population. Already some residential parts of Tehran are beginning to look like parts of Gaza.

Khamenei killed

Killing Ali Khamenei was not as complicated an operation as some western media outlets have claimed. The BBC reports that Mossad used clever tactics, such as tracking his movements by hacking into Tehran’s CCTV system. Nonsense. In reality, he refused to go into hiding or even move from his home after the 12-day war in June 2025. Contrary to CIA and MI6 propaganda, he was not hiding in a bunker. In fact, there is a video of him explaining the logic of staying put: “I am 86 years old, I’m crippled” (he had a paralysed arm). “I am not healthy, I am going to die. I am not going to hide - they can come and kill me.” Of course, given what we saw on March 1 in Iran and across the global south - millions on the streets of Iranian cities, hundreds of thousands in Yemen, Pakistan and Sri Lanka - there was a certain level of ‘calculated martyrdom’ in this decision.

As much as I abhor the politics of Khamenei, we should not treat the assassination of heads of state or leaders of organisations - simply because the US or Israel do not approve of them - as lightly as some have done. We need to condemn such acts without hesitation. In some ways, we have become immunised to these killings. So far, we have seen Israel assassinate a string of Hezbollah and Hamas leaders; Trump assassinate the IRCG’s general Qasem Soleimani; and now, between them, they have assassinated the supreme leader himself.

What is different is that, for the first time, a head of state has been assassinated. Some of this is a direct consequence of the global tolerance of the genocide in Gaza, which we now take for granted. A most horrific mass murder has occurred in front of cameras for the last two and a quarter years, and the world has not only tolerated it, but western governments have provided diplomatic cover and arms for the genocidal state. We cannot carry on as we were, because we live in a new era. We live in a situation where the world has changed, where it is no longer surprising that a head of state of a country Trump does not like is killed - along with members of his family - while the world looks on.

Have you seen any pictures of protests against the war in Iran in the mass media? No. What they have chosen to show are a few honking cars, on Saturday night, filled with flag-waving royalists celebrating the war and the death of Khamenei. With the exception of a short video on Sky and another on ABC, there seems to be a deliberate decision by major media outlets to turn a blind eye to the massive protests in Tehran, Shiraz, Isfahan and elsewhere. True, this has fooled some. In Socialist Worker, Hossein and Amir, Iranian exiles, write that the “attacks empower the monarchists”, the supporters of Reza Pahlavi, son of the former shah (March 4 2026).

But the fact of the matter is that huge numbers took to the streets. Far from echoing Trump’s call for regime change, they called for revenge, shouting “Death to America!” and “Death to Israel!” They are angry, because their homes, schools and hospitals are being destroyed. With his death, Khamenei has managed something he could not achieve during his life: uniting the Iranian people against the US and Israel.

For those of us who are in opposition to the Iranian government and to US aggression, all of this creates an even more difficult situation. On one hand, I appreciate that people have come out - a real slap in the face for imperialist aggression. But, on the other hand, all of this might consolidate Iran’s Islamic Republic.

From a military perspective, Iran has relied on launching missiles and drones in large numbers. These are the only serious capabilities it possesses. They are not highly sophisticated weapons, but they exist in significant quantities. Some have reached Israeli cities. There have been Israeli deaths.

The US and Israel have also targeted individuals they considered potential successors to Khamenei - presumably those with whom they had no positive contact. For example, the home of former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in south-east Tehran was bombed, although he was not present at the time. They also bombed the house of Mir-Hossein Mousavi, the leader of the 2009 protests - a ‘reformist’ who never fundamentally challenged the regime or the authority of the supreme leader. He is now calling for a referendum on the future of the Islamic Republic. He may have been viewed as a target, although today he is largely a marginal political figure.

Reaction below

The reactions to Khamenei’s death, particularly outside Iran, have been striking. For years, the Islamic Republic has invested significant political, financial and media resources in cultivating support beyond its borders - on the Arab street, in Pakistan, among Indian Muslims, in Sri Lanka, and elsewhere - by presenting itself as a defender of the Palestinians. I have always questioned the sincerity of this narrative, but it has clearly resonated with sections of the population across the region.

Iran maintains two parallel tracks in its regional policy: formal diplomatic relations with ruling elites - the Qatari emir, the Saudi royal family, the rulers of Kuwait and Oman - and, at the same time, a sustained propaganda and outreach effort directed at Arab public opinion. Through Arabic-language television stations and social media platforms, Tehran has sought to address those who are angry and frustrated about the continuing horror in Gaza. Arab governments are often depicted as having brought shame on the region through their inaction. Considerable funds have been devoted to this strategy, especially because protests for Palestine in many of these countries are routinely suppressed. Gulf rulers, while fearful of war and economic instability, are equally concerned about unrest among their own populations.

Iran’s attacks on US bases in the region must also be understood against this background. After publicly threatening to strike American targets, Tehran had little room to retreat without losing credibility. US bases in Gulf countries are geographically close and easy to reach compared with Israel. They can be reached by drone with the expectation that enough will get through. Moreover, the Gulf states are not protected by sophisticated systems such Israel’s Iron Dome.

It is unlikely that Iran deliberately targeted a hotel in Abu Dhabi, although Iranian officials later claimed that Mossad had been operating from the top floors. Such claims are difficult to verify. Unsurprisingly, governments in the region have protested to the United Nations, insisting they were not parties to the war and asking why Iran was attacking them. At the same time, there are persistent rumours that at least elements within the Saudi leadership - despite publicly opposing escalation - were aware of or indirectly involved in Netanyahu-Trump discussions about the military campaign.

Public reactions across the region have been mixed but, in some cases, intense. In Bahrain, when an Iranian missile struck a US military base, sections of the majority Shia population demonstrated in celebration. In Sana’a, Yemen’s capital, demonstrations have been massive, largely because the Houthi government is more than capable of mobilising huge numbers. Significant protests have also taken place in Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka and Malaysia, following Khamenei’s death. None of these protests are likely to directly challenge their respective governments. However, taken together, they indicate the depth of feeling among people who have watched and have been appalled by the genocide in Gaza.

For regional governments, the overriding concern was to avoid a full-scale US-Iran war, knowing that it could quickly become a broader regional conflict with unpredictable consequences. Iran will suffer devastating losses in this confrontation, but the political and economic repercussions may also destabilise neighbouring states. Events since the beginning of the war have already shaken the entire region.

In recent years, one of Israel’s principal allies in Asia has been India under Narendra Modi. Last week, I was interviewed by Indian television about Modi’s visit to Israel and his speech to the Knesset. Netanyahu spoke first, followed by Modi. Their rhetoric emphasised “2,000 years of Jewish-Indian cooperation”. Parts of the discourse went beyond Islamophobia and included elements of explicit far-right ideology, expressed openly on the Knesset floor. With the exception of Hadash and Ta’al KMs - who were removed from the chamber after protesting against Modi - the entire Knesset, across party lines, was effusive.

Even so, it was possible to detect Modi’s caution regarding a wider war with Iran: he signalled concern about regional escalation during his address. Now that India faces the economic and political consequences of a region that is aflame, the strength of the Indian-Israeli alliance may not be as solid as it appeared only a week ago.

Strategic options

Israel’s objective appears to be the weakening, if not the destruction, of Iran as a functioning state. Several Israeli ministers have made statements that strongly suggest this, and US officials who have met with Israeli leaders often emerge with that impression. There has also been a broader argument - advanced by figures such as Alain Badiou in recent years - that the US strategy in the Middle East has been to produce weakened or failed states. Iraq can be described in that way, while Libya is widely seen in similar terms. There is arguably an element of this logic in Trump’s policy, and it cannot be dismissed outright.

At the same time, this is not the only scenario being pursued. My understanding is that a number of tech billionaires close to Trump - including some of Iranian origin - have argued that there is significant financial potential in reaching an accommodation with Tehran. From this perspective, a negotiated deal could represent a political victory for Washington, particularly if it ended or at least curtailed the sale of discounted Iranian oil to China. Such an outcome would be a real blow to China and its global ambitions. If an agreement could be reached with the interim leadership - whether the current three-member council or some other body - it would be presented as a personal triumph for Donald Trump, who clearly has an eye on November’s mid-term elections. The GOP’s majority is seriously at risk.

Balance of forces

There is also the possibility that, if the Islamic Republic cannot be decisively defeated militarily, Washington may hope to undermine its social and political base. I remain sceptical of this scenario. Some commentators - including less serious voices in Persian-language media - have speculated about potential street fighting between supporters of the former shah and pro-regime forces. This seems highly unlikely. The balance of forces remains overwhelmingly in favour of the current state structure - especially following the Israeli-US assault. Monarchist supporters are unlikely to even show themselves on the streets for now. Of course, if dramatic and unforeseen developments were to occur - for example, if multiple senior figures were eliminated - the situation could change. But, at present, there is little evidence that the US administration, unlike Netanyahu, places any real trust in Reza Pahlavi. There are strong doubts about him having any sort of mass base inside Iran and he is widely thought to be somewhat stupid. Certainly he has proved utterly incapable of uniting the disparate elements of the exiled Iranian opposition.

The assassination of Khamenei on February 28, alongside the decapitation of Iran’s senior military and political leadership, was clearly done in the hope - or perhaps the assumption - by the US and Israel that such a shock would trigger immediate regime collapse. It is early days yet, but it looks unlikely at the moment.

However, as everyone knows, wars are unpredictable. While Trump initially seemed satisfied with forcing a “change in behaviour”, his rhetoric has hardened, not least following Iran’s drone strikes on the US embassy in Riyadh and facilities in Kuwait. Only a few days ago he bluntly stated it might now be “too late to talk”. But with the mercurial Trump, war, war, could easily give way again to jaw, jaw ... with who and on the basis of what conditions is another matter.

There is, purportedly, considerable friction within Trump’s own team. Secretary of war, Pete Hegseth, has argued that the current conflict is “not a democracy-building exercise”, while vice-president JD Vance continues to warn against “endless wars” that alienate Trump’s Maga base. Furthermore, domestic polling shows only one in four Americans supports the current strikes.

Military leaders in Tehran are undoubtedly closely monitoring these differences. If Trump concludes that the political cost is too high - whether due to rising US casualties or pressure from Arab allies - he may opt for a ‘quick yield’ exit that leaves the Iranian regime effectively intact - an outcome Netanyahu would likely view as a failure. And, remember, he too faces crucial elections on October 27. If things go well in Iran, expect an early, snap, election which could easily strengthen his hand.

Demands

Irrespective of the military outcome, we must go beyond shouting ‘Stop the war!’ What can we do, though? We should stand squarely with revolutionary defeatism: we want to see the defeat of the US, Israel and their allies, including the UK (which has reluctantly supported US-Israeli aggression because Iran has had the temerity to strike back). So we must call for solidarity with the people of Iran, while also opposing our own imperialists. That means demonstrations, widening the boycott campaign to docks and airports, selecting anti-war candidates in Your Party, etc.

Inside Iran, however, we must advocate revolutionary defencism. We must be aware that it is not easy. A few days ago, I was optimistic about promoting revolutionary-defencist slogans. However, having seen the large protests in support of the regime, I realise how difficult things are going to be for comrades.

Nonetheless, they will come forward with demands that rally people in districts and towns against the way the regime is conducting war.

Everyone in Iran tells me there are no adequate air-raid shelters - we must demand them. Open basements, underground carparks and the metro system.

We should call for universal rationing, instead of the selective subsidies the Islamic Republic grants to its chosen friends and allies. People are already going hungry. There should be fair shares for all.

The fortunes of the corrupt oligarchs should be immediately confiscated. Privatised industries put under state control so that the country can be organised to resist and survive. We must emphasise that the defeat of imperialism can only be achieved by fighting for extreme democracy. No to the rule of theocrats, generals, monarchists and capitalists.

We demand the freeing of political prisoners currently held in Iranian prisons who want to resist the Israelis and the Americans. We must call for an armed popular militia.

There must be freedom of speech and the unrestricted right to demonstrate, assemble and organise.

We have to keep demanding the separation of state and religion. Sunnis, Zoroastrians, Jews, Baha’is and Christians should have equal rights. People should be free to believe or not to believe. There must be no discrimination. Religion should be a private matter. Iran must become a secular republic.

We should demand the continued unity of Iran but also the right of the Kurdish, Azeri and Balochi nations to self-determination. Unity must be voluntary. That is the best way to thwart US and Israeli plans to use the legitimate grievances of national minorities to fragment and wreck the country.

We oppose the theocracy and any return of the monarchy. We call for a provisional revolutionary government that organises free and fair elections to a constituent assembly.

Such demands can gain mass traction, as the war goes from days to weeks.