ON THE OCCASION OF IRAN’S VICTORY
By: “Thersitis”
Let us begin with the fundamentals, so that we do not lose sight of the essential truths.
War is the filthiest disease of the human race—a tragic deviation from humanity’s true nature.
War and organised violence emerged alongside private property, when the first human being declared, “This is mine.”
War will endure for as long as society remains divided into classes, governed by the supreme law of maximum profit and divided between exploiters and the exploited.
War will continue for as long as class societies are organised into states—whether national or multinational—whose fundamental purpose is to defend and expand the interests of the ruling class through the exploitation and oppression of other nations and social classes. Colonialism, racism, apartheid and imperialism are all different manifestations of this same historical reality.
Fascism, in all its forms, represents the most extreme, most aggressive, most inhuman and most criminal expression of state power exercised by ruling classes within class-divided societies. Its principal objective is the complete domination of oppressed classes, social groups and nations, while simultaneously securing supremacy through new wars.
In my view, the contemporary manifestations of fascism are:
- Donald Trump and the new Axis of the Collective West, acting as its principal driving force together with its subordinate instruments;
- the Zionist Nazism of Israel;
- the Ukrainian Nazism centred in Kyiv;
- together with numerous smaller fascist and neo-Nazi movements scattered across all five continents.
The theory and practice of warfare—whether offensive or defensive, whether waged for conquest, national liberation or revolution—has evolved into a genuine science. It is undoubtedly a brutal science, yet a science nonetheless. Throughout history it has continuously incorporated the lessons of victory and defeat while absorbing humanity’s scientific and technological achievements.
The wars described by Homer bore little resemblance to those fought after the invention of gunpowder and firearms. Warfare changed again with the arrival of aircraft, ballistic missiles and, eventually, nuclear weapons. Today, we are witnessing yet another profound transformation in the character of war.
I believe we are living through a generalised Third World War—or a Fourth, if one also includes the Cold War—with several active theatres of conflict:
- Ukraine, where the Collective West seeks the defeat, destruction and eventual fragmentation of Russia.
- Occupied Palestine, where Zionist Nazism, supported by the West, seeks to eliminate every form of indigenous resistance—even through genocide and ethnic cleansing—as the first step towards establishing a powerful colonial entity stretching “from the Nile to the Euphrates.”
- West Asia, where Trump’s United States and Israel, assisted by the historically constructed monarchies of the Persian Gulf, seek to crush Iran and its allies while securing exclusive control over the region’s energy resources and strategic transport routes.
- Additional theatres of confrontation are already emerging, with periodic clashes taking place in Latin America, East Asia, the Pacific and even the Arctic.
“War is the continuation of politics by other means.”
Carl von Clausewitz’s famous observation was later adopted by Vladimir Lenin, who used it extensively to explain war as the inevitable extension of capitalist and imperialist interests through political action.
Never before has this principle become so evident as it is today.
Politics, diplomacy, economics and military operations have become inseparable across every active front of what I regard as the Third—or, if one prefers, the Fourth—World War.
Iran’s victory in the opening phase of the American-Israeli war against it is of historic significance.
Although the present ceasefire represents only a temporary pause and the conflict will undoubtedly continue, this victory has already provided exceptionally important lessons for the theory and practice of modern warfare.
Those lessons should be studied carefully as part of the struggle for:
- the ultimate defeat of Trump’s United States and the Collective West;
- the complete eradication of Zionist Nazism and Ukrainian Nazism;
which, in my opinion, constitute the central historical challenges of our era and represent either the indispensable precondition—or, under certain historical circumstances, the pathway—to genuine social transformation.
Where We Stand Today—and What Is Most Likely to Follow
Having outlined the broader historical framework, let me now turn to where we stand today and to what I believe is most likely to follow, particularly with regard to both the American–Israeli offensive against Iran and NATO’s war against Russia.
My Assessment
Personally—and unless there is a fundamental change within some of the forces currently targeted by the imperialism of the Collective West—I believe the outlook is rather bleak.
1. The Iranian Front
As far as Iran is concerned, I see absolutely no possibility that the United States will ultimately implement the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) that it was compelled to accept.
In my view, the agreement incorporates all of Iran’s principal demands while conceding none of Washington’s essential objectives. In practical terms, it amounts to nothing less than what I would describe as a document of unconditional surrender by the United States.
I do not believe Washington will honour this agreement. Not only will Israel work to undermine it, but implementing it would also require the United States to acknowledge a strategic defeat in its broader effort to halt the transition towards a multipolar world order.
The terms imposed by Tehran became possible because of two decisive developments.
The first was the growing pressure created by the depletion of the strategic oil reserves of the imperialist powers. President Trump himself openly admitted that he had been compelled to sign the agreement because existing reserves would last only another four weeks.
The second was the exhaustion of Western military stockpiles—particularly missiles and aerial munitions—combined with the inability of current industrial production to replenish them rapidly. At the same time, Iranian strikes destroyed American military bases and operational radar installations throughout the region while inflicting significant damage on the United States Fifth Fleet.
Taken together, these developments explain why I believe the real purpose of the agreement is not peace.
Rather, it is to provide the Collective West—and especially the United States—with valuable time: time to replenish strategic oil reserves, rebuild a military machine weakened by recent setbacks, and eventually set aside the commitments contained in the Memorandum of Understanding.
Yet this strategy also presents a serious dilemma for the American–Zionist alliance.
After more than forty years of sanctions and supposed international isolation, Iran has demonstrated that it is better prepared than its adversaries.
I believe it is equally clear that, just as it did after last year’s Twelve-Day War, Iran will use the present pause to prepare new and potentially painful surprises for its enemies.
Behind Iran’s proven military capability stands not only a proud and resilient people but also a political leadership that—regardless of individual personalities, many of whose predecessors were assassinated by the American–Zionists —remains committed above all to victory, rather than to compromise or to seeking acceptance by the Western powers.
For me, that is one of the most important conclusions to emerge from the conflict.
2. NATO’s War Against Russia
Turning now to the war that NATO has launched against Russia.
I believe Russia has, regrettably, lost its capacity to deter NATO.
The Alliance continues to escalate its attacks against the heart of Russian territory with growing confidence. This became particularly evident during the most recent large-scale strikes against Moscow and the renewed attacks on the bridges connecting Crimea.
Russia has responded with further strikes against the authorities in Kyiv and mostly targeting military and energy infrastructures.
Yet these operations have failed to deter NATO itself, because the Alliance neither bears the consequences nor pays any direct price for the attacks that it plans, coordinates and supports against Russia.
Meanwhile, Russian forces have spent many months making only limited progress on the battlefield.
At the same time, increasing numbers of appeals from front-line soldiers—largely ignored by mainstream media—describe shortages of weapons, ammunition and even basic military supplies.
To me, one conclusion appears inescapable.
Russia AS IT IS YODAY, in its present condition, cannot win this war.
This is not simply because it was inadequately prepared.
The former Soviet military establishment was allowed to deteriorate under the weight of corruption and institutional decay. During the past four years alone, more than fifty ministers, deputy ministers, generals, commanders and other senior officials have reportedly been arrested or convicted on corruption-related charges.
But I believe an even deeper problem lies elsewhere.
In my opinion, Russia’s ruling elite is not genuinely pursuing complete victory. Actually around 50 oligarch families and 50 high ranking officials, totally not more than hundred persons, but controlling the power, the mass media, the propaganda, strongly believe that their private interests do not suit with the DEFEAT of the West and NATO and work towards a “settlement” with the beloved “white and Christian West” admiring Trump and acting under the illusion that finally Trump and his gang will be their equal partner for … governing together the Planet and … sharing the benefits!
That, ultimately, is the central weakness that distinguishes Russia’s conduct of this war from Iran’s.
Iran’s Victory and Russia’s Experience
Iran’s victory at this stage of the war—and Russia’s lack of success, not to say its failure, after four to five years of military operations—confirms something that Andrei Gromyko, the Soviet Union’s long-serving Minister of Foreign Affairs, repeatedly emphasised. Let us not forget that he was also the political mentor of Sergey Lavrov and many of today’s senior Russian diplomats.
As Gromyko observed:
“The influence of diplomacy without the military strength of a state is worth no more than the price of the ink with which treaties are written.”
In my view, the current Russian leadership appears to have forgotten not only Gromyko’s lesson but another fundamental historical reality:
The Lessons of Russian History
History shows that Russia and the Soviet Union won every major existential war they fought—including the Patriotic War against Napoleon in 1812, the Allied Intervention during the Russian Civil War (1918–1921), and the Great Patriotic War of 1941–1945—because they relied above all on the mobilisation of the entire nation.
By contrast, they suffered defeat—or failed to achieve their objectives—in almost every limited or regional conflict, including:
- the Crimean War (1853–1856);
- the Russo-Japanese War (1904–1905);
- the Polish–Soviet War (1919–1921);
- the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan (1979–1989);
- the First Chechen War (1994–1996);
to say nothing of earlier examples.
To me, the historical lesson is unmistakable.
-Whenever Russia has fought as a nation fully mobilised for an existential struggle, it has prevailed.
-Whenever it has attempted to wage limited wars without such mobilisation, the outcome has been far less successful.
How the Collective West Understands the Conflict
The recent cover of Der Spiegel, published on the eighty-fifth anniversary of Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union and bearing the headline:
“Our War Against Russia”
leaves, in my opinion, no room whatsoever for misunderstanding.
It demonstrates how the Collective West itself understands the nature of the present confrontation.
To them, this is essentially the continuation of the same historical conflict that began eighty-five years ago.
The objective remains unchanged.
Today’s Western political establishment continues to seek the strategic outcome that was left incomplete after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1990–1991.
Russia’s “Red Lines”
Within Russia, repeated NATO bombardments and the daily deaths of civilians have gradually turned references to President Putin’s “red lines” into an object of public irony.
Likewise, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova’s repeated statements that “the cup of patience has overflowed” have become the subject of increasingly sarcastic public commentary. People ask: “-How many overflowing cups are there, after all?”
Behind the irony lies a serious concern.
Repeated warnings that are not followed by corresponding action inevitably lose their credibility.
Deterrence cannot rest upon rhetoric alone.
It must ultimately be demonstrated through actions that convince one’s adversary that further escalation will carry an unacceptable cost.
The Prospect of Escalation
For that reason, I believe we are moving towards an increasingly dangerous and potentially uncontrollable escalation.
In my assessment, NATO no longer appears to recognise meaningful limits in its confrontation with Russia.
Each stage of escalation that goes unanswered encourages the next.
The longer this continues, the greater the danger that the conflict will expand beyond its present boundaries.
Belarus and the Protection of Allies
The reported ultimatum issued by President Zelensky to Belarus, together with preparations for possible military action against Russia’s closest ally, would never even have become conceivable if Russia had demonstrated the same determination in defending its allies that Iran has demonstrated towards Lebanon.
The same observation applies, in my opinion, to Venezuela and Cuba.
When allies remain under constant pressure while support appears hesitant or insufficient, deterrence is weakened not only in one region but across the entire international system.
A credible alliance must demonstrate that aggression against one member carries consequences for those responsible.
Germany, the Netherlands and the Credibility of Deterrence
The recent statements by Chancellor Friedrich Merz concerning Kaliningrad, together with reports that the Netherlands is preparing detention facilities for future Russian prisoners of war, would never have been made had Russia consistently translated its public warnings into concrete action.
Russia has repeatedly declared that German factories manufacturing drones and missiles used against Russian forces constitute legitimate military targets.
Yet, in my opinion, those declarations have remained largely rhetorical.
History demonstrates that deterrence depends less upon declarations than upon the demonstrated willingness to act when declared red lines are crossed.
The Logic of Credible Deterrence
In my view, the current course of events points towards a simple but unavoidable conclusion:
Deterrence loses its effectiveness when repeated warnings are not followed by corresponding action.
For that reason, I do not believe that President Zelensky’s reported ultimatum to Belarus—or preparations for possible action against Russia’s closest ally—would ever have been contemplated had Russia demonstrated the same determination in defending its allies that Iran has shown towards Lebanon.
The same, in my opinion, applies to Venezuela and Cuba.
If Russia were seen as genuinely prepared to defend its allies whenever they faced external aggression, the strategic calculations of its adversaries would be very different.
Germany and the Netherlands
Likewise, I do not believe that Chancellor Friedrich Merz would have spoken about “eliminating Kaliningrad,” nor that the Netherlands would have announced preparations for detention facilities intended for future Russian prisoners of war, had Russia consistently acted upon its own declared red lines.
Russian officials have repeatedly stated that German military industries producing drones and missiles used against Russian forces constitute legitimate military targets.
Yet these statements have remained largely declaratory.
Deterrence ultimately depends not upon declarations but upon convincing one’s opponent that crossing clearly defined limits will inevitably carry consequences.
The Principle of Reciprocity
The same principle applies elsewhere.
When Moscow itself is under bombardment and all four of its major airports are forced to suspend operations, I find it difficult to understand why airports in Berlin, London, Paris and Warsaw should continue functioning as though nothing has happened.
If one side alone bears the practical consequences of escalation, while the other continues normal daily life, the balance of deterrence inevitably shifts.
Reciprocity has always been one of the fundamental principles of strategic stability.
Without it, escalation becomes increasingly one-sided.
Crimea and Ukraine’s Strategic Infrastructure
Let us consider another example.
At a time when the bridges connecting Crimea remain under constant threat, when the roads leading to and from Mariupol are exposed to continuous attacks by Ukrainian drones, and when shortages of fuel affect Crimea and the liberated territories, I find it difficult to understand why Ukraine’s own strategic infrastructure continues to function almost without interruption.
The bridges across the Dnieper remain standing.
Major Black Sea ports continue operating.
Road and railway corridors continue transporting weapons, ammunition and fuel to Ukrainian forces.
From a military perspective, these transportation networks represent critical components of Ukraine’s logistical system.
Disrupting them would fundamentally alter the operational balance of the conflict.
Maritime Transport
The same inconsistency appears at sea.
Britain and France seize Russian commercial vessels.
Meanwhile, Western ships continue transporting military equipment and fuel with relatively little interference, particularly through the Black Sea and the Baltic Sea.
I cannot help comparing this situation with the naval pressure previously imposed by the United States against countries such as Venezuela, Cuba and Iran.
Negotiations While Moscow Was Under Attack
Many people inside Russia reacted with genuine anger when, on the very day that Moscow itself came under bombardment, the Kremlin announced that it was awaiting President Trump’s representatives for further negotiations.
To many Russians, this appeared profoundly contradictory.
At the very moment when the country’s capital was under attack, the emphasis seemed to be placed upon negotiations rather than upon demonstrating strategic resolve.
For that reason, I believe that international solidarity with those left-wing political forces inside Russia that oppose what they regard as an unacceptable compromise with the Trump administration remains one of the important responsibilities of today’s anti-imperialist movement.
Conclusion of This Section
These developments reinforce my broader conclusion.
Wars are ultimately decided not only by military capabilities but also by political determination, strategic coherence and the credibility of deterrence.
When these elements become disconnected, military strength alone is insufficient to secure political objectives.
That, in my view, is one of the principal lessons to be drawn both from Iran’s recent experience and from the continuing war in Ukraine.
The Necessity for Working-Class Politics in Every Society under the continuing and escalating War conditions.
I have tried repeatedly in every chat, discussion, Forum or meeting in several occasions, especially in International Collective activities such as the World Antiimperialist Platform, the SOVINTERN nerwork and other similar -considering that the Dialogue among all of us is their main purpose- to present my personal approach for the role of such networks and believing to their high value, which to my opinion, mostly need to be:
– A Global Call for Action and for peoples’ and nations’ social/political/ideological raise against Imperialism, Racism, Facsism, colonialism – especially FOCUSED and establishing touch with the very young ages,
– A new try for mobilisation of the worlds people – exploiting EVERY possibility that the Social Media and the Web offers through our “guerrilla” presence in them – for the Defeat of the collective West, Zionism, NATO in ALL fronts (Ukraine, Palestine, Iran, Latin America, Africa etc) and for the raise of Global South for a Fairer Planet,
– A global Solidarity movement for uniting ANY nation or society or group that suffer from the Imperialism and US aggression AND/OR fighting for Independence, Sovereignty and against INJUSTICE and INEQUALITY.
– Finally this massive and continuous, coordinated struggle for the above, globally and in every corner of the world, we want to mature and will generate with the exploitation of the most advanced technologies/achievements of the humankind, a New Victorious historic current that will change the World liberating the labor and the working class.
Even in the cases we do successfully this work – even in case we support or create massive movements, without underestimating the historical importance of these massive strungles and also of the huge underground and underwater social currents that have not yet come to the surface, I think that SOMETHING IS MISSING in the most of cases:
- The absolute necessity, to create Working- Class politics, , with specific Class tactics-strategy-goals (immediate, midterm and long-term) in EVERY society and in EVERY circumstance or period.
- I fear that no matter how massive and powerful these mass movements and underground currents I previously mentioned, become or are, if they remain ONLY with anti-war/peace-loving, anti-colonial or “national independence” content, even with large doses of anti-imperialism and solidarity, if they are not connected to and guided by the Working-Class politics and the perspective of Social Change, they will very quickly subside or feed new reformist forces, which will be born from the existing or new elites that will be created.
- The “Communist Manifesto of Marx/Engels, “the condition of the working class in England” by Engels and “Capital” by Marx as well as the works of other great Marxists such as Lenin, offer us the METHOD for the orientation to the Working Class and the creation of Class and political Consciousness in it. Almost everything, however, has changed since then, both in the Production Relations and the Economic Base that shape what we call the Working Class, as well as in the Superstructure that influences the formation of its Consciousness, always with the aim of serving the dominance of the Law of Profit.
I therefore consider it absolutely necessary, in every country, in every society, to form Study and Work Groups of very young scientists, students, researchers, scholars, and young workers, starting with the main and most basic ones:
– What is today what we are calling “Working Class” in each society?
– And, most important, how its consciousness is formatted today, under what mechanisms and conditions?
I believe that all these works and abstracts can be collected in a kind of an “On line Digital Institute”, hosted if possible in the SOVINTERN or WAP or other interactive platform when ready and developed, becoming the first topic of a huge, long term and open minded theoretical work we have to complete for giving shape and form to the “foggy” goal “For the Socialism in the 21st Century”
We need, anyway to find and engage with us, the most brilliant intellectuals of the next generation…
I present below, separately some thoughts of mine on these topics and I also enclose links to download two useful books on the matter.
A proposal to the young comrades, students, scholars and workers:
On the Left, there is always discussion about issues of culture, daily life, lifestyle in general, and the shaping of consciousness.
But unfortunately, there are many aspects that remain underdeveloped, mainly because many issues of materialist dialectics—even those that are “foundational” to Marxism—remain poorly understood or even distorted.
For this reason, what is needed today is a comprehensive re-examination of the issue and a discussion that will thoroughly explore the causes behind the Left’s current theoretical and practical-political confusion in this area. This is especially true because the circumstances have changed dramatically compared to the past—even the recent past—and repeating the same, already inadequate, analyses is no longer sufficient.
We probably need to pick up the historical and theoretical thread that has been distorted by various interventions—often not those hostile to the class movement.
An integral part of Marx’s conception of capitalism was what Hegel had observed following the bourgeois revolutions, primarily the French Revolution, regarding the significance of time in history. For the first time in human civilization, the question of the historical dimension of things was raised, and for the first time in Western thought—including Western thought on nature—time made its entrance.
That is to say, reality in people’s lives is not defined by any ahistorical, metaphysical, or transcendent determination or destiny, but by social and class relations. It is not God who determines, but social classes—and the relations between them—in their historical course.
Based on this dialectical concept, Marx and Engels formulated the materialist conception of history.
From that point on, Marx and Marxists focused on studying the formation of social relations under capitalism, their nature, and the contradictions they generate, as well as the formation of subjects within these relations. Not as products of an automatic social determinism, but as a dialectical relationship—that is, as a relationship of substantive and continuous interaction. Where people are products of social relations and social relations are consequences of human action.
In this sense, the formation of consciousness—of every class—and the conditions under which this consciousness is formed become critical conditions for any revolutionary or even non-revolutionary political project. Marx thus formulated the idea that the working class transforms itself from a class in itself into a class for itself when it becomes conscious of its position in the social structure, when it mobilizes and acts to liberate itself. And that by liberating itself, it liberates the whole of society from the bonds of property and alienation.
Using this framework, E. Thompson, in his book “The Making of the English Working Class”*, (https://uncomradelybehaviour.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/thompson-ep-the-making-of-the-english-working-class.pdf ), examined how the working class in England in the 19th century—and indeed throughout the world—was constituted as a class not only by its position in production but also through its struggles to secure better living conditions and to emancipate itself.
All of this leads us to think more seriously about the role played by the conditions shaping the consciousness of the working class (which interests us primarily), but also of all classes.
This implies, based on Thompson’s conclusions as well, that the material and intellectual conditions shaping class consciousness, and thus the formation of the class, become the subject of a fierce conflict between the forces defending the bourgeois system and those seeking to overthrow it.
Why is this so important for the working class? Because this class is universal, as Marx said. Its vanguard role, therefore, is defined not only by its position in production but also by this universal character.
This, of course, is not something that is set in stone. Whatever has been achieved can be overturned, both in terms of the working class’s living conditions and in its consciousness. Of course, history has continuity; every past shapes the future, and every victory or defeat remains a legacy in the collective consciousness.
And at the same time, it is marked by upheavals, a discontinuous and erratic development.
Hence the ideological, political, and social struggle that is in a state of constant tension, even when its external manifestations are not deafening.
In recent years, the forces defending capitalist relations have demonstrated an exceptional ability to fragment and co-opt the working class.
As the editors of István Mészáros’s book “Beyond Capital – Toward a theory of Transition” (** https://www.marxists.org/archive/meszaros/index.htm and https://archive.org/details/beyondcapitaltow0000mesz/page/n9/mode/1up) note: “The galloping pace of technological development (the so-called Fourth Industrial Revolution) and the techno-utopianism that accompanies it are paving the way for new ways of shifting the structural contradictions of capital. These consist both in the normalization of far more sophisticated methods of population control (something of critical importance since technology now removes people from work at a faster rate than it adds them, creating ever-swelling “surplus” populations) as well as in the creation of a new human type that is in step with new practices of production and consumption.”
Of course, this is not merely a product of the modern era, nor is it solely a result of technology. This struggle is an old one, but it shifts its focus as circumstances and means change. And today, the phenomenon has taken on explosive proportions, and any underestimation of it comes at a very high cost.
In this sense, a prominent place in the landscape of counter-revolutionary theories is occupied by those that deconstruct Marxist theory on the crucial issue of the universality of the working class as the vanguard class of society, and replace it with particular movements that fragment the revolutionary subjects and their demands.
It would be a significant contribution if the parties and movements that defend Marxism were to systematically address, in their programs and positions, the issue of shaping the consciousness of the contemporary working class. Something that today is merely mentioned in general terms, confirming the relative awkwardness of the situation.
We remind our readers that publication of articles on our site does not mean that we agree with what is written. Our policy is to publish anything which we consider of interest, so as to assist our readers in forming their opinions. Sometimes we even publish articles with which we totally disagree, since we believe it is important for our readers to be informed on as wide a spectrum of views as possible.