Iran War Notes

Netanyahu, the leader of Israel, sounds reasonable in his speech and his answers to the press questions, he has a nice voice, and is always composed. This is 19/03/2026 during the war on Iran by the US and Israel. The war was started by these powers without warning during negotiations with Iran. The justification has varied for the US and Trump, flipping between the apparent nuclear threat, to the killing of protesters by the Iranian authorities, to regime change.  Now, as Netanyahu speaks, he refers to Iran’s conventional weapons that it has developed, describing them as a way for Iran to develop and protect nuclear weapons. So now, also, Iran may not even develop conventional weapons, as far as these powers are concerned. In effect this means that Iran may not have a state, be a state, an authority with power.

The argument that these allied powers were encouraging an uprising by the Iranian people rings hollow, now, because the bombing, such as of needed infrastructure and the oil storage facilities around Tehran, which affects Iranians badly, does not engender sympathy even from the rebels.

On a news programme, Trump expressed surprise that Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz as part of its retaliation. The strait is a narrow point in the vital global trade route for shipping, especially of fossil fuels. This in itself is surprising, both that he did not expect it, and that he would admit to not expecting it. But Trump is hard to pin down, he sows confusion and appears to operate on whims. The attack on the giant gas field shared between Iran and Quatar. Was this known by Trump or not? Who knows. Trump seems to deny knowing it, perhaps because it would not be liked too much by Quatar, a supposed ally.

It seems incredible that the leaders of Iran especially, after all this time, do not seem to realize that the US and Israel work together, they are a ‘double act’ so to speak. Or maybe they just go along with the illusion. Israel manages to assassinate Iran’s leaders almost at will, but still Iran seems to be capable of defending itself with its missiles and drones.

The question is, does Israel and the US really want to degrade Iran to the extent that it represents no threat? Do they not need a good excuse for war every now and then? And what do they really expect from regime change if it were to happen? Not a progressive revolution of course, they do not want a competing progressive democracy or socialism in this fossil fuel rich location, they would prefer the return of the Shah type of aristocracy, it is easier for them to make deals with and exploit.

None of the ‘analysts’ of this war drawn on by the western media bring into the account of this conflict the role of class. The US military bases strewn throughout the region exist because the regional royalty, their ruling classes want them, because they help them control their own working classes. Iran is the different one, the exception, it had a revolution but went one step forwards and two steps backwards, it ejected western interests and deposed the Shah but installed the clerics and absolute religious authority. But it does not have the US bases and is unfriendly to US regional influence, and Israel. It is therefore not entirely untrue that Iran does not represent a threat to the world if it develops nuclear weapons.

But it is also true that we are always threatened by the nuclear weapons in the hands of people like Trump and Netanyahu, and Hitlerism grew out of a democracy, so what is different about Iran? Iran must not have nuclear weapons according to the western powers for a hidden reason, because it is near all the oil and the main trade route for it. For this reason, the Middle East in general must be kept virtually medieval, and it must be reduced into this condition periodically by the imperial powers. It must be made and kept barbaric. This is simple capitalist imperialist competition at work.

What, in any case, is the specific difference with Iran having nuclear weapons to other countries that have them? Aside from the argument that they are crazy, Netanyahu claimed in his speech that if they had nuclear weapons, they would blackmail the world. Is this true? Apart from trying to know what is in the psychology of the future Iranian regime if it had nuclear weapons, what would be their actual, material, advantage? After all, they would only be in the same position as every other nuclear power. If they were to use the bomb, there would be mutually assured destruction, and no winners. Clearly the only real difference would be that other nuclear powers would not be able to sway them with threats so easily, the nuclear powers would lose influence in this region, which in the end is to lose profits.

Regarding the accusation of craziness, Iran has Islam as a state religion, unlike for instance Judaism in the state of Israel. The west implies that this state religion is especially unhinged. History does not prove this, yet every religion has its extreme evangelists who can become state terrorists. At this moment it is the democratic west led by Trump and Netanyahu that is being terrorist, but on a grand crusading imperialist scale that makes the label seem weak and inappropriate. Religion is dangerous because it is faith, and faith knows no bounds.

Coming back to earth, by missing out class in their analysis, the leaders of the west also miss out the thorny issue of their own workers not being able to afford to buy fuel for their cars to get to work and the cost of living is rising again. These are ostensibly at least democracies, which have public opinion, which in the US is opposed to this war. In the Middle East what the working classes think and feel is a mystery to them, at least as far as they let us see. Iran attacks the neighbouring Middle Eastern countries that host US military bases from which they are being attacked, as they obviously would. These attacks must affect the class relations in these countries, causing some wobbles. Thus, it is not only Iran that could develop regime change given this war and its unsettling conditions.

Generally western leaders, in an amazing show of brazen hypocrisy, denounce Iran for attacking these countries (i.e. defending itself) and remain quiet about the unlawful surprise attack by Israel and the US on Iran, which started this war. Brazen hypocrisy is clearly the name of the game these days, it is presumably a rather strange way to try to hang onto a vestige of moral high ground, but they cannot refer to international law anymore, which died with Gaza. This might be seen as the law of the jungle, but in the jungle it is simpler, there is less connivance, subterfuge, espionage, backstabbing, etc., all the hallmarks of human economic contradictions and struggle.

And all this fighting is over fossil fuels, all this extra pollution, at a time when we least need it, when the planet is warming alarmingly due to the burning of these fuels. Truly the global bourgeois classes seem to want to cement their reputation as totally unfit to rule.

 

What are Trump's Tariffs?

Tariffs have been put forward as an economic balm for the US by President Trump. It is not so clear what exactly he means by tariffs, or whether he will stick to this policy, but we can make a stab at an explanation.

Most economists regard tariffs as a bad thing, but they are usually short on explanations why.

Tariffs seem to be understood by the new US administration as a way to bring in money, to, in a sense, punish foreign producers who undercut US prices, and to encourage the manufacture and purchase of US made goods and services.

But tariffs are usually placed upon the importer of the foreign goods, not the exporter, and this means in this case the US side, because the exporter is a foreign market, and their prices cannot normally be set by the importing country (the US here). Tariffs are therefore imposed at the point of the local importer. This has consequences: it usually leads to a rise in prices for the imported goods, because the importer now needs to make more money to cover costs.

It is possible that this could encourage more local production and help the local competition for this market, but there are usually good reasons for the foreign produced product being cheaper which may not be able to be repeated locally, it of course depends on many factors, but in any case this is unlikely to happen quickly. So, the immediate result of tariffs would be the inflation of prices in the US.

US citizens are already complaining about high inflation and the cost of living, and this is likely to make things worse.

Tariffs can be understood as a part of economic protectionism, and so perhaps of socialism, but in the capitalist economy it cannot really be socialist unless you also subsidise the local industries that you want to support with help from the government (or go the full route and nationalize them). However, this is obviously not the policy in the current US, where the federal government is under attack for being wastefully ‘too socialist’ or ‘woke’. Trump supports the free market inside the US apparently but is not a free marketeer globally.

The hope of this government is that tariffs will help boost local US productivity, somehow left unexplained, in the context of simultaneously stimulating other aspects of the market. The big idea, not a very new one, is to give tax cuts to the rich, who are described here as the ‘wealth creators’ (not oligarchs), and hope that these invest and employ people. Mere hope is not a great policy.

Unfortunately, this is what already failed to happen, by and large, in the last economic crisis when money was printed and interest rates were held very low, and which has led us to this crisis. Investors, of course, may not invest, instead they might squirrel away their wealth, which they are likely to do if they sense a crisis and if there is market uncertainty and volatility.

Meanwhile in the US there is also a parallel attack on illegal or undocumented immigrants, the cheaper labour that the US enjoys. This attack seems to be the partner with tariffs as a mooted solution to the economic crisis. Immigrants and refugees are said by the administration to be stealing US jobs and bringing in harmful drugs and criminality. The wall of tariffs mimics Trump’s border wall supposedly keeping out the immigrants.

However, it is the ruling class that benefits from employing this cheaper and easier to manipulate labour force. And now they also benefit from deflecting any possible blame for the crisis onto these vulnerable people and the ‘weaknesses’ of those on the left who are supposed to have ‘let them in’. It is quite despicable for the rich and powerful to target these unlucky people in this way, but they do it with the help of their media.

The rich class must feel that they have especially lost out on capital since the last crises and the pandemic and wish to claw back this apparently missing wealth and are seeking someone and something to blame for the problem other than themselves and the economic system. This is also an extension of the laying of the blame for the high cost of living on other countries and other persons, old allies and old enemies alike.

The last president, Democrat Joe Biden, did not remove most of Trump’s earlier tariffs, so this policy is not only that of this administration, but of the US bourgeoisie as a whole.

Tariffs are unlikely to stay isolated to one country. Other affected countries will have to respond in some way, the most likely being with their own tariffs, leading to a freezing up of the global capitalist market. The US is the world’s biggest economy though, so perhaps the US administration sees this fact as a buffer in the sense that it is likely to hurt others more than them.

But this can mean a trade war will result. A trade war can lead to greater friction between nations politically, and even eventually to actual war. One can already notice a more aggressive US policy towards foreign parties.