In the context of the debate on Iran, taking place within the anticapitalist Left internationally, we publish the following article by comrade Reza Akbari, a member of Iranian Revolutionary Marxists’ Tendency living in exile in Australia
Recently, I read an article in Labour Tribune written by Ali Keshtkar titled “Two Tactics in the Anti-War Movement,” criticizing the April 14 action by a group of socialists in Sydney. According to the author, the action was unsuccessful because the attempt to prevent the presence of the Islamic Republic’s flag hindered the demonstration from achieving its goals. He argues that adopting such a tactic ultimately benefits imperialism and fuels sectarian tendencies within the left.
Naturally, there are points of agreement between us and this article, which I will address first.
It is evident that we stand firmly in the camp of uncompromising opposition to imperialism and Israel, as the author himself notes. The socialists in Sydney, as demonstrated by three decades of struggle here, and before that in Iran, have consistently opposed imperialism and its interventions in the region, as well as Israel’s destructive role and its expansionist ambitions. They have actively participated in anti-war protests over the past two years and will continue to do so. We too oppose the war, strongly condemn the brutal killings caused by recent bombardments, and believe that we must actively struggle against this war and for a lasting peace.
The difference lies in tactics.
To determine the appropriate tactic, let us first examine the phenomenon of war itself and identify the factors that define its nature.
Vladimir Lenin, in his analysis of World War I in Socialism and War (1915), emphasized that to understand the nature of a war, one must not look at official state slogans, diplomatic pretexts, or patriotic propaganda, but rather examine the policy of which the war is a continuation. Lenin viewed war as the continuation of politics by other means.
From Lenin’s perspective, the key question is: which class is waging the war, and whose social interests it serves.
If a war serves capitalists, monopolies, and imperialist powers, it is reactionary. But when it serves the liberation of oppressed peoples or a social revolution, it may be progressive.
The second step is identifying the objective of the war. Lenin argued that states may speak of “defending the homeland,” “saving civilization,” “security,” or “peace,” but the real question is: what is the actual goal? Is it the acquisition of new colonies? The division of markets? Control over resources? Or the subjugation of other nations and consolidation of class domination?
The third dimension is the historical context of the war. According to Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, and Lenin, in the era of bourgeois revolutions, some national wars could be progressive. However, in the age of imperialism, wars between different capitalistic powers are primarily struggles over the redivision of the world. For Lenin, World War I was a clear example of an imperialist war because its aim was the redistribution of spheres of influence and the extraction of profit by finance capital.
For Lenin, following the flow of money and power is essential: who benefits? Banks, arms industries, financial capital, or ruling elites? If these forces are the main beneficiaries, it is a key indicator of a reactionary war.
Therefore, to properly understand the current conflict, we must evaluate it through Leninist criteria and ask:
1. Which classes and states are involved?
2. What are their real objectives?
3. Is the war for domination or liberation?
4. Who benefits?
5. What would victory for each side mean for ordinary people?
Using these criteria, Lenin characterized World War I as reactionary and urged workers not to rally behind their “own” bourgeoisie. The decisive criterion is the international interests of the working class, not national allegiance. This position did not imply pacifism or passivity. The Bolsheviks organized clandestine structures within the army, factories, cities, and villages, opening a third front against the two warring camps and ultimately contributing to the revolutionary situation of 1917.
During World War I, “defense of the fatherland” arguments, similar to those heard today, were advanced by figures such as Karl Kautsky, Georgi Plekhanov, and the Mensheviks. Lenin refuted these positions, arguing that calling on workers to defend the nation when they lack independent organizations effectively turns them into cannon fodder for their own bourgeoisie and strengthens capitalist domination.
Now let us apply these criteria to the current conflict involving the United States, Israel, and Iran.
The first question is whether this is a war of liberation or a conflict within capitalist competition for redividing markets and influence. The United States is facing a relative decline in hegemony, while China and Russia seek to expand theirs. This conflict provides opportunities for shifting regional balances of power. Iran, beyond its regional ambitions, also functions in ways that intersect with the broader strategic interests of these powers.
From a Leninist perspective, if a war revolves around regional influence, military deterrence, geopolitical security, control of routes, balance of power, and regime survival, then it is not a war of liberation but one driven by state power.
In this framework:
• The United States seeks to maintain regional dominance, coordinate allied states, and contain rival powers.
• Israel aims to preserve military superiority and neutralize regional threats to ensure its state security.
• Iran pursues regional influence, counters U.S. and Israeli presence, and seeks regime survival while leveraging strategic assets such as oil and the Strait of Hormuz.
Thus, this conflict is primarily one between states and power blocs, not one that advances the direct interests of the working classes or oppressed populations, despite the fact that they bear its costs.
Lenin warned against being misled by slogans. Today these include “national security,” “resistance,” “patriotic war,” “deterrence,” and “preemptive defense.” A materialist analysis instead asks: who seeks regional dominance? Who uses crisis to consolidate internal control? Who expands arms production and military budgets? Who suppresses dissent under the cover of war?
And ultimately: who pays and who profits?
Those who pay are workers, wage earners, and young conscripts; ordinary people in Lebanon, Gaza, Israel, Iran, and across the region. They are the displaced, the dead, and those condemned to rebuild shattered economies.
Those who potentially benefit include military and security industries, ruling factions that exploit wartime conditions, and geopolitical actors reshaping the balance of power.
We must then ask: which of these sides is progressive? Does opposition to the United States or Israel automatically make Iran progressive? In my view, no. If a domestic regime is repressive, opposition to external imperialism is not sufficient. War conditions can strengthen authoritarian rule, enabling repression of internal dissent.
Claims of democracy or security are also insufficient if policies are rooted in domination, occupation, or militarism.
If Lenin were to summarize today’s situation, he would likely describe it as a conflict among state blocs pursuing power and security, not a war in the interests of working people.
Therefore, genuine Marxists do not support any ruling bloc. They oppose the war drive of all sides and advocate a “third camp” rooted in the interests of ordinary people across all countries.
At the same time, this conflict should not be conflated with situations like Gaza or southern Lebanon, where elements of resistance by oppressed populations may exist. Lenin distinguished between the rights of oppressed peoples and the objectives of states; these must not be conflated.
Finally, contrary to Mr. Keshtkar’s view, our dispute in these demonstrations is not over a mere piece of cloth called a flag. We oppose reactionary symbols, whether monarchist (such as the lion-and-sun flag) or those of the Islamic Republic with the word Allah.
Some of our allies in Australia argue that numbers are what matter, as does Mr. Kestkar. Yet the Bolsheviks, beginning with a small minority like the Zimmerwald group, demonstrated the correctness of their position over time. We too strive to do so. Whether we succeed or not, history will ultimately judge who stood on the right side.
