This July, the Zionist entity assassinated Hamas leader Haniyeh while he was trying to negotiate a peace deal within Iran. This blatantly violated Iran’s sovereignty, undermined the effort at reaching a ceasefire in Gaza, and took the life of a beloved freedom fighter. It was this moment that represented the start of the next phase within the anti-imperialist struggle, because it made Iran—and all who support Iran—need to choose which strategic model they viewed as best. Was it the right decision to retaliate right away, or to refrain from doing so? For the time being, Iran decided against taking action. And most of the anti-Zionist observers and commentators—myself included—thought that this must have been correct.
Iran kept waiting, and waiting. As the weeks turned into months, the people in my camp continued to trust that this was the most strategically beneficial thing for Iran to do. Then something else happened, something that’s made me change my views and that hopefully will do so for many others. Following last month’s pager terrorist attack by the “Israeli” settler state, and Netanyahu’s pursuit of a wider new atrocity campaign against Lebanese civilians, “Israel” assassinated Hezbollah’s leader Nasrallah in a strike that killed 200 non-combatants. These things alone were enough to make many conclude that the time for waiting was over. What made a lot of people angry at Iran’s president Pezeshkian, though, was the discovery that he’d made a deal with Netanyahu not to retaliate in exchange for a supposed ceasefire within Lebanon.
Iranians protested against this “ceasefire” deal, incensed by how Pezeshkian had blocked the Ayatollah’s effort to retaliate. Pezeshkian and his political faction then allowed for action to be taken against “Israel,” aware that continuing to obstruct justice would bring the people’s wrath upon them. Seeing the strikes against the “Israeli” military infrastructure was a triumphant moment. But all who support Palestine, and who also closely follow geopolitics, were confronted with a reality which many hadn’t wanted to face: that this year’s “Israeli” assassination of Raisi had let capitulationists gain more influence within Iran.
Khamanei is still the highest authority within the country, but the other top decision-makers have acted as obstacles towards the fulfillment of his agenda for resistance; it was only when the popular masses intervened that he gained the leverage he needed. And though the events of the last week have reset Iran on the path that the hardliners want, the fact that so many of us were willing to believe the rationale of the capitulationists should make us criticize ourselves.
The truth was that Iran didn’t wait to retaliate because this was the expedient thing to do; Iran did it because certain actors, empowered by the crimes of “Israel,” knowingly put Lebanon in greater danger. Did it still make sense to wait? Perhaps at first, though Khamenei’s judgment was that the retaliation needed to happen sooner. The point is that the delay occurred for reasons other than sincere strategic calculus. There was no way that Pezeshkian didn’t suspect Netenyahu was lying; Netanyahu is the last person anyone would trust not to keep dropping bombs. For the sake of going along with this story about how “Israel” had supposedly become less of a threat, Pezeshkian’s faction told Nasrallah that it would be safe for him to travel within Beirut. It was directly because of this lie that “Israel” became able to take his life.
Throughout my last few essays, I’ve already told this story several times in different words, and that’s because I’ve been looking for the right way to interpret the story. The conclusion I’ve come to is that these events mean I was wrong about something important, and that I need to take on a different view towards the liberation struggle; a view that’s less passive, and more comfortable with taking action.
The anti-imperialist cause was extremely lucky that these damaging activities took place within a situation where the liberation forces could recover. We’re so fortunate that Hezbollah is an organization which can easily replace its lost leaders with new ones, and that Iran is a country whose people are ready to massively mobilize against any policies which enable imperialism. If the empire were to exact an equivalent level of harm upon the anti-imperialist forces in the United States, as of now our organizations wouldn’t be prepared to alleviate the crisis. And in order to gain that type of readiness, we must learn our lesson from these last several months.
The willingness to believe Pezeshkian’s narrative came from idealism; the same idealism that’s made the U.S. communist movement so under-developed in its security mechanisms. I intellectually understood the need for preparing to function within a clandestine organizing scenario, but learning about how I got misled on Iran has made me more aware of this task’s urgency. It’s a reminder that we can be fooled; that we can be made to act complacent, and to underestimate our enemies. We can’t defeat the imperial state if we think we can simply bypass the state’s repression, like how the anti-imperialist governments can’t advance multipolarity if they think they can peacefully coexist with the hegemon.
When Iran’s people saw this liberal attitude emerging among some of their leaders, they acted to ensure that a pro-defense policy prevailed, like how Russia’s communists pressured their government into defending the Donbass. These two countries continue to grow closer, in large part because of these interventions by the anti-imperialist elements. And these powers, along with other counter-hegemonic states like China and the DPRK, will defeat the U.S. war machine if it further escalates the world war. Our movement’s allies abroad are in place to cripple our government; our job is to bring the empire’s final defeat by overthrowing it from within. In order to do this, we must treat these recent events as teachable moments. The complacent attitude among many pro-multipolar elements, where the impulse has been to uncritically assume passivity is the correct course, must be combated within our circles.
It’s not just about having a real understanding of the anti-imperialist countries we support, it’s also about rectifying the deficiencies within our own political projects. We are not yet ready to keep our operations going amid a full purge against dissent, and the only way forward is by becoming prepared in this way. We can’t overthrow the imperial state unless we make the changes to our cadres that will let us transition into clandestine organizing, and that will allow us to defend ourselves from the state’s counter-gangs. The threats we face from the police state, and from the ultraviolent proxies which our ruling class is cultivating, demand that we implement these measures. I can’t be too explicit in my descriptions of what these measures are, but there’s much history and theory we can study about how communists have counteracted attempts at crushing them.
The mistake would be to believe that simply because history is going in the direction of revolutionary change, this extra work isn’t necessary. Until last week, I was still believing that the anti-Zionist resistance didn’t have to be as active as it truly needed to be, because supposedly the preexisting momentum of events would ensure the cause’s victory. Now I see that history doesn’t work this way; that you need to become an active agent when the conditions clearly require you to do so. And if one can’t see when the conditions require action, then the only option is to better learn how to recognize this.
————————————————————————
If you appreciate my work, I hope you become a one-time or regular donor to my Patreon account. Like most of us, I’m feeling the economic pressures amid late-stage capitalism, and I need money to keep fighting for a new system that works for all of us. Go to my Patreon here.
To keep this platform effective amid the censorship against dissenting voices, join my Telegram channel.
