History Has a Taste for Irony
Mücadele Birliği (Struggle Unity, Türkiye)
March 19, 2026
War. Destruction. Tit-for-tat retaliation. Missiles lighting up the night. Cities falling silent by day.
Nothing is ordinary anymore―and precisely for that reason, everything is. What was exceptional yesterday is routine today. The extraordinary has become commonplace.
What we are living through is a short stretch of history. This is not an anomaly, but a transitional phase: the period of dissolution and collapse of the imperialist system, and the rise of the new-socialism. No matter how “short” history may be, historical transformations do not happen overnight. They take their own time, unfold at their own pace. Yet compared to past eras, that time has shrunk to the blink of an eye.
The imperialist war launched by the US-Zionist Israel axis against Iran―now entering its third week―marks a rupture, a breaking point within this “short history.” Future historians will single it out, much like September 11 or the war in Ukraine.
The attack on Iran is not merely a war to “seize resources.” Various geopolitical motives―each of them tangible―certainly play their part. Taken together, they carry considerable weight. But to stop there is to miss the forest for the trees. Without placing at the center the unraveling of imperialism, the drive toward full annexation, global uprisings, the mobilization of workers and toilers everywhere against the existing system, the global revolutionary situation, and civil war, it is impossible to grasp the essence of this process. The imperialist war against Iran, like those in Ukraine and Venezuela, like Cuba―which is next in line today―and the wars awaiting their turn in the Far East, is a direct reflection of the collapse of the imperialist-capitalist system. It is a stage in the project to halt and reverse that decline―a project whose opening move was the provocation of the September 11 attacks.
At this stage, the US, Israel, and their regional proxies have set their sights on Iran. The aim is clear: to break Iran’s resistance, to fragment it, to force it into submission. To instill fear in the peoples of the world, to reaffirm the irresistible might of US imperialism after its “success” in Venezuela, to reshape the region around Israel’s security, to deliver a heavy blow to China, to drive a wedge between Russia and China via the Caspian and Central Asia, and ultimately to reestablish its own hegemony. By shattering the core alliance that indirectly bolsters the world revolutionary process―Russia, China, North Korea―Washington hopes to tilt the global civil war in its favor. That is the calculus.
The madman in the White House―hamstrung by the Epstein files―entered the war against Iran not only under pressure from Zionist Israel but in line with this broader framework. This is not merely a “Zionist conspiracy.” Such factors certainly exist. But what matters is the convergence of interests. And this imperialist war has been in the making for at least a quarter of a century. Iran was the last name on the list handed to Wesley Clark after September 11.
Because Iran, despite all its contradictions, has not surrendered to imperialism. It has not fully opened itself to global capital. It has resisted the process of full subjugation. This is where the problem begins. For imperialism, the “problem” is not being an enemy. It is “being able to act independently.” Because imperialism does not want freedom―it wants domination. That is why the attack is not ideological. It is economic. It is structural.
Reformists vs. Conservatives
Under normal circumstances, the bourgeois classes of capitalist countries are expected to integrate into the imperialist chain―into the payment and trade systems shaped under US hegemony, into the free circulation of capital and goods. Offshore networks, unrestricted access to global real estate markets, production reduced to a mere link in supply chains―all of this presupposes voluntary (or if you prefer, servile) submission to imperialist domination. If a capitalist country refuses to voluntarily integrate into this chain for historical, political, cultural, or other reasons, it will face pressure and resistance not from the imperialist masters, but first and foremost from its own bourgeoisie. The choice is not personal; it is dictated by class interests.
Nevertheless, there are countries―and there will continue to be―that resist full subjugation and total submission due to historical, cultural, internal economic, and social reasons. This is inevitable. Each must be assessed on its own terms. While there are commonalities, they also contain differences.
Iran’s resistance to full subjugation encompasses both economic and historical-cultural dimensions. It is a country that experienced a historical rupture with the 1979 revolution, paid a heavy price in the eight-year war with Iraq that followed, and has remained outside the imperialist-capitalist chain. It is a society with a deep-rooted anti-imperialist vein and tradition. The clerics who seized power after the revolution were, in a sense, representatives of Iran’s traditional bazaar class―the middle strata. Under the constant pressure of sanctions, no powerful comprador monopoly class capable of integrating into the imperialist system emerged. This segment remained weak. Nevertheless, with roots going back to the Shah era, this faction has increased its power over the past half-century and emerged as a political tendency finding expression in the “reformists.”
Differences of opinion among individuals within a country’s leadership are normal. But when these differences crystallize into a political tendency, we must speak not of personal views but of class contradictions. The reformist-conservative divide in Iran is, at its core, a clash between two distinct economic power blocs.
The reformists are the modern bourgeoisie-capital groups engaged in import-export, seeking integration into global markets. They advocate reducing tensions, lifting sanctions, and integrating into the global economy. They favor tighter ties with international finance capital. In effect, they are the willing supporters―even executors―of the process of full annexation. This segment constitutes the material foundation of this political approach. Apart from Raisi and Ahmadinejad, it was always the reformists who won recent presidential elections.
The conservative faction, by contrast, is rooted in the traditional commercial bourgeoisie: bazaar merchants, religious foundations (bonyads), and established networks within the state apparatus. Sustained by oil revenues and semi-public economic structures, they defend a form of state capitalism and resist opening up to the “outside”.
Ultimately, both represent bourgeois rule. For workers and toilers, nothing changes: both currents aim to keep them under control.
Yet Iran is a country of 90 million―a vast working class whose interests are entirely separate from these factions: demanding political freedoms, women’s liberation, and national rights. For decades, these millions have been in almost constant motion, at times sparking major uprisings.
This is the social composition. When the US-Zionist Israeli aggression began, internal contradictions were quickly pushed into the background. Under different circumstances, an external war might have elicited different reactions. But when the leading imperialist power and its rabid dog in the region launched a joint attack―with such reckless disregard for all human values and judgment―the equation changed. The killing of elementary school children by Tomahawk missiles alone provoked a collective response. The imperialist-Zionist alliance, which believed that toppling the top clerical leadership would trigger collapse and popular uprising, faced the exact opposite outcome.
Not only that: this war has also produced―and continues to produce―consequences in terms of confronting imperialism head-on, resisting it, shaking the imperialist system of domination, and exposing the limits and weaknesses of the imperialist-Zionist gang. Indirectly, it impacts world revolution and the liberation struggles of workers and toilers. Any potential victories against the imperialist-Zionist alliance provide a great moral boost to the peoples of the world. That is why, across all continents now, toilers sympathize with and support the resistance being waged by Iran.
A War Without a Traditional Front
This war has no traditional fronts―and consequently no rear. It is a network: spreading, deepening, boundless.
Missiles. Drones. Cyberattacks. Proxy forces. All parts of a single war. The entire geography has become a battlefield.
On one side stands a colossal military force deemed “unbeatable”: US imperialism and “untouchable” Israel, with combined war budgets approaching $1 trillion. On the other, an Iran that lacks even an air force―a country that could be “destroyed with a single strike”―with a military budget of $10-20 billion. The chasm is staggering. Under these conditions, Iran’s decision to resist seemed irrational. Hence Witkoff’s remark: even after the massive US buildup, “President Trump cannot understand why Iran has not yet surrendered.”
But Iran did not surrender. It accepted the war thrust upon it. It suffered massive losses from the very first strike―but held firm. It adopted a strategy and tactics designed to nullify the enemy’s technological superiority. We are witnessing how a colossal military power (USA) can begin to lose a war.
It is instructive to observe how a country with strategic depth has successfully stood up to a Zionist entity lacking such depth―a global giant struggling with logistical problems. Seeing the fragility of the imperialist-Zionist alliance―drunk on power, too arrogant to see beyond its own nose―is a source of joy for the world’s peoples. The rising sympathy for Iran across the globe is proof of that. Every loss suffered by this evil hub, which has been a scourge upon the peoples, brings a separate joy.
Iran implemented what some have termed a “mosaic defense.” The aim was to draw a militarily far superior enemy into its chosen battlefield. Time is a crucial factor: rapidly depleting the enemy’s strength, wearing them down. By relying on strategic depth, it has established a defensive posture capable of weathering heavy blows within its own territory.
As expected, the imperialist-Zionist alliance struck with overwhelming force at the very outset. Their fundamental military strategy is: strike first, strike with all your might, bring the enemy to its knees. They use all their capabilities to achieve results immediately―and to that end, they do not hesitate to commit any massacre or genocide. The result?
Khamenei and his command staff were killed at the start of the war. An elementary school was bombed, killing 168 girls. Air bases, airports, missile launch sites, Iranian ships in the Persian Gulf―all targeted. Even the areas around nuclear facilities were struck. Cries of “victory” rang out from the very first move. A massive propaganda machine kicked in.
But within an hour, Iran began to retaliate systematically. The first strike was not against Israel, but against US bases across the Gulf: Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq. Radars, air and naval bases, ammunition depots.
Iran’s military tactic was simple, rational, and effective: quantity over quality. A large number of low-cost attack vehicles can produce more effective results than a small number of high-quality ones. On the first day, hundreds of missiles and over a thousand drones were launched. Air defense systems could not withstand such an intense barrage. Starting with the early warning radar in Bahrain, the regional radar network was shattered in short order.
The goal of an intense attack is not just to hit targets―it is to wear down enemy systems. All radar and defense equipment exposes itself under such pressure. Locations are identified. Ammunition runs out. Radars become exhausted. Gaps form in the defense network.
There is also an economic dimension: thousands of drones costing $20,000 each force the enemy to expend defense munitions worth several million to tens of millions of dollars per unit―often multiple interceptors per drone. Defense expenditures skyrocket. Every lost radar, every lost air defense battery, means billions more.
In short, the defense systems of all Gulf countries and the US-Zionist Israel were activated to counter Iran’s massive swarms of cheap drones and older missiles. They operated continuously. Radars were exposed. Locations were pinpointed. This was the first phase: forcing the door open.
Then came the second phase: fewer missiles, more selective strikes, higher precision. The old stockpiles had served their purpose. More advanced systems were brought online.
Was this a choice? Yes. Was it a necessity? Also yes. Because simultaneously, launch pads were being struck, warehouses targeted, logistics under pressure. This plan was the intersection of strategy and necessity. Saturation was complete. Attrition had taken place. Now it was time to break through.
No system is infinite. Iron Dome, Arrow, Patriot, David’s Sling―all powerful, all limited.
The math is simple: cheap attack vehicles, expensive defense systems. In a protracted war, the balance shifts. After a while, defense no longer “stops” attacks―it merely “reduces damage.” This is the new reality.
From Invulnerability to Fragility
Israel was built on the myth of invulnerability: absolute security, uninterrupted superiority.
Yet now Tel Aviv is ablaze. Haifa is a target. Everywhere is a target. There is no rear anymore. Sirens are part of daily life. Shelters have become living spaces. And most importantly, the desire to leave is growing. Staying is getting harder. As the population thins, the economy contracts. As the war drags on, costs mount.
What is the greatest threat to a state? An external enemy? No. Internal disintegration. This is the most critical, most challenging moment for the Zionist entity. Don’t be fooled by the cries of “We killed Laricani, we killed the Intelligence Minister.” Even if they kill them―and more―they are the ones now teetering on the edge of the abyss. One step remains. After that, they will plunge.
Whether Netanyahu and those around him survive is a mystery. Dubious videos do nothing to dispel the doubts. But that is not the main issue. The main issue is this: nowhere in Israel is safe anymore. This is the new reality―and beyond all propaganda, it will determine the course of the war.
The war is not being fought along a single front: massive airstrikes against Iran; increasingly effective missile and drone strikes on Israel; ground battles with Hezbollah along the southern Lebanon border; relentless bombing of US bases in the Gulf; the severing of energy pipelines at sea. Five fronts, one war.
This structure eliminates the concept of a classic victory. Because no front closes―it merely shifts. As fragility increases, so does the risk. Escalation becomes almost inevitable.
The US has failed to achieve its objectives on the ground. Aircraft carrier strike groups have withdrawn over a thousand kilometers from Iran. The USS Ford will return to Crete without ever entering the conflict. Military bases in Gulf countries have been virtually wiped off the map. The selective closure of the Strait of Hormuz under Iranian control, the transformation of yuan trade into a ticket for passage, the revelation that the US Navy lacks the ability to open the strait, the rejection of Trump’s call to NATO and allies to “send a fleet to open the Strait of Hormuz”―all indicators that the war is turning against the US-Israel axis, and that this is becoming increasingly evident as time passes.
Once the situation reached this point, the US-Israel duo attacked Iran’s energy infrastructure. Gas facilities in South Pars were bombed. The White House had previously been displeased by Israel’s bombing of fuel depots in Tehran―worried about oil prices. But it is no longer in a position to consider such concerns. A dead donkey fears no wolf.
When the facilities in Tehran were struck, Iran said, “If you attack our energy infrastructure again, we will strike the energy facilities of all countries in the region.” Following the attack on South Pars, Iran struck facilities in Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Oil prices briefly rose above $120, then dropped to $110. If Iran’s retaliations continue, it is widely expected that prices will surpass $200.
We are now at this stage of the war. Everything depends on who can hold out longer―economically, militarily, socially, and politically.
Zionist Israel has suffered its greatest crisis. It has sustained an irreparable wound. A process of disintegration and collapse has begun. The prolongation of the war deepens this process. And this is where the danger grows.
The “existential threat” to the Zionist entity grows stronger by the day. An apartheid regime with an unknown stockpile of nuclear weapons, having established genocide and savage aggression as its core political line, where unimaginable religious fanaticism has risen to the highest echelons of the state―Zionist Israel edges closer to the use of nuclear weapons with each passing day.
Who will win? As it stands, the question is misguided. Because one side has already lost a great deal. The crisis of imperialism deepens. US power erodes. Regional actors act more autonomously. The war drags on. These are concrete facts. Unless Iran suddenly surrenders completely, these facts will not change, and the process will not reverse.
History, with its dark sense of irony, is playing out one of its grandest games. Through the immense resistance it has shown in its existential struggle and its commendable military strategy, Iran is working for world revolution. It pays a heavy price but refuses to surrender. Its enemy draws closer to global defeat with each passing day.
For the peoples of the world, a monumental victory is taking shape on the horizon.
