A memorandum that ridicules Trump
The memorandum of understanding signed on 17 June 2026 between the United States and Iran does not end any conflict nor does it resolve any of the fundamental contradictions that led to the war. Rather, it demonstrates the Iranian State’s ability, using low-cost weapons, to block the Strait of Hormuz and inflict damage on the Gulf States allied with the United States.
Fluctuations in the energy and commodities markets, disruptions to international supply chains and uncertainty in the financial markets have affected many countries. As with previous crises, this conflict has highlighted the profound and inevitable interdependence of the global capitalist economy.
Neither US imperialism nor Israel’s Zionist leaders have succeeded in forcing Iran to capitulate. However, the Iranian bourgeoisie has also emerged weakened from this conflict. The extensive destruction of infrastructure, the economic upheaval and the hardships endured by the population have exacerbated the economic and social crisis that was already taking its toll.
This memorandum is therefore not a genuine peace treaty. It is an attempt to put a conflict on hold, the continuation of which would have entailed considerable risks for all parties involved. The US government wished to avoid mobilising further military and financial resources and to limit domestic inflationary pressures.
With elections approaching, the Republican government needs to project an image of political success. US imperialism must demonstrate to its allies and rivals that military interventions can yield tangible results.
Tehran, for its part, cannot afford, in terms of domestic politics, to be seen as the losing side. Any agreement must therefore be presented in such a way as to remain consistent with its claim to national sovereignty.
It is precisely for this reason that the memorandum remains extremely fragile. The main points of contention — sanctions, the nuclear programme, regional spheres of influence and military capabilities — have not been resolved, but have simply been deferred to the negotiations that are taking place in Switzerland since 21 June, without Lebanon, without Saudi Arabia and without the European Union. Whilst US representatives regularly give the impression that the negotiations are on track, the Iranians regularly point out that crucial issues remain unresolved.
The failure of the Israeli and American aggression
The military operations carried out in recent months have once again demonstrated that military superiority alone is not enough to bring about political solutions. Admittedly, the United States still has the most powerful armed forces in the world. Their nuclear capabilities, their air force, their navy and their global network of military bases remain unrivalled. Yet Washington has failed, through air strikes and military pressure, to achieve the political results it had initially hoped for.
The main strategic objective was to decisively weaken Iran’s regional position and limit its ability to act as an independent player in Western Asia. Despite considerable damage, this objective was not achieved. The Iranian State power has remained in place. There has been neither a collapse of the regime nor a fundamental shift in the regional balance of power.
Nor has the Israeli bourgeoisie achieved its objectives. The idea of bringing about a lasting neutralisation of Iran through military pressure has once again proved to be an illusion. The structural causes of regional rivalry remain unchanged. Even Hezbollah has not been eradicated from Lebanon.
In Iran, the anti-government protests have ceased and part of the population has rallied behind the regime. To defend itself, the clerical regime has chosen to develop nuclear weapons (as Israel and Pakistan did previously, with the approval of the United States) and to appeal to religious sentiment. But Syria is now beyond its influence, Hamas’s strength has been diminished, the political and military leadership has been decapitated, and the destruction is extensive. The Iranian economy continues to suffer from sanctions, militarism, inflation, corruption and global warming…
It is not the ruling classes who bear the brunt of it, but the workers, the unemployed and the poor farmers… For them, the war has meant the fear of bombing, a rise in the cost of living, increased social insecurity and a new wave of repression.
Having learnt from the break-up of Lebanon, Iraq and Syria, the Persian bourgeois State — unable as it is to mobilise the workers of the region, let alone those of the United States or Israel — remains determined to acquire nuclear weapons to ensure its survival.
The Iranian bourgeoisie is already right now attempting to shift the burden of reconstruction onto the working class. Austerity measures and attacks on social rights are presented as necessary steps towards restoring economic stability.
The decline of American dominance
The Chinese, Cuban and Vietnamese revolutions, as well as the collapse in 1971 of the monetary system established by the Bretton Woods agreements, had already demonstrated the limits of American power. The defeats in Afghanistan and the failure in Iraq had already shown that even overwhelming military superiority could not guarantee stable political dominance.
Admittedly, the United States remains the leading power in global capitalism. No other imperialist State currently possesses comparable economic and military capabilities, nor a similar network of political and military alliances. But it no longer holds hegemonic power within the global imperialist system, which has been shaken by the 1992 capitalist restoration in Russia and China, and the emergence of new imperialist powers destined to challenge it.
Domestically, despite his numerous attacks on democratic freedoms, Trump lacks the political means to impose on the American working class and petty bourgeoisie, largely opposed to war, an invasion of Iran involving ground troops, which would inevitably result in casualties.
US imperialism is currently facing a situation that requires it to maintain a presence in several strategic areas simultaneously. The need to contain Russian imperialism in Europe, to intimidate and subjugate nations in West Asia and Latin America, and the rivalry with Chinese imperialism in the Indo-Pacific region are all draining considerable resources.
Added to this are growing economic constraints. High public debt, inflation, the persistent trade deficit in goods despite customs measures, and the rising cost of military interventions are limiting the ruling class’s room for manoeuvre.
Political polarisation within the American bourgeoisie has continued to intensify in recent years. The war against Iran did not cause these tensions, but it has further exacerbated them. Within the ruling class, opinions differ on foreign (and domestic) policy.
As long as the Trump administration’s policy was bearing fruit in Syria and Venezuela, as long as European capitalist groups were investing in the United States, and as long as Ukraine was accepting the plundering of its natural resources, divisions within the US bourgeoisie remained contained. These divisions have resurfaced following the fiasco in Iran. The controversies within the military high command and the intelligence services, in the media, between the Republican and Democratic parties, and within each of the bourgeois parties centre on differing views as to the most effective way of defending the interests of American big capital: the role of ‘artificial intelligence’, the immigration policy, the degree of protectionism, the choice of alliances, the setting of geographical and military priorities…
The powerlessness of Chinese imperialism
The war against Iran has not only weakened US imperialism; it has also benefited its main rival. China’s foreign policy is not dictated by anti-imperialist principles, as believed by those who continue to regard China as a ‘workers’ State’ or as a dominated capitalist country. Today, the Chinese bourgeoisie exports capital on a massive scale, buys up agricultural land, carries out major infrastructure projects across several continents, expands its military fleet and establishes military bases (in the South China Sea and Djibouti)…
Throughout the conflict, the People’s Republic of China did not side with Iran either militarily or politically. Despite close economic ties and significant investment, Beijing confined itself to diplomatic statements, calls for the situation to be stabilised, and mediation efforts. A military confrontation was deemed premature.
At the same time, Chinese imperialism has objectively benefited from the consequences of the war. Any conflict that forces the United States to mobilise additional military and diplomatic resources in West Asia reduces its room for manoeuvre in other regions. This is particularly true of East Asia and Oceania, where the rivalry between Washington and Beijing is intensifying.
This is of particular importance for Taiwan, whose right to self-determination counts for just as little to China as that of Palestine does to all the imperialist powers, that of Iran to the US State, that of Ukraine to the Russian State, that of New Caledonia to the French State, or that of Greenland to the Danish or US State…
At the same time, the war has also highlighted the limitations of the Chinese bourgeoisie and its State. The blockade of the Strait of Hormuz has clearly shown the extent to which the Chinese economy remains dependent on the stability of international trade and energy routes, at a time when growth is slowing and the real estate crisis has not yet been resolved. A large-scale regional war would have had a significant impact on China’s energy supply and would thus have undermined the fundamental interests of its ruling class.
On the one hand, Chinese imperialism is capitalising on the relative political weakening of its American rival. On the other hand, it is unable to protect its allies and remains itself deeply entangled in the instabilities of the global capitalist system.
The rift between Washington and Tel Aviv
One of the main political lessons to be drawn from this war lies in the now more evident difference between the interests of American imperialism and those of Israel’s Zionist leaders.
This is not a rift between the United States and Israel. The strategic alliance endures and remains a fundamental pillar of US policy in the Middle East. Israel remains Washington’s primary regional ally. At the same time, however, it would be wrong to portray the interests of the two countries as being perfectly identical.
The Israeli bourgeoisie depends on the United States to a degree that virtually no other ally of Washington can match. Modern weapons systems, ammunition, spare parts, satellite reconnaissance, intelligence, diplomatic support, and financial aid are essential to maintaining Israel’s military superiority.
Without the support of US imperialism, the Zionist leaders would not be able to maintain their current role in the region. A strategic break with Washington is therefore out of the question for them.
It is precisely for this reason that these differences do not result in open confrontations, but rather in ongoing political tensions.
For US imperialism, the region of Western Asia no longer holds the same crucial importance today as it did during the Cold War or in the immediate postwar period.
This has led to an interest in controlled regional stabilisation. US imperialism seeks to weaken Iran without getting drawn into a never-ending regional war.
For a large section of the Israeli bourgeoisie, the situation is different. In its view, the long-term weakening of Iran remains an immediate strategic necessity. Any period of détente is therefore viewed with scepticism. Many Israeli political and military leaders are constantly trying to persuade Washington to adopt a more aggressive policy towards Iran.
This relationship therefore resembles an asymmetrical alliance rather than one of total subordination. The stronger partner determines the general direction, whilst the weaker partner attempts to influence the alliance’s policy in its own interests.
The Gulf monarchies suffer Washington’s decisions
The war also highlighted the contradictory stance of the absolute and clerical monarchies in the Gulf.
Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and other monarchies in the region remain closely linked to US imperialism. Their security systems, military structures and much of their economic policy remain focused on Washington.
At the same time, these same regimes have strengthened their ties with China in recent years and, in some cases, have sought to cautiously build closer relations with Iran.
This approach reflects their class interests. The ruling dynasties in the Gulf profit from their role as ruthless exploiters of migrant workers (domestic workers and labourers from India, the Philippines, Nepal, Bangladesh, etc.), as energy exporters, as financial centres, and as intermediaries in international capital flows. They therefore have an objective interest in limiting regional wars as much as possible and must deal with their own population, which is hostile to the genocide of the Palestinians.
The military aggression launched by Israel and the United States without consulting them, the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz by the United States and Iran, and the bombings by Iran that they have suffered (particularly the Emirates, which had supported the US war) have shown just how vulnerable their position actually is. A protracted war would not only have affected Iran or the United States, but would also have had a direct impact on the economic foundations of the monarchies themselves.
This explains their support for the ceasefire agreements and the memorandum. But the memorandum, from which they have been excluded, does not resolve anything.
The crisis in the ‘Western’ alliance system and the decline of NATO
The intervention has significantly exacerbated tensions between the United States and its European allies. In the political rhetoric of the Trump-led US government, European States have repeatedly been criticised for shying away from Washington’s logic of military confrontation whilst benefiting from the security guarantees offered by the United States. These tensions are not merely a communication problem, but the expression of a structural asymmetry within ‘Western’ imperialism.
The UN has served only to legitimise the partition of Palestine, the imperialist war in Korea against the Chinese revolution, the ‘sanctions against Iran’…
The capitalist institutions for inter-state cooperation (the World Bank, the IMF, the WTO, etc.) have been weakened.
NATO served to exert pressure on the USSR, but its days are now numbered. From a historical perspective, the system of alliances between bourgeois States has, since 1945, been based on a clear hierarchy: the United States played a hegemonic role in military and financial terms, whilst Japan, South Korea, Britain, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and others accepted a secondary role. However, this military integration and political subordination have never been exempt of conflict.
France’s nuclear arsenal and the creation of the European Union had already demonstrated this. During the 2003 Iraq War, France and Germany had openly opposed the invasion led by the United States, the United Kingdom and, to a lesser extent, Japan. In 2025, the United States was prepared to sacrifice its Ukrainian ally in order to reach a compromise with Russia and to focus on China. In 2025, Trump declared economic war on Germany and France, as well as on Japan, and announced his intention to annex Greenland and even Canada. Spain has just defied the United States over Iran.
In Western Europe, the rise in national military spending, the growth of each country’s defence industry and the debates on ‘European defence autonomy’ are direct consequences of this trend.
The criticisms levelled by Washington, that European States are shirking the logic of war or ‘failing to honour their commitments’, are therefore less moral judgements than political expressions of this structural contradiction. Conversely, the European bourgeoisies are exploiting the situation to legitimise rearmament and budget cuts in the social sphere, the nationalist and militarist indoctrination of young people, and restrictions on democratic freedoms.
Alliances between bourgeois States in the era of capitalist decline are unstable and are by no means based on religious or political ideology.
A respite to prevent a world war through social revolution
The memorandum offers a respite to the masses of Iran and the Arabian Peninsula. China’s abandonment of its allies in Venezuela and Iran shows that Xi is not yet in a position to challenge the dominant imperialism. Trump’s inability to invade Iran proves that he cannot, for the time being, wage war against China. The current situation affords the working class in these two powers and throughout the world a respite, and the opportunity to prevent inter-imperialist war through social revolution.
Fundamental contradictions persist. National borders hinder the forces of production; profit and national self-interest exacerbate environmental destruction; reaction is on the rise everywhere; bourgeois States are all arming themselves on a massive scale; and the imperialist powers are set to go at each other’s throats.
Neither in the United States nor in Iran does the working class currently have a political leadership capable of transforming economic, social and political contradictions into an independent revolutionary perspective. This is precisely where one of the main difficulties of the current situation lies.
Conscious workers in every country must reject any illusion that any capitalist power could pave the way for progress in this era of capitalism’s decline. Neither US imperialism, nor Russian imperialism, nor Chinese imperialism defends the interests of the working class. Their rivalry reflects the conflicting interests of different factions of capital on a global scale. Any military intervention by an imperialist power is ultimately aimed at reinforcing the political and economic subordination of semi-colonial and dependent countries. The struggle against such interventions is a fundamental duty of the international workers’ movement.
Furthermore, whilst defending all peoples against oppression and colonisation, and all oppressed countries against any imperialist power, class-conscious workers must preserve their independence from bourgeois leaderships and States. The Palestinian Hamas, the Lebanese Hezbollah, the Iranian Pasdaran, the Bolivian MAS, the Venezuelan PSUV, the Argentine PJ, the Mexican MORENA, the Algerian FLN, etc., are incapable of overthrowing imperialist domination. Because they represent a faction of the local bourgeoisie, they are doomed to align themselves with one imperialist power or another, to divide their working class, and to repress their own people, thereby weakening the national cause.
The only progressive prospect lies in the working class’s independent political struggle against all factions of the bourgeoisie and against all imperialist camps. This requires the building of workers’ parties that are independent of any bourgeois faction and revolutionary in character, and of a new international leadership of the world proletariat based on the programme of the Communist International (1919–1923) and the Fourth International (1933–1940).