The Left’s U-Turn in the Strait of Hormuz

Contribution by Jean-Pierre Page, former leader of the CGT and head of its international department

Regis de Castelnau

avr. 4

LIRE DANS L'APP

friend and comrade Jean-Pierre Page, former leader of the (real) CGT and head of its international department, takes stock of the French “left’s” stance on the war in the Middle East triggered by the U.S.-Israeli coalition’s aggression against Iran.

Reflecting the state of left-wing forces in our country, his assessment is disheartening.

Thanks again to him for allowing us to publish this.

Régis de Castelnau

The Left Drifting in the Strait of Hormuz[1]

Jean-Pierre Page

“The Empire is stable only if it manages to sell its lies! By realizing this, we have a chance to resist the murderous hand of the plutocracy and the free market, and a better chance to build a real and viable democracy within a family of nations in a peaceful and sustainable world.”

Michael Parenti.[2]

What is the Left? Where is it? Where is it going? Ultimately, what is its purpose?

The historical circumstances we are living through invite us to ask these questions! Especially when we consider the scale of the systemic crisis of liberalism, combined with the decline of the West.[3] The aggression against Iran by Israel and the United States is a new illustration of this.

In fact, Iran’s political and military resistance confirms above all that we now live in “a world no longer dominated by a single power or a single bloc: we have entered a multipolar world. And no one can stop that.” [4] The upheaval of reference points that this entails leaves many self-proclaimed experts speechless.

What hadn’t we heard weeks earlier, during the Tehran protests—which took the form of “color revolutions”—about the “mullahs’ regime,” the “near-unanimous opposition of an entire people to this autocracy,” and the “rejection of modernity and gender equality”? The celebrations in the upscale neighborhoods of Paris, Los Angeles, and London—where flags of the Iranian monarchy mingled with those of Israel and the United States, alongside Louis Vuitton bags and Hermès scarves—heralded the imminent end of a bloodthirsty theocracy. Since then, on TV talk shows, the diaspora has been repeating arguments identical to those of Ukrainian experts; the Shah’s son has left the scene; their political supporters on both the left and the right are paralyzed, plagued by questions, perplexity, and doubts.

What is happening?

Despite thousands of dead and wounded, despite the deliberate bombing of civilian areas, the destruction of hospitals, schools, and a girls’ middle school—and the deaths of 170 of them—this extraordinary war is above all a testament to the resilience of an entire people, their commitment to their sovereignty, their independence, and their freedom of choice.

This war against Iran is no mere episode. It is of a different nature than anything we have experienced before. Through its contradictions, its victories and defeats, its advances and setbacks, Iran ultimately confirms the high level of development, coherence, and cohesion of a society far removed from the fantasies perpetuated by media caricatures, racist, neocolonial, and arrogant rhetoric. To understand this, it is worth recalling the legacy of Mohammad Mossadegh, the “roaring old lion,” who, with the nationalization of Iranian oil, launched the first major economic battle of poor nations against imperialism. Overthrown by the CIA coup of 1953, he recalled in his political testament, “The only crime I have committed is the nationalization of oil. I fought against the greatest empire in the world. I also fought against the world’s largest espionage enterprise. But these people I fought want to show the peoples of the East what they have in store for a man who dares to defy them.”[5] In fact, more than seventy years later, Iran is demonstrating today that it must be respected for what it is and regarded as a power that matters on par with Russia, China, India, and other nations—indeed, all nations. Iran is in the process of defeating its aggressors, who are already facing a defeat that will inevitably take on historic proportions. You cannot kill ideas; Mohammad Mossadegh is very much alive: “They will not forbid us from thinking for ourselves!”[6]

It is not without significance in this context that Iran has thus already contributed to the liberation of Iraq from any American occupation presence. On March 23, American troops stationed at the largest U.S. base in this vast region of West Asia [7]: Victory Base Camp, finally withdrew. This is reminiscent of the United States’ chaotic flight from Saigon (Ho Chi Minh City) and, closer to home, from Kabul.

Faced with this unprecedented situation and the manifold consequences it is already entailing, the left—whether institutional or not—is drawing no lessons from these events. In France or in Europe, it appears disconnected, out of touch, and lacking in vision, in the face of the challenges of a world changing at an accelerated pace!

What is the reality?

The left (in the broad and debatable sense of the term), through its lack of initiative, its confusion, its lack of self-criticism, its arrogance, its partisan and electioneering concerns, is in fact proving incapable of embodying an alternative to the strategies of the globalized financial oligarchy, to imperial wars, to their so-called justifications, and even less a break with a capitalism that has reached its final stage of imperialism.[8] In France, the left is elsewhere, entirely focused on its electoral agenda. No sooner has the chapter on municipal elections closed than the chapter on presidential elections opens.

Yet this is precisely where the stakes lie! F. Engels once said: “Bourgeois society faces a dilemma: either the transition to socialism or a relapse into barbarism.”[9] To resolve this contradiction under current conditions, the left in France, in Europe, and no doubt elsewhere, has neither the desire nor the will. This is indeed its problem. In most cases, it aligns itself with opportunistic positions, with ideas that are in vogue. In France, this conversion hides nothing other than a capitulation in the form of adherence to a “sacred union,” one that evokes sinister memories. [10] You can’t fight nature—it always comes back!

As we can see, the Left’s international political commitments are not without limits. Thus, by focusing solely on the consequences, it refuses to take into account what characterizes the causes and substance of international conflict, as well as the emergence of a new world order. More often than not, in its search for justifications, it confuses primary and secondary contradictions. [11] Thus, despite this new acceleration of history we are witnessing, the Left above all refuses to see how, for example, on February 24, 2022, and since then, XXXX [12] has contributed to profoundly altering the order of things and clarifying the true stakes facing all of humanity. This new turning point we are currently witnessing in West Asia confirms this, however.

As we have seen, regarding the war in Ukraine, most left-wing organizations in France and Europe have found common ground through a certain consensus. They have displayed an outdated and Russophobic hostility toward Russia, the origins of which, incidentally, predate 2022. In the name of so-called solidarity with the “Ukrainian resistance,” the left has voted for unlimited financial contributions and military aid. We must, they said, support Kyiv to the very end. Thus, the choice was made to turn a blind eye to Zelensky’s neo-fascist, corrupt, and repressive regime, to the sacrifices of the Ukrainian and Russian peoples, and including, for example, the courageous commitment of the Kononovych brothers, these two anti-fascist activists opposed to the followers of Stepan Bandera, who have been arrested, tortured, imprisoned, stripped of all their rights, and held in solitary confinement under electronic monitoring while awaiting trial and their likely forced transfer to the front lines, or even their execution by the Nazis of Azov or Pravy Sector.[13]

In fact, the left in France has made a political choice to refrain from pressuring the Macron government to end its direct political, military, and financial involvement in this major conflict, for which it continues to assert that one must fight until the last Ukrainian. Finally, and most importantly, the left has continued to refuse to see the true reasons behind this war in the heart of Europe, sticking to superficial assessments. Under various pretexts, it has chosen to sacrifice an independent perspective on France’s actions. This leads it to absolve Macron and his government, the U.S. government, NATO, and this transformed European Union of their responsibilities!

This position is mirrored in the same vein regarding the aggression against Iran. However, in one case it takes sides, while in the other, the left adheres to the principle of double standards. How so?

Faced with a situation that changes daily, the left—with a few exceptions—persists in its blindness, ignoring or even refusing to acknowledge the causes, as well as failing to take into account the principles of sovereignty that are being violated, those of non-intervention and non-interference, and sometimes even the basic respect for international law. In the case of Iran, let us recall that neither the UN nor even the U.S. Congress was consulted, much less approved, of this U.S.-Israeli military adventure, which followed a few weeks later the kidnapping of the President of Venezuela and his wife. Nowadays, the political assassinations carried out by Israel and the United States are treated as commonplace—this is true of Iranian leaders just as it is of Palestinians and Lebanese patriots of Hezbollah—without this causing any outrage among representatives of the left whatsoever.

For Iran, an existential struggle.

This new war, instigated by D. Trump and Israel, is an existential struggle for Iran and its civilization, which dates back several millennia—a fact that justifies this nation’s military doctrine of using time as a weapon[14] and its geography as a natural fortress.[15] The least that can be said is that for years, the Iranians’ long preparation for war and its probable eventuality has just been demonstrated through undeniable resistance and courage.

The scale and effectiveness of Iran’s political and military response, and its ability to destabilize the Israeli-American aggressors, have become evident, with this reality being driven home daily through bombings of Israel and U.S. military bases in the region, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, and even strikes against the U.S.-British baseBritish base at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, considered an indispensable facility for North American security operations in the Middle East. “Know your enemy and know yourself. If you have a hundred wars to fight, you will be victorious a hundred times!”[16] This is what Iran has put into practice by learning from its enemy.

In fact, Iran does not rely on nuclear weapons, as it possesses some of the world’s most advanced military technologies, capable of neutralizing all electronic systems, plunging entire regions—as we have seen—into a total shutdown of their infrastructure, including the most modern systems. This was just demonstrated during the retaliation against Dimona and Arad, two strategic cities housing Israeli nuclear facilities, after Tel Aviv ordered the bombing of Iran’s Natanz Nuclear Research Center. This dual attack led B. Netanyahu to say that “the evening was very difficult.” One could not put it better. The inability of Israeli defense systems to neutralize this Iranian retaliation has been demonstrated once again. The all-too-famous Iron Dome has been completely discredited. We are no longer in 1945, and the prospect of a large-scale war would mean that even U.S. territory could be affected.

Rather than celebrating the failures of war criminal B. Netanyahu, his accomplice D. Trump, and their actions, shouldn’t we be supporting the Iranian resistance just as we must support the Palestinian resistance? Yet, on the contrary, a significant portion of the left in France and Europe hypocritically warns against what might appear to be support for Iran—something it was careful not to do for Ukraine while backing Zelensky.

The “neither-nor” stance, or selective internationalism.

With this “neither-nor” stance in tow, the left prefers to assert that peace must be made and negotiations with Tehran imposed [17]. At best, it speaks of “self-defense” only to immediately add that it does not regret the death of the leader of the Iranian Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and his family, even though this was a heinous crime committed against a renowned religious leader and Shiite theologian.[18] The duty of the left would therefore be to reject, in one fell swoop, Trump, Netanyahu, and Mojtaba Khamenei—“neither the Shah nor the mullahs” [19]. This political opportunism, this petty, selective internationalism—which unites a left that claims to be uncompromising and internationalist, and moreover in solidarity with the Palestinians, all the way to a conciliatory left compromised with institutions like the CRIF[20]—but which, depending on electoral circumstances, knows how to come together, ultimately leads to denying respect for the sovereign rights of a state and the rights of its people to defend themselves. But also, in a more specious manner, to legitimize the concept of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) in order to better justify the need for regime change in Iran. Even at the cost of undermining that country’s sovereignty, of carnage, of unspeakable destruction—including of archaeological sites listed as World Heritage sites—and of an endless war. [21]

The left thus condemns Iranian leaders, which leads it astray, without concretely opposing the acts of plunder, criminal destruction, and illegal sanctions perpetrated by the duo of D. Trump and B. Netanyahu.

Indifferent to a situation of extreme gravity, the left’s ambiguous rhetoric also interprets the aggression as targeting China through what would be a proxy war. The poverty of this analysis, as always, sidesteps the main issue—that of capitalism having reached its terminal phase—and reduces this war to a new version of the confrontation between China, Russia, and the United States, whereas it is in fact a confrontation between the West and the rest of the world, between capitalism and barbarism. To top it all off, do we not go so far as to stigmatize, in the same breath, two bureaucracies—China and Russia—which find themselves united in the same commitment against the United States!

This view of the state of the world on the part of the left is extremely superficial. Moreover, it most often serves as a substitute for concrete action, helping to neutralize the forces that should be mobilized in favor of peace and solidarity with the Iranian people as they struggle for respect for their identity, their convictions, and their independence.

The left thus proves incapable of grasping how and why we are witnessing such a shift in the international balance of power, this unprecedented upheaval. In debates, its representatives mostly oscillate between acceptance, ignorance, and opportunism. If necessary, one might concede that some of them might, at a stretch, speak of imperialism, but always merely to state a fact, never to draw lessons or concrete political consequences from it. In fact, the left prefers to confine itself to emotional incantations about what it perceives as good and evil. Yet, as we know, speaking of good and evil is a moral category—one of poor morality and poor politics.

In fact, the value judgments the Left likes to indulge in serve only to mask a sense of powerlessness. Especially since these same countries—whether Iran, China, or Russia—find themselves united within anti-hegemonic alliances such as the BRICS+ or the SCO [22]. It is never a bad idea to revisit Zbigniew Brzezinski [23] when he warned U.S. administrations about the formation of anti-hegemonic alliances challenging U.S. omnipotence. In particular, between Russia and China, between them and India, between these three and Iran, and the foreseeable catastrophe for American supremacy over the world posed by these four, along with Japan. China and Russia, which have unequivocally condemned the aggression against Iran, make no secret of their unconditional support and solidarity across all areas.

Appearances are often deceptive; many on the left had interpreted recent changes in the Middle East negatively as a retreat in the face of the U.S. and Israel. In fact, the war against Iran highlights a different reality. Nothing is set in stone; everything is constantly changing and evolving. Through the Iranian people’s relentless struggle, a positive trend is emerging—admittedly, it is not without risks, but neither is it without opportunities.

In fact, the proof is that the United States and Israel are not invincible. Taking this into account is essential for the struggles ahead. This conviction can become contagious. It is already perceived as such by many peoples and states around the world, who welcome it.

What we will take away from this!

In fact, what we are already taking away—and will continue to take away—from this war against Iran is that the United States is no longer capable of playing the role of superpower and “indispensable nation” [24] that it claims in the conduct of world affairs. In a way, the emperor has no clothes, and from now on this is known and visible. We owe this, among other things, to the determination and courage of Iran and its people. What political conclusions should the left draw from this? Should it lower its guard or raise the bar of its demands?

Especially since the systemic crisis of capitalism is set to take on a new scale, and class contradictions will sharpen even further, with all the consequences one can imagine, for that is precisely what is at stake. The system has entered this phase of history where its survival is at stake, hence the extreme danger it poses. It is clear that no peaceful and democratic transition will be possible under the plutocracy. The people who embody and lead it will never relinquish power. It will have to be taken from them. It is these obstacles that must be tackled radically, not superficially. This is what the left should set out to do, with foresight. It should do so wherever it stands, by linking its activism from the workplace to the neighborhood and all the way to the international level.

It is urgent for “the Left” to put an end to whatever distracts it from the struggle it must first and foremost wage against its own enemy. Is this not what Karl Liebknecht, Rosa Luxemburg’s comrade, put forward in May 1915 when he declared: “The main enemy of the German people is in Germany. It is this enemy within its own country that the German people must fight in a political struggle in collaboration with the proletariat of other countries, whose struggle is directed against their own imperialisms” [25].

This is why, under pressure from the oligarchy, the conglomerates, and in particular the military-industrial complex, this war against Iran is decisive. It is above all economic, a survival strategy for a system that has become increasingly anachronistic.

It is within this highly tense context that the war against Iran has led to a dramatic rise in the prices of gas and oil, fertilizers, seeds, and consequently in the food supply on which the Gulf countries depend. The threat to vital water desalination and, consequently, to the economic and political functioning of the countries in this region is another illustration of this. Consequently, this escalation of stakes is causing cold sweats for the Western economy—or rather, for the already ailing U.S. economy—a fact of which D. Trump is fully aware. He was elected in part because of this reality, and beyond his antics and grandstanding, this is what drives him, whatever the cost.

Trump must take into account the pressure—and even the ultimatum—from the markets. The risk of oil prices reaching unprecedented levels would trigger an immediate collapse of the U.S. dollar and the American economy. The threat to undersea internet cables still looms. 99% of Qatar’s and 95% of Kuwait’s internet traffic depend on these fiber-optic cables. Cutting these cables would be tantamount to freezing $10 trillion in daily transactions. Iran has succeeded in imposing “economic deterrence”; it has the means to do so. Trump must therefore avoid bankruptcy.

Already, for the six countries that make up the Gulf Cooperation Council—Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Bahrain, and Kuwait—the wake-up call is painful. Hydrocarbons account for 30% of GDP, two-thirds of their exports, and 64% of tax revenue on average.[26] According to the Financial Times and Reuters, these same countries have just simultaneously launched a thorough review of all their financial agreements with the United States, which could lead to a rupture in alliances with Washington despite having been firmly established in the region for decades.

We recall the quote attributed to Henry Kissinger: “If it is dangerous to present oneself as an enemy of the United States, it can be just as fatal to be a friend of the United States.”[27] For blindly following the United States comes at a price. What is the situation today? The rosy image of the Gulf petro-monarchies, built over the years on the idea of a haven of security and easy wealth—and moreover under the military protection of the United States—has just collapsed. Moreover, the Americans are not giving up on making the Gulf countries foot the bill.

Since the attack on Iran and its resistance—in addition to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz—numerous gas and oil facilities in the region have been struck, the most important airports are no longer operational, Dubai’s skyscrapers are ablaze, and investors are fleeing. Doha is no longer that idyllic place of easy living; U.S. military bases are in a pitiful state, thus demonstrating their inefficiency and uselessness; some have been abandoned; several U.S. embassies, set ablaze, have been rendered unusable; the U.S. Navy and its prestigious aircraft carriers—the largest in the world—have been forced to flee the theater of operations. With nearly $200 billion requested by the U.S. “Secretary of War,” the financial toll is considerable, and to top it all off, equipment and weapons are out of stock in the United States, in Israel, and among European allies.

Business as D. Trump’s preferred partner.

This is the other main reason behind the manipulation Trump engaged in on March 23, when he not only mentioned imaginary negotiations with Iran but also claimed substantial progress in the talks. This nonsense was immediately denied by Tehran. Trump’s primary interlocutor is the business community; his benchmarks are the mood on Wall Street and the stock indices of the CAC 40, the Dow Jones, and the Nasdaq. The goal was therefore clear: to avoid a stock market crash, ensure the market stabilized, and bring down fuel prices after they had risen by more than 30%. The announcement had an immediate impact on stock markets, particularly in Asia, which are highly dependent on Gulf hydrocarbons. This initiative by Trump confirmed his role as a servant exclusively to finance—starting with his own—and his ability to deceive his audience, saying one thing and its opposite to achieve his ends. He is thus capable of announcing that he has received a “ ” gift from Iran and then deciding to randomly deploy 30,000 Marines onto Iranian soil.

Consequently, with D. Trump, it is always business as usual. This involves, among other things, seizing control by force of raw materials, land and sea corridors, and the considerable revenues associated with them [28]. However, in the eyes of the world, this faces resistance that is unexpected in its scale and results, casting serious doubt on the capabilities and credibility of the United States. Moreover, it is not only the closure of the Strait of Hormuz that is destabilizing Iran’s aggressors; there is also the Strait of Bab el-Mandeb leading to the Red Sea and the Suez Canal, which is under the watchful guard of the Houthis—allies of Tehran—and the heroic resistance of the Lebanese patriots of Hezbollah, who are defending southern Lebanon inch by inch.

While these maritime corridors—among the most important in the world—are at the heart of global conflict, their closures are, for the time being, effective. The cost is considerable for Western economies, including the United States, and for the viability of the Persian Gulf states, and it weighs on the extent of the crisis in the United States and Europe. We must therefore overcome this obstacle and, moreover, help to curb and reverse the movement toward de-dollarization, which is feared above all by U.S. financial institutions. This fear is fueled by the decision made by several countries—notably India and even Japan—to settle their trade and oil tanker shipments in Chinese renminbi. What future, then, lies ahead for the petrodollars that have fueled the U.S. economy for so many years, particularly AI research?

Moreover, the apparent recklessness with which D. Trump embarked on this risky venture, hoping for a quick return on political and financial investments, amounted to following the criminal delusions of his closest advisors, secretaries of state, and B. Netanyahu. The promise that everything would be settled in a matter of days by eliminating Iran’s top leaders has been contradicted by the scale of Iranian resistance and the support of an entire people for their leaders.

What is becoming increasingly evident—namely, dependence on Israel—is not only raising questions but also sparking disagreements that are leading to rifts. The genocide in Gaza had already caused a shift in American public opinion regarding the Zionist regime. This time, it is the inner circle that is reacting.

The death of the MAGA movement?

This is confirmed by strong opposition among D. Trump’s closest supporters. “We are seeing today that the President of the United States is being influenced by a foreign government,” stated Carrie Prejean Boller, a member of the Trump administration and a loyalist among the loyalists. For her, “the MAGA (Make America Great Again) movement is dead.” In fact, negative reactions are mounting from military personnel, veterans, and the families of the fallen regarding the casual manner in which the Department of Defense and the White House treat the war, resorting to jokes and using video games that trivialize combat. [29] This is particularly evident in the dramatic resignation of Joe Kent, the powerful Director of the National Counterterrorism Center.[30] In his resignation letter, Kent explained that he could no longer support the ongoing war in Iran, arguing that the country posed no threat to the United States. He also asserted that this conflict had been triggered under the influence of the Zionist entity and its lobby (AIPAC) [31] in the United States.

Never mind that for the fanatics in office in Washington, the pressure and justification for this crusade must be maintained, including through its messianic character, as illustrated by an evangelistic and heavily publicized ceremony in the Oval Office of the White House. “This is a war of religion, and we will determine the course of the Middle East for a thousand years,” declared the ultra-interventionist and delusional U.S. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, whose reference to A. Hitler and his prophecy of a thousand-year Reich—das tausendjährige Reich—is worth noting. All of this is the imaginary and delusional world in which American leaders live.

Despite this urgent call to rescue America and its president [32], God seems to be nowhere to be found. This religious reference in the context of war serves to illustrate the extent of the West’s decline, while highlighting the danger this represents.

Faced with these accusations from within his own camp, Donald Trump—in the throes of a crisis of hubris [33], intoxicated by his office and driven by excess—has become unstable and unpredictable. Before an audience he considers a sure thing, he is ramping up his bluster. In fact, the U.S. administration seems to have no choice but to charge ahead, clinging to an interpretation increasingly contradicted by reality. While announcing the end of the war and a total victory over Iran, it intends to move to the next stage: a landing and invasion of this country, which is three times the size of France. There is widespread skepticism about the success of this operation, particularly among military personnel and Pentagon officials. At the same time, in the midst of his irresponsible delirium, his fanatical Secretary of War has issued a directive to the U.S. armed forces: “no quarter.” In a way, Pete Hegseth expresses, to the point of caricature, the moral bankruptcy of an administration for which the end justifies the means and the deliberate choice to ignore all principles of war, the Hague Convention, as well as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). These behaviors and statements reflect a sense of panic and disarray in the face of a situation that is slipping beyond the control of the administration in the Oval Office of the White House.

In fact, since the Iranians refuse any contact or ceasefire without substantive commitments, D. Trump has no recourse but to swing from one extreme to the other and, moreover, to multiply his appeals to V. Putin to find an honorable way out after making numerous announcements about an enthusiastic coalition—in his own words—to ensure free passage through the Strait of Hormuz, with countries most of which have already responded negatively, particularly NATO members, not to mention China, which D. Trump imprudently approached to solicit.

For its part, the EU, while showing understanding, is not ready to get directly involved, but rather to stick to statements of principle that do not satisfy D. Trump. As for the significant presence of French military forces in this region, it is not without significance, and the pressure that E. Macron is exerting on the Lebanese government to act against Hezbollah’s fighting forces directly exposes France. Especially since, following the humiliation his foreign minister recently suffered in Jerusalem, Macron is rushing to assure the President of Israel of his total and full solidarity.

In the face of these posturing, Iran is maintaining its composure and guaranteeing free passage to all ships except those of the U.S., Israel, or those indirectly associated with them. Furthermore, it has offered to collect a transit fee, to be paid in Chinese renminbi

Eradicate Iran.

According to D. Trump, this war was a “little excursion,” a “little excursion for fun” (sic), in his own words, aimed at definitively ending Iran’s nuclear program, bringing about regime change, or protecting the United States from an Iranian nuclear strike… in California [34].

As for B. Netanyahu, there can be no compromise. He has been waiting for this confrontation for so many years and is ready to go as far as jeopardizing the very existence of Israel. It is the Masada syndrome [35] that drives Israeli extremists—there is no turning back. Even after the genocide in Gaza, the question arises as to the viability of this pariah and criminal state—Israel—which is completely isolated internationally, with a destroyed economy, and whose population has already begun to abandon it. Israel has no future.

At this stage, D. Trump and B. Netanyahu want to settle the score with Iran, dismantling this major regional disruptor which, in their view, has been blocking the regional order for thirty years. For Israel, and following the genocide in Gaza, the historic Zionist project—the messianic dream of Greater Israel—must be accelerated. To this end, redrawing the Middle East is crucial. For Netanyahu and the religious fanatics surrounding D. Trump, this vision must also align with financial returns on investment that extend beyond Gaza, even if it is transformed into a Riviera for the vacationing global oligarchy.

This is also why the United States and Israel have the stated goal of destroying Iran, of eradicating a civilization that has made an essential contribution to the history of humanity since its Persian origins, and to do so by applying the “final solution” to an entire people, just as is being done to the Palestinian nation. D. Trump has declared his intention to “wipe Iran off the face of the earth.”

As we can see, for Washington, there are no longer any international rules except its own. Washington’s resort to systematic interventionism—previously implemented a few weeks ago in Venezuela and announced for Cuba tomorrow—is cynically justified and touted as a new benchmark in international law. In fact, this amounts to gangsterism, thuggish practices, and a renewed version of gunboat diplomacy. According to D. Trump, “We are the most important nation in the world; our military is the most powerful.” Consequently, this is what entitles us to do as we please, for what is good for the U.S. is necessarily good for the rest of the world! In his view of the United States’ place in the world, it is a fact that “the United States is a country that went directly from barbarism to decadence without ever having known civilization.”

The Left’s Complacency.

These global changes and their challenges do not disturb the left’s lethargy. Yet these deliberate and repeated violations of the very foundations of the international system are far from reflecting a position of strength. They poorly mask the desperate nature of the actions taken by the arrogant power currently in place in Washington!

For the Left, to ignore these upheavals and their implications—is this not, at its core, wallowing in complacency toward all or part of the dominant ideology by contributing to the existing order of things? If war is inherent to the capitalist system—which most often allows it to wipe the slate clean—does refusing to engage, to take a stand against the threat the United States poses to the future of humanity, not amount to choosing the wrong side of the barricade or wallowing in powerlessness?

For U.S. neoconservatives, it is always a matter of clinging to this vision, which allows them to reaffirm U.S. supremacy—supremacy now undermined internationally by the end of a unipolar world. For Washington, there is a need to project an authority that is, to say the least, faltering; a leadership that is seriously tarnished and battered in world affairs; and a credibility in tatters. Consequently, this is not limited to D. Trump’s unpredictable behavior alone, but is far more substantial and predates his presidency. Furthermore, neoconservatives want to put an end to multilateralism, which they view as an anomaly. They seek to impose the law of the jungle—the law of the strongest—and dismantle the UN system, which they consider obsolete. Is this the goal of the Peace Council, which for now is not catching on?[36] This is not surprising. In 2023, Joe Biden held his own Global Summit for Democracy, at his own expense. On this point, the similarity between the two is indeed evident.[37]

For a long time, the strategists of the deep state have made no secret of their desire to redraw the vast strategic region of West Asia, if necessary through wars and the systematic violation of the United Nations Charter.

The abandonment of democracy.

In fact, the evolution of the chaotic situation on the ground from which D. Trump seeks to escape reflects, at a deeper level, a crisis so systemic that it threatens American society as a whole, which now faces war, social, and political crisis. “No King” protests against the war in Iran are multiplying; on March 28, nearly 10 million people marched. Has the U.S. ever been so polarized, divided, and on the brink of collapse?[38] This situation is deteriorating so rapidly that it raises fears of the risks of a civil war in the United States.[39] This is what a political science professor at Laval University in Montreal emphasizes. In fact, it never existed; “America has abandoned democracy and become an empire of terror.” [40]

The question arises as to how D. Trump will approach his upcoming mid-May meeting with Xi Jinping in a context where the United States appears weakened and divided. The meeting will indeed take place. The ambition to put an end to the strategic partnership between Russia and China and to an influence that must be contained or even rolled back now comes up against the reality of upheavals that are decisively influenced by the close proximity of Russia and China.

But never mind that; D. Trump practices self-persuasion in the manner of Dr. Coué: “Every day, in every way, I am getting better and better.” At this stage, this negative outcome for Washington is just as much so for the Europeans.

As for the left, it is vastly underestimating the stakes due to its Russophobic blindness and hostility toward China. Yet we will have to deal with the considerable economic impact of this war, and we will also have to foot a significant portion of the bill. With no real opposition, European leaders have already announced that they will comply anyway, with all the economic, financial, and social consequences one can imagine for the people of Europe. It should be added that certain countries, such as Spain, Italy, Hungary, and Slovakia, have already taken steps to avoid bearing the political, economic, and financial cost of North American impulses and the unchecked subservience of Brussels’ leaders.

We must be clear-eyed: there is no chance for Donald Trump to secure a victory against Iran. Therein lies the political disaster from which the United States must seek to escape—a situation that can only exacerbate the crisis within the deep state. Donald Trump’s political future has become uncertain, and not merely in light of the upcoming midterm elections.

Under these conditions, how can we fail to take into account the significance of the Imperium’s repeated failures—other disasters waiting to happen? The conflict with Iran is already playing out over the long term, and we can already gauge how much the world will no longer be the same at the end of this war, which will confirm that the initiative has now shifted to the other side.

A Left in Decline.

Long a source of new ideas, the left’s credibility is in decline in most countries of the old continent, particularly in those long associated with a desire for radical change and a break with the past. From renunciations to capitulations, from betrayals to alignments with the dominant ideology, from complacency to conformism, the left has become permanently institutionalized. It has settled into the abandonment of the principles and values that had nourished its social and political history throughout the last century, marked by the great movements of popular mobilization and social gains of the interwar period and then the post-World War II era.

The observation above may seem damning, yet it corresponds to a reality and a lived experience. Thus, broad sectors of public opinion observe that, at this point of compromise and concessions, the question arises: what distinguishes the left from the right? This revisionism fosters contradictory feelings among the population—discontent, incomprehension, powerlessness, and discouragement—and contributes to a form of political disengagement that is evident, among other things, in electoral turnout. Voter abstention has thus become the leading political force in many European countries, including France. This has just been confirmed once again by the results of the municipal elections in France.

Regaining credibility?

One of the main reasons is that the left has shed its ideological and historical references, its analytical tools, its principles, and even its values. Consequently, this extends to its responsibilities toward the world of labor and its emancipatory struggles, as well as its internationalist obligations. Hence its total failure to understand the world as it has become. It is more a victim of events than a leader of them; the poverty of its analyses bears witness to this.

We have entered a period of clarification; with our backs against the wall, we must choose; everything is a matter of choice for the left as for others

To regain credibility, the Left must stop wavering; it must transform itself by demonstrating how it is different and why it must champion a project of emancipation and rupture—and, above all, specify what that project is. This necessary clarification requires the Left to take stock of itself, in the form of soul-searching and self-criticism.

The stakes and challenges are clear. They validate what Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann[41] said when he presided over the 63rd session of the United Nations General Assembly in September 2008: “Our survival will depend on the degree of determination we commit to the defense of life and the speed with which we fulfill our urgent duty to create an Organization independent of the Empire, and capable of effectively fighting against the various converging crises that beset us and, above all, against the primary source, namely the United States, which is possessed by the demon of Full Spectrum Dominance, of absolute control over planet Earth.”

One does not choose one’s era; one must rise to the occasion.

[1] Godille: an oar, a means of propulsion and steering considered unreliable.

[2] Michael Parenti, U.S. political scientist and historian, author of some twenty books, including *The Face of Imperialism* (published by Delga in 2011). Mr. Parenti passed away recently in January 2026.

[3] “The Defeat of the West,” Emmanuel Todd, 2022

[4] V. Putin, response to Emmanuel Macron. Quoted by Brigitte Pascal, October 15, 2025.

[5] Mohamed Mossadegh (1882–1967), twice Prime Minister of Iran. He nationalized the Iranian oil industry. An inspiration for the early anti-colonialist movements of his time, he was overthrown by a CIA-backed coup that restored the Shah.

[6] Fidel Castro

[7] West Asia or the Middle East

[8] “What Do Socialists Dream Of?” Grégory Rzepski, Le Monde diplomatique, July 2025

[9] Quoted by Rosa Luxemburg (Junius) in her work on the crisis of social democracy.

[10] Union sacrée: a movement that sought to unite the French people in the face of World War I. It was fueled by chauvinist propaganda and the betrayal of the Socialist Party as well as the majority of the CGT labor movement. To the benefit of the European bourgeoisie, similar movements took place in the United Kingdom, Russia, and Germany.

[11] “On Contradiction” by Mao Zedong, 1937.

[12] Date of the start of the “Special Operation” launched by Russia in Ukraine. During the same period, see the Joint Statement by the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China. Chrono.cerec, February 4, 2022.

[13] For several years, the Kononovych brothers, two communist leaders, have been under house arrest and wearing electronic ankle monitors after being imprisoned, tortured, starved, and held in the worst conditions of a Ukrainian secret service prison.

An international appeal signed by 350 prominent figures, along with numerous solidarity actions, helped prevent the worst from happening at the hands of the authorities. Stepan Bandera, a Ukrainian fascist leader who collaborated closely with Nazi Germany while wearing an SS uniform during World War II and was responsible for multiple massacres of Jews, Poles, and Soviet soldiers.

[14] https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2026/3/10/the-fourth-successor-how-iran-planned-to-fight-a-long-war-with-the-us-and-israel

[15] Iran’s land area is 1,648,195 km², which is nearly three times the size of France.

[16] Sun Tzu, The Art of War.

[17] “Selective Internationalism: How Prejudices Shape LFI’s Discourse on Iran,” Alain Marshal’s blog.

[18] The major branch of Islam, Shiism, which accounts for 90% of the country’s population

[19] “My message is clear,” Manuel Bompard, BFMTV

[20] CRIF: Representative Council of Jewish Institutions in France, is a Zionist lobby associated with B. Netanyahu.

[21] “The Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) is an international principle that has been used to legitimize interventions and wars, color revolutions, and “regime change” in many countries. Madeleine Albright, the former U.S. Secretary of State, was a strong advocate of it.

[22] BRICS+ is a group of 10 countries that meet regularly to coordinate their economic and monetary policies. SCO: Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

[23] “The Grand Chessboard,” Zbigniew Brzezinski, 1997, Bayard Editions.

[24] “The United States as an Indispensable Nation,” Madeleine Albright, former U.S. Secretary of State.

[25] “The main enemy is within our country,” Karl Liebknecht, http://www.marxists.org

[26] 75% to 85% of food products in Gulf countries come from the Strait of Hormuz. RTBF, March 11, 2026.

[27] Henry Kissinger quoted in “If Arabia Must Remain Saudi,” Joseph Bahout, Les Cahiers de l’Orient.

[28] 20% of global oil traffic passes through the Strait of Hormuz. Iran’s vast territory connects with Southeast Asia and the new Silk Roads, an initiative led by China.

[29] “Veterans see something disturbing in Trump’s war memes,” Washington Post, March 25, 2026

[30] Until his resignation, Joe Kent—who had been appointed to his post by Donald Trump—was the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center.

[31] AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) is a powerful lobby in the U.S. that unconditionally supports Israel’s policies. See “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy” by John Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt. La Découverte.

[32] See the excellent sketch by George Carlin, “God and Religion,” on YouTube.

[33] Hubris: a feeling of excessive pride that refers to overly arrogant attitudes.

[34] “Why Does D. Trump Claim That the War Against Iran Will Soon Be Over?” Radio France, March 10, 2026.

[35] Masada: a fortress, symbol of the Kingdom of Israel, besieged by the Romans in 73 AD. The entire population chose collective suicide rather than surrender.

[36] In January 2026, Trump declared that his Peace Council could replace the UN.

[37] “Opening of the Summit for Democracy initiated by J. Biden,” WWW.RTS.CH, March 29, 2023

[38] “Civil War in the United States—Tensions in Los Angeles,” Le Diplomate, June 2025.

[39] “Risk of Civil War in the U.S., According to an Expert,” Journal de Montréal, February 22, 2025.

[40] Emmanuel Todd, “Interview with Japanese publisher Bungeishunju,” March 12, 2026.

[41] Miguel D’Escoto Brockmann (1933–2017), former foreign minister of Nicaragua, Catholic priest, leader, and guerrilla fighter of the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN). Lenin Peace Prize.

Avant de partir, merci de m’offrir un café.