US vetoes UN resolution for Palestinian statehood in favour of never-ending negotiations

 
The United States vetoed a resolution to accept the State of Palestine as a full member of the United Nations. Of the 15 members of the security council, 12 voted in favour, 2 abstained and the US opposed.

April 19, 2024

The US has vetoed a UN Security Council (UNSC) resolution that would have paved the way for the State of Palestine to gain full membership at the UN. The vote, held during a lengthy session in New York yesterday, saw 12 countries vote in favour of the resolution, while Britain and Switzerland abstained.

Robert Wood, the US deputy envoy to the UN, defended the veto, stating that Washington believes the only path to Palestinian statehood is through direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians.

The US has overseen direct negotiations since the 1990s with the Oslo Accords marking the beginning of formal negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO). Direct negotiations failed to deliver Palestinians the dream of statehood and instead under US watch, Israel further entrenched its illegal occupation and annexed the very territory set aside for a Palestinian state.

The resolution’s failure was widely anticipated, as the US, a staunch ally of Israel, holds veto power at the Security Council and had previously expressed opposition to its passage. The vote comes amid the ongoing Israeli aggression in Gaza, which has claimed the lives of nearly 34,000 Palestinians, the overwhelming majority of whom are women and children, and created a humanitarian crisis in the coastal enclave.

Read: Slovenia, Spain prioritise recognition of Palestinian State

Currently, the State of Palestine holds non-member observer status at the UN. To become a full UN member, an application must be approved by the Security Council and then gain support from at least two-thirds of the General Assembly.

Ziad Abu Amr, the UN special representative for the State of Palestine, appealed for support before the vote, emphasising Palestinians’ longing for self-determination, freedom, security and peace in an independent state.

Some 139 countries have recognised the state of Palestine and a positive vote in the Security Council would have been an expression of the will of the international community. Israel, aided by the diplomatic cover of Washington, has been hostile to the international consensus.

Israel’s hostility was on display yesterday when the ambassador of the apartheid state to the UN, Gilad Erdan, slammed the council for even considering a resolution on the recognition of a Palestinian state. “If this resolution passes – God forbid – this should no longer be known as the Security Council but as the ‘terror’ council,” he said.

Abu Amr dismissed the US claim that the resolution would jeopardise political negotiations and prospects for peace, citing the establishment of the state of Israel through UN Resolution 181 as a precedent. Israel along with several other countries gained recognition through a vote in the General Assembly and according to one opinion Palestinians can bypass Washington’s obstruction in a similar manner.

Despite the setback, Abu Amr expressed hope that the international community would grant Palestinians the opportunity to become an integral part of the global effort to achieve international peace and security.

U.S. vetoes Palestinian bid for U.N. membership

Riyad H. Mansour, Permanent Observer of the State of Palestine to the United Nations, addresses the Security Council meeting on the admission of new members. He spoke after a resolution on the admission of Palestine as a UN member state failed to pass due to the veto of a permanent member of the Security Council. 

Photo by Eskinder Debebe/UN/UPI


April 19 (UPI) -- The United States blocked a U.N. Security Council resolution on Thursday to recognize the state of Palestine as a full member state of the United Nations, arguing its acceptance by the intergovernmental body will not equal statehood for the Palestinian people.

The Algeria-submitted resolution received 12 votes in favor, two abstentions from Britain and Switzerland and a vote against by the United States, which is one of five permanent members of the 15-member Security Council with veto power.

The vote prevents the resolution from moving on to the 193-member General Assembly where another round of balloting would have been held on the admission of the state of Palestine, which is one of two non-member observers of the intergovernmental organization, along with the Holy See.

An emotional Riyad Mansour, the Palestinian Authority's ambassador to the United Nations, choked back tears during his remarks following the vote.

"Our right to self-determination has never once been the subject of bargaining or negotiation. Our right to self-determination is a natural right, an historic right, a legal right to live in our homeland, Palestine as an independent state that is free and that is sovereign," he said.

"We we will not disappear. The people of Palestine will not be buried."

The state of Palestine first submitted its request to join the United Nations in 2011, which failed to get off the ground, but worked in the government receiving observer status in November the following.

Its application was revitalized amid Israel's war against Hamas in Gaza, which began Oct. 7, when the Iran proxy militia launched a brutal surprise attack on the Middle Eastern country, killing 1,200 Israelis with another 253 taken hostage.

The war has put renewed attention on the lack of a Palestinian state, as the death toll of the war in Gaza has ballooned to nearly 34,000 dead, and more than 76,000 injured. Much of the enclave has also been razed by months of bombing, and as of Sunday, some 1.7 million Gazans, or more than 75% of its population, have been displaced, according to the United Nations Palestinian relief agency.

Both the United Nations and the United States back the creation of the two separate independent and sovereign states of Israel and Palestine as the answer to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and Washington defended its veto Thursday because acceptance into the intergovernmental body will not bring about this two-state solution.

"We also have long been clear that premature actions here in New York, even with the best intentions, will not achieve statehood for the Palestinian people," Robert Wood, U.S. deputy ambassador to the United Nations, said during the meeting.

"It remains the U.S. view that the most expeditious path toward statehood for the Palestinian people is through direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority with the support of the United States and other partners."

He pointed out that the report the council received from the admission committee that the members lacked unanimity if the state of Palestine met the criteria for membership under the U.N. Charter.

"We have long called on the Palestinian Authority to undertake necessary reforms to help establish the attributes of readiness for statehood and note that Hamas -- a terrorist organization -- is currently exerting power and influence in Gaza, an integral part of the state envisioned in this resolution," he said.

In Washington, State Department spokesman Vedant Patel further explained that they believe the most expeditious way for the Palestinians to achieve statehood is through negotiations.

He told reporters during the press conference that due to statutory requirements, admission of the State of Palestine would require the United States to cease funding for the United Nations.

"The U.S. is committed to intensifying its engagement on this issue with the Palestinians and the rest of the region, not only to address the current crisis in Gaza but to advance a political settlement here that we think can create a path to Palestinian statehood and membership in the United Nations," he said.

Israel commended the United States for downing the resolution.

"The proposal to recognize a Palestinian state, more than 6 months after the largest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust and after the sexual crimes and other atrocities committed by Hamas terrorists, was a reward for terrorism," Israeli Foreign Affairs Minister Israel Katz said in a statement.

"Terrorism will not be rewarded."

Why did Biden block UNSC resolution for Palestine statehood? US stand Explained

ByVertika Kanaujia
Apr 19, 2024 

Why did United States block Palestine statehood bid at UNSC? Here's all you need to know


On Thursday, the United States stood alone in opposing a United Nations Security Council resolution to grant the Palestinian territories full UN membership and statehood. The U.S. vetoed the proposal put forward by Algeria on behalf of Arab nations, resulting in the resolution's failure. While twelve of the 15 council members voted in favour, Britain and Switzerland abstained.

The UN Security Council votes on a resolution allowing Palestinian UN membership at United Nations headquarters in New York, on April 18, 2024, during a United Nations Security Council meeting on the situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question. (AFP)

Had the resolution passed, it would have moved to the U.N. General Assembly, where a two-thirds majority among the 193 member countries would be required for approval. Currently, around 140 U.N. members recognize the Palestinian territories as a state.
HT launches Crick-it, a one stop destination to catch Cricket, anytime, anywhere. Explore now!

Why did US oppose Palestine statehood at UNSC?

U.S. officials have argued that endorsing statehood at this time could jeopardize the chances of achieving a lasting peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. It insists a mutually agreed-upon solution is essential.

“President Biden has consistently emphasized that a lasting peace in the region hinges on a two-state solution reached through mutual agreement,” U.S. representative Robert Wood told the council. “This is the only path that ensures Israel’s security and its future as a democratic Jewish state, while also guaranteeing Palestinians can live in peace and dignity in their own state.

“We also have long been clear that a premature action here in New York, even with the best intentions, will not achieve statehood for the Palestinian people,” Wood said. The United States “fully shared responsibility with its Israeli allies for the deaths of tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians.”

Even before the vote it was widely anticipated that Biden would veto the resolution. The resolution needed nine out of 15 votes for passage and no veto from any permanent member, including the U.S. The administration had actively encouraged members to either vote against or abstain from the resolution to prevent a veto.
Council Members opposed US views on rejecting bid

Despite this stance, the majority of the council disagreed. Many argued that the U.S., due to its unwavering support for Israel, shares responsibility for the ongoing challenges faced by the Palestinian people. Russian Ambassador Vasily Nebenzya criticized the U.S. veto as an attempt to resist the inevitable course of history.

Despite the U.S.'s strong stance, even its closest allies on the council did not support the veto. Britain, for instance, explained its abstention by saying that while they support Palestinian statehood, such recognition should be part of a broader process.

Algeria, the resolution's sponsor, remained resolute, declaring their commitment to the cause until it's achieved.
How Palestine called out US bluff at UNSC

Ziad Abu Amr, representing Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, pointed out that the same 1947 UN resolution that established Israel also called for a Palestinian state. He questioned how granting Palestinian statehood could hinder peace efforts.

“How could granting the state of Palestine full membership of the United Nations ... damage the prospects of peace between Palestinians and Israelis” or international peace? Abu Amr asked. “To those who say that recognizing a Palestinian state must happen through negotiations and not through a U.N. resolution, we wonder again, how was the state of Israel established.”


Israel’s U.N. Ambassador Gilad Erdan vehemently opposed the resolution, dismissing the idea of a Palestinian state meeting membership criteria.

US veto of Palestine's request for full UN membership 'shameful': Türkiye

Turkish deputy foreign minister calls for cease-fire in Gaza as soon as possible, Palestine's full UN membership and two-state solution

19/04/2024 Friday
AA

Türkiye's Deputy Foreign Minister Ahmet Yildiz

Türkiye's Deputy Foreign Minister Ahmet Yildiz on Thursday criticized reports of US plans to veto a draft resolution demanding Palestine's full membership at the UN, saying it is "shameful."

Speaking to Anadolu in an exclusive interview, Yildiz commented on the possibility of a US veto prior to a meeting of the UN Security Council to vote on the resolution.

"A cease-fire (in Gaza) should be reached as soon as possible. Palestine should become a full member (of the UN), and negotiations towards a two-state solution must be initiated with the help of the international community," Yildiz said.

Yildiz said full membership would be a good start for Palestine.


"But it seems that the US will veto it, and of course, it is a shameful situation."

He further expressed deep concern over the deteriorating situation in Gaza, citing widespread destruction and a staggering death toll of nearly 40,000.

Emphasizing the urgent need for international unity in pressuring for a cease-fire, Yildiz noted that while everyone criticizes Israel, there are countries that have reservations and objections when it comes to recognizing Palestine.

He highlighted discussions surrounding the vital role of the UN agency for Palestinian refugees, or UNRWA, in supporting Palestinian refugees and denounced attempts to defund or dismantle the organization.


"The (Israeli) occupation forces in Palestine consistently violate international law and fail to meet their obligations," he said.

"It is evident that the current occupation cannot continue. We advocate for Palestine's full membership and urge the international community to initiate negotiations for a two-state solution.”

As expected, the US later vetoed the UN Security Council draft resolution.

The 15-member Council gathered in New York to vote on a draft resolution authored by Algeria recommending the admission of the State of Palestine for UN membership.

The membership was blocked with a vote of 12 in favor and two abstentions, including the UK and Switzerland.

Palestine denounces US veto blocking full UN membership bid

Move ‘unfair, unethical and unjustifiable, challenging the will of the international community,' says Palestinian Presidency

19/04/2024 Friday
AA

File photo

Palestine strongly condemned a decision by the US to veto a UN Security Council draft resolution Thursday demanding Palestine's full membership in the United Nations.

In a statement, the Palestinian Presidency called the move ''unfair, unethical and unjustifiable, challenging the will of the international community.''

It emphasized that this aggressive American policy towards Palestine, its people and their legitimate rights constitutes a blatant violation of international law.

It also noted that the US veto encourages the continuation of Israel's genocidal war against the Palestinian people in Gaza and the West Bank, including occupied Jerusalem.


The Presidency underscored that the veto exposes the contradictions in US policy, which claims to support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict while preventing the international community from implementing this solution through its repeated use of the veto.

The 15-member UN Security Council gathered in New York to vote on a draft resolution authored by Algeria recommending the admission of the State of Palestine for UN membership.

The membership was blocked with a vote of 12 in favor and two abstentions, including the UK and Switzerland.

​​​​​​​Before the voting, Algeria's envoy to the UN Amar Bendjama said it is time for Palestine to take its rightful place among the community of nations, and seeking UN membership is a fundamental expression of Palestinian self-determination.


Palestine was accepted as an observer state of the UN General Assembly in 2012, allowing its envoy to participate in debates and UN organizations but without a vote.

States are admitted to membership in the UN by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council, according to the UN Charter.

A council resolution needs at least nine votes in favor and no vetoes by the permanent members -- US, Britain, France, Russia or China -- to pass.

Palestine's application for full UN membership comes amid a deadly Israeli offensive on the Gaza Strip since an Oct. 7 cross-border attack by the Palestinian group Hamas, which has killed nearly 34,000 Palestinians.

UAE regrets Security Council failure to adopt full UN membership for Palestine

The Commissioner-General of the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees, Philippe Lazzarini, top centre left, addresses the UNSC meeting at UN Headquarters. AP

Gulf Today, Staff Reporter

The UAE expressed its regret at the failure of the UN Security Council to adopt the draft resolution accepting full membership of the State of Palestine in the United Nations, and stressed that granting Palestine full membership is an important step to enhance peace efforts in the region.

Khalifa Shaheen Al Marar, Minister of State, explained in a statement on Friday, that the UAE is steadfast in its commitment to promoting peace and justice and preserving the rights of the brotherly Palestinian people, achieving the two-state solution and establishing an independent and sovereign Palestinian state, in accordance with international legitimacy resolutions and relevant agreements requiring an end to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

He said: The UAE has always called on the international community to strengthen all efforts made to achieve comprehensive and just peace, as this is the only way for the region to emerge from the cycle of tension, violence and instability.

Al Marar stressed the UAE’s position on the necessity of supporting all regional and international efforts to advance the peace process in the Middle East, as well as putting an end to the illegal practices that threaten the two-state solution and the right to self-determination for the brotherly Palestinian people, by supporting the achievement of a just, lasting and comprehensive solution that achieves security, stability and prosperity for the Palestinian and Israeli peoples and the entire region.

Also during the day, Saudi Arabia expressed regret over the failure of the UN Security Council to adopt a draft resolution accepting full membership of the State of Palestine in the United Nations.

The Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs also said in a statement on Friday that it expresses its deep regret over the inability of the Security Council to enable Palestine to become a full member of the United Nations, against the backdrop of the United States use of its veto.

The vote in the 15-member Security Council was 12 in favour, the United States opposed and two abstentions, from the United Kingdom and Switzerland. US allies France, Japan and South Korea supported the resolution.

Algerian UN Ambassador Amar Bendjama, the Arab representative on the council who introduced the resolution, called Palestine’s admission "a critical step toward rectifying a longstanding injustice" and said that "peace will come from Palestine’s inclusion, not from its exclusion.”

Draft resolution demanding Palestine's full membership at UN

'Ireland fully supports UN membership and will vote in favour of any UNGA resolution to that end,' says Irish foreign minister

Burak Bir |19.04.2024 - 

Irish Foreign Minister Michael Martin

LONDON

Ireland is "disappointed" at failure of Security Council vote demanding Palestine's full membership at UN, the country's foreign minister said Thursday.

"Disappointed at outcome of UN Security Council vote on Palestinian UN membership. It is past time for Palestine to take its rightful place amongst the nations of the world," Micheal Martin wrote on X.

His reaction came just after the US vetoes UN Security Council draft resolution that demanding Palestine's full membership at the UN.

The membership was blocked with a vote of 12 in favor and two abstentions, including the UK and Switzerland.

"Ireland fully supports UN membership and will vote in favour of any UNGA resolution to that end," he added.

Ireland is among a few European nations, including Spain that already committed to recognizing the Palestinian state.

 

Chinese envoy criticizes questioning of Palestine's eligibility for UN membership

Xinhua

2024-04-19       

A Chinese envoy on Thursday strongly criticized countries that question Palestine's eligibility for UN membership under the UN Charter, emphasizing that statehood is an "inalienable national right" of the Palestinian people.

During his statement following a vote in which the United States vetoed a draft resolution for Palestine's full membership to the UN, Fu Cong, China's permanent representative to the United Nations, expressed profound disappointment.

"Today is a sad day," because the US veto has ruthlessly dashed "the decades-long dream of the Palestinian people," he said.

Fu highlighted the contradiction in the arguments presented by some nations regarding Palestine's governance capabilities.

"The claim that the State of Palestine does not have the capacity to govern does not align with the reality on the ground," he said, noting significant changes over the past 13 years, including the expansion of settlements in the West Bank.

"Palestine's survival space as a state has been constantly squeezed, and the foundation of the two-state solution has been continuously eroded," he added, condemning what he described as "gangster logic that confuses right and wrong."

Additionally, Fu condemned the implications made by some countries that questioned whether Palestine is a peace-loving state, a criterion for UN membership. "Such an allegation is outrageous and a step too far," Fu said.

He further criticized the political calculations behind opposing Palestine's full membership, suggesting, "If it is out of political calculation to oppose Palestine's full membership of the UN, it would be better to simply say so, instead of making excuses to re-victimize the Palestinian people."

On the broader implications of denying Palestine full membership, Fu argued that this action puts the cart before the horse, especially as "the Israeli side is rejecting the two-state solution more and more clearly."

He advocated for Palestine's full membership as a means to grant it equal status with Israel, which could help create conditions for the resumption of negotiations.

"The wheel of history is rolling forward, and the trend of the times is irresistible," Fu said, expressing confidence that "the day will come when the State of Palestine will enjoy the same rights as other member states at the UN, and the two states of Palestine and Israel will be able to live side by side in peace."

Fu reaffirmed China's commitment to continuing its efforts and playing a constructive role in realizing this vision, hoping for a future where "the Palestinian and Israeli peoples can live in tranquility and happiness."

Source: Xinhua   Editor: Li Jiaohao

War and the Market State

A tip o' the blog to bradspangler.com for drawing my attention to these articles.

Which led to inadvertent connections between two articles. Because again in the syncronistic universe that is the WWW, I was looking for his link to this, Counter-Economics: review of excellent book on smuggling and came across another article, which describes the actual nature of what folks mistakenly call globalization.

The creation of the new market states is the result of NAFTA, the EU, and other new evolving models of contractual corporate and state cooperation. They are the WTO, APEC , etcagreements and meetings that are occuring that have set in motion the evolution of the market state that Bobbitt speaks of below.

The War in the Balkans followed by the war in Afghanistan followed by the war in Iraq is not just the war of Empire and Imperialism but of private armies and private contractors, becoming in effect a state, since they provide privatized functions of the state as I have blogged about.See; War! What's it Good For? Profit

The attack on the Balkans was an attempt to end the last vestiges of State Capitalism and pound the Serbians into submissive acceptance of the privatization of the State through strategic bombing of industries.

It is the same with Iraq. It too was the last state capitalist country in the Middle East that had to be privatized. The other countries were less vulnerable since they are hierarchical societies that had opened their markets to capitalism, while remaining fuedalistic social constructs.

An interesting analysis of this concept of the War of the Market State can be found at Global Guerrillas which reviews this book;

The Shield of Achilles: War, Peace, and the Course of History

by Philip Bobbitt

" A new form of the State — the market state – is emerging from this relationship in much the same way that earlier forms since the 15th century have emerged, as a consequence of the sixth great epochal war in modern history.

The “market-state” is the latest constitutional order, one that is just emerging in a struggle for primacy with the dominant constitutional order of the 20th century, the nation-state. Whereas the nation-state based its legitimacy on a promise to better the material well-being of the nation, the market-state promises to maximize the opportunity of each individual citizen. The current conflict is one of several possible wars of the market-states as they seek to open up societies to trade in commerce, ideas, and immigration which excite hostility in those groups that want to use law to enforce religious or ethnic orthodoxy.

A state that privatizes most of its functions will inevitably defend itself by employing its own people as mercenaries-with equally profound strategic consequences. "

So if the exisiting nation states are using private armies, and further privatization due to the transformation of these new models of transnational corporate/state agreements creates the historic conditions for the development of market states then the current conflict called the War on Terror is a conflict between the black market states, such as Bin Laden Inc. against 'legitimate' transnational corporate states like Halliburton USA Inc.

In fact all of the current 'Stan states (Afghanistan, Kyhrigistan, etc.) which were once colonial outposts of the Soviet Union and were not fully developed state capitalist economies are now home to much of the black market. And while they are dictatorships still, they are ones that capitalism finds friendly, and able to do business with. But within these states exists another state, that is international in scope and is linked with organized crime, international intelligence agencies, terrorist networks, drug smugglers. etc. etc.

The way these black market states are funded is through what Libertarians call counter economics. Piracy by any other name. The very origins of the primitive accumulation of capital under fuedalism that gave rise to banking, trade and eventually full blown capitalism.

The Necessity of Gangster Capitalism: Primitive Accumulation in Russia and China

It is useful at this point to quote from the book review of Illicit from Global Guerrillas

Moises Naim, the editor of Foreign Policy Magazine, has an excellent new book called Illicit on the rise of global smuggling networks. It's a must read.

Globalization Melts the Map

Moises copiously documents how globalization and rampant interconnectivity has led to the rise of vast global smuggling networks. These networks live in the space between states. They are simultaneously everywhere and nowhere at the same time. He shows how these networks make money through an arbitrage of the differences between the legal systems (and a desire to prosecute) of our isolated islands of sovereignty. He also shows how their flagrant use of corruption can enable them to completely take over sections of otherwise functional states.

By all accounts the amount of money involved is immense. In aggregate, the networks that form this parallel "black" global supply chain, have a "GDP" of $1-3 trillion (some estimates are as high as 10% of the world's economy) and are growing seven times faster than legal trade. These networks supply the huge demand for:

• Drugs (both recreational and pharmaceutical).
• Undocumented workers (for corporations, home services, and the sex trade).
• Weapons (from small arms to RPGs, many come from cold war arsenals).
• Rip-offs of intellectual property (from digital content to brand named consumer goods).
• Laundered and unregulated financial flows.

This supply chain isn't run by the vertically integrated cartels and mafias of the last century (those hierarchies are too vulnerable, slow, and unresponsive to be competitive in the current environment). The new undifferentiated structures are highly decentralized, horizontal, and fluid. They specialize in cross border movement and therefore can handle all types of smuggling simultaneously. They are also very reliant on modern technologies to rapidly transport and coordinate their global operations.

I would also reccomend Robert Naylors Hot Money, though dated, from the 1970's, it was one of the first to talk about International Finance and the black market and its impact on the bank meltdowns like BCIC and the connection of the banking industry to the black markets and their involvement in the debt crisis in the developing world. It was published by Black Rose books. A new edition is out as well he has written another work along similar lines, critiquing international relations, crime and hot money, entitled the Wages of Crime.

Thus the War on Terror is a war on two fronts. One to smash and transform the last outposts of state capitalism in Europe and the Middle East, and a war on the unregulated market.

Global Guerrillas says; The similarity between these commercial networks and those of modern terrorism (my global guerrillas) is not incidental.

Nor is it incidental that the American Empire is sowing the seeds of its own self destruction, not only in expensive military operations that rack up thousands of corpses and trillions in deficits, but in the fact that like the British Empire before it in order to finance these wars, it too relies on the black market. The British Empire set itself up for decline as it persued its Opium Wars against China. The US set itself up in the 1980's providing stinger missles to the Mujahadin in Afghanistan who paid for them in opium money. Who transported them through smuggling routes, still with us today used by Bin Laden Inc.

And quoting Bobitt again;
The current conflict is one of several possible wars of the market-states as they seek to open up societies to trade in commerce, ideas, and immigration which excite hostility in those groups that want to use law to enforce religious or ethnic orthodoxy. States make war, not brigands; and the Al Qaeda network is a sort of virtual state, with a consistent source of finance, a recognized hierarchy of officials, foreign alliances, an army, published laws, even a rudimentary welfare system. It has declared war on the U.S. for much the same reason that Japan did in 1941: because we appear to frustrate its ambitions to regional hegemony.

Capitalism has outgrown the Nation State. It reguired it for its period of ascendency. Now that it is the real domination of everything , of all social relations it needs a new state, a market state. One that can continually destroy its overproductive capacities. As capitalism evolves better technonological production, increases productivity and reduces the need for real labour, it amasses capital, which becomes unproductive. It is here that the new market state can use this capital to create permanent war, small scale localized war, that does not threaten its global expansion, but allows it areas for wide scale destruction of productive capabilities to offset its cancerous growth.

If war is privatized and all state functions are privatized, then the individual is no longer identified as a citizen, or as a wage labourer, but as 'free' individual, a contractor in a market state. Capitalism will have evolved to its logical conlusion; that we remain wage slaves but no longer to a particular boss or business but to the market. Our alientation will be complete. And it will be a society of barbarism, of all against all.

Labour 'is and remains the presupposition' of capital (Marx, 1973, p. 399). Capital cannot liberate itself from labour; it depends on the imposition of necessary labour, the constituent side of surplus labour, upon the world's working classes. It has to posit necessary labour at the same time as which it has to reduce necessary labour to the utmost in order to increase surplus value. This reduction develops labour's productive power and, at the same time, the real possibility of the realm of freedom.

The circumstance that less and less socially necessary labour time is required to produce, for want of a better expression, the necessities of life, limits the realm of necessity and so allows the blossoming of what Marx characterised as the realm of freedom. Within capitalist society, this contradiction can be contained only through force (Gewalt), including not only the destruction of productive capacities, unemployment, worsening conditions, and widespread poverty, but also the destruction of human life through war, ecological disaster, famine, the burning of land, poisoning of water, devastation of communities, the production of babies for profit, the usage of the human body as a commodity to be exchange or operated on, the industrialisation of human production through cloning etc.

The existence of Man as a degraded, exploited, debased, forsaken and enslaved being, indicates that capitalist production is not production for humans - it is production through humans. In other words, the value form represents not just an abstraction from the real social individual. It is an abstraction that is 'true in practice' (cf. Marx, 1973, p. 105). The universal reduction of all specific human social practice to the one, some abstract form of labour, from the battlefield to the cloning laboratory, indicates that the separation which began with primitive accumulation appears now in the biotechnical determination to expropriate human beings. Capitalism has gone a long way. Indifferent to life, it 'was satisfied with nothing more than appropriating an excessive number of working hours' (Dalla Costa, 1995a, p. 21). It is now engaged in the production of human-workers.

The Permanence of Primitive Accumulation: Notes on Social Constitution

 

Israel’s next attack on Iran

By Gilbert Achcar

Published 31 October, 2024

First published in Arabic at Al-Quds al-Arabi. Translation from Gilbert Achcar's blog.

In my commentary on the Zionist state’s retaliatory strike on Iran on 19 April, I considered the limited, almost symbolic nature of the strike, which restrained itself to targeting an air defence system dedicated to the protection of Iran’s uranium enrichment reactor in Natanz. I explained at the time that the Netanyahu government had chosen “to postpone the date of a large-scale strike … in accordance with Washington’s desire and for related economic and military considerations”, including the need to compensate for what it took to confront the Iranian attack that preceded the Israeli response by six days. I then added: “Moreover, according to U.S. and Israeli media, U.S. President Biden gave Netanyahu the green light for the offensive on Rafah in exchange for Israel refraining at present from launching a major strike against Iran. This indicates that the Zionist state will complete the genocidal war that it has been waging against Gaza for six and a half months, before inexorably directing its military efforts against Iran and its Lebanese auxiliary, Hezbollah.” (“The Postponed Israeli Attack on Iran”, 23 April 2024).

This is what happened indeed. Israel’s occupation forces invaded Rafah on 6 May, then completed their control over the Strip and waited for the summer season to end before launching their large-scale attack on Hezbollah. Before that time, Israel had escalated its provocation of Iran by assassinating Ismail Haniyeh in the middle of Tehran on July 31. Iran hesitated to respond to this assassination of one of its allies in its own backyard until Israel assassinated Hassan Nasrallah in Beirut, along with Brigadier General Abbas Nilforoushan of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. This was the second high-ranking officer of the Corps to be assassinated by Israel after Major-General Mohammad Reza Zahedi. The latter was killed in the Iranian consulate in Damascus on the 1st of April, in an operation that prompted Tehran to launch its first retaliatory attack on Israel on 13 April.

Tehran decided to qualitatively escalate its second retaliatory attack on Israel launched on the 1st of this month by making a more extensive use of ballistic missiles, which the Zionist forces cannot intercept in totality, launching about 200 of them (in April, 9 out of 55 ballistic missiles that entered the airspace above Israel’s interception system passed through the holes in the net — see the above-quoted article). The escalation was inevitable after Tehran had begun to lose credibility, especially among its Arab Shiite supporters, the Lebanese in particular. It was keen, however, to keep its attack, this time as well, within limits that would not bring about a large-scale Israeli attack with direct US participation. Tehran knows that the administration of US President Joe Biden is not willing to participate in such an attack before the US elections, for fear that it may backfire on Vice President Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign.

Biden therefore demanded from Netanyahu that the Israeli attack too remain limited in a way that would not harm Harris’s campaign. He asked him to avoid Iranian oil facilities for fear that Tehran would respond by disrupting all oil exports from the Gulf, thus causing a severe crisis in the global oil market, with a sharp rise in prices that could have a disastrous effect on the VP’s campaign. Biden also asked Netanyahu not to launch a direct strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, knowing that Israel alone does not have the ability to destroy them anyway. The only effect of attacking those facilities without destroying them might well be to hasten Iran’s development of nuclear weapons. As for what Biden promised Netanyahu in exchange for his restraint this time, it has not been disclosed yet. However, the US administration’s decision to send a THAAD anti-ballistic missile defence system to Israel, with a hundred soldiers to operate it, constitutes a qualitative step in transforming US participation in the ongoing Zionist onslaught from indirect to direct, through the deployment of US soldiers alongside Israel’s forces — not to mention the reinforcement of US air force presence in the region with additional squadrons of F-16, F-15E, and A-10.

The nature of the attack carried out by the Israeli Air Force last Saturday is very significant for the near future. This attack, the first on Iran officially claimed by the Zionist state, focused on destroying the anti-aircraft defences surrounding the capital, Tehran, and Iran’s nuclear facilities, as well as destroying the giant fuel mixers that Tehran uses to make the fuel needed for its missiles (the attack also killed four Iranian soldiers). The Israeli attack thus clearly constituted a prelude to a subsequent attack on Iran by weakening Iran’s defensive capabilities and its ability to manufacture more surface-to-air missiles and ballistic missiles.

Netanyahu is now waiting for Tuesday’s elections to decide his next move: If Trump wins, he will consult him to see if he is prepared to carry out a large-scale joint US-Israeli attack with the primary goal of destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities. Achieving this goal would require the B-2 strategic bombers that the US Air Force alone possesses, which can carry the GBU-57 bunker-buster bombs, each weighing about 15 tons, that Israel does not possess either. If Harris wins, Netanyahu will likely strive to drag Biden into carrying out the attack with him. This could then be Biden’s final and greatest gift to the Zionist state after serving its interests for half a century, in a unique dedication for which Netanyahu publicly thanked him during his last visit to the White House end of last July.

Middle East on the brink: Current situation and future prospects

By Imran Kamyana

Published 31 October, 2024

First published at Asian Marxist Review.

The new chaos emerging in the Middle East following the events of October 7, 2023, is not showing any signs of abating. Instead, with its enormous contradictions, it holds immense potential for further escalation, intensifying destruction and bloodshed. Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of the Middle East’s only functional “democracy,” is basically an imperialist gangster, a habitual war criminal and a Zionist fanatic. Like a bull in a china shop, he seems intent on provoking mischief and devastation at every turn. During the first six months of its recent offensive, Israel dropped 70,000 tons of explosives on Gaza — more than the combined bombing of major cities in Great Britain and Germany throughout the entire World War II. The horrors unleashed in the months since then have been even more barbaric, practically reducing Gaza to rubble, with indiscriminate destruction of schools, hospitals, residential buildings and other essential infrastructure.

Over the past year, more than 43,000 Palestinians have been killed in Israeli airstrikes and ground operations, with even the most conservative estimates indicating that 90 percent of the casualties are civilians, and over 60 percent are children, the elderly and women. According to Oxfam, this represents the highest rate of casualties among women and children in any conflict in recent history. Additionally, about 150 journalists and 225 aid workers have also lost their lives so far. Furthermore, around 100,000 people have been injured or permanently disabled. If we account for deaths resulting from indirect causes — such as lack of medical treatment and malnourishment — due to the ongoing aggression, the loss of life could increase significantly. According to the British journal The Lancet, the number of Palestinian deaths is estimated at 186,000. If a similar rate of deaths were to occur in the American population, it would equate to 28 million lives lost.

This ongoing carnage is occurring not only before the champions of democracy and human rights in the so-called civilized capitalist world but also with their full blessing, support and backing. The problem doesn’t stop here. Netanyahu is striving to escalate the Zionist invasion into a major regional war by extending it as far as possible. The attack on the Iranian embassy in Damascus in April of this year, the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran in July, explosions of Hezbollah’s communication equipment in recent weeks and airstrikes on Lebanon including the capital, Beirut — resulting in the deaths of many key Hezbollah leaders, including Hassan Nasrallah, who had led the organization for three decades — have all been steps towards further escalation. As a consequence of the recent Israeli operations, the death toll in Lebanon has already exceeded 2,000, and around one million people have been forced to flee their homes. At the time of writing, Israel continues to bomb the country, including central Beirut, and the number of casualties continues to rise.

These actions by the Zionist state, marked by extreme apathy, provocation and brazenness, have been so unexpected that even the leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah who were killed likely could not foresee their fate. In many instances, even the Western imperialist states supporting Israel appear to be in a state of confusion, surprise and shock — including significant elements of the US imperialist establishment itself.

The question, however, is why Netanyahu along with his gang is so determined to violate all morals, laws and norms of the imperialist world order. Understanding this puzzle requires an examination of the inter-imperialist contradictions intensifying on a global scale, the internal politics of Israel, and the crisis and decline of Western imperialism, particularly that of the United States. In an article dated April 2024, we addressed these fundamental aspects and future possibilities with the following insights:

Netanyahu, who has failed to crush Hamas, is now seeking to escalate the ongoing killings and destruction in Gaza into an open war with Iran across the region. He believes that a continuous state of war will guarantee his hold on power; otherwise, he risks facing serious corruption charges and potentially ending up in prison. Beyond this immediate concern, Israel’s ambitions include compelling Western imperialism — particularly the United States — to intervene directly in the region and to provide full and open support against Iran. This would serve to divert global attention from the ongoing atrocities in Gaza and undermine Iran’s nuclear program…

A potential war could spiral out of control, spreading not only throughout the Middle East but beyond, with the risk of nuclear weapons being used and widespread anger against the reactionary and oppressive states in the region igniting mass rebellions. In this context, all imperialist powers — including the US, Europe, Russia and China — are warning Israel against further provocations, fearing an outbreak of insurrections and a deepening crisis in the already beleaguered world economy. However, these warnings and appeals provide no guarantee that Netanyahu will back down.

The crisis of the Zionist state

It is true that Israel has long maintained a policy of responding disproportionately to any attacks, whether within or outside its borders, regardless of the human cost. However, when viewed from a broader historical perspective, the current situation emerges as an inevitable result of the internal crisis within the Zionist state and the deep divisions in Israeli society regarding the nation’s political and ideological direction.

On one side are the secular, liberal segments of the population, primarily middle-class European Jews, who aspire to develop the Zionist state into a democratic and “pluralist” society, albeit one that enforces apartheid and represses Palestinians. On the other side are more conservative factions, mostly composed of new settlers and occupiers of Palestinian lands, who seek to transform Israel into a Jewish theocratic state grounded in ancient religious teachings. These groups are prepared to go to any lengths for Israel’s geographical expansion, including the occupation of neighboring territories and the genocide and expulsion of Palestinians.

Over the past decade and a half, the influence of the latter group has seen unprecedented growth within the government and security apparatus, resulting in an increasingly reactionary, oppressive and barbaric Israeli state. This shift must also be contextualized within the global rise of far-right movements. It is not an exaggeration to describe Netanyahu’s coalition — including his allies, government officials and cabinet members like Daniel Hagari, Ben-Gvir, Yoaf Gallant and Bezalel Smotrich — as the Zionist equivalent of ISIS or the Taliban. This gang, including Netanyahu, appears intent on implementing the historic Zionist project more aggressively and reshaping the Israeli state into a more fascist structure. Their agenda includes measures to curtail democratic freedoms and limit judicial powers. Despite this, the resistance and agitation from relatively liberal opposition parties and ordinary Israeli citizens have persisted, manifesting in protests. The events of October 7 temporarily disrupted this dynamic, as feelings of patriotism and defense of the homeland overwhelmed the populace. However, the underlying contradictions are reigniting amid grim economic conditions and ongoing uncertainty, evidenced by violent protests against Netanyahu following the killings of Israeli prisoners held by Hamas and an eight-hour general strike on September 1, which had to be suppressed by the Supreme Court. The growing discontent and social contradictions could lead to more violent expressions in the future.

The state of the Israeli economy is also concerning. The economy shrank by 20 percent in the last three months of the previous year alone. Despite a temporary recovery, the economic downturn is likely to persist under current circumstances of war and uncertainty. In terms of per capita GDP and income, Israel may be considered a wealthy country, but this prosperity heavily relies on aid and investment from the Western powers, particularly the United States. Historically, Israel has been the largest recipient of US aid, receiving more than $300 billion since 1946. When indirect support is included, this figure may be significantly higher. For decades, the US has provided Israel with four to five billion dollars annually in military aid, primarily spent on purchasing US-made weapons and advanced military hardware, thus subsidizing the US military-industrial complex.

In the current context, the US has committed a record $17.9 billion in military aid to Israel since the Gaza war began one year ago. For a country with a population of less than 10 million, this represents a colossal financial backing. However, the conditions of a direct and unending war can undermine even the strongest economies, driving them into unsustainable deficits and debts.

Agencies such as S&P and Moody’s have downgraded Israel’s credit ratings following Iran’s missile attack on October 1. Furthermore, if the current war continues, the financial cost could escalate to as much as 10 percent of Israel’s GDP. In light of this situation, many capitalists are moving their investments out of Israel. While it is true that US imperialism views the Zionist state as its outpost — indeed, its extension — in the Middle East and would likely be willing to bail it out under any circumstances, worsening conditions will necessitate increasingly substantial capital. Providing such support will not be easy given the current instability in the global capitalist economy.

Another aspect of the crisis facing the Zionist state is its growing isolation on the world stage. Even Western imperialist players and their puppets in less developed regions — despite their public endorsements of Israel or their silence regarding its crimes — seem increasingly disgusted by Netanyahu’s escalating mobster-like approach. This sentiment was evident during Netanyahu’s recent speech at the United Nations General Assembly, where he faced rows of empty seats after many delegates walked out. Yet he continued to speak nonsense in a characteristic pharaonic tone.

The implications of a major war in the Middle East would inevitably have severe repercussions on an already strained global economy. Oil prices would likely skyrocket, ushering in a new cycle of inflation and economic volatility. More critically, imperialists are facing immense pressure, hatred and contempt from their own populations, particularly among the youth. The actions of the Zionist state, characterized by the genocide of Palestinians and relentless bullying, are inciting widespread outrage against imperialist hypocrisy worldwide, manifesting in international solidarity campaigns, protests and social media activism. A poll conducted by YouGov in five European countries (Italy, Belgium, Sweden, France and Germany) revealed that at least half of the eligible voting population supports halting arms supplies to Israel, with a significant majority being young people. An even larger number favor imposing sanctions on Israel, reflecting a substantial shift in global public opinion. These circumstances are also prompting many Jewish youth outside Israel to distance themselves from Zionism, delivering a serious blow to Israel’s international reputation.

Despite the bellicosity and war hysteria, Netanyahu’s position is not particularly stable even within Israel. While his popularity may have temporarily risen following the assassination of Hassan Nasrallah, a recent poll by Israel’s Channel 12 indicates that if elections were held today, Netanyahu’s coalition would be unable to secure a majority in parliament. In the coming days, the war’s toll is likely to further diminish Netanyahu’s standing. To counteract this decline, he may feel compelled to adopt more ruthless and reckless strategies. Thus, in the current context, the only guarantee for Netanyahu’s political survival is the continuation of the war. The whole bunch of criminals is careening down a steep slope, risking a disastrous tumble-down if they attempt to resist their own momentum. But this insanity is ultimately destined to lead to devastation even if their run continues. Historically, many leaders with fascist or semi-fascist tendencies — many of whom can be counted among today’s populist/far-right figures — share this absurdity.

Netanyahu’s power relies on the support of lunatics and fanatics even worse than himself, making it impossible for him to adopt a reasonable approach, which would obviously contradict his allies. Facing serious charges of fraud and bribery, he risks jail time and court battles as soon as he exits government. However, beyond these immediate concerns, he may have harbored ambitions of elevating himself to the status of a “field marshal” or even a ruler for life through military victory, regardless of its cost. His plans include the eventual displacement of the entire Palestinian population from Gaza, with initial steps already underway. However, the outcomes of wars often diverge significantly from subjective desires.

The decline of the US imperialism

The historical decline of US imperialism, coupled with deep divisions within its establishment, plays a crucial role in shaping the current geopolitical landscape. On one hand, there is the relative downfall of US economic power compared to China. China has become the largest trading partner for Latin America, Africa and the Middle East — over 120 countries in total — and is rapidly increasing its foreign investments. This growing financial volume and economic influence inevitably enhance China’s political and diplomatic weight, causing serious concern and sleepless nights among US policymakers, who are responding with escalating bullying, military aggression, trade wars and sanctions — particularly against China and Russia.

The direct humiliation experienced by the US imperialism in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with its indirect defeat in Syria and inability to manage other conflicts, has severely undermined its credibility and shaken the confidence of its strategists. These setbacks contribute to a reluctance to directly engage in major conflicts in the Middle East, at least for the time being.

Compounding this issue is the figure of Donald Trump, who, despite being seen as an “outsider,” has garnered substantial support among the American populace and significant influence in the state and its politics. His designs threaten to undermine the international liberal order built over decades. Like Israel, the situation in the US has led to deep social unrest and divisions, leaving the ruling class and state in a constant state of disarray.

Moreover, the condition of the head of the world’s largest economic and military power must also be considered. The elderly man in the White House, with his dementia and living corpse like appearance, embodies the decline of the aforementioned imperialist world order. Initially, there were attempts to beg and persuade him to withdraw from the presidential race, but ultimately, he had to be nearly kicked out. Ironically, the Democratic Party establishment was initially contemplating running Joe Biden against Trump.

Leon Trotsky once observed that individuals, even those separated by enormous differences of time and space, tend to behave similarly under comparable conditions. The more severe the constraints of circumstance, the more limited the capacity for varied human behavior. In this light, Joe Biden can be reasonably compared to Leonid Brezhnev, who personified the decline of Stalinism in the Soviet Union and the growing distrust within the Stalinist bureaucracy. Political jokes about Brezhnev’s age, forgetfulness and frail state were common. One such joke noted that when he reprimanded his speechwriter for a 45-minute speech instead of the instructed 15, he was told that three copies of a 15-minute speech had been provided to him. Biden’s situation is not vastly different.

Furthermore, a partial analogy can be drawn between today’s US imperialism and the later years of the Soviet Union, despite the stark differences in their social systems. Given these conditions, assessing the ability — or inability — of the US state to formulate and implement coherent policies becomes straightforward. There is a continuous flow of conflicting statements, confusion and reluctance, ranging from strong, unconditional support for Israel to vague condemnations and half-hearted threats to cut off arms supplies. Lines are drawn before Israel, but when they are crossed, new ones are quickly established. News of a possible ceasefire agreement surfacing almost daily practically suggest that Israel is about to initiate a new wave of violence and provocations. This ongoing cycle of setting and erasing boundaries has persisted for a whole year, and while imperialist hypocrisy plays a role, it cannot be solely blamed. Given Biden’s state of mind, his effectiveness and authority as president appear severely limited, if not entirely nonexistent. Thus, his role in recent months has been largely symbolic.

Amidst this backdrop, the clamor of the presidential campaign continues. In a troubling warning, Biden has explicitly stated that the upcoming election may not be peaceful. If he faces electoral defeat, Trump is unlikely to concede easily, and a victory for Trump would be no less chaotic. Consequently, this situation is shaping up to be a significant crisis in either case. As a result, the influence of the state-military bureaucracy — comprising many warmongers and fanatics even more passionate for slaughter and devastation than Biden — inevitably increases.

Trump is keen to exploit the current turmoil. Following Iran’s latest missile attack on Israel, he made an interesting comment:

A short time ago, Iran launched 181 ballistic missiles at Israel. I’ve been talking about World War III for a long time, and I don’t want to make predictions because the predictions always come true… We have a non-existent president and a non-existent vice president… She was at a fundraiser in San Francisco… We should be in charge, but nobody knows what’s going on.

Irrespective of political posturing and exaggeration, Trump’s comment is not entirely unreasonable. One, however, can imagine that he too would be pondering “what’s going on” and how to respond if he were still president. Individuals of his type, driven by their brazen and idiotic confidence, often end up committing even more destructive actions. A similar self-proclaimed polymath currently rots in a Pakistani jail.

However, it’s essential to understand the fundamental aspects of US policy in the current Middle Eastern context. The United States is unequivocally committed to supporting Israel under any circumstances. Yet, in the current climate, particularly when the presidential election is less than one month away, Americans are wary of allowing Israel to escalate into a major war in the region, especially one involving direct military confrontation with Iran. Such a scenario could trigger a new wave of mass migrations, economic crises and widespread destruction, potentially escalating to the use of nuclear weapons. Like Pakistan, Israel adheres to a notorious military doctrine that permits the use of nuclear weapons if its existence is threatened.

Moreover, US strategists do not want to see Gaza (or the West Bank) effectively erased as a Palestinian population through forced integration into Israel or mass evictions. They certainly do not wish for this to occur in the brutal and vicious manner desired by figures like Netanyahu. Any such actions would not only consign the long-debated hypocrisy of two-state solution to the annals of history but also inflame existing anger among Arab populations, potentially igniting mass uprisings, coups and uncontrollable political instability. In this regard, China, European powers and most Arab states appear to align with US interests. Hence, after every provocation, there are calls from various parties for “maximum restraint.” However, the desires and ambitions of the Saudis may diverge from this consensus.

The dilemma arises because Netanyahu is unwilling to confine himself to the limits set by the Americans, while the latter seem compelled to submit to his obstinacy. This dynamic makes it increasingly difficult for US imperialism to strike a balance between supporting Israel and restraining Netanyahu. Over the past year, America’s role has shifted to that of a semi-passive spectator rather than an active participant. Rather than compelling Netanyahu to adhere to their directives, they have found themselves following his lead. This trajectory is unlikely to foster peace and stability. In extreme circumstances, Netanyahu could face political or even physical elimination. But such a course of action would be fraught with extreme risk and difficulty.

The dilemma of the Iranian regime

Over the past year, Israel has actively sought to provoke Iran by extending its military operations against Hamas to include Iranian proxies in the region, such as the Houthis and Hezbollah. Israel appears to be trying to draw Iran into a broader conflict that could inflict significant damage on it. Conversely, Iran has been equally intent on avoiding war with Israel for several reasons.

Like Israel and the United States, the Iranian state is grappling with a deep internal crisis. Growing discontent among the youth, fueled by rampant corruption among the ruling clergy, oppressive religious policies, economic hardship and a stifling political environment, has weakened the theocratic regime from within. Over the past fifteen years, at least ten major protest movements have emerged in Iran, addressing a range of issues — lack of democratic and civil liberties, gender discrimination, rising prices, unemployment, inadequate wages, etc. — with demands and slogans extending to calls for overthrowing the existing state. In nearly every instance, these movements have been brutally suppressed by the regime’s extremely oppressive machinery.

Engaging in a war with Israel would further strain Iran’s already fragile, sanctions-hit economy. The Iranian government would need to significantly increase military spending for itself and its proxies, which, combined with potential loss of life and infrastructure, could intensify the internal crisis and spark new uprisings.

Traditionally, Iran’s strategy has involved waging an indirect, ambiguous, low-intensity and prolonged conflict with Israel through its proxies, aiming to wear down or incapacitate the enemy. The Iranian leadership is acutely aware of Israel’s significant economic, technological and military superiority, evident in operations ranging from explosions of Hezbollah’s communication devices to the assassinations of figures like Ismail Haniyeh and Hassan Nasrallah.

For instance, the exact circumstances surrounding Haniyeh’s assassination remain unclear to the wider public. One possibility is that a missile was fired at his residence in Tehran from inside Iran. Another theory suggests that an explosive device was planted in the apartment he was expected to stay in weeks or months prior. Alternatively, he could have been targeted using drones. Regardless of the method, the assassination of such a high-profile guest has resulted in considerable embarrassment for the Iranian state, highlighting significant failures in Iranian intelligence and the extensive network of espionage operated by Mossad within Iran.

A similar situation arose with the assassination of Hassan Nasrallah, who was targeted in an underground bunker during a meeting with other Hezbollah leaders. The goal was to inflict maximum damage on the organization’s leadership. Nasrallah’s bunker, located 18 meters underground in a multi-story building, was struck by American bunker-buster bombs weighing around 1,000 kilograms each, resulting in the complete destruction of the entire block. This Israeli strategy, known as the Dahiya Doctrine, focuses on leveling entire residential areas to exert pressure on hostile organizations or governments. It has been relentlessly employed over the past two decades, reaching new extremes during the recent invasion of Gaza.

Like Haniyeh’s assassination, Nasrallah’s targeting would not have been possible without intelligence gathered by Israeli spies embedded within Hezbollah. These events illustrate the deep penetration of Mossad into hostile organizations and states, and reflect its willingness to employ extreme brutality. Even prior to these events, Israel has a long history of assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists and key military figures both inside and outside Iran.

In this military perspective, a war with Israel could result in significant damage to Iran. Israeli fighter jets, equipped with cutting edge technology from the United States, would likely prioritize targeting Iranian nuclear facilities and oil infrastructure in the initial stages of any conflict. In contrast, Iran’s air force is currently quite limited — practically non-existent when compared to its Israeli counterpart. While there are rumors that Iran may acquire modern Sukhoi-35 fighter jets from Russia, this remains a complex issue from both political and military perspectives. This is another reason why Iran has made every effort to avoid direct confrontation with Israel thus far.

It is true that even among the most belligerent imperialist powers, there can exist some level of understanding and cooperation where common interests can be pursued despite conflicting agendas and hostility. This partial or temporary reconciliation between Iran, Israel and the US has been evident on several occasions in the past. However, circumstances can escalate to a point where options narrow, leading to confrontation and conflict.

Following the events of October 7, Israel has, for the reasons mentioned earlier, intensified its efforts to incite and provoke Iran. Under these conditions, it becomes inevitable at times for the Iranian state to take countermeasures to save face in front of its populace, armed forces and regional proxies. However, the missile attacks by Iran on Israel on April 13 and October 1 were primarily symbolic, intended as warnings. After both attacks, Iran clarified that it did not seek further confrontation or escalation. However, the October 1 attack was a more severe warning compared to the relatively ‘friendly’ operation of April 13, which had been communicated to the Americans in advance and utilized comparatively mild weaponry.

It is important to assess Iran’s military capabilities in this connection. While Iran is economically and militarily inferior to Israel, it remains a significant regional power with a basic industrial infrastructure and an indigenous defense research and production system. This includes the development of advanced drones and missiles, some of which have recently been sold to Russia. Iran also possesses vast oil reserves and maintains an upper-middle-income economy, along with a quantitatively large but qualitatively moderate military. For a simple economic comparison, Iran’s per capita GDP is at least three times that of Pakistan.

Additionally, Iran has never recognized Israel’s right to exist. The post-1979 Iranian regime has justified its existence through its opposition to US and Israel, framing them as evil forces while presenting itself as a champion of resistance against them in the Muslim world. In this light, despite its best efforts to avoid direct warfare with Israel, Iran has been preparing for such an eventuality for a considerable time.

Despite Israel’s undisputed superiority in aerial attacks and defense, Iran has continued to advance in military domains that address its vulnerabilities. This is underscored by its recent missile attack on Israel, which utilized hypersonic missiles, dubbed “Fattah,” for the first time. These missiles are reported to be capable of hitting targets up to 1,500 km away at speeds of five to fifteen times the speed of sound, making them extremely difficult, if not impossible, to intercept mid-air. The attack was strategically timed at night to ensure visibility, showcasing the missiles targeting Israeli territories such as Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.

Iran claims to have successfully struck Israeli military bases, asserting that 90 percent of its missiles reached their targets, evading Israel’s renowned Iron Dome and other air defense systems. While this is likely an exaggeration for propaganda purposes, the American and Israeli claims of intercepting 99 percent of the missiles are based on even greater exaggeration. Various video footages from the attack show dozens, if not hundreds, of missiles impacting Israeli territory. Subsequent reports, including from Israeli media, indicated that Israeli Air Force bases, including the Nevatim Air Base, sustained damage, with a missile landing alarmingly close to the headquarters of Mossad in Tel Aviv.

However, as in the past, Iran aimed to convey its message with minimal damage to avoid provoking a major retaliation. To achieve this, it is possible that warheads designed to cause less destruction were employed. It is also important to note that suppressing information about military damage or casualties has long been a policy of Israel, supported by a well-defined mechanism of censorship. Regardless, these events indicate that Israel’s US-made and indigenous air defense systems may not be as invincible as widely believed, and that Iran and its proxies are capable of inflicting significant damage within Israel if necessary.

In the realm of aerial warfare, as stated earlier, the Iranian Air Force is no match for its Israeli counterpart, which is equipped with the latest US fighter jets, ranging from the F-16 to the F-35. Despite this, Iran does possess relatively advanced surface-to-air weaponry, including various indigenous surface-to-air missiles and more sophisticated Russian systems like the S-300. There are also rumors that Iran may acquire the even more advanced S-400 missile system from Russia in the near future, although Moscow still remains reluctant. Thus, it will not be easy for Israeli jets to maintain air superiority over Iranian airspace.

Iran’s most significant combat asset, however, lies in its proxy groups spread throughout the region, boasting considerable manpower. Estimates suggest that, in addition to its 120,000 rockets, Hezbollah alone may have as many as 40,000 fighters, who are not only battle-hardened but have gained extensive experience from participating in some of the most brutal and complex conflicts in recent history, including those in Yemen, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. Their specialized units are equipped with modern and sophisticated weaponry. Consequently, a major ground war could yield unexpected and disastrous results for Israel.

Given these facts, it can be concluded that a direct attack on Iran will not be as straightforward as slicing a birthday cake for the Israelis. While Israeli strategists assume that a crisis-ridden Iranian state would quickly disintegrate under external pressure, their own internal situation is also precarious, and the morale of the Israeli army is not particularly high. Nonetheless, as previously mentioned, war is a terrible prospect that could lead to dire consequences, many of which are still difficult to predict. The current climate may also compel Iran to accelerate its nuclear program, moving beyond mere threats of developing a nuclear bomb. According to some estimates, Iran could produce a nuclear weapon within a year if it chose to do so.

Recent developments and future possibilities

The recent Israeli aggression, first in Gaza and now in Lebanon, can be viewed in historical context as a continuation of the Nakba, albeit on a larger and more devastating scale. Despite the widespread destruction and loss of life over the past year, today’s Israel is arguably more insecure and unstable than it was before October 7, 2023. Neither has Hamas been decisively crushed, nor has the release of Israeli hostages in Gaza been achieved. On the contrary, support for Hamas among Palestinians has increased significantly.

According to a poll reported by Reuters a few months ago, support for armed struggle among Palestinians reached 54 percent, an increase of 8 percentage points, while support for Hamas rose to 40 percent, up by 6 points. Notably, two-thirds of Palestinians believe that the decision to attack Israel on October 7 was absolutely justified. In contrast, only 20 percent express support for Mahmoud Abbas.

Some other polls from the same period indicate that support for Hamas is even higher. Most of Hamas’ network of tunnels — estimated at 65-80 percent — remains intact, while only a third of its foot soldiers have been eliminated. According to Hamas’ own sources, just 20 percent of its fighters have been killed. Even during the ongoing conflict, Hamas has been actively recruiting. On October 1, while Iranian missiles were hovering over Israel, Hamas conducted an operation in Tel Aviv, resulting in the deaths of seven Israeli citizens and injuries to 17 others. Additionally, reports and propaganda videos have surfaced, showcasing attacks on Israeli soldiers and tanks in Gaza.

A similar situation applies to Hezbollah. While it has undoubtedly suffered severe blows from the recent attacks and the assassination of much of its top leadership, its ability to fight against Israel remains largely intact. It is important to note that Hezbollah is not Hamas. Its strength has been demonstrated through fierce resistance against Israeli forces entering southern Lebanon and the continued barrage of rockets targeting Israel, at times reaching as far as Tel Aviv. Recent reports indicate that at least 20 Israeli soldiers have been killed in Lebanon, with claims of further attacks by Hezbollah on Israeli troops both in southern Lebanon and inside Israel emerging.

History has shown that organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah are nearly impossible to eliminate solely through military means, especially when they enjoy even partial support among the general population.

Current events should also be analyzed in light of 2006 Lebanon-Israel War, during which Israel incurred significant losses. While the Israeli military learned valuable lessons from that conflict, Hezbollah has also been preparing for years. Its fighters possess an intimate knowledge of their terrain and are adept at navigating difficult conditions. Thus, while indiscriminate aerial bombing under the ‘Dahiya Doctrine’ may seem straightforward, ground warfare presents a different set of challenges.

Israel has made it clear that it intends to punish Iran for its actions on October 1. However, the question of how it can retaliate remains complex. International pressure and the efforts of diplomacy and reconciliation will play significant roles in shaping the response. Israel may consider taking action inside Iran, as some possibilities have been discussed. It may also opt for unexpected measures against Iranian assets or proxies outside Iran. In both scenarios, the nature and intensity of Israel’s retaliation will heavily influence Iran’s response and the unfolding events.

In response to Iran’s symbolic attack in April, Israel had launched a similar, relatively harmless missile strike on Isfahan for face-saving purposes. It also targeted Iranian allies in Syria and Iraq with minimal damage. This led to a temporary cooling of tensions. However, the current situation may unfold differently. It is possible that, rather than taking a declarative or unusual action, Israel will further intensify its attacks on Iranian proxies in Yemen, Lebanon and elsewhere, compelling Iran to respond.

Recent reports indicate that high-level officials from Iran and Gulf states have met in Qatar, aimed at containing the escalating situation. The reactionary Gulf monarchies have assured Iran of their ‘impartiality,’ fearing that a major conflict could threaten their oil facilities as well. Additionally, there are reports of talks between Iran and the United States mediated by Qatar, where Iranian officials have stated that “the phase of unilateral restraint is over” and an “unconventional response” should be expected if Israel attacks again. Here Qatar’s role as a mediator and its rising influence in complex conflicts, both in the Middle East and globally, is a noteworthy phenomenon that merits further analysis.

Iran has also sent its foreign minister to Lebanon, a move perceived as an act of defiance. In a similar vein, on October 4, in his first public Friday sermon in nearly five years, Ayatollah Khamenei addressed tens of thousands, declaring,

The resistance in the region will not back down with these martyrdoms and will win… What our armed forces did was the minimum punishment for the crimes of the usurping Zionist regime.

He characterized Israel as a “malicious regime” that has survived only through American support and proclaimed that it “will not last long.”

A broader conflict in the Middle East could force Russia to shift its ‘soft power’ diplomacy to a more explicit and unilateral stance. Russia currently maintains friendly ties with Palestinian groups like Hamas, Fatah and Islamic Jihad, while also fostering warm relations with Israel, which has avoided targeting Russian bases or assets in Syria. Moreover, Israel has adopted a relatively neutral position regarding the Ukraine War, and there is cooperation between Russia and Israel in various economic and security matters. Conversely, Russia has deep diplomatic and military ties with Iran, partnering in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Central Asia, while exchanging modern military hardware.

Additionally, Russia is a major energy supplier to Europe and engages in economic ties with many Middle Eastern nations. A direct confrontation between Iran and Israel would pose a significant challenge for Russia. The situation is even more complex for China, which has substantial business interests throughout the region. For this reason, both Russia and China have thus far refrained from overt favoritism, engaging in a delicate balance that could be disrupted by extraordinary events.

The situation is changing rapidly, with events unfolding at an unprecedented pace. This scenario once again underscores the fundamental Marxist thesis that imperialist capitalism, in the era of its rot and decay, offers humanity nothing but deprivation, humiliation and war. In this social order, the interests of capital take precedence, and monetary relations dominate every bond and affiliation. Ultimately, it is the relentless pursuit of profit and capital accumulation that wreaks havoc in various parts of the world, including the Middle East.

Gaza has endured some of the worst forms of oppression and brutality over the past year. The spectators and facilitators of this genocide range from Western champions of secularism, democracy and human rights to those who politicize religion and position themselves as saviors of the Muslim world in countries like Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. The October 7 attack fundamentally altered the situation; otherwise, under the “Abraham Accords,” the Arab bourgeoisie was prepared to embrace Israel wholeheartedly, shedding even the cloak of their hypocritical enmity and opposition towards the Zionist state. Puppets in countries like Pakistan would have followed suit.

This is the true, horrific face of the post-World War II liberal order, which was supposed to lead humanity to the pinnacle of development, stability and prosperity after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Today, the world suffers from far more instability, chaos and violence than at any time in the past. These vices are the inevitable consequences of a historically obsolete social system rooted in exploitation, oppression and apathy. With each passing day, humanity is further pushed toward barbarism.

Capitalism has transformed the vast wealth of petroleum and minerals in the Middle East into a curse for its people. The existence of Israel is akin to a cancer on the body of the region, grafted to ensure the continuation of imperialist yoke and dominance. The entire Arab ruling elite is complicit in this imperialist project. The Palestinians have no friends, no sympathizers except for the oppressed and exploited people of the world.

The Iranian state, too, is an extremely oppressive and reactionary entity, dedicated to crushing the movements of the working class both within and beyond its borders. Ultimately, it serves as another tool for perpetuating the imperialist system. The same can be said for the regimes of China and Russia. Even if the recent crises and turmoil were to cease, lasting peace and stability in the Middle East will remain elusive as long as Israel exists.

Without a comprehensive program for dismantling and dissolving the Zionist state, the notion of a socialist federation in the Middle East is but a delusion. The task of overthrowing the Zionist state is intrinsically linked to the overthrow of capitalist states and revolutionary expropriation of capitalism throughout the region and beyond. This can only be achieved by arming the class uprisings of the working people with the program and strategy of continuous socialist revolution.