The US-Israeli attack on Iran began at 9:45am IRST (1:15am EST) on 28 February 2026. The motives are well known. They stem from the refusal of Khamenei’s regime to accept Trump's demands for a negotiated solution to the crisis and the fact that the intervention, which had already been planned (otherwise, the enormous deployment of military forces, including two aircraft carriers at the entrance to the Strait of Hormuz, is inexplicable), was aiming to support domestic opposition to the Tehran regime, thus promoting its overthrow. In fact, overthrow of the regime has always been the inescapable priority of both Washington and Tel Aviv. This problem is at the heart of the more than decade-long struggle of the two allied imperialisms to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. Thus, as in the Twelve-Day War last June, the targets are still the three sites where Iranian nuclear power plants are said to be hidden. Although, according to Trump's triumphal declarations last June, hadn't they already been completely neutralised? So something else needs to be added to the reasons behind this second attack. This something must be sought in a wider geopolitical context, one that could lead to more far-reaching war scenarios.

First, the attack, as predicted and calculated, would force the Iranian regime to respond and retaliate by attacking American military bases in Israel, Qatar, Bahrain, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, and even Saudi Arabia. This in turn would force the Sunni Arab world to cooperate with Washington and Tel Aviv in accordance with the Abraham Accords — so dear to Trump and Netanyahu's Middle Eastern strategies to combat Tehran's Shiite tentacles — which had stalled due to the American president's tactical contortions. In short, the attack was intended to achieve those goals, but with a strategic overtone that would simultaneously satisfy the imperialist agendas of Israel and the US. For Israel, striking Iran means eliminating its mortal adversary and its Shiite tentacles (plus Hamas) throughout the Middle East.

It is certainly crucial for Israel to include the cancellation of Iran's missile programme in the negotiations, since this represents one of the most significant threats to its security. At the Annual Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu officially stated his aim: "Not stopping the enrichment process, but dismantle the equipment and the infrastructure that allows you to enrich in the first place." This point was reiterated during Netanyahu's visit to Washington. In addition, Tel Aviv demands an end to Tehran's support for so-called proxy militias, particularly Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, as well as the Iraqi and Syrian jihadist groups who took part in the war that began after 7 October 2023. Furthermore, Netanyahu added that he was "sceptical" that Iran intended to honour any agreement with the US. Thus, Israel is exerting heavy pressure on US diplomacy to act in favour its own, vital, regional agenda. By doing so, it positions itself as the sole Western point of interest in one of the world's most important energy zones, setting itself up as an armed guardian of Western interests, both in terms of energy supplies and the security of trade routes (primarily the Strait of Hormuz). It also seeks to outcompete Turkey, which has always aimed to be the most important oil hub in the Mediterranean. It should be remembered that over 20% of global oil and gas traffic and 30% of commercial shipping passes through the Strait of Hormuz, and that new gas and oil fields have been discovered in the southeastern Mediterranean. There are many conflicting interests between Ankara and Tel Aviv, so one less (Iran) is a win-win.

For the US, rendering Iran ineffectual, even as an oil exporter, means securing a sort of global energy supremacy (see also the attacks on Maduro's Venezuela in this regard), but above all, weakening the habitual opposing imperialist triad (Russia, Iran, China) which represents the greatest threat to American imperialism. Indeed, Russia and Iran are China's largest energy suppliers, and the military manoeuvres at the gateway to the Persian Gulf plus the bombing of Tehran and its oil fields, also serve this same strategic purpose. Furthermore, the naval exercises outside the Strait of Hormuz conducted by Moscow, Tehran, and Beijing, accelerated US pre-emptive intervention.

It’s many decades since the Strait of Hormuz, the 90-kilometre-wide strip of sea through which oil tankers and commercial vessels pass, have been so crowded with warships.

In mid-February, destroyers and frigates from Russia, China, and Iran moved into what Moscow has dubbed 'Maritime Security Belt 2026.' A short distance away, the USS Abraham Lincoln and three American warships equipped with Tomahawk missiles patrolled the same waters from opposite angles.

Italpress

Thus, the bombings of Tehran are not only a warning to the Pasdaran, the armed wing of the Ayatollahs' republic, but also to much more powerful enemies with whom, sooner or later, the US will have to deal for supremacy in the Indo-Pacific. (This is in addition to the well-known problems of high-tech markets, strategic raw materials, and currency markets, where the dollar is losing value against other international currencies, including the euro and the yuan.) How the new war crisis in the Middle East will end is unknown, but what is predictable is that, bit by bit, the economic crisis of global capitalism is building towards an increasingly generalised conflict. (Incidentally, news of the outbreak of conflict between Pakistan and Afghanistan, with interference from India and China, also dates back to the same period.)

Finally, Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a predictable and announced retaliatory move, with subsequent bombings against American bases in all the Emirates and even in Saudi Arabia, is strongly impacting energy supplies, but with varying and conflicting effects. Yet, as Afghanistan teaches us, without US ground intervention, the desired overthrow of the current regime is likely to be very complicated as well as dangerous. Beyond attacks from the air and sea, the Trump administration probably has no Plan B, aside from a few hypothetical and limited Special Forces incursions into Kharg Island, announced but not implemented. Better, for now, to re-organise one's thoughts with a bogus and threatening ultimatum: "a whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again" (Trump on 07 April 2026)

The Third, But Not the Final, Phase

Instead of any of this: a truce. On the night of 7/8 April 2026, thanks, so to speak, to Pakistan, and with the diplomatic support of Turkey and China, but against Israel's wishes, a two-week ceasefire was reached. Very good. So are we on the verge of a definitive peace in the third Gulf War? The data suggests otherwise, since everything is still being finalised based on the points presented by Tehran, which could never be accepted by Trump and his colleague Netanyahu. The points seem more like the dictates of a victorious power than those of a country teetering on the brink of collapse. Tricks of history, imperialism gone mad, or force majeure? Below are the points put forward by Tehran. There is no possibility of their being even partially achieved. So, everything remains as it was before the ceasefire, assuming the shooting does end.

1. The permanent end to the war with a definitive closure of all regional conflicts;
2. The immediate rescinding of sanctions with the total elimination of all economic and commercial restrictions imposed by the US;
3. War reparations: the demand for financial compensation for the destruction suffered during the conflict;
4. A new protocol for the Strait of Hormuz, defining new transit rules and recognising Iranian authority over the management of the route;
5. Security guarantees for Hezbollah, with Israel's formal commitment to cease targetting the Lebanese Shiite group;
6. Support for reconstruction: guarantees of international support for the restoration of infrastructure destroyed by US-Israeli attacks;
7. A halt to targeted assassinations with the immediate cessation of attacks and operations against key Iranian figures;
8. Recognition of regional sovereignty, accompanied by an end to external interference in the affairs of Iran's neighbours (such as Iraq and Syria);
9. Guarantees against future conflicts, with binding assurances to prevent the resumption of hostilities once the agreement is reached;
10. Framework for regional security framework with a proposal for collective governance of the Middle East that formally includes Iran and its partners.

Iran's Supreme National Security Council later announced that the 10-point proposal includes acceptance of Iranian uranium enrichment. Trump had called it a "big step," but "not enough," reiterating that Iran cannot possess nuclear weapons. Then he back-tracked.

Regarding the Strait of Hormuz, the delicate jugular vein through which over 20% of the world's oil passes, as well as raw materials essential for a wide range of industrial activities, Trump made the truce conditional on its reopening: Tehran accepted, provided it was "under Iranian military management."

Iranian comments immediately following the news of the truce, also talked of a $2 million toll for each ship transiting the Strait, revenues that would be shared with Oman and used for reconstruction. (ISPI)

More or less a (temporary) return to the pre-war status quo, plus the toll. These weighty demands demonstrate the difficulty American imperialism faces in accepting them. There's no single point that can satisfy Tel Aviv's demands, much less Washington's. Trump's response rules out the real possibility of any agreement. Here's a summary of the counter-proposals:

1. Iran's commitment not to develop nuclear weapons;
2. The delivery of enriched uranium;
3. Limitations on Tehran's defence capabilities;
4. An end to support for proxies in the region and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz;
5. Recognition of the State of Israel's right to exist.

But beyond this, why the charade of a truce, and why not finish the dirty work arrogantly claimed by the Tycoon? The first answer lies in America's economic situation. The second is determined by the level of trust in the Trump Administration, his approval ratings having dropped to new lows of less than 40%. Too many serious errors have been made regarding strategy, the interpretation of international events, and in communications that are as arrogant as they are disjointed and contradictory. In the case of the attack on Iran, the initial accusation was that the nuclear threat was in the hands of an unreliable country (look who's talking).

Lack of imagination? It seems like we've returned to 2003, when the excuse to attack Saddam Hussein was based on the fake news of the presence of weapons of mass destruction. At the time this was also supported by Blair's Britain, but it was a false claim both because it contradicted the statements of El Baradei, a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), who officially denied all this, and because of the subsequent admission of fraud by then-British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Only belatedly did the British Prime Minister, who had chosen to support the mendacious propaganda of US President Bush Jr, admit covering up the lie. But then the imperialistic destinies of London and Washington coincided. Now we have today’s justification, even more false than the previous one: that the attack against the infamous oppressive Ayatollah regime was motivated by a humanitarian need to help the groundswell of opposition which had suffered dramatic repression resulting in tens of thousands of deaths. Finally, there is the excuse of bringing "normal democracy" to a totalitarian country in place of a bloody sectarian dictatorship. Aside from the infamy of the aforementioned regime, all the justifications advanced are instrumental and untenable, especially when uttered by a figure like Trump.

Let's move on to the real reasons for the attack. We have analysed them several times, but a brief recap never hurts. For both Israel and the US, after the inhuman carnage (not yet over, see the Gaza Strip and southern Lebanon), the remaining targets in the Middle East are Iran and its jihadist offshoots in the region. For Israel, annihilating the Ayatollahs' government would mean the elimination of its main enemy, the financier of Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as various jihadist groups in Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen, thus establishing control of its national defence interests and as a military reference point for Western Europe. For the US, which has done everything it can to support Netanyahu in his imperialistic goal of militarily annihilating Iran, it would mean eliminating an oil competitor, a potential nuclear threat, and, above all, it would have been an effective means of weakening an opposing imperialist front: that of Russia, China, Pakistan and, for what it's worth, North Korea. In this context, while Tel Aviv's imperialist vision has a regional scope, that of the US encompasses a much broader area WHERE EVERYTHING IS AT STAKE AGAINST CHINA for world leadership. Within this framework a series of tactical factors come into play, with their inevitable economic and geopolitical consequences.

Trump assumed the Iran operation would last a few weeks. He hoped to gain maximum advantage at minimum expense. A barrage of missiles in strategic military and civilian areas and the game would be over. But things didn't pan out that way. Tehran responded by bombing military bases in the Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and even Israel. The second move was to close the Strait of Hormuz to oil tankers, except for Russian and Chinese ones, disrupting maritime traffic and energy supplies around the world. This pre-announced move created chaos among the Arab countries of the Persian Gulf and among the Saudis themselves. Despite aligning themselves with the US, they held the US and Israel responsible for the energy turmoil, alarming international stock markets, and wreaking havoc on the oil and natural gas extraction and marketing infrastructure, the source of their extraordinary, yet sudden, wealth. It is true that, in the short term, the US is reaping enormous benefits from the sale of its crude oil, but it is equally true that the positive effects are also benefiting Russia, which continues to supply its oil and gas to China and India, maintaining its primacy in the Asian continent. Politically, however, Trump has suffered heavy defeats that have caused him to moderate his approach. The first was the Ayatollah regime which not only did not fall, but even managed to sway much of the domestic opposition behind the Pasdaran militias in the name of Persian nationalism. Unfortunately, this has drawn into a cross-class melting pot proletarians, followers of the Pahlavi monarchy, and the very democrats who until the day before, were defying death and occupying the streets to free themselves from the hated sectarian regime.

The other defeats for Trump have come in a cascade on the domestic front. As previously mentioned, his already low approval ratings have plummeted after the attack on Iran, both among his voters and within the Republican Party itself, which fears the midterm elections like the plague. A petition currently circulating calls for the impeachment of President Trump for a series of problematic issues in which he and his second administration have been involved since coming to power. The statement by Blackout the System, the group which created the petition, reads,

Attacks on immigrants, cuts to veterans' benefits, undermining of healthcare systems, degradation of public schools and education, and reductions in essential food assistance programs have left the most vulnerable among us in a state of despair.

Thus, Trump absolutely needed a rapid success on an international scale to regain popularity and avoid the risk of impeachment. Instead, his arrogance and foolishness have brought him only misfortune: the failure to win in Iran. A war that domestic and international public opinion did not want. All the promises made during the election campaign remain unfulfilled. The disastrous tariff policy and inflation are decimating the domestic economy. Meanwhile Enemy Number 1 (China) is sitting on the riverbank awaiting his political corpse. But we are still dealing with aspects of the political superstructure, with the president's deficiencies aggravated by a narcissistic pathology in the use of power that has few equals in the dramatic gallery of the most evil imperialists.

To get to the heart of the matter, we need to start with the usual economic foundations. The US has been in a dire economic situation for years. Trump's arrival has only brought it to the brink. With his tariff policy, which was supposed to eliminate the balance of payments deficit with foreign countries, but which, besides creating a disaster on world markets, hindering trade and thus profit-making, has damaged the domestic economy more than the international ones it was supposed to penalise. In his folly as an incompetent capitalist economist, he fraudulently pretended that, thanks to his "tariff strategy," billions of dollars would flow into the state coffers. True, but he forgot that almost 80% of those billions were paid by American businesses who bought those goods, semi-finished products, and raw materials. Strategic raw materials that the American economy must purchase at any price, even if increased by import duties.

In conclusion, the balance of payments, which was in deficit by $2 trillion, has now increased by $500 billion. As a side effect, inflation has increased (3.6% in March and is expected to reach 4.8% next year). Gasoline prices have increased by 21.2%, and the price of the average shopping cart has risen over 25%. In short, domestic consumption has contracted, the economy is stagnant, and unemployment is rising. With a war economy that also includes spending to support Israel's Middle Eastern campaigns and the ongoing aggression against Iran, the public debt is now approaching a staggering $40 trillion. Government bonds issued by the Federal Reserve have risen in value, inflating the already unsustainable cost of debt service. The flow of capital into the American economy, instead of growing as Trump hoped, is taking on other dimensions. As the dollar loses value against other currencies, its role as a safe haven is being reduced and, therefore, too, its attraction for speculative and investment capital.

The cost of the war with Iran is part of this framework with the danger that the longer the war drags on, the worse the US economy will become. According to some estimates, the US is spending around $1 billion a day on a war that, the longer it lasts, the more it damages them, while the costs incurred up until the ceasefire could be as high as $40 billion. If we add to this the debts and deficits of the current Administration, we can understand two things. The first is that the American economy is certainly not flourishing. The productive sphere is stagnant, and the only sectors making profits, aside from oil, are those related to weapons production and associated industries. The second, which partly derives from the first statement: that "What's done is done", but for the immediate future all political, financial and strategic energies must be directed towards the one and only objective called the "Chinese danger".

But the "versatile" Trump has also added yet another threat: without shared agreements, there will be new and devastating attacks. But, for now, with the ceasefire and the deadlocked negotiations in Islamabad, a rethink is taking place, even if only briefly.

In fact, negotiations were already interrupted abruptly on 12 April 2026, with Vance abandoning the negotiating table against the usual mutual accusations, accompanied by the Tycoon's typically surprising comment: whether or not an agreement is reached with Tehran "makes no difference," because the United States "has already won". Meanwhile, he was forced to send ships into the Strait of Hormuz in a sort of naval blockade, aimed at controlling and guaranteeing the passage of American oil tankers. Despite this (or precisely because of it), China sent one of its own oil tankers, the Rich Starry, into the same tense Strait of Hormuz, challenging the 15 American warships and thus risking close contact. And this time, Britain and France are moving outside and against Trump's actions. News reports (15 April 2026) state that French President Macron defined the initiative as "strictly defensive" and separate from any American operation, while UK Prime Minister Starmer stated that Britain will not comply with Trump's naval blockade. This suggests that Paris and London are attempting to build an autonomous initiative against strategic lines tied to American interests, and the circle of fire is widening.

Thus the drama of imperialist tensions is becoming increasingly troubling. The areas involved in conflict are expanding and intensifying; economic interests are becoming crucial, and battles over tariffs, financial matters, and war refinancing, including in Europe, are growing dramatically. Pacifist illusions are crumbling in the face of the barbarity of the ongoing wars. The economic crisis underlying all these phenomena shows no signs of abating, and precisely for this reason, the only investments the capitalist economy is capable of making are in arms industries. We are faced with an economic system that, in order to survive, is forced to cut social security, keep wages as low as possible, and contain pension and healthcare spending. In other words, this crisis-ridden capitalism needs to channel capital to finance the instruments of war to conquer economic space, areas of strategic raw materials and energy. It also seeks to control all trade routes, to dominate the seas and airspace. It needs to destroy in order to rebuild, and above all, it needs the international proletariat to continue to be a pliable weapon in its blood-stained hands. When will the international working class rise up to stop this inhuman slaughter, perpetrated in the name of imperialist interests so obvious that they no longer hide behind the usual, yet still functional, ideologies of nationalism, the defence of national economic interests for the "collective good," in the name of the god of the moment or of threatened survival? To say nothing of the phantom defences of false Western democracies. They attack, they kill, they destroy, and that's it. When will the working class rediscover the path of its own interests, which are not the same as and are irreconcilable with those of capital? Only when it escapes the capitalist web that entangles it. When it organises itself politically and strategically into its revolutionary party; when, in addition to wars, capitalist barbarism explodes from its social contradictions. But nothing happens spontaneously, by idealistic mechanisms, or by "divine will." For this "when" to arrive, we must work for it, even if against the grain, and starting now.

Notes:

Image: commons.wikimedia.org