17.07.2025

Regime change don’t come easy

Iran’s Islamic Republic survived the 12-day war. Those, including some on the left, who thought it would collapse were wrong. But those on the left who simply tailed the regime were wrong too, argues Yassamine Mather

What is an escalating crisis in the Middle East should not be understood as a struggle between an anti-imperialist Iran against western imperialism and its Israeli ally. Rather there is a conflict between rival capitalist powers, with no socialist pole in sight.

While some voices on the left continue to push narratives about China and Russia leading an anti-imperialist bloc, such a picture collapses under scrutiny. China and Russia are capitalist states pursuing their own capitalist strategic interests. In moments of violent conflict breaking out - such as the Israel-US 12-day war against Iran - China was largely absent. Some claim China helped restrain both Iran and the US, but there is no real evidence that Donald Trump ever planned a full-scale war. Indeed, it was he, using some colourful language, who held back Israel. His ceasefire, even allowing for a telegraphed Iranian retaliation against the US Qatar military base, suggests a broader strategy of containment rather than wanting immediate military escalation.

Normalisation

Before the events of October 7 2023, there was significant momentum toward regional normalisation through the Abraham Accords. Saudi Arabia was preparing to join other Gulf Cooperation Council states in formalising relations with Israel, encouraged by economic incentives and US mediation. However, the outbreak of war in Gaza and Israel’s subsequent genocidal campaign disrupted these plans - not because of a moral awakening, but due to fear of a popular backlash. Mass anger among ordinary Arabs - across Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates - made it politically risky to take the final step toward normalisation. These regimes, authoritarian and deeply unpopular, feared that overt alignment with Israel amidst genocide in Gaza would spark more than unrest.

The Abraham Accords, far from being a diplomatic breakthrough, represent a broader imperialist agenda to solidify US and Israeli hegemony in the region by coopting Arab states. October 7 may have been, as some argue, a desperate move to halt this momentum. Regardless of intention, the result has been the freezing of any normalisation processes.

Israel’s long-term objective is finishing Iran as a regional rival. This strategy has unfolded in stages: first by weakening or removing Iran’s allies in the region. Gaza has been a central target, and now, as we witness starvation, the potential setting up of concentration camps as a prelude to mass expulsion, Hamas is in no position to defend itself, never mind consider any retaliatory attacks in defence of Iran.

Lebanon has seen a similar approach. Hezbollah, historically backed by Iran, has been targeted through assassinations and military pressure, substantially reducing its capacity to act. In Syria, Turkey has played a crucial role by supporting jihadist factions opposed to Bashar al-Assad, a reluctant Iranian ally. Though Assad was an unreliable partner, his regime provided Iran with strategic depth and access to Israeli borders. Weakening, effectively dismembering, Syria thus directly undermined Iran’s regional strength.

Meanwhile, the repackaging of former jihadists, like Abu Mohammed al-Jolani, leader of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, into respectable political figures acceptable to the west illustrates the monumental cynicism involved. While Israel wants Syria sliced and diced along religious and ethnic lines, the US is looking for engagement with the new Damascus government. Hence, while Israel strikes at the military HQ in Damacus in the name of defending the Druze population, the US urges restraint.

Leaked reports suggest that Benjamin Netanyahu persuaded Trump that a brief, intense bombing campaign - perhaps just a couple of days - could trigger regime change in Iran. However, military strategists were quick to reject such a chimera. Regime change, they reminded Trump, requires a viable alternative regime waiting in the wings and, presumably, boots on the ground, a land invasion and long-term occupation - none of which are feasible in the Iranian context.

Iran’s geography, strong sense of national identity and complex state structure render a US invasion near impossible. As a result, Washington and Tel Aviv have pursued ‘regime degradation’ - a strategy aimed at weakening Iran economically, diplomatically and militarily without resorting to full-scale war.

Iran’s nuclear programme is largely a pretext. As Narges Mohammadi, the 2023 Nobel Peace Prize winner, and western diplomats peddle alarmist rhetoric, the real issue remains Tehran’s regional ambitions and influence. Even if Iran completely abandoned its nuclear programme, it would still be targeted. Netanyahu has recently shifted focus to Iran’s medium-range ballistic missile capabilities as justification for any renewed aggression.

The underlying motive is to weaken Iran. Even Iran’s verbal support for Palestinian resistance is not to be tolerated. In fact, no challenge to the US-Israeli vision of an entirely compliant Middle East is to be allowed.

Ambivalence

The Islamic regime presides over one of the most neoliberal economies in the region. Clerics, top officials of the Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) and government insiders have massive funds in western banks. Their children often live in the west. They aspire not to ally with Russia or China, but to rejoin the capitalist west, albeit as a junior partner. Alignment with the Brics bloc or Eurasian powers is purely out of necessity, not ideological commitment.

This explains the hollowness of the regime’s slogans. Terms like ‘imperialism’ are deliberately avoided. Instead, for the benefit of its narrow, but not insubstantial, social base, Iran denounces ‘western arrogance’ - a vague and depoliticised phrase that enables the regime to appear oppositional, while maintaining its capitalist core.

Slogans - like ‘Death to America’ - are routinely mistranslated and misunderstood. Even the regime now tries to walk them back, adding they only mean ‘Down with US power’. This ambiguous posture helps Tehran gain support in the Arab world, while not closing the door to a deal.

Following its retreat from sectarian religious slogans post-October 2023, Iran now promotes an image of Muslim unity and solidarity with the largely Sunni Palestinians. This helps it build soft power in the region, despite its actual policies being thoroughly opportunistic and deeply repressive at home.

The regime thrives in times of crisis. By portraying itself as under siege, it justifies wage theft, strike-breaking and political repression. Any dissent is labelled as treasonous, particularly during times of an external threat. Nationalism and managed chaos are key tools for survival.

Nevertheless, the collapse of Iran - regardless of who governs it - would benefit no-one except the imperialist powers. Turning Iran into another Syria, another Libya, another Iraq would only fuel internecine civil wars, create proxy warlords and throw back any hope of reviving the working class movement.

However, all talk of imminent regime collapse, often echoed by sections of the exiled left, is just nonsense. Despite internal fractures and massive popular discontent, the Islamic Republic remains intact due to powerful ideological and economic glues. The economy is run by networks of corruption tied to sanctions. Sanctions have created black markets, and the IRGC profits massively from this illicit economy. This mafioso state structure has deep roots not only in Iran, but joins with segments of Persian Gulf capital, particularly in the UAE and Dubai.

The fantasy that the regime will collapse due to its unpopularity ignores the whole architecture of oppression, ideology and material interest. The Iranian left has been brutally decimated, leaving no organised alternative internally. Banking on spontaneous uprisings is not a strategy - it is an excuse to believe in and take comfort from a fantasy. Peddling such politics is certainly to mislead, to disarm, to betray the left and the cause of the working class.

It is right for the left in Iran to defend the country, its unity, its people, against Israeli-US aggression. But this defence can only be effective, can only be principled, if it is revolutionary defence. In other words, the best defence of Iran lies with democracy, national self-determination and the working class. Certainly not relying on the ayatollahs and the military prowess of the IRGC.

Global setting

Iran’s admission into the Brics was not a victory: it was a last resort. Neither China nor Russia will defend Iran in the event of war. Vladimir Putin has explicitly opposed a nuclear Iran and has recently strengthened ties with Israel. China’s economic relations with Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Israel far outweigh those with Iran. Tehran can offer cheap oil, nothing much more. The Brics relationship is one-sided: Iran gives, others take. The Iranian leadership is painfully aware of this, but it has few alternatives.

The US and Israel have invested heavily in rehabilitating the image of the Pahlavi dynasty. Reza Pahlavi, the exiled crown prince, was featured on CNN, BBC Persian, Euronews and other outlets ... as if he were a real player, not a glove puppet. Israel and Saudi-funded Persian language media fuelled fantasies of his return. Some in the diaspora and the middle class were seduced by this mirage. But any limited support he might have had inside Iran vanished once he spoke out publicly in favour of the Israeli bombardment of Iranian cities. Civilians resented being considered mere collateral damage.

Even in Kurdish areas - where separatist tendencies are sometimes manifested - popular sentiment remains anti-regime, not secessionist. People demand rights and democracy, not a return to monarchy or foreign-imposed solutions.

Israel’s military strategy of decapitating the leadership - assassinating IRGC commanders, military tops and nuclear scientists - has proven ineffective. The Islamic Republic is not a simple top-down state. While the supreme leader is a central figure, 70% of the state apparatus operates with relative autonomy. Power is networked, not hierarchical.

Yet, despite surviving the battering meted out by Israel and the US, the regime is fragile. Its military infrastructure is vulnerable. The government has temporarily softened domestic repression, but this is likely a short-term tactic to consolidate power before re-imposing restrictions.

If new waves of protest arise, and they surely will, there remains hope for genuine regime change from below. But without an organised left, the danger is that change will come from above - whether through foreign sponsored reformists, army generals or far right clerics.

Comrades on the left, both inside the country and living in exile, must abandon fantasies of easy wins and soberly face reality: we will not overcome a highly oppressive religious, military, capitalist state without working class political struggle, working class organisation and working class internationalism. Anything else is delusional.