Mehrnoosh Mousawi: In Critique of the Worker-Communist Party’s Support for U.S. and Israeli Military Attacks

 I watched a video from a YouTube meeting of leaders of the Worker-Communist Party of Iran-WPI about the war, and it had some interesting points. I want to address it.

For example, Hamid Taqvaee at one point argued that this war is very different from other wars. One side of this war is a regime that killed tens of thousands of its own people within 48 hours. In this very war, they killed someone who was the architect of that massacre. If Khamenei hadn’t been there, given the internal divisions within the regime, organizing such a massacre would not have been possible. Asghar Karimi said that we are completely opposed to nuclear weapons. But it matters a lot who possesses nuclear weapons. The U.S. and Israel also have nuclear weapons, but no government in the world has called for the destruction of another country. Kazem Nikkhah made a similar point, saying that the Islamic Republic having nuclear weapons is different because it killed tens of thousands in 48 hours. Others also have nuclear weapons, sure—but we can’t go and overthrow the government of Pakistan. Our issue is with the Islamic Republic.

Hamid Taqvaee and others argued that if the war ends, this regime will be so weakened that people can easily overthrow it. All the arguments in that meeting were, in one way or another, an indirect defense of the war and a justification of Israeli and U.S. military attacks on Iran. I have a few points in response to the dominant line in that meeting and the perspective they are pursuing.

1. Our policy toward the current war should not primarily be derived from settling accounts with the Islamic Republic, as monarchists and right-wing warmongers claim. Nor should it come from settling accounts with Israel and Netanyahu’s crimes in Gaza, as the “Axis of Resistance” camp frames it. Nor from defining a position toward Trump and the U.S. government, as parts of the European left do.

The policy of a modern left toward this war must be determined solely based on our relationship to the people of Iran and the protest movements—workers, women, students, political prisoners, etc.

The question is not whether this war will kill some officials of the regime. The question is not what Netanyahu or Trump gain. The fundamental question is: what happens to the people under wartime conditions? Do the political, economic, and social conditions of workers, women, students, political prisoners, and the general population improve—or worsen?

I believe the situation of the people has worsened because of this war. I believe the position of the left, protest movements, and the revolutionary movement has worsened. Hamid Taqvaee says it has improved. Let’s see who is right.

2. While revolutionary situations generally make radical left theory and politics more acceptable, coups, martial law, and war create a more favorable ideological and political environment for the right.

In war, workers and the poor become economically worse off. Homes collapse over people’s heads. Fear and helplessness dominate. The killing of defenseless people pushes all higher demands into the background, replaced by the immediate need to survive. Political and militant action gives way to passivity and waiting at home.

If there is no revolution, you might compare war to stagnation. But when a revolution is underway and a military attack occurs, the first thing that changes is the rollback of the revolution. Power shifts.

In Iran, war replaced revolution. Look objectively: during the “Woman, Life, Freedom” uprising and even at the start of the December protests—what perspective became dominant? Who benefited? Which slogans replaced which demands? What trajectory ultimately rose to dominance?

In my view, wartime conditions created the strongest political and theoretical ground for the Iranian right. Their basic formula was: “People, you can’t overthrow this regime yourselves. Forget revolution. Sit at home and pray for Trump. They will do what you couldn’t.”

How is that in favor of the people or the left in Iran?

You cannot be half a monarchist. The “usefulness” of war already has an owner. The formulation that connects war by Israel and the U.S. to the people of Iran belongs to someone—the monarchists. They say: support the war, because it removes the officials you wanted to overthrow.

If the Worker-Communist Party gathers to argue that this war benefits the people, they must follow that logic to the end. You can’t sit on the fence and say “we’re neither here nor there” and claim the war just happened on its own. If you list the “benefits” of war, that is warmongering—regardless of your claimed role or lack of influence.

Preferring a revolutionary situation over a wartime situation is our first argument. Some might say: governments started the war—what can we do? I say: do what we do. Even if you can’t act, don’t tell people it’s good and celebrate it.

To your right stands a movement trying to turn people into an appendage of this war policy—chanting “Thank you, Trump.” To your left stands the “Axis of Resistance,” defending the Islamic Republic in the name of anti-imperialism. Where do you stand?

Clarify your position in relation to the people. There is no “half war,” just like there is no “half pregnancy.” Trump is not Santa Claus who will only target Khamenei—he will destroy infrastructure too, as is already happening. This war has two sides. The Islamic Republic is backed by North Korea, China, and Russia, and it is striking everywhere—including Israeli civilians and regional workers.

Has the situation of people in Iran improved compared to two months ago? What evidence supports that? People have lost agency. Where is the improvement? The most fascistic wing of the right-wing opposition has gained ground. How is that good for the left or the people?

Even abroad, where support used to focus on labor unions and women’s movements, now public opinion is laughing at you. How is that beneficial?

3. The idea that killing officials will make overthrow easy is an Israeli-style image of regime change—a coup mentality.

The Shah’s regime was overthrown by the people. Not a single top official was killed during the revolution. The decisive blow came from oil workers’ strikes. The key turning point was when oil workers took the lead, shut off the flow of oil, and declared the Shah must go.

Who said a regime is just a package of officials that collapses if you eliminate them one by one? That’s an Israeli political framework. Even after attempts to eliminate leadership figures elsewhere, systems persist.

Even now, they say: “People must come out, otherwise it won’t fall from the air.” This shows their miscalculation.

Some may argue that now, with half the government gone, overthrow is easier. That’s baseless. Has life become easier for people? On top of mass killing, their homes are destroyed. If this war continues, you could have millions displaced, millions hungry, and the threat of famine.

A monarchist making such claims is at least consistent, since war creates conditions favorable for coups. But why would a communist party adopt this logic? How does this benefit your political horizon or your relationship with the people?

4. Whether it is war, coup, uprising, or revolution, the central question is political power.

Even in a revolutionary situation, if another force hijacks it and takes power, leaving workers and women with nothing—why should you defend that revolution?

Which platform, through whatever means, has moved closer to political power during this period? Why should I defend conditions that empower my political rival to seize power while leaving people empty-handed?

In a global context where racism and fascism are rising in Western countries, why should I support a situation that strengthens figures like Netanyahu and Trump?

The claim that killing officials automatically empowers people is nonsense. Even now, despite losses, the regime has not surrendered. People’s power does not depend on the regime’s condition—it depends on leadership that organizes and strengthens them with a clear platform and strategy.

A party that considers itself a “zero factor,” waiting for Netanyahu to pave the way, will never become strong—nor will its vision or the people. In the end, it will drift into the camp of the right.

And whoever defeats the Islamic Republic in war becomes the victor—and determines political power. The people gain nothing.

The idea that the U.S. and Israel will defeat the Islamic Republic and then politely invite political forces to shape the future is an illusion born of political compromise.

Even if the regime survives, losing officials doesn’t mean it will collapse on its own. Even to overthrow a weakened regime, leadership, organization, and strategy are necessary.

You can already see that despite its weakness, it is still carrying out executions.

5. Monarchists and the right-wing opposition support war because their path to power runs through war—not revolution.

But a party that does not even claim political power, that believes revolution “will handle everything on its own,” and denies its own agency—why would it timidly support war?

In my view, because it is repositioning itself. It knows its previous rhetoric is empty. Lacking agency, it has moved under the shadow of the right.