The current global agenda is dominated by the war in the Middle East. As the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint for global oil transportation, has become the focal point of the conflict, the war has drawn even greater international attention.
This war does not serve the interests of either the peoples of the Middle East or the peoples of the world. The conflict is unfolding between the United States, which seeks to maintain its position as the world’s hegemonic power, and Iran, one of the countries aspiring to become a regional hegemonic force. Opposing this war represents the most appropriate political, moral, and conscientious stance. Indeed, the majority of people around the world are against the conflict.
It is crucial to oppose the United States’ policy of asserting dominance over the world and the Middle East through war and coercion, and to advocate for peace-oriented policies in response to the conflict. U.S. policies create conditions that legitimize and normalize the actions of despotic forces worldwide. At present, this represents one of the most dangerous aspects of U.S. policy for humanity. In this context, opposing war and standing against all forms of oppression has become a fundamental responsibility of humankind.
Portraying Iran as anti-imperialist on the grounds that it is engaged in conflict with the United States would undermine and tarnish the anti-war stance. The struggle for peace is a sacred one. While opposing one hegemonic power, the peace movement cannot legitimize or normalize another regional hegemon that has massacred tens of thousands of civilian demonstrators and continues to establish gallows for political opponents on a daily basis. Iran reportedly killed around 30,000 demonstrators in December 2025 and January 2026 alone. These demonstrators were unarmed. They took to the streets to demand an end to the oppressive regime, killings, and executions. There can be nothing more brutal than the killing of such civilians. No state can regard such actions as its legitimate right, nor can these killings be dismissed as merely internal affairs. It cannot be argued that every state possesses absolute sovereignty and that its domestic matters are beyond scrutiny. Particularly in the 21st century, when humanity has achieved significant progress through struggles for universal values, such acts cannot be considered legitimate or normal under any circumstances. Opposition by democratic forces around the world to Iran’s policies should not be interpreted as interference in its internal affairs.
The Iranian regime cannot be regarded as an anti-imperialist state. During the Cold War, countries that struggled against the United States and its allies were often described as anti-imperialist. In the political climate and conditions of that period, resistance to the United States and its allies was seen as part of the broader struggle against imperialism. At the time, the world was divided between two major blocs: the capitalist imperialist camp led by the United States and the real socialist camp led by the Soviet Union. Conflicts across the globe were directly or indirectly shaped by the rivalry between these two camps. Countries and peoples resisting the United States frequently received support from the Soviet Union and China, enabling them to sustain their struggles. Consequently, U.S. military interventions were widely interpreted as wars against socialist and democratic forces, leading to direct or indirect alliances among these movements.
In the contemporary context, being anti-imperialist is only possible through adherence to democratic and anti-capitalist principles. Genuine public support can be achieved only through democratic politics. No country that lacks democratic legitimacy or fails to draw strength from its people can effectively wage a struggle against imperialism. A regime that imposes severe repression on its population, massacres tens of thousands of civilian demonstrators, and executes thousands of individuals cannot be considered anti-imperialist. Such states and political systems are regimes that have lost the support of their people. It is argued that the Islamic Republic of Iran enjoys the backing of no more than approximately 20 percent of the population, a situation reflected in electoral participation rates, where voter turnout often fails to reach even 50 percent.
Viewing a state that inflicts such severe oppression on its own people, particularly through the systematic repression of women, as anti-imperialist would amount to normalizing and endorsing this oppression.
The struggle against imperialism in the contemporary era can only be carried out with the support of the people, and such support can be secured solely through democracy. Capitalist centers such as China and Russia cannot be considered anti-imperialist either. If capitalism is the force that gives rise to imperialism, then China, with its system based on repression and labor exploitation, currently stands as the leading capitalist country. It is widely suggested that within a few decades China may also achieve technological supremacy and become the world’s foremost capitalist power. Similarly, Russia is widely regarded today as a country characterized by crony or oligarchic capitalism. From this perspective, the war waged by Iran with the support of Russia and China cannot be viewed as anti-imperialist.
While opposing the war policies of the United States and Israel, it is essential not to attribute an anti-imperialist character to Iran. Beyond refraining from such recognition, attempting to portray favorably a state that massacres and executes forces demanding democracy would amount to complicity in a crime against humanity. In Iran, Kurds and Baloch communities are subjected to significant oppression. Although Iran may not appear to pursue a policy of denial and genocide as rigid as that attributed to Turkey, it does not recognize these peoples’ rights to self-governance with their own identities, languages, and cultures. In this respect, Iran’s nation-state approach represents a regression even from certain aspects of its own historical political traditions.
Opposing the attacks of the United States and Israel while also resisting Iran’s policies and advocating for a democratic Iran, described as the “third way” of the peoples, is of crucial importance. If socialists and democratic forces adopt such a stance, they will demonstrate a political position consistent with their ideological and political principles.
Source: Yeni Yaşam
Leave a Reply