The events of the past two weeks continue to confirm the title \u201cceasefire\u201d of our previous article. However, during these past two weeks, as Iran\u2019s leadership refused to give the U.S. what it failed to obtain through war, the situation has become more complicated. Internal divisions within the U.S. have intensified, as have the erratic moves by the Trump administration, which has increasingly resorted to\u2014albeit limited\u2014strikes against Iran. This is a reflection of the growing dead ends the U.S. faces in its effort to find a \u201cdignified exit\u201d following the failure of its core objectives. We have also seen moves by Iran to broaden the scope of negotiations, as well as signs of divisions within its leadership.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The U.S. is “boiling” inside<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The conflict that has been lurking for several years now within the U.S. imperialist bourgeoisie and its political leadership\u2014over the paths and means to reverse their relative weakening vis-\u00e0-vis their enemies\u2014 has been compounded by the disastrous consequences of the U.S. attack on Iran. On the one hand, well-known figures and media outlets within and around the Republican Party (Graham, Bolton, FORBES magazine, etc.) are openly calling for an end to the talks and a resumption of military operations. Essentially, they argue that the impasse created by the U.S.\u2019s adventurous attack on Iran can only be resolved through an even greater act of recklessness. However, given the \u201cweapon\u201d of the Strait of Hormuz that Iran holds in its hands, its well-known ability to strike U.S. bases in the region, the oil facilities of Arab regimes, as well as the Zionist entity, such a choice could lead to situations for which neither the U.S. nor anyone else is yet prepared.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On the other hand, given the deadlock, we had the House of Representatives\u2019 resolution (passed with the votes of some Republicans) ordering the withdrawal of U.S. troops deployed in the Middle East as part of the war against Iran. Although this resolution has no practical effect (the U.S. president retains the right to veto it), it constitutes a political blow to the Trump administration and an expression of serious dissatisfaction with the results of this offensive to date. At the same time, the \u201ccoordinated\u201d criticism from American foreign policy think tanks regarding the quagmire into which the Trump administration has led the U.S. continues, painting a bleak picture of America\u2019s failure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Limited-range strikes and new developments<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Based on the foregoing, we believe that the repeated U.S. strikes on islands in the Strait of Hormuz and Iran\u2019s coastal military installations\u2014provocatively labeled \u201cself-defense\u201d (!), are linked to the Trump administration\u2019s attempt to break the deadlock. And this is not happening, as has been reported, to alleviate the pressure Trump is facing from the so-called \u201chawks.\u201d The White House administration believes that the constant stoking of tensions, along with threats and the extension of the naval blockade (which, however, seems to be having little effect), will ultimately bring to the negotiating table an agreement \u201cbetter than the 2015 deal\u201d\u2014which Trump himself had called treacherous before withdrawing the U.S. from it. What we are ultimately seeing, however, is that the U.S. is experiencing a constant disappointment of its expectations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Iran\u2019s actions exacerbated the U.S.\u2019s problems. It was not only\u2014or primarily\u2014the military response it mounted to every U.S. attack. After all, that capability was already well known. Above all, it was the fact that Iran\u2019s leadership, for the first time in practice and not just in words, linked reaching an agreement with the U.S. to an end to the Zionist bombings in Lebanon. Regardless of the contradictions and conflicts that characterize the U.S.-Israel relationship, the Zionist invasion of Lebanon not only had U.S. approval but was also used by the U.S. as a bargaining chip at the negotiating table\u2014even as the U.S. denied that Lebanon was part of the ceasefire, and thus part of the negotiations! Thus, Iran\u2019s targeting of Israel\u2014even through limited military action\u2014brought the issue of Lebanon back to the negotiating table and broadened the scope and conditions for reaching an agreement. The Houthis\u2019 announcement that, if Israel\u2019s attacks on Lebanon continue, the Bab el-Mandeb Strait in the Red Sea will be closed to ships in any way connected to Israel serves the same purpose!<\/p>\n\n\n\n Beyond that, although the Iranian leadership appears relatively united, it is no secret that President Pezeskian takes a different (more pragmatic, more balanced) approach than the religious-political leadership or the Revolutionary Guards. Even if the rumors about his resignation were part of U.S.-Israeli psychological warfare, his public statement on the need to broaden the regime\u2019s power base\u2014as a condition for its long-term survival\u2014did not go unnoticed by anyone. This is a statement that, viewed from another perspective, attempts to provide a way out of the regime\u2019s actual weaknesses and is therefore in favor of\u2014rather than against\u2014it, naturally seeking to benefit his own segment of the ruling class.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A Summary of the Future<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The military operation\u2014and, more broadly, the U.S. move to support Israel\u2019s offensive in the \u201c12-Day War\u201d\u2014was based on the circumstances they had created through their strikes against the Palestinian Resistance, Hezbollah, the bombings against Yemen, and, above all, the overthrow of Assad in Syria. It was a test whose imperfect and limited successes left open the possibility of a reversal. The Middle East seemed to lend itself both to a blow from behind against Russia\u2014which was expending most of its strategic capital on the Ukrainian conflict\u2014and to the geopolitical containment of an emerging China.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What followed\u2014namely, the isolation of Venezuela and the mafia-style abduction of Maduro, coupled with his replacement by the more manageable Rodr\u00edguez\u2014gave the Trump administration a new lease on life. The buildup of military forces around Iran, as well as the attempt to exploit the protests of the Iranian people, foreshadowed the impending attack. These developments were coupled with the assessment that the decapitation of Iran\u2019s leadership\u2014which the notorious Mossad \u201cserved up on a platter\u201d\u2014was considered the catalyst for the primary objective. What was that objective? It was no longer enough to weaken the regime and \u201ceradicate\u201d its influence in the region. The goal of regime change\u2014theoretically proclaimed for the past 47 years\u2014which, in fact, had been forging strategic ties with Russia and China over the last decade, seemed closer than ever. Thus, Russian imperialism would lose a strategic partner of great importance in the Middle East. Combined with developments in Syria and the South Caucasus (Armenia\u2013Azerbaijan, the Zangezur Corridor), the Russia\u2013Iran Eurasian corridor would be called into question, as would Russia\u2019s access to the Indian Ocean. At the same time, as far as Beijing is concerned, Chinese imperialism would see the China-Iran corridor\u2014a strategic segment of the BRI (Belt and Road Initiative)\u2014called into question, if not nullified. This corridor serves two strategic objectives: a) penetration into the Middle East, Africa, and, of course, Europe; and b) reducing its heavy reliance on the Strait of Malacca for trade, which is controlled by countries aligned with the U.S., nations that are simultaneously promoting the U.S.-India IMEC as a competitor to the BRI. A secondary issue was the blow to China\u2019s energy access to Middle Eastern oil. While it may source 50% of its oil needs from there, oil accounts for only 6% of its economy\u2019s energy mix. Furthermore, its efforts toward domestic extraction and production, as well as its large strategic reserves, mitigate the impact of this dependence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The regime held firm, quickly replaced its assassinated leadership, and demonstrated that it had prepared\u2014drawing on the lessons of the \u201c12-day war\u201d\u2014for a protracted conflict on all fronts. Politically, it had brought references to the nation to the forefront, relegating references to religion to the background. Militarily, it decentralized the structure of its defense and its responses. Aware of the vast gulf separating the two sides, it chose to rely on its ballistic missile program and asymmetric threats, and decided on the stages of escalation for its responses. However, these efforts would have remained incomplete, if not entirely futile, had Iran not received significant assistance from Russia and China, which made its attacks so effective, both militarily and politically. It transformed U.S. bases from a source of security for Arab regimes into a magnet for insecurity and danger. It shattered the myth of an invincible Israel. Above all, it directly challenged the United States\u2019 ability to impose its will.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Given these facts and with many questions about exactly how events will unfold, we are certain of one thing. The \u201ccornered beast\u201d will not give up its global ambitions; it will not fade into history. Likewise, the other two members of the trio (Russia and China) will intensify their efforts to claim a more prominent role on the world stage. Their conflicts and the struggle for global dominance, as the history of the 20th century has shown, are resolved by force of arms. Only the peoples, through their struggle, can put an end to this bloody course.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Published in issue 1010 of the Proletarian Flag (June 27, 2026)<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The events of the past two weeks continue to confirm the title \u201cceasefire\u201d of our previous article. However, during these past two weeks, as Iran\u2019s leadership refused to give the U.S. what it failed to obtain through war, the situation has become more complicated. Internal divisions within the U.S. have intensified, as have the erratic […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":702,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-701","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/iabulletin.org\/da\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/701","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/iabulletin.org\/da\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/iabulletin.org\/da\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/iabulletin.org\/da\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/iabulletin.org\/da\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=701"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/iabulletin.org\/da\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/701\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":703,"href":"https:\/\/iabulletin.org\/da\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/701\/revisions\/703"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/iabulletin.org\/da\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/702"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/iabulletin.org\/da\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=701"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/iabulletin.org\/da\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=701"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/iabulletin.org\/da\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=701"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}