– The prolongation and intensification of the U.S. impasse. Toward a war of attrition?
– Shifts and realignments among regional powers and local ruling classes.
– The Palestinian people’s struggle for a free homeland remains as relevant as ever.
The impasse of U.S. imperialism in the Middle East regarding the future of Iran is prolonging and intensifying. The dangers for the peoples of the region are growing.
On the one hand, it was by no means certain that a massive attack aimed at leveling Iran’s key energy facilities and transportation infrastructure would bring the Iranian leadership to its knees, while at the same time it was a given that Iran (with the crucial assistance of Russian—primarily—but also Chinese imperialism) to carry out its threat that, in such a case, it would strike all key oil facilities as well as desalination plants in the Arab monarchies of the Gulf. Thus, such a choice would make the impasse absolute, since it would risk escalating the confrontation to levels for which neither the U.S. nor any other imperialist power is prepared at this time. The choice of a limited intervention and occupation of certain islands or even coastal areas of Iran would lead to more or less the same outcome; moreover, it would turn the occupied areas into a “firing range” for the Iranian army, with heavy American casualties also being a given.
On the other hand, it had by then become clear that the “Memorandum of Understanding” (which came under harsh criticism from Democrats, segments of the Republican Party, and major U.S. think tanks that echo the American “deep state”) had created serious problems within the Trump administration itself. Its feasibility was questioned from the very beginning, and for this reason, at the same time, the U.S. not only sought (and succeeded in securing) the well-known reactionary agreement between Lebanon and Israel, but also launched a comprehensive effort to overturn all those points that were considered (and remain) diplomatic successes for Iran. Their goal is to secure a new agreement that contains terms more favorable to the U.S. and immediately determines the fate of Iran’s nuclear program. In other words, yet another compromise—one that would, however, allow the Trump administration to claim it achieved something better than the 2015 agreement. The central tool of this U.S. effort was a renewed reliance on military force, primarily targeting Iran’s coastal facilities; however, at a certain point, this approach led to the same dead ends as the first option.
Thus, we find ourselves today in a situation where the “Memorandum of Understanding” no longer exists on either side, and the 60-day period it had stipulated as a transitional phase—during which the next steps were to be discussed—has also expired. The Strait of Hormuz is closed, both on the Iranian side and due to the naval blockade reimposed by the U.S. In fact, at one point, in response to U.S. actions, the Iranian leadership even put on the table the possibility of blocking the Bab al-Mandab Strait and, by extension, the Red Sea. This is, in other words, its other major “weapon,” which, with the help of the Houthis, could bring international trade to a standstill.
What is becoming apparent today from the statements and, above all, the actions of the U.S. is the decision to impose an economic stranglehold on Iran in order to coerce the Iranian leadership into making certain critical concessions. Alongside the naval blockade—which is already depriving Iran of significant revenue—a multi-pronged effort has already been announced to deny Iran all access to goods, capital, and services, as well as to cripple all of its exports. At the same time and within the same framework, the U.S. has managed to monitor and provide a degree of security along the southern route of the Strait of Hormuz (that is, the one passing through Oman’s territorial waters), thereby undermining Iranian control of the Strait to a small extent. Could the attempt to economically strangle Iran actually achieve what 40 days of bombing failed to do?
On the “other side,” the deadline of a few weeks that the Iranian leadership has given the U.S. to implement the “Memorandum of Understanding” before launching a “full-scale offensive” can be interpreted in two ways. On the one hand, it suggests that U.S. failures and the resilience demonstrated by the Iranian leadership have given them confidence, and that some within the leadership may be overestimating the regime’s capabilities. On the other hand, it may indicate that the leadership is under considerable pressure, as economic problems and their social repercussions are growing, and is resorting to threats to accelerate developments toward a resolution. Because the Iranian leadership knows that the fact that the people of Iran, while under attack from the U.S. and Israel, stands firm and courageously defends its right to live free from foreign interference, does not negate its right to demand to live with dignity in its own country.
Another point of concern is the report in the Financial Times—which cites conversations with members of the Iranian leadership—that Iran is considering strikes on European soil should Trump escalate the war. Are such ideas actually being considered by Iran’s leadership, and would Iran stand to gain politically from such a move, or would it backfire? Or are the FT’s reports part of an effort to demonize Iran? In any case, a debate appears to be underway within the Iranian leadership over the most effective strategy to adopt toward the U.S. The “crux” of the debate lies between exhausting efforts toward a diplomatic settlement (on the assumption that no military solution to the conflict can be found) and a view that regards U.S. negotiations as a pretext and advocates replacing the current practice of “responding to U.S. attacks” with a strategy of taking military initiative and carrying out “offensive actions” aimed at consolidating and expanding the regime’s successes.
The Effort to Unify the Fronts and the “Ear-Pulling”
The strike on an Iranian ship in the Caspian Sea by a Ukrainian drone caused great concern among those who understand the global situation. The Iranian leadership immediately threatened retaliation, and after a brief silence, the regime in Kyiv essentially apologized.
Have certain centers become enamored with the idea of uniting these two fronts: the front of the Ukrainian conflict—the largest since World War II—with its global implications, and the critical front that has opened up in the Middle East? The direct link (since they are already indirectly and geopolitically linked) between these two fronts would intensify the confrontation between the major imperialist powers to a degree that none of them is prepared to handle. This is all the more true now that the war in Ukraine has already taken a dangerous course toward escalation:
– With the regime in Kyiv (and, of course, with decisive U.S.-European support) launching major strikes against the Russian heartland (key refineries and oil facilities, as well as warehouses belonging to Wildberries—Russia’s largest online retail monopoly).
– Meanwhile, Moscow is carrying out extensive missile strikes and has, on the one hand, virtually cut off Ukraine’s access to the Black Sea, and, on the other hand, striking critical facilities of the Ukrainian military-industrial complex that it had previously left untouched.
That’s why—and to get back to this specific incident—people were immediately “called out,” and the whole effort was called off.
A War of Attrition
Based on recent developments, we can conclude that the conflict in the Middle East has begun to turn into a war of attrition, with no apparent way out or—even a temporary—solution (or, more accurately, “solution”).
But why (as we wrote in issue 1012 of *The Proletarian Flag*), is the Trump administration risking the indefinite prolongation of the conflict in this way, a fact that has a negative impact on the strategic planning and implementation of American imperialism’s global ambitions?
Do some sections of the U.S. military leadership believe that U.S. imperialism cannot emerge from the conflict with its current adversaries on favorable terms—precisely because the U.S. attack on Iran is not merely generally and vaguely linked to, but is organically embedded in the fierce competition among the geostrategic triad (the U.S., Russia, and China) and the preparation of the conditions for a generalized confrontation? Is it because they know that this will be reflected (and is already being reflected) in the erosion of its global prestige and its ability to coerce and bring “allies” and “partners,” and that it would ultimately set back its global ambitions—and so they choose to exhaust every possibility of changing (if not reversing) the status quo at any cost?
The U.S.-Saudi Arabia Agreement
Driven by the need to heal the wounds caused by their failure to “protect” the Arab monarchies, but primarily to rebuild relations of control and influence in the Middle East, the U.S. entered into an agreement with Saudi Arabia (July 22) that allows the latter to proceed with the construction of a nuclear power plant and to expand its nuclear program more broadly. In fact, unlike the corresponding U.S.-UAE agreement, this agreement allows Saudi Arabia to enrich uranium—for “peaceful purposes”—within the country, thereby opening a potential avenue for it to develop nuclear weapons.
The agreement sparked concern and expressions of discontent from the Zionist stronghold of American imperialism. Less than 24 hours after the agreement was signed, Trump demanded, as a condition for its implementation, that Saudi Arabia sign the “Abraham Accords.” This demand could not be accepted by the Saudi monarchy at this juncture, and as a result, the U.S.-Saudi Arabia agreement has been left in limbo. This “behavior”—the constant vacillations, both minor and major, on the part of the U.S.—reflects the difficulties it faces in its effort to reconcile the differing (even conflicting) interests of the powers operating in the Middle East, in order to regain their supremacy.
The Mecca Agreement: The Role It Will Play in the Region Remains to Be Seen
A few weeks later, on August 7, 2026, the Mecca Agreement was signed between Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. A well-known American media outlet highlighted the significance of the agreement between a nuclear power, a country that plays a major role in the world’s energy supply, and a NATO member state with a significant and growing defense industry, a fact that is monotonously repeated in all local media outlets.
In our country, given the intensity of the reactionary rivalry with Turkey’s bourgeoisie, the local bourgeoisie has overemphasized Turkey’s role and given prominence to the statement by Turkish Foreign Minister Fidan, that this agreement is analogous to Article 5 of NATO. We will dismiss as baseless and unworthy of comment the analyses regarding a “Sunni NATO.” After all, this is not the first time such unfounded assessments have been repeated. Even Fidan’s statement was refuted within forty-eight hours (on August 9, 2026), when there was no assistance whatsoever from Turkey or Pakistan to Saudi Arabia as the oil giant Saudi Aramco’s refinery came under drone attack by the Houthis in Yemen.
The Mecca Agreement arose in part from the insecurities created in Saudi Arabia by the U.S.’s inability to protect it. Above all, however, it reflects the efforts of these three countries to exploit the vacuum—the space left in the region by U.S. failures—and to renegotiate their position in the region and their relations with the U.S. This is a declaration of intent either to assume a regional role (Turkey) or to elevate it (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan). Although this is a military agreement, so far it has had more political characteristics, and it remains to be seen in practice whether—and to what extent—it will achieve the objectives it proclaims.
The fact that Trump welcomed the agreement after several days of hesitation suggests that it was likely not promoted by the U.S. administration, as it is aware that it was achieved on the back of its own weaknesses and is likely to make it even more difficult to implement U.S. policy in the Middle East, while from the very beginning it has also raised concerns in Israel. That is why Washington is already taking steps to steer its course.
So, among the many questions raised by this agreement, the only certainty is that it has a long way to go and that the U.S. will have a decisive influence on whether, to what extent, and how it will unfold.
Furthermore, the history of the Middle East—at least in recent decades—shows us that the region’s ruling classes do not have a coherent policy. Rather, they attempt to operate within the framework shaped by the dominant role of imperialism and the imperialist powers, foremost among them the United States, while at the same time (re)recognizing the complexity of the various interests that intersect in the Middle East and their need to maneuver. Thus, both their collaborations and their occasional alliances operate on shifting ground that often prevents them from lasting long.
(Half of) Lebanon is under occupation; Palestine is bleeding
The U.S. is pushing for the implementation of the treacherous agreement signed by the Lebanese government with the Zionist state, with its own decisive intervention. Israel continues to bomb villages and areas of Lebanon at will, while even the traitor Aoun grumbles about the Zionist state’s behavior, which he claims is “outside international law.”
In the Gaza Strip, the slow genocide of the Palestinian people continues; in the West Bank, the occupying army and the fascist hordes of settlers are running rampant, while within the Zionist leadership, the official annexation of the region is gaining ground. Meanwhile, in recent days there has been an effort to implement the agreement signed last year in what is perhaps its most critical provision, which calls for the handover of heavy weapons by the Palestinian resistance, simultaneously with the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the part of the Gaza Strip they have occupied. Against this backdrop, questions have once again been raised about the nature of the agreement.
We must reiterate that this agreement was reached under the weight of the blows suffered by the Palestinian resistance, as well as the dire situation in which the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip had found themselves. It was also reached, however, against the backdrop that, despite the attacks, the Palestinian resistance remained standing, while the wave of delegitimisation of the Zionist entity had grown worldwide. Thus, this agreement involved compromises on both sides. This is precisely why Zionist Israel, with the help of the U.S., on the one hand, wants to avoid the process of withdrawing from the Gaza Strip and, on the other hand, demands the complete disarmament of the armed resistance organizations—a demand that these organizations have so far categorically rejected. In any case, the “Palestinian question”—the struggle of the Palestinian people for a free homeland, steeped in the blood of thousands—has once again become a thorn in the side of imperialist and Zionist plans and a source of hope for the peoples.
The Zionist entity is called upon to manage a situation that is far removed from both the triumphant rhetoric of the Israeli leadership and any perception of weakness. Essentially, it has once again been revealed—and in a very stark way—that it is a foreign and hostile entity in the region, a colonial-fascist state implanted by imperialism, and this determines its actions and choices. Through its actions, it creates explosive conditions for its very existence, which it believes it can consolidate internally by promoting a regime of monstrous violence and Nazi-style pogroms against the Palestinian populations, with the aim of expelling them from their land, and abroad through a show of force and aggressive actions against a number of states in the region. Beyond that, it is dissatisfied with the turn of events regarding Iran, while it is still trying to repair the badly tarnished image of “invincible” Israel. It wants to consolidate its hold on Lebanon, but this will depend on the broader needs and strategies the U.S. is developing in the region.
Furthermore, it is escalating the confrontation with Turkey on a rhetorical level. At the same time, with the recent attack on a Syrian military camp—where Syrian army forces had been trained by Turkish military personnel just a few days earlier—it is sending a message about its own “red lines,” while systematically working toward the annexation of part of Syrian territory. In this way, it creates yet another headache for the U.S., which is striving to leverage Turkey’s position and influence in the region while also capitalizing on the new regime in Syria. Moreover, this comes at a time when the new Syrian regime, under U.S. guidance, is moving toward an agreement regarding Russian bases in the country, paving the way for a gradual but significant reduction of the Russian presence there.