I was born in Poonch (Kashmir) and now I live in Norway. I oppose war and violence and am a firm believer in the peaceful co-existence of all nations and peoples. In my academic work I have tried to espouse the cause of the weak and the oppressed in a world dominated by power politics, misleading propaganda and violations of basic human rights. I also believe that all conscious members of society have a moral duty to stand for and further the cause of peace and human rights throughout the world.
Hassan Fadlallah says Hezbollah has the
right to respond to Israeli attacks, as Israel kept up strikes on
Lebanon despite a new ceasefire announced a day earlier.
“There is talk of a ceasefire. For us,
what concerns us is that the enemy fully and comprehensively respects
the ceasefire, and doesn’t attempt to attack our country and villages or
seek to occupy any new position,” the MP said in a statement on
Saturday.
Fadlallah added that “the resistance has
the full right to confront this enemy when it attacks us, as it is the
aggressor and the occupier.”
U.S. and Iran flags frame a symbolic diplomatic handshake. [Photo/AA]
Iran postponed the technical-level talks
with the US, which were slated for Friday in Switzerland, in protest
against “continued” Israeli ceasefire violations, mainly in southern
Lebanon, Pakistani government sources told Anadolu Agency.
The sources said that Tehran’s chief
negotiator Bagher Qalibaf and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi were “all
set” to leave for Switzerland to hold direct talks with Washington, but
they pulled out of their scheduled trip at the last minute following
“directives” from the “top Iranian leadership.”
They did not specify whether the
directives came directly from Supreme Leader Seyyed Mojtaba Khamenei,
who has already said he has a “different view” on the US-Iran deal to
end the war.
No new date or venue for the talks has been decided, the sources added.
“Pakistan is in touch with both sides to
set a new date for the technical-level talks to reach a final
agreement,” a source close to mediation said.
The signing of the Islamabad Memorandum of
Understanding (Islamabad MoU) by US President Donald Trump and Iranian
President Masoud Pezeshkian had set the stage for direct talks between
Washington and Tehran in Switzerland on Friday.
The source said that US Vice President JD
Vance canceled his trip to Switzerland after Islamabad conveyed Tehran’s
decision to Washington.
“The logistics of these negotiations have
never been simple or predictable. As of now, the Vice President is not
departing tonight,” a White House spokesperson said.
“We look forward to beginning technical talks as soon as possible.”
The Swiss Foreign Ministry, in a
statement, said that the Friday talks on implementing the agreement to
end the war will not take place.
The Islamabad MoU gives officials and
experts from the two sides the next 60 days to chalk out a final
agreement, which is particularly focused on the Iranian nuclear program,
as Trump declared that Tehran cannot have a nuclear weapon.
Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif
declared that the Islamabad MoU was effective immediately after signing
and said Iran and the US would take measures to open the Strait of
Hormuz for full international passage.
Sharif also signed the pact as “mediator.”
The pact calls for immediate and permanent
cessation of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon,
with commitments not to resort to force and to guarantee Lebanon’s
sovereignty.
Soon after the US and Israel initiated war
on Feb. 28, Iran closed the Hormuz and later, on April 13, American
forces imposed their blockade on Iranian ports – making passage of
commercial ships nearly impossible through the critical waterway.
Israel has also waged attacks on Lebanon, killing nearly 3800, including civilians and soldiers, since the war began.
Over 3,300 people, including civilians and
soldiers, have been killed in Iran, while the US has confirmed the
death of 14 personnel, in addition to the loss of armed weaponry and
aircraft.
After securing a ceasefire on April 08,
Pakistan hosted the highest-level direct talks between the two nations
on April 12 and 13 since they severed diplomatic ties in 1979.
Senate
Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Democrat-New York, right, and House
Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Democrat-New York, outside the White
House in Washington, September 29, 2025. [AP Photo/Evan Vucci]
There are moments that expose the
fundamental character of the political system in the United States, that
notwithstanding the daily infighting between the Democrats and
Republicans, when it comes to the basic interests of American
imperialism, the two parties of American capitalism are united.
The publication Thursday of the terms of
the memorandum of understanding between the Trump administration and
Iran is such a moment. It has triggered an outpouring of criticism from
both the Democratic and Republican parties on the grounds that the war
US President Donald Trump launched against Iran in February failed to
secure American imperialism’s objectives in dominating the Middle East.
Republican former Vice President Mike
Pence called the deal “appeasement” this week and demanded that, short
of a harsher settlement, “we should let our Armed Forces finish the job
on our terms.”
The Democrats joined the Republican
condemnation of the agreement, criticizing it in much the same language.
Senator Adam Schiff of California called it “a thorough capitulation,”
writing that “Iran gets sanctions relief… and a $300 billion
reconstruction fund.” Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut called it
“essentially a surrender to Iran.” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries
declared that “Iran is stronger and America is less safe” as a result
of the agreement.
The New York Times, in an
editorial headlined “President Trump Lost This War,” called the
agreement “a humiliating comedown” and named Iran “the strategic winner
of the four-month war.”
Jacobin magazine, the
semi-official publication of the Democratic Socialists of America,
criticized Trump’s deal with Iran in language indistinguishable from
that of the Republicans and the Democratic leadership.
Jacobin’s article, titled “Donald
Trump Has Nothing to Show for His War With Iran,” took the form of an
interview with Andreas Krieg, a professor of “defense studies” at King’s
College London. The article states that Trump “has ended up in a weaker
strategic position than when he started.”
Krieg told the magazine the war had
produced “tactical degradation but strategic regression.” Iran, he
noted, had not surrendered its enrichment program, its government had
not collapsed and “its ability to close Hormuz has been proven rather
than deterred.” It offers neither a word of condemnation of the war
itself nor any call to oppose it.
The Trump administration waged an illegal
war of aggression against Iran, in violation of international law. The
war opened with a series of assassinations, including Iran’s supreme
leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and much of the country’s military and
political leadership. This act of murder and perfidy under cover of
negotiations met with approval from both parties. Senate Minority Leader
Chuck Schumer said at the time, “I will not shed a tear for Ali
Khamenei,” while Jeffries called Iran “a bad actor” that “must be
aggressively confronted.”
Throughout the war, the Democrats sought
to stifle broad popular opposition to it through a series of meaningless
procedural votes, intended to fail. In the massive demonstrations of
millions of people under the banner of “No Kings,” Democratic Party
organizers worked to deliberately exclude any reference to the war.
But now that the war has failed to achieve
Trump’s objectives, the Democrats have found their voice, condemning
his “capitulation” to Iran. This is the same party that spent the last
year and a half presenting Trump as a colossus whose social and economic
policies could not be opposed because he had a “mandate” from the
electorate.
In reality, the Democrats, who speak for
the same ruling class as Trump, agree with broad sections of Trump’s
domestic agenda. Whatever their rhetoric, they believe, together with
Trump, that fundamental social programs must be slashed to fund the
expansion of the military and the enrichment of the financial oligarchy.
It is in defense of the interests of
American imperialism that they are intractable. During his first term,
the Democrats chose to impeach Trump not over his assault on democratic
rights, but, in 2019, for his insufficient commitment to war with Russia
and his withholding of military aid to Ukraine.
Trump’s deal has settled nothing. It is a
temporary retreat, and the war could erupt again at any moment. The
logic of the Democrats’ position is that were Trump to resume bombing
Iran, they would support it.
The Democratic response to the agreement
makes clear that their claim to represent any sort of “progressive”
opposition to the fascist Trump is a lie. They are ferocious defenders
of American imperialism, and should they come to power, there would be
no fundamental change in foreign policy.
A world separates the working class from these parties. From the first day of the war, the World Socialist Web Site,
the organ of the International Committee of the Fourth International,
defined the war by its social character, calling it “a criminal war of
aggression by an imperialist power against an oppressed former colony,
aimed at plundering its oil wealth and establishing control of the
Persian Gulf.” The Socialist Equality Party declared in a statement that
it “condemns this war unconditionally and calls on the working class of
every country to oppose it,” insisting that “the main enemy is at home”
and that American workers “have no interest in a war against the people
of Iran.”
The war against Iran is the product of the
crisis of American imperialism, which sees no escape from its impasse
except war. Every American war since 1991—against Iraq, Afghanistan,
Libya and now Iran—has ended in failure, and each defeat has prepared
the ground for the next. There is every reason to believe that the
debacle in Iran, which has only deepened that crisis, will propel new
wars.
But the war has also detonated a social
crisis at home. It drove inflation to 4.2 percent in May, the highest in
three years, gutting real wages and setting off a rebellion across
American industry. Thousands of auto parts workers at Nexteer, Dana and
Bridgewater have rejected one concession contract after another—the Dana
local in Paris, Tennessee, voting one down by 288 to one—while 1,000
American Axle workers walked out on June 1 in their first strike in 18
years, 1,700 railroad workers across 11 states tore up a nine-year
contract and nurses from Boston to Chicago voted to strike.
The movement is not confined to the United
States. In Spain, 78,000 teachers in Valencia walked out this spring;
Italy and Portugal have each been stopped by a nationwide general
strike.
It is this growing eruption of social
struggle, centered in the working class that has been made to pay for
the war, that is the means to oppose the global offensive of American
imperialism. The development of this movement requires a break with both
capitalist parties and the building of the Socialist Equality Party,
the United States section of the International Committee of the Fourth
International.
Israeli attacks in Gaza since the
so-called ceasefire deal was signed in October 2025 have now killed more
than 1,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry, as the IDF has continued its constant violations of the agreement.
The Health Ministry said that over the
previous 24 hours, Israeli attacks killed two Palestinians in Gaza, and
six Palestinians who succumbed to wounds from previous strikes were
added to the death toll, bringing the total number of Palestinians
killed since the deal was signed to 1,005.
Another 3,157 Palestinians have been
wounded in the time, meaning there have been more than 4,000 Palestinian
casualties in the eight-month period.
Mourners
react during the funeral of six-year-old Palestinian girl Mennatallah
Abu Libda, who was killed in an Israeli strike on a tent encampment for
displaced families, according to medics, in Khan Younis in the southern
Gaza Strip, May 25, 2026. REUTERS/Ramadan Abed
Israeli attacks continued in Gaza on Wednesday, with witnesses telling the Anadolu Agency
that an Israeli strike hit beachgoers in the al-Mawasi tent camp in
southern Gaza. At least two Palestinians were killed, and six were
wounded.
The report said that the area that was
bombed was “crowded with beachgoers and displaced families, many of whom
had sought refuge by the sea as their only escape from soaring
temperatures and deteriorating living conditions in displacement camps.”
Besides the constant strikes, Israel has
also violated the deal by taking more territory in Gaza. After the
ceasefire agreement was signed, IDF troops occupied about 53% of Gaza,
but that has increased to about 60%, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu has said that he ordered the military to expand it to 70%.
In recent days, Palestinians have reported
IDF troops advancing the “yellow line,” the vague boundary that
separates the IDF-occupied side of Gaza from the rest of the Strip, and
several families were reportedly displaced in Gaza City on Tuesday as Israeli troops pushed tanks into the area.
The US and Israeli officials have accused
Hamas of violating the ceasefire deal by not laying down its weapons,
but the agreement that was actually signed didn’t commit Hamas to
disarmament.
The two sides agreed to a US proposal that
called for the “demilitarization” of Gaza as a framework for
negotiations, but the issue of disarmament was meant to be worked out in
follow-up negotiations. Hamas has also maintained that it won’t disarm
unless there is movement toward the establishment of a Palestinian
state. Negotiations on implementing the US plan for Gaza have been
ongoing, but there’s been no sign of progress.
Speaking from the G7 summit in the French
Alps on Wednesday, he said that a memorandum of understanding had not
been finalised but that he would go back to “shooting at them and
dropping bombs right smack in the middle of their head” if he did not
like the agreement.
It follows the leak of a 14-point document reported to be the same as one digitally signed by the US leader, a US official shared with CNN.
Israeli forces were said to have carried
out an airstrike in the Nabatieh district and raids on the town of
Nabatieh al-Fawqa, according to Lebanese media and Al Jazeera Arabic.
There was no immediate comment from
Israel. Iran has warned of a “hard response” if Israel does not stop its
attacks on Lebanon, and Hezbollah says Tehran promised it would not
sign the final nuclear deal with the US unless Israel stops.
A
thick plume of smoke rises from an oil storage facility hit by a
U.S.-Israeli strike in Tehran, Iran, Sunday, March 8, 2026. [AP
Photo/Vahid Salemi]
On Sunday, the United States and Iran
announced a ceasefire agreement in the war that the Trump administration
launched on February 28. Despite killing more than 3,000 Iranians and
triggering a global food and energy crisis, the United States has failed
to achieve the objectives for which it went to war.
A “memorandum of understanding” was
digitally signed on Sunday, and a formal signing ceremony is scheduled
for Friday in Switzerland. The 60-day framework reportedly provides for
the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, the removal of the US naval
blockade and the immediate suspension of military operations, including
in Lebanon. It commits both sides to subsequent negotiations on Iran’s
nuclear program, sanctions and regional security.
Whether the agreement actually holds
remains uncertain. The actual text has not been released. Iran has
claimed that some $25 billion in frozen Iranian assets have been
unfrozen, which the US has disputed. Trump has reiterated that “Iran
will never have a nuclear weapon” and warned that the United States
“could attack Iran again if negotiations fail.” Israel, not a party to
the agreement, has rejected it and continued strikes on Lebanon the same
day.
Regardless, the outcome represents an
unqualified debacle for American imperialism. It is a case of a
schoolyard bully picking a fight and winding up with a black eye. The
Iranian government remains in power. Its nuclear program is intact. The
most concrete deliverable is the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, a
reversion to the prewar status quo.
There is a staggering chasm between the
braggadocio with which the war was launched and the reality of its
outcome. Trump promised the war would end with Iran’s “unconditional
surrender.” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth declared on March 2 that the
United States was waging “the most lethal … air power campaign in
history” with “no stupid rules of engagement.” Days later he promised
reporters “death and destruction from the sky, all day long.”
Having spent the year trying to bring the
Iranian government down and calling on Iranians in February to “take
over your government,” Trump told the Wall Street Journal on Sunday: “I never cared about regime change.”
The media is filled with commentary about the defeat of American imperialism. The Wall Street Journal
has called it “a strategic retreat short of achieving his war aims.” It
is the operational demonstration, before the world, that the period of
unchallenged American dominance that began with the dissolution of the
USSR in 1991 has come to an end.
The political character of the American ruling class’s response is captured in the editorial published by the New York Times, speaking for the Democratic Party, under the headline “President Trump Lost This War.” The Times’ concern is not that the war was waged through mass murder and assassination, but that it failed.
“Mr. Trump made a terrible mistake
starting this war,” the editorial declares. “He prosecuted it recklessly
and in open defiance of the law. The United States is emerging
weaker—militarily, diplomatically and economically—and will pay
strategic costs for years to come.” The Times bemoans the fact
that “On balance, Iran emerges the strategic winner of the four-month
war.” The American military “has shown itself unable to quash a much
smaller opponent even as it burned through many of its long-range
precision missiles and interceptors. The outcome damages this country’s
ability to deter other potential adversaries.”
The editorial’s prescription boils down to
the statement: “The Pentagon will also need to modernize and prepare
for the wars of the future.”
The wars of the future. The Times
takes for granted the framework of permanent imperial
confrontation, above all, with China and Russia, for which the Pentagon
must “modernize and prepare.” What is in question is only the competence
with which the framework is administered.
The Democratic congressional response
operates within the same framework. Senator Chris Murphy called the deal
“essentially surrender to Iran.” Representative Seth Moulton called it
“basically a surrender document from Donald Trump to the supreme leader
of Iran.” Senator Jack Reed complained that the United States was
getting “less than what we had under the JCPOA,” the Obama-era nuclear
deal. The Democrats endorsed the war when it was launched. They complain
about it now only because it ended without Iran being destroyed.
There was enormous popular opposition to
the war, but this found absolutely no expression within the framework of
official politics.
The end of this stage of the war does not
mean the end of the war. American imperialism will prepare new wars to
recover its position. The 2015 JCPOA framework established under Obama
was ended by Trump in 2018 and paved the way for the 2026 war. The 2026
ceasefire framework will pave the way for the war that follows.
The most significant consequences of the debacle, however, will be the consequences within the United States.
The war was launched, in part, in an
attempt to stop the structural decline of American capitalism. The
European Central Bank reported this month that gold has overtaken the
euro to become the world’s second-largest reserve asset, at 27 percent
of global reserves, up from 20 percent a year earlier. The federal debt
crossed 100 percent of GDP in March for the first time since 1946. The
failure of the war has accelerated the dollar’s decline and deepened the
structural crisis the war was meant to resolve.
The war was launched against the backdrop
of escalating social conflict. In the weeks before the war began, mass
demonstrations against ICE intensified after the murder of Renée Nicole
Good, a 37-year-old poet, and Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old nurse, by
federal agents in Minneapolis. The Trump administration’s launching of
the war was, among other things, an attempt to deflect this mounting
opposition into the channels of patriotic war fever.
Social opposition will now escalate, and
it will be increasingly centered in the working class. Auto parts
workers at American Axle struck this month. Railroaders, meatpackers,
teachers and nurses have walked out. Wall Street rose on news of the
deal Sunday, but fuel and food prices remain far above their prewar
levels. PCE (Personal Consumption Expenditures) inflation has hit 3.8
percent, the fastest pace since 2021. Consumer sentiment is at all-time
lows, worse than during the Great Recession or the pandemic.
Workers have absorbed the costs of the war
through rising prices while the corporations profited. The economic
impact will provide fuel for class conflict for years to come, in the
United States and internationally. The same crisis that produces the war
is producing a global movement of the working class against it.
The Trump administration will respond to
deepening social opposition with the methods it has demonstrated: ICE
raids, mass detention infrastructure, the deployment of the National
Guard against domestic protest, the criminalization of political
opposition and the consolidation of authoritarian state power. The
defeat in Iran will not moderate this trajectory. It will intensify it.
The American ruling class, confronted with the failure of its
imperialist offensive abroad, will turn with renewed savagery against
the working class at home.
The task is the construction of an
independent political movement of the working class that is
international in scope, socialist in program and politically conscious
in its objectives.
![U.S. and Iran flags frame a symbolic diplomatic handshake. [Photo/AA]](https://i0.wp.com/www.middleeastmonitor.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/thumbs_b_c_83fbfd954e6d536e95e52f191c0df54b-1-1.jpg?fit=920%2C613&ssl=1)
