Margaret Kimberley

The United States has been determined to crush the Islamic Republic of Iran ever since a revolution brought it to power 47 years ago. In the 1980s the U.S. made Iraq’s president Saddam Hussein their proxy as he unleashed a war against Iran that killed an estimated 1 million people. The chemical weapons that the U.S. later used as a pretext for invasion and occupation of Iraq were actually used against Iran. The U.S. navy shot down an Iranian civilian airliner and killed 290 people in 1988. Vice President George H.W. Bush famously responded with these words. “I'll never apologize for the United States of America, ever. I don't care what the facts are. I’m not an apologize-for-America kind of guy.”

Warfare and terrorism was followed by years of sanctions and economic sabotage now culminating in a full-blown regime change effort as a buildup of military assets in the region continues. Fighter jets have been sent to U.S. military bases in client states, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, ships in the Persian Gulf, and an aircraft carrier group in the region, while another is en route.

Iran’s technological infrastructure has been deeply infiltrated by the U.S. and Israel and allows for psychological warfare to be added to the ships, planes, and bombs. Millions of people there received this anonymous text message, “The American president is a man of action. Wait.” The ability for Iran’s enemies to directly interact with the public is a very bad sign for the security of their people. The CIA acts both covertly as with the texts, and overtly, as it posted instructions on social media to those Iranians willing to undermine their state with a message written in Persian.

Yet no one knows what the impact of a U.S. attack will be. The so-called 12-day war with Israel in June 2025 proved that Iran was vulnerable but also that it had more military power than anticipated. The drive to attack Iran is bipartisan, with Democrats being largely silent because they are in agreement with Trump and the Republicans. They share the desire to destroy the Iranian state and put a compliant regime in place and/or to break it up into smaller regions which would also be obedient to the U.S. and to the West. 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made seven trips to Washington ever since Donald Trump’s January 2025 inauguration. He wants to make sure that any questions about the feasibility of a strike are ignored in case Trump should get cold feet. A sane government would ask if the Iranian state has popular support and, regardless of whether it does or not, is the possible destruction of that state what the people there want? Would a decapitation strike on political and military leadership undo the revolution? Can a bombing campaign actually lead to a devastated government that could easily be overthrown? Americans should also ask how Iran is a threat to the US. All of these questions are logical and reasonable, but the U.S. and Israel believe that the time to strike is at hand and like George H.W. Bush, they are not interested in what the facts may indicate.

In all likelihood, Netanyahu has little reason to be worried about U.S. resolve. The plans for aggression are completely bipartisan. Trump and the Republican Party are not alone in pushing this scheme. Democrats make noises about wanting congressional authority before any attack takes place but few of them have said clearly that they are opposed to war. The only straightforward Democratic Party message is from those who oppose even the tepid War Powers Act resolution and who openly state their support for the regime change effort. Democratic leaders Senator Chuck Schumer and Congressman Hakeem Jeffries are trying to delay a vote on the resolution. They don’t want their members to go on record as supporting what their voters oppose. They hope that Trump starts a fight that voters don’t want but, in the process, helps them win the November mid-term elections. 

The likelihood of success and examination of the forces supportive of aggression are important questions but they limit an important discussion that should be taking place more often. Where does the left stand on the issue of the regime change effort? In short, whose side are we on? 

This moment is one that calls for an uncompromising anti-imperialist stance. There can be no waffling, fence sitting, or “both-sidesing.” The United States and Israel have no right to attack Iranian civilians, soldiers, or political and military leadership. Liberal arguments about supporting the people but not the state are gobbledegook, which makes the case for intervention, whether its proponents will admit their complicity or not.

The hostility towards Iran is unrelenting. Both Israel and the U.S. openly reveal what they are doing to undermine that nation. Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent has publicly confessed to the U.S. role in destabilizing Iran. Bessent first owned up to the U.S. role in creating economic havoc in a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos.  "President Trump ordered Treasury ... to put maximum pressure on Iran, and it's worked. Because in December, their economy collapsed. They are not able to get imports, and this is why the people took to the streets." He later gave congressional testimony and admitted to creating a dollar shortage in Iran. “The central bank had to print money, the Iranian currency went into free fall, inflation exploded.” While Bessent gave accounts of how the Trump administration created economic and social chaos, a former Trump official was also spilling the beans. Mike Pompeo served in the first Trump administration as CIA Director and Secretary of State. He bragged on social media, “Happy New Year to every Iranian in the streets.  Also, to every Mossad agent walking beside them.”

While current and former high-ranking officials reveal how they are creating an environment to facilitate regime change, confused liberals wonder whether they should condemn the U.S. or spend their time railing against the Iranian government. As is usually the case, they are taken in by war propaganda which posits that women are treated badly and that protest isn’t allowed in Iran. They either don’t know or don’t care that most university students in Iran are women or that the initial protests after the economic collapse were met with discussions with the government, not with violent suppression.

They also don’t bother to educate themselves about the outright lies that are being told in western corporate media, such as reports of 30,000 people killed by that government. There is no rational explanation for a fashion blogger to suddenly become relied upon by media in the west.  These so-called sources are agents of the west, backed by intelligence cut-outs USAID and the ironically named National Endowment for Democracy (NED). 

The extent of U.S. involvement in what we're told is spontaneous popular action became clear in a congressional hearing. Damon Wilson, President and CEO of the NED revealed the extent of U.S. interference in what we're told was an uprising against a hated government. He testified that the U.S. "began supporting the deployment [and] operation of about 200 Starlinks early on.” Starlink was used by those Iranians who are working with Israel and the U.S. to communicate with their accomplices. Wilson's revelation risked upending war propaganda, and he was immediately told to be quiet. Congresswoman Lois Frankel, the ranking member of the House Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs, told Wilson, “You know what, I’m going to interrupt you – we’d better not talk about it.”

Many people who ought to know better have fallen prey to propaganda, notions of western white supremacy, and beliefs in orientalism. These otherwise well-informed so-called leftists need little prompting to start questioning the Iranian government and joining in condemnation of non-existent oppressions. If they so chose, they could have honest discussions about Iran and the U.S. and determine which one was most oppressive.

Which country has more people imprisoned than any other? That would be the United States. Which country is holding immigrant children in jails across the country? Again, that would be the United States. Which country is bombing fishermen in the Caribbean to make the case for regime change in Venezuela? Well, that’s the United States. Which country provides the means to support Israeli apartheid and genocide. Of course, the United States is the perpetrator. Where do immigration enforcement agents shoot people to death in the street? That happens in the U.S.  Which country’s constitution calls for support of all “oppressed people” and mandates support for Palestine in particular. The answer, of course, is Iran.

To be blunt, white supremacy infects the West to such a degree that there are very few people who are able to discern the most basic facts that might force them to be open-minded about their country and about others. Even so-called leftists believe that Iranians are backward people who need to be saved. They give them no credit for being able to practice self-determination and decide what sort of state they want to live in. They don’t even care that years of destabilization and war have limited the ability of Iranians to work for the changes they may want to see realized. In the final analysis, lazy liberalism and orientalism are as responsible for the crimes being planned against Iran as much as obedience to zionism and imperialism are. 

The task of the left is to fight against U.S. imperialism and to denounce it in the strongest terms possible. The United States, with its dollar domination and military prowess, is the biggest danger to life on planet earth and the most likely to promote suppression of dissent within its borders and around the world. Believing that denunciation of Washington’s plans to destroy the Iranian must include criticism of Iran’s system is the height of arrogance and ignorance.

An Iran free of threats from the west will be best able to determine its future. In any case, western liberals should be minding their own business and should be figuring out how to fight an increasingly autocratic U.S. The armchair “both-siders” are a threat to the people of Iran. Anyone who claims to care about them must stand firmly on the side of the Islamic Republic of Iran. That state is able to withstand U.S. sanctions and wars and provides needed multipolarity and that is why democrats and republicans alike want to destroy it. Wishy and washy fence sitters can help no one and, even if they are doing so inadvertently, provide succor to Trump as he plans to kill thousands of people. There is no choice. Anyone calling themselves anti-war, pro-peace, or anti-imperialist should be standing with Iran.