There is an unspoken agreement between US and Iran to maintain the delicate balance of power in the region.
Losing Islamist Iran period means losing Iraq to a power vacuum.
Losing Islamist Iran to communists is doomsday scenario for capitalists, the resource rich region is filled with unpopular regimes and immiserated workers. Iran and Iraq (the most susceptible for revolution) alone make up a quarter of the world oil supply. The stakes are too high to allow an unpredictable mass movement (that cannot be entirely controlled) to overthrow the regime.
Iran poses zero threat to western imperialism, in fact in places like Iraq and Lebanon it is the lever that is maintaining it. Decades of wheeling and dealing through backchannels have exposed this myth for what it is - a false dichotomy that sets the ideological framework for US and Iranian imperialism in the region, so-called "Axis of Resistance" and "Forces of Order"
Does this mean they're in agreement on everything and Iran is secretly run by da juice? Of course not, that's conspiratorial and Kautskyist nonsense. They're united in so far as their class interests meet, mostly in suppressing workers and maintaining the status quo.
Will this last forever? No, eventually a war will break out due to capital's growing contradictions and the need to counter overproduction through destruction. The region and the world broadly have yet to fall into designated camps for such event to happen, that will spark the a third global imperialist war.
Don't fall into this false dichotomy, or prepare to be disappointed. Learn from the communist parties in the region who have reached this conclusion.
No war but class war
>>2648960>2nd pic>foreign invasion = domestic policingAre you this stupid or do you think we are this stupid?
>>2648960>losing Islamist Iran to communists is doomsday scenario for capitalistsUnfortunately, there's no communist/socialist force that could make this a possibility.
Two capitalist powers fighting over regional hegemony.
The more likely outcome of a post-Iran-collapse power vacuum in Iraq is another civil war with Shiite and Sunni militias
>>2649056>Unfortunately, there's no communist/socialist force that could make this a possibility.There are several parties more disciplined and organized than anywhere else in the world. It is unclear when/if they can turn into a mass movement.
original
I agree. The corpse of the cold war is slowly fading away, and the excuse that the world is divided in "ideologies" is fading with it.
>>2649172
answer the first post, shill
>There is an unspoken agreement between US and Iran to maintain the delicate balance of power in the region.
Sorry Anon, but there is literally nothing to suggest this.
>Losing Islamist Iran period means losing Iraq to a power vacuum.
Since when does the American Empire fear a power vacuum? They deliberately created them in Libya, Syria, and Somalia. A power vacuum is better than a hostile state.
>Iran poses zero threat to western imperialism
This is obviously untrue, otherwise there wouldn't be armed conflict between Iranian and Western proxies, or between Western states and Iran itself. Let's not forget that Israel and Iran fought a war less than a year ago. Was this just for funsies? Did the US bomb the Houthis for a lark?
>They're united in so far as their class interests meet
Completely ahistorical. Capitalists will side with communists if they feel that other capitalists are a bigger threat to their interests, and vice versa. Britain and America considered Germany a bigger threat than the USSR and so they formed an alliance against the Nazis. China considered the USSR a bigger threat than America so they formed an alliance with them against the Soviets. In Angola communist Cuban troops protected Exxon-operated oilfields from CIA backed UNITA contras. Politics always produces a wide range of alliances and antagonisms that cross class lines.
>a false dichotomy that sets the ideological framework for US and Iranian imperialism in the region
A completely absurd statement. Iran does not have the level of financialization, trade footprint, or capital export to be an imperialist country, i.e. a net beneficiary of the world imperialist system. Imperialism isn't a policy, its an economic system and only those who dominate and benefit from it are imperialist.
>The region and the world broadly have yet to fall into designated camps for such event to happen
They have fallen into these camps, you're just insisting that they haven't and that we should ignore what we see before us in favour of belief in some kind of secret cooperation.
bvmp