Discourse over military strikes against Iran often blurs a crucial political distinction. When the United States threatens and carries out attacks on Iranian targets, it is acting as a global imperial power seeking to shape the balance of forces in the Middle East. When Israel confronts the same regime, the stakes are fundamentally different: Israel is confronting a government openly calling for its destruction, arming forces dedicated to carrying it out. Treating these two situations as equivalent ignores both the internal reality of Iran and Washington’s actual strategic aims in contrast to Israel’s.

Understanding this difference begins with the situation inside Iran itself. Over the past several years Iran has seen waves of protests involving workers and organized labor at the front, with students women and oppressed nationalities alongside them. These demonstrations have erupted in response to economic disaster and ruin, political repression, and the murderous nature of the Islamic Republic. Bazaar merchants, truck drivers, oil workers and retirees have held repeated protests over unpaid wages, the tyranny of prices, and deteriorating living conditions, for several years, and especially after October 7.

These protests have, of course, been met with savage repression. Security forces from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the Basij paramilitary units and the police have used tear gas rubber bullets and live ammunition against demonstrators. Video footage surfaced from the crackdowns show long bursts of gunfire directed at unarmed crowds and security forces breaking into apartment buildings to seize protesters who had taken refuge inside.

Oppressed nationalities have played a prominent role in these protests. Kurds and Baluchis have organized strikes and demonstrations in solidarity with broader anti-government movements. In the southeastern province of Sistan-Baluchistan, protesters rallied for weeks against the death penalty and the imprisonment of political opponents. Kurdish organizations have called general strikes, declaring their support for nationwide protests against the regime.

The Iranian authorities see this participation as a major threat. Roughly 40 percent of the population belongs to oppressed nationalities—Kurds, Baluchis, Arabs, Azerbaijanis, and others—who have faced discrimination for decades. That discrimination existed under the U.S.-backed monarchy of the shah before 1979 and continued under the Islamic Republic that replaced it.

The roots of today’s regime lie in the overturn of the 1979 Iranian Revolution. That revolution was a massive popular upheaval involving workers farmers and students. Millions mobilized against the dictatorship of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, whose regime relied heavily on U.S. support and whose secret police–SAVAK–became infamous for torture, repression and the chasing down dissidents worldwide just as the regime does today.

Working people undoubtedly played a decisive role in bringing down the shah. Oil workers in particular famously led a general strike that paralyzed the country for months, while factory workers formed councils—known as shoras—to assert control over workplaces and production. Peasants demanded land reform and oppressed nationalities fought for cultural and political rights.

But the revolutionary energy of that movement did not lead to a workers’ government, as many hoped for, largely due to Saddam Hussein’s subsequent invasion against the revolution backed by the U.S. Forces gathered around Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini consolidated power and gradually dismantled the independent organizations that had emerged during the uprising. By the early 1980s the new Islamic Republic had suppressed political opposition, imprisoned revolutionary activists, and strengthened the institutions that remain central to the regime today: the Revolutionary Guard and its Basij auxiliaries.

This history helps explain the contradictions inside Iran today. The regime falsely presents itself as the heir to the 1979 revolution, but its rule rests on repressing the very social forces that made that revolution possible. Workers’ protests and popular uprisings are therefore not simply economic struggles; they reflect deep dissatisfaction with a system that denies basic political and social rights.

Iranian workers represent a potential force capable of challenging both the regime and the broader regional order that exploits their labor and resources. For that reason, they are feared not only by the clerical rulers in Tehran but also by imperial powers that prefer “stability” under compliant regimes, to the unpredictable consequences of mass working-class movements. Hence the Trump Administration’s constant reiteration that they don’t want ‘regime-change,’ per se, but would like the regime to make some changes ala Venezuela.

Yet the Iranian government also tries to legitimize itself by positioning the country as a central force in regional conflicts. Tehran supports and arms a network of allied groups across the Middle East, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. These forces share Tehran’s stated goal of destroying Israel.

This is the point where the difference between U.S. policy and Israel’s situation becomes clear. For Washington, Iran is one element in a broader geopolitical struggle. The United States maintains tens of thousands of troops at bases across the Middle East and regularly deploys aircraft carriers and strike groups to the region. These military moves are part of Washington’s effort to maintain dominance over strategic trade routes, energy resources, and regional alliances.

Recent developments illustrate this clearly. U.S. administrations have repeatedly threatened Iran with military action while simultaneously pursuing negotiations aimed at bringing Tehran into a regional arrangement acceptable to Washington. Massive military deployments—carrier strike groups, advanced aircraft, missile defenses—serve as leverage in these “negotiations.”

These military threats and strikes do not aid the struggles of Iranian workers, as they are often portrayed as doing. They directly harm them. Iranian oil workers—who have been among the most militant participants in protests and strikes—are among the first to bear the consequences when energy infrastructure becomes a target or when sanctions and war threats disrupt production and employment.

The buildup of U.S. military pressure has also helped create conditions in which workers’ protests become impossible to sustain. Sit-in protests and regular demonstrations by oil workers and retirees that had taken place in previous months, and were scheduled for Feb. 28, had to be canceled. From this point of view, the U.S. military came to the aid of the Iranian capitalists, helping them union-bust the Iranian oil workers and their trade unions.

For the U.S., the goal is not the liberation of Iranian workers or support for democratic movements. Instead, the U.S. objective is stability that benefits American strategic and economic interests. The American rulers openly frame the region as an arena of great-power competition, particularly with China, whose economic presence in the Middle East has grown rapidly through infrastructure investments and energy deals. Within that framework, threats against Iran function as tools of pressure in a larger contest over influence.

Recent reports further illustrate how Washington views the region primarily through the lens of strategic leverage. Multiple outlets have reported that the CIA has been exploring plans to arm Iranian Kurdish forces in an attempt to spark an uprising against the regime in Tehran. U.S. officials have reportedly discussed working with Kurdish opposition groups based along the Iraq-Iran border as a way to stretch Iranian security forces and potentially open a new internal front during a wider confrontation.

The Kurdish like the Jewish question highlights the contradictions of the region. The Kurdish people—spread across Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria—have endured decades of repression from multiple states. Turkish governments have waged long wars against Kurdish movements and regularly carry out cross-border military operations against Kurdish forces in Syria and Iraq. Iranian authorities have shelled Kurdish towns, targeted Kurdish political parties, and imprisoned activists who demand basic cultural and political rights. Across the region, Kurdish communities have faced discrimination, military repression and denial of national recognition.

Like the Jewish people in Israel, Kurds are a historically-oppressed nation struggling for survival and political recognition in a hostile regional environment. But their fate has repeatedly been manipulated by outside powers pursuing their own strategic interests. Today’s reports that Washington may arm Kurdish militias demonstrate how quickly genuine national struggles can be folded into the calculations of imperial powers. U.S. strategists openly discuss Kurdish fighters as a force that could tie down Iranian troops or create instability inside the country during a confrontation between Tehran and Washington.

For Kurds this perpetuates the longstanding dilemma of either aligning with Washington, risking their struggle becoming a proxy conflict between larger powers, or rejecting such alliances that leaves them facing repression not only from Tehran but also from regional states like Turkey which have long viewed Kurdish movements as state threats. This dynamic mirrors the broader reality facing working people across the Middle East. The struggles of workers and oppressed nationalities—from Iranian oil workers striking against the regime to Kurdish communities fighting for survival—are feared not only by the governments that rule them but also by imperial powers that prefer stable regional arrangements over the unpredictable consequences of mass movements from below.

Just as with Israel, the Kurdish struggle for autonomy and self-determination in every nation-state they currently inhabit is to be supported, even if it’s the U.S. empire arming them.

Unlike the United States, nevertheless, Israel (and Kurdistan) is not a distant power projecting force into a region thousands of miles from its borders. It is a small country with a historically oppressed population facing hostile armed organizations and governments that openly declare their intention to eliminate it. Tehran’s leadership has repeatedly called for Israel’s destruction and has developed missile capabilities capable of reaching Israeli population centers. Iranian-supplied rockets and weapons have flowed to groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas, both of which have launched repeated attacks on Israeli civilians.

When Israel carries out strikes against Iranian targets—whether against missile facilities, military infrastructure, or proxy forces—it does so in the context of these threats. From the Israeli perspective, such operations are preemptive acts aimed at preventing future attacks and maintaining the country’s ability to survive in a hostile environment. This does not mean every military decision is wise or just, though they often are. But it does mean the political context is fundamentally different from that of the United States.

Washington’s involvement in the region is shaped by the interests of a global power seeking to preserve its influence. Israel’s actions, by contrast, are driven by the immediate security concerns of a country that has faced repeated wars and attacks since its inception.

Understanding this distinction matters because it allows us to see that criticism of U.S. military intervention in the Middle East does not automatically translate into condemnation of Israel’s right to defend itself. Nor does recognition of Israel’s security dilemma require support for broader imperial strategies pursued by outside powers.

Even U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio admitted to reporters on March 2 that the Israeli government had expressed a willingness to strike Iran with or without U.S. accompaniment. The U.S. empire can hide behind its crystal ball and claim Iran would have attacked the United States anyway, as Rubio suggested, but responsibility for U.S. aggression does not rest with Israel.

If Washington had truly wished to avoid being drawn into the conflict, it could have made clear to Tehran that it was not participating in Israeli operations. Instead, it chose destruction that has hurt working-class Iranians, particularly oil and shipyard workers.

Working people inside Iran continue struggling against repression and economic devastation. Their future will ultimately be decided by their own actions and organization, as well as solidarity from Israel. Our main concern should be to assure Washington stays out of the way.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)