Below are excerpts from Frieda Afary’s presentation to a webinar entitled “How to Be Anti-War in a Multipolar World” sponsored by the Northeast Los Angeles Alliance for Democracy. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rgz456NfSV9WEQmMTNojgZk_vrUaQvap/view

On February 28, when the U.S. and Iran launched another brutal and destructive war on Iran, and wreaked havoc to the region and the world economy, some expected a U.S. deal with a faction of the Iranian army (IRGC). No one however, had predicted that almost 4 months later, the U.S. would remove all restrictions on the Iranian regime, grant it a lucrative deal, break with the Netanyahu government and leave in utter defeat.

Let’s look at some of details of the agreement which is called “The Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding Between the U.S. and the Islamic Republic.” https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/17/us/politics/us-iran-agreement-deal-text.html

It promises “permanent termination of  all military operations on all fronts, including on Lebanon;  It “removes its forces from the proximity of the Islamic Republic within 30 days,”;  It removes all sanctions on Iran, releases the Iranian government’s frozen assets  without any restrictions, creates a $300 billion fund for Iran’s reconstruction with guaranteed licenses and permits;  implicitly allows Iran to charge transit fees on the Strait of Hormuz after 60 days, promises that the U.S. and Iran will “refrain from interfering in each other’s internal affairs.”  It calls for open-ended talks on Iran’s nuclear program and makes no mention of Iran’s missile program or its proxies in the region.

Of course it remains to be seen whether Israel will abide by any ceasefire agreement.

If the ceasefire remains in effect, it would be a relief to see a pause to this war for now, after all the suffering and destruction experienced by the Iranian people, the people of the region and after all the global economic suffering.  However,  from a geopolitical standpoint, the  agreement that the U.S. has signed with Iran is a gift to the Iranian regime.  It gives it a new life economically, politically, militarily and strategically.  It also does not say anything about the regime’s violations of human rights  or Iran’s regional proxies promoting war and destruction in the region.

In previous presentations, I have said quite a bit about the need to oppose not only U.S. and Israeli imperialism but also  the Iranian government which is a  brutal, authoritarian state capitalist, militarist, religious fundamentalist and misogynist regime which has for the past 47 years, killed tens of thousands of its citizens, and is hated by the large majority of its own people.  Iran  has the highest execution rate in the world after China. This regime run by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps or IRGC which is Iran’s real army, has wreaked havoc in the Middle East region through its regional imperialist military interventions in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and has provided missiles and drones to Russia in Russia’s imperialist war on the people of Ukraine.

What we have seen with the latest Middle East war is that the U.S. government is more than willing to make a deal with Iran’s regime and no longer even pretends to “liberate” the Iranian people.  Just recently, it was revealed that before the February 28 war was launched by the U.S. and Israel, the Trump and Netanyahu administrations had made a secret deal with the former Iranian president Mahmud Ahmadinejad to bring him to power after assassinating “the Supreme Leader”, Ayatollah Khamenei.  Ahmadinejad is a member of the Iranian regime who has a history of crushing the 2009 Iranian Green Movement and promoting Holocaust denial.  He represents not only another faction of the IRGC or Iranian army, but also everything that the U.S. and Israel claimed they were fighting against.  This says a lot about what the Trump and Netanyahu governments and their monarchist and MEK backers meant by liberation. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/19/us/politics/iran-israel-us-leader-ahmadinejad.html

What we are witnessing on a global level is the increasing spread of authoritarianism and fascism and new alliances between authoritarian and fascist powers.  Global powers such as the U.S., Russia and China are carving up the world into spheres of influence for now and trying to destroy any efforts by struggles for social justice and human rights on the ground in any country whether it is Iran in the Middle East, or Ukraine in Europe,  or Taiwan in East Asia, or human rights struggles in Latin America and Africa and elsewhere.  In the Middle East and South Asia region, regional imperialist powers are also creating new blocks of alliances, most recently with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkey on one side and UAE, India and Israel on the other.

Given this situation, it is more important than ever for anti-war activists to have a global view and to side with human rights struggles and progressives inside each country.

In Iran, those progressive forces are the following: 1. Imprisoned and furloughed  feminist human rights activists such as Nasrin Sotoudeh, Narges Mohammadi, and Pakhshan Azizi, a Kurdish feminist who is facing the death penalty .  2. Kurdish and other national minority activists in and out of prison who oppose both the regime and various imperialist powers.  3.  Imprisoned labor activists including members of the Teachers’ Union  4.  Student and intellectual activists many of whom have demanded a system of education free of dogma and religious fundamentalism.

A principled opposition to war also requires an end to U.S. military aid to Israel, opposition to Israel’s occupation of Palestinian land, and support for Palestinians and Israeli Jews who believe in the peaceful coexistence of two peoples in a secular democracy whether in one state or in two states.

Let us also not forget about solidarity with Afghan women’s rights activists who are some of the most courageous progressive forces in the Middle East and Central Asia region.  Since the U.S. withdrawal in 2021 after 20 years of imperialist occupation of Afghanistan,  the Taliban have returned to power.  They have forced women out of schools beyond sixth grade and out of almost all jobs.  They do not want women to be out in the streets even with the full hijab and chaperoned by men.  two weeks ago, protests by women and men against Taliban’s misogynist and religious fundamentalist dictatorship emerged in the province of Heart.  They need our support.

On the U.S. home front, we have seen a growing popular opposition to the U.S. and Israeli war on Iran and on the Palestinian people.  However, we cannot assume that the opposition now emerging from below will go in a progressive direction.  Fascism in the form of MAGA still has a very strong mass base in the U.S.  Various fascist leaders and commentators such as Marjorie Taylor Green and Tucker Carlson have been trying to push the mass dissatisfaction with this war in the direction of anti-Semitism and simply opposing Trump’s actions as a sign of derangement.  They also defend Putin’s imperialist invasion of Ukraine and support Europe’s extreme Right.  They continue to promote anti-immigrant hatred, misogyny and America First extremist nationalism and racism.

For anti-war activists in the U.S., a principled opposition to war requires addressing the wars abroad and at home, and the structural reasons for them.  The alienating  capitalist working conditions that the majority of people in the U.S. experience, the disinformation promoted by Big Tech monopolies, the history of slavery and anti-Black racism in the U.S.,  and the backlash against gains made by women and LGBT have all made many people in the U.S. more prone to fascist and authoritarian demagoguery.  The capitalist tendency toward the increasing concentration and centralization of capital in the hands of few entities and states is  leading to destructive global competition and wars.

For the opposition to war in the U.S. to move forward in an affirmative direction, progressives need to delve into these issues, offer holistic global analyses that oppose all imperialist powers, articulate a humanist opposition to capitalism, racism, sexism and gender-based violence.

Frieda Afary

June 21, 2026

Posted in:
Places: ,
If you’ve read this far, you were pretty interested, right? Isn’t that worth a few bucks -maybe more?  Please donate and  subscribe to help provide our informative, timely analysis unswerving in its commitment to struggles for peace, freedom, equality, and justice — what New Politics has called “socialism” for a half-century.

Comments

4 responses to “How to Respond to the June 2026 U.S. Agreement with Iran”

  1. Anthony Phillip Teso Avatar
    Anthony Phillip Teso

    A Gift, or a Mechanism? On Frieda Afary and the Islamabad Memorandum

    Frieda Afary’s response to the June 2026 U.S.-Iran agreement gets the politics right where it counts. She refuses the false choice that has organized so much of the anti-war left’s reaction to this war: that to oppose Washington and Tel Aviv one must launder the Islamic Republic, and that to name the regime’s crimes one must enlist in the imperial project against it. She holds both. She opposes U.S. and Israeli imperialism and the Iranian state, and she locates the actual content of an anti-war position in solidarity with the forces fighting that state from below: Nasrin Sotoudeh, Narges Mohammadi, the Kurdish feminist Pakhshan Azizi facing execution, the imprisoned teachers, the students demanding an education free of dogma. That is the right list. It is the third-camp instinct doing exactly the work it should do, and on the home front her insistence that the opposition now emerging “from below” carries no guarantee of a progressive direction is the necessary corrective to a left that mistakes any anti-Trump energy for its own.

    I want to push on two places where the analysis stops short of its own premises.

    The “gift” frame moralizes what it should dissect

    Afary calls the Islamabad Memorandum “a gift to the Iranian regime,” one that gives it “a new life economically, politically, militarily and strategically.” As a moral summary this is unobjectionable. As an analysis it leaves the most important question unasked.

    A gift is a transfer. What the memorandum actually establishes, on Afary’s own rendering of the text, is not a transfer but a set of mechanisms: a $300 billion reconstruction fund with “guaranteed licenses and permits,” the release of frozen assets “without any restrictions,” and the implicit license for Iran to charge transit fees on the Strait of Hormuz after sixty days. These are not gifts. They are channels of accumulation, and the relevant question for a Marxist is who accumulates through them and by what means.

    The answer is not “the regime” in the abstract. Afary herself names the agent when she writes that the IRGC “is Iran’s real army.” It is also Iran’s real bourgeoisie. The Guard’s economic empire — Khatam al-Anbiya in construction and energy, its control of ports, smuggling corridors, and licensing bottlenecks — does not accumulate the way a competitive capital does, through the production and sale of commodities at a profit. It accumulates through political discretion: through its privileged access to permits, contracts, and the right to extract rents at chokepoints it controls. A $300 billion fund administered through “guaranteed licenses and permits” is not a windfall that happens to land on the regime. It is a direct subsidy to precisely this mode of accumulation, a state-mediated rent stream handed to the faction whose power rests on its capacity to allocate such streams. The Hormuz transit fee is the purest case: a sovereign chokehold converted directly into revenue, accumulation through the political control of a passage rather than the production of anything at all.

    This matters because it tells us something the “gift” frame cannot. The memorandum does not merely strengthen the Islamic Republic against its people. It selects among the regime’s factions. It pours resources into the IRGC’s specific circuit of politically mediated accumulation, deepening the Guard’s structural dominance over Iranian capital and the Iranian state alike. And it does so in partnership with the U.S. firms that will hold the other end of those “guaranteed licenses.” The deal is a joint venture in political capitalism, binding a faction of the Iranian state to American capital through shared rents. Naming it a gift obscures the partnership. The progressive forces Afary rightly champions are not fighting a regime that has been handed a present. They are fighting a class fraction that has just been recapitalized, and recapitalized in the form — discretionary, rent-based, chokepoint-dependent — that is hardest for an organized working class to contest, because there is no point of production at which to seize it.

    “Fascism” as a solvent

    The second difficulty is Afary’s use of “fascism.” It does a great deal of work in the essay and, precisely because it works so hard, it dissolves distinctions the moment requires.

    In the space of two paragraphs the term covers the global spread of “authoritarianism and fascism,” the U.S.-Russia-China carving of spheres, MAGA as a mass base, and the commentary of Marjorie Taylor Greene and Tucker Carlson. These are real and related phenomena. They are not one phenomenon, and calling them all fascism flattens the analysis at exactly the point where it needs to be sharp.

    The Trump administration is not a fascist seizure of the state. It is something both more ordinary and, for the left, harder to fight: a personalist, patrimonial reorganization of the bourgeois state in which authority flows through loyalty to the leader rather than through the impersonal administrative apparatus, and in which state power is increasingly exercised as the discretionary distribution of favor — tariff exemptions, pardons, contracts, prosecutions. This is Bonapartism in a recognizable Marxian sense, and its economic counterpart is the same political capitalism the Iran deal exemplifies. The Islamabad Memorandum is itself an artifact of this: a deal struck over the head of the permanent foreign-policy bureaucracy, breaking publicly with Netanyahu, distributing $300 billion in rents by executive discretion. It is patrimonial statecraft, not fascist mobilization.

    The distinction is not academic. If the problem is “fascism,” the answer is the broadest possible anti-fascist front, which in practice means subordinating the independent politics of the working class to whatever bloc will hold the line — the popular-front reflex Afary’s own third-camp tradition exists to refuse. If the problem is the patrimonial reorganization of capitalist rule, the answer is the reconstruction of working-class political independence against a state that has learned to govern through discretion rather than law. Afary’s conclusion — that progressives must “oppose all imperialist powers” and “articulate a humanist opposition to capitalism, racism, sexism” — points toward the second answer. Her vocabulary keeps pulling toward the first.

    What this changes

    None of this is a quarrel with Afary’s side. It is an argument that her side wins more decisively when it stops moralizing the deal and starts dissecting it. The Islamabad Memorandum is not a gift and the regime it strengthens is not generically authoritarian. It is a transnational arrangement for accumulation through political discretion, structured to enrich a specific rentier-military fraction of Iranian capital and its American counterparts, struck by an American state that increasingly governs the same way. Solidarity with Sotoudeh, Azizi, the teachers, and the Kurdish and student movements is the right conclusion. It becomes a strategy rather than a sentiment only when we can say precisely what they are up against: not a gift, but a mechanism, and one whose form is the same on both ends of the deal.

    Anthony P. Teso

  2. […] Afary, le 21 juin 2026https://newpol.org/how-to-respond-to-the-june-2026-u-s-agreement-with-iran/Traduit par […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *