Iran and the Violence of Empire: How War Manufactures Consent and Buries Revolutions

 From Mossadegh to Khamenei—Why Imperialism Needs Theocracy More Than Democracy

-Ramphal Kataria

Abstract

Iran’s modern history is not a story of isolated incidents but of systematic interruption—where every democratic impulse has been destabilized, redirected, or crushed by imperialist intervention and internal ideological capture. This essay argues that the present war-like confrontation involving Iran, Israel, and the United States is not an aberration but a continuation of a long historical pattern: imperialism does not merely confront regimes—it produces and stabilizes them. Through a Marxist lens, the essay examines how the overthrow of Mohammad Mossadegh, the rise of Ruhollah Khomeini, and the consolidation of clerical authority under Ali Khamenei represent successive moments in which popular sovereignty was displaced. It further interrogates India’s shifting posture under Narendra Modi, arguing that strategic alignment with the US-Israel axis risks eroding a historically grounded relationship with Iran. The central thesis is stark: war does not weaken authoritarian regimes—it manufactures their legitimacy.

I. Introduction: Empire’s Long Shadow

To understand contemporary Iran is to understand interruption. Not evolution, not linear development—but rupture. Every time Iran has approached a democratic horizon, it has been violently pulled back—either by imperial intervention or by internal forces that thrive in the vacuum created by it.

As Karl Marx wrote,

“Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please.”

Iran’s tragedy lies precisely here: its people have made history, but never under conditions of their own choosing.

II. 1953: The Original Sin of Modern Iran

The overthrow of Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953 remains the decisive fracture in Iran’s modern history.

Mossadegh’s nationalization of oil was not radical—it was sovereign. Yet sovereignty itself was intolerable to empire. The intervention by the Central Intelligence Agency was not an anomaly; it was policy.

Noam Chomsky has consistently argued:

“What the United States supports is not democracy, but obedience.”

Iran obeyed—and democracy was restored to dictatorship.

III. The Shah: Authoritarian Modernity as Imperial Design

The regime of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi represents a familiar model in the Global South: development without democracy.

Industrial growth, urban expansion, and Western lifestyles masked a deeper reality—political suffocation. The Shah’s Iran was not modern; it was managed.

This is where Marx’s base-superstructure dialectic becomes visible: economic transformation without corresponding political emancipation produces instability—not progress.

IV. 1979: Revolution or Counter-Revolution?

The Iranian Revolution is often celebrated as a triumph of people’s power. It was—but only momentarily.

The revolution was not defeated from outside; it was appropriated from within.

Under Ruhollah Khomeini, the revolutionary coalition fractured. Clerical authority emerged as the dominant force, marginalizing leftists, liberals, and workers.

Frantz Fanon warned us:

“The national bourgeoisie… turns its back more and more on the interior and on the real problems of the country.”

In Iran, the clerical class performed a similar function—replacing monarchy not with democracy, but with divine authority.

V. The Islamic Republic: Institutionalizing Control

Under Ali Khamenei, the Islamic Republic has perfected the art of controlled dissent.

Elections exist, but power does not circulate. Opposition exists, but does not govern.

The repression of women—justified through culture—is not incidental. It is structural. It is a means of disciplining society itself.

Yet resistance persists. Women removing hijabs. Students defying authority. Workers protesting inequality.

The revolution is not dead—it is contained.

VI. War as Political Technology

The ongoing confrontation between Iran and the US-Israel axis is often framed as security or ideology.

It is neither.

It is political technology.

War performs a function: it reorganizes internal politics.

As soon as external aggression becomes real or imminent:

· The regime becomes the nation

· Dissent becomes treason

· Protest becomes silence

This is not accidental—it is structural.

VII. The Paradox: Imperialism as the Regime’s Ally

Here lies the most uncomfortable truth:

Imperialism does not weaken regimes like Iran—it sustains them.

Every threat from the United States
Every escalation involving Israel

Strengthens the legitimacy of the Iranian state.

The masses, even when oppressed, cannot side with the aggressor.

Thus, they rally—not for the regime, but for sovereignty.

And in doing so, they reinforce the regime.

VIII. The Failure of Regime Change Fantasies

The idea—popularized during the era of Donald Trump—that internal dissent can be weaponised by external pressure is fundamentally flawed.

It misunderstands the psychology of nations under attack.

Fanon again:

“Imperialism leaves behind germs of rot…”

But when imperialism is present—not residual—it becomes the primary enemy.

The people postpone their struggle.

And the regime survives.

IX. After War: The Counter-Revolution Consolidates

When conflict subsides, the damage is already done:

· The regime has gained legitimacy

· The opposition has lost momentum

· Fear replaces political imagination

This is how revolutions die—not in defeat, but in delay.

Iran’s liberal movement does not vanish—but it is pushed back into history.

X. India and Iran: A History Now at Risk

The relationship between India and Iran is not recent—it is civilizational.

From the cultural flows of the Mughal Empire to diplomatic cooperation in the post-colonial era, Iran has been one of India’s most consistent partners in the Islamic world.

Notably, Iran maintained a nuanced stance on Kashmir—rarely aligning with hostile narratives against India.

This mattered.

XI. The Modi Doctrine: Alignment and Alienation

Under Narendra Modi, India’s foreign policy has undergone a decisive shift.

Closer to Washington.
Closer to Tel Aviv.
More distant from Tehran.

This is not ideological—it is strategic.

But strategy has consequences.

India risks losing:

· A historical ally

· A strategic partner in West Asia

· A balancing force in Islamic geopolitics

XII. The Indian Contradiction

Here too, the Marxist contradiction emerges:

· The Indian state aligns with global capital and power

· The Indian people expresses anti-imperialist sentiment

Two trajectories. One nation.

Conclusion: The Dialectic of Defeat

Iran today stands as a lesson—not just for itself, but for the world.

A people who resisted monarchy…
Now contained by theocracy…
And forced to defend it against empire.

This is not failure.
This is contradiction.

And contradiction, as Marx teaches us, is not the end of history—but its engine.

Footnotes

1. The 1953 coup against Mohammad Mossadegh was orchestrated by the Central Intelligence Agency and British intelligence to protect oil interests .

2. The coup reinstated Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, whose rule lasted until the 1979 revolution.

3. The Iranian Revolution led to the establishment of a theocratic state under Ruhollah Khomeini.

4. India and Iran established diplomatic relations in 1950 and have deep historical ties .

5. The alliance between the United States and Israel shapes the geopolitical dynamics of West Asia.

 

Epitaph of Non-Alignment: India’s Strategic Drift in the Shadow of the Iran–US–Israel War

A critique of imperial power, civilisational resistance, and the quiet erosion of India’s sovereign foreign policy

-Ramphal Kataria

Abstract

The Iran–US–Israel war, culminating in a fragile two-week truce, marks a watershed in global politics—the most systemically disruptive conflict since World War II. The war has exposed not only the limits of American hegemony but also the enduring resilience of Iran’s ideological state structure. At the same time, it has revealed a profound transformation in India’s foreign policy. Departing from its historic commitment to non-alignment, India appears to have aligned itself with the US–Israel axis, sacrificing strategic autonomy at the altar of geopolitical expediency. This essay interrogates the class character of global power, the imperialist logic underpinning the war, and India’s subordination within this order under Narendra Modi. It argues that India’s current trajectory represents not strategic pragmatism but ideological capitulation, with far-reaching consequences for its sovereignty, regional standing, and historical identity.

Keywords

Imperialism, Non-Alignment, Strategic Autonomy, Iran–US War, Indian Foreign Policy, Marxist Analysis, Global Capitalism, West Asia, Modi Doctrine

I. War, Capital, and the Global Order After 1945

The Iran–US–Israel war must be understood not as an isolated geopolitical rupture but as a manifestation of the contradictions of late-stage global capitalism. Since World War II, wars have largely remained regionally contained, serving as instruments for maintaining spheres of influence. However, this conflict has shattered that containment by directly threatening the arteries of global capital—most notably through Iran’s leverage over the Strait of Hormuz.

By effectively choking a route responsible for nearly one-fifth of global hydrocarbon flows, Iran transformed a regional war into a systemic crisis. Energy markets trembled, global supply chains wavered, and the myth of insulated Western prosperity was momentarily punctured. Iran struck not merely at military targets but at the material base of imperial power.

II. Iran’s Defiance: Resistance Beyond Material Loss

Contrary to the expectations of Donald Trump and his strategic establishment, Iran did not collapse under the weight of bombardment. The assumption that overwhelming force would yield swift capitulation reflects a deeply entrenched imperial arrogance—one that reduces societies to calculable variables while ignoring their ideological and cultural depth.

Even after the symbolic and political blow associated with attacks linked to the legacy of Ruhollah Khomeini, Iran refused to yield. The losses it suffered were not merely infrastructural but profoundly human—leaders, cadres, and civilians. Yet, the Iranian state drew upon the Shia tradition of shahadat, transforming loss into political resolve.

This is where the imperial calculus faltered. The United States, armed with unparalleled war-gaming capabilities, failed to grasp that resistance can be historically embedded and spiritually sustained. The expectation of a short war was not merely misplaced—it was structurally flawed.

III. The Truce: Negotiation as an Admission of Limits

The two-week truce, reluctantly embraced by Benjamin Netanyahu and cautiously accepted by Iran, is less a peace than a pause born of necessity. The most telling aspect of this development is the United States’ willingness to consider Iran’s 10-point proposal, effectively shelving its own 15-point framework.

This reversal is not procedural; it is political. It signifies that even at the height of its coercive power, the United States could not impose unilateral terms. Iran, despite suffering immense losses, has forced a negotiation on relatively equal footing.

This moment reveals a fissure in the structure of imperial dominance. The periphery, when strategically coordinated and ideologically mobilized, can compel the core to negotiate.

IV. India’s Historical Position: From Non-Alignment to Strategic Submission

India’s foreign policy, since independence under Jawaharlal Nehru, was anchored in the doctrine of non-alignment. This was not passive neutrality but an active assertion of sovereignty in a bipolar world. It allowed India to navigate competing blocs while retaining policy independence.

Over time, non-alignment evolved into strategic autonomy, enabling India to engage with diverse powers without subordination. This framework was not merely diplomatic; it was civilisational—a reflection of India’s anti-colonial ethos.

However, under Narendra Modi, this legacy appears to have been systematically dismantled. The shift is neither abrupt nor accidental; it is the culmination of a decade-long reorientation. Foreign policy has increasingly been personalized, reduced to optics and symbolism rather than grounded in institutional continuity.

V. Alignment Disguised as Strategy

India’s conduct during the Iran–US–Israel war reveals a clear departure from equidistance. The timing of Modi’s visit to Tel Aviv—just 48 hours before the outbreak of hostilities—was not diplomatically neutral. In international relations, symbolism is substance, and this gesture signalled alignment.

The absence of a strong condemnation following attacks on Iran’s leadership and killing of Ayatollah Khomeini further deepened this perception. Even symbolic acts of condolence were delayed and diluted, reflecting a hesitation rooted not in caution but in political alignment.

Simultaneously, India’s criticism of instability in the Gulf, without addressing the structural causes of the conflict, reinforced the impression that it had internalized the narrative of the US–Israel axis.

This alignment is not merely geopolitical but ideological. The affinity between sections of India’s ruling establishment and the Israeli state reflects a convergence of nationalist projects—each seeking legitimacy through exclusionary narratives.

VI. The Subordination to Imperial Power

The broader context of India’s foreign policy under Modi reveals patterns of subordination to American interests. Trade arrangements perceived as asymmetrical, compliance with directives on energy imports, and visible deference to US strategic priorities indicate a shift from autonomy to alignment.

The role of Donald Trump in shaping these dynamics cannot be overlooked. The oscillation in India’s policy—whether on tariffs, oil imports, or diplomatic positioning—suggests a reactive rather than proactive approach.

This subordination becomes particularly evident during crises. As the war escalated, India appeared less as an independent actor and more as a peripheral observer, its choices constrained by external expectations.

VII. Pakistan’s Strategic Insertion

In stark contrast, Pakistan has managed to position itself as a facilitator in the evolving diplomatic landscape. By maintaining engagement with multiple actors—including the US, Iran, and China—it has occupied a space that India historically claimed.

This development is not merely ironic; it is indicative of a broader shift. A state often marginalized in global discourse has leveraged the crisis to enhance its diplomatic relevance, while India, despite its economic and strategic weight, remains on the margins.

VIII. Operation Sindoor and the Myth of Global Support

The pattern of isolation is further reflected in the context of Operation Sindoor, where India reportedly found limited international backing. Countries such as Turkey, China, and Azerbaijan aligned more closely with Pakistan’s position.

The intervention of Washington in shaping ceasefire outcomes underscores a troubling reality: India’s strategic autonomy has been compromised to the extent that external powers can influence outcomes in its immediate neighbourhood.

IX. The Illusion of Vishva Guru

The dissonance between rhetoric and reality is perhaps most evident in the claim of India as a “Vishva Guru.” If India were indeed a guiding force in global affairs, its role in a crisis of this magnitude would not be peripheral.

The dispatch of parliamentary delegations to multiple countries in the aftermath of diplomatic setbacks during operation sindoor reflects an implicit acknowledgment of this gap. It suggests a reactive attempt to rebuild credibility rather than a confident assertion of influence.

X. Conclusion: The Cost of Abandoning Autonomy

The Iran–US–Israel war has exposed the fault lines of the contemporary global order. It has demonstrated that even in an era of overwhelming military power, resistance remains possible, and negotiation remains necessary.

For India, however, the conflict has revealed a deeper crisis—a crisis of orientation. The abandonment of non-alignment, the erosion of strategic autonomy, and the visible tilt towards a particular bloc have collectively diminished its global standing.

To describe this moment as the writing of an epitaph may appear stark, but it captures a profound truth: the essence of India’s foreign policy—its independence—stands at risk.

The future consequences of this shift will not be immediate, but they will be enduring. In a multipolar world, where power is fluid and alliances transient, the ability to maintain balance is not a luxury; it is a necessity.

India must decide whether it will reclaim this balance or continue along a path where its voice is subsumed within the chorus of greater powers.

Footnotes

1. The World War II (1939–1945) marked the last conflict with truly systemic global impact; subsequent wars, including those in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Ukraine, remained regionally contained despite wider implications.

2. The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world’s most critical energy chokepoints, through which approximately 20% of global petroleum liquids consumption passes, making it central to global economic stability.

3. The doctrine of Non-Alignment was articulated by Jawaharlal Nehru and institutionalized through the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) in 1961, alongside leaders like Tito and Nasser, as a strategy to maintain independence from Cold War blocs.

4. The concept of Vilayat-e-Faqih (Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist), institutionalized after the Iranian Revolution of 1979 under Ruhollah Khomeini, forms the ideological backbone of the Iranian state.

5. Iran’s reported “10-point proposal” includes demands such as sanctions relief, non-aggression guarantees, recognition of nuclear enrichment rights, and security assurances for its regional allies; the US “15-point proposal” is believed to have included stricter compliance and disarmament conditions.

6. The assumption within US strategic circles, particularly under Donald Trump, that rapid military escalation would force Iranian capitulation reflects a pattern seen in earlier interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

7. Benjamin Netanyahu has historically advocated a hardline stance against Iran, particularly regarding its nuclear programme and regional influence through proxy groups.

8. India–Iran relations have traditionally included cooperation in energy (notably crude oil imports), infrastructure (such as the Chabahar Port project), and diplomatic coordination in multilateral forums, though Iran’s support on Kashmir-related issues has been cautious and not uniformly pro-India.

9. Narendra Modi’s foreign policy has been characterized by increased engagement with the United States and Israel, including high-profile visits and strategic agreements, marking a shift from earlier doctrinal positions.

10. Pakistan has historically leveraged its geopolitical position to act as an intermediary in regional conflicts, maintaining ties with the US, China, and key Islamic nations despite internal challenges.

11. Reports of large-scale casualties in the Gaza Strip conflict have been widely documented by international organizations, though figures vary and remain contested in politically charged narratives.

12. Turkey, China, and Azerbaijan have, in recent geopolitical alignments, shown varying degrees of support for Pakistan in regional disputes, reflecting shifting alliances.

13. The term “Operation Sindoor” is used contextually to describe recent India–Pakistan tensions; details remain fluid and subject to differing national narratives and interpretations.

14. The phrase “Vishva Guru” is a political and cultural articulation used in contemporary Indian discourse to signify India’s aspiration for global leadership based on its civilisational heritage.

15. The concept of shahadat (martyrdom) in Shia Islam plays a significant role in shaping political resistance, drawing from historical events such as the Battle of Karbala.

16. India’s compliance with US sanctions regimes—particularly regarding oil imports from Iran and Venezuela—has been documented in policy shifts following American withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) in 2018.

17. The Chabahar Port project in Iran has been a strategic investment by India to access Afghanistan and Central Asia, bypassing Pakistan, and its progress has been affected by US sanctions and shifting diplomatic priorities.