Contents "The internationalist proletarian" n.17
IMPERIALIST WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST: A MANIFESTATION OF CAPITALISM’S CONTRADICTIONS
On February 28, 2026, the US and Israel began bombing Iran systematically; Iran responded by striking US, Israeli, and regional targets hosting US military bases. After six weeks of bombing, Iran retains its military response capability, the Strait of Hormuz is practically closed, and Israel is carrying out an offensive to displace the population of southern Lebanon.
This war has been triggered at a time when negotiations were underway between the US and Iran, and when the mediators (Oman) believed an agreement was within reach. However, precisely because of these circumstances, decisions were accelerated within the command hierarchy of the ruling faction of the US bourgeoisie so as not to miss the opportunity to launch an attack on Iran. And to add to the apparent paradox, this decision was made by the faction that had come to power promising not to start wars in general, and less so in the Middle East, and which had been propelled to power as a result of the exhaustion of the previous faction’s attempt at diplomatic-military expansion.
What led to the detonation of this war? What moment does it represent in the course of capitalism? What does it mean for the global working class?
The inexorable economic determinism
The specific sequences of events that lead to certain historical outcomes – involving individuals with their expressions of intent and justifications for their actions – may at first glance appear to be anecdotal or chance.
But chance manifests itself only at the intersection of necessary processes, and the resultants of this entire seemingly – and even actually – anarchic set ineluctably prevail in the direction determined by these necessary processes, by the economic laws that prevail in the material reality of the development of the productive forces, above and even against the apparent direction of those actions, intentions, and justifications.
What appears to be the result of decisions made by certain individuals is nothing more than the manifestation of deeper, underlying processes that determine not only the actions, intentions, and statements of these individuals, but also the specific framework in which they can necessarily unfold and the consequences of that unfolding.
Let’s hammer this point home before moving on to the following quotes from Engels, taken from the Party text “The individual as puppet of history” (1953): “«In nature… there are only blind, unconscious agencies... In the history of society, on the contrary, the actors are all endowed with consciousness, are men acting with deliberation or passion, working towards definite goals.... But this distinction, important as it is for historical investigation, particularly of single epochs and events, cannot alter the fact that the course of history is governed by inner general laws... That which is willed happens but rarely... thus the conflicts of innumerable individual wills and individual actions in the domain of history produce a state of affairs entirely analogous to that prevailing in the realm of unconscious nature. The ends of the actions are intended, but the results which actually follow from these actions are not intended; or when they do seem to correspond to the end intended, they ultimately have consequences quite other than those intended... Men make their own history, whatever its outcome may be, in that each person follows his own consciously desired end... the resultant of these many wills operating in different directions, and of their manifold effects upon the outer world, that constitutes history... When, therefore, it is a question of investigating the driving powers which – consciously or unconsciously, and indeed very often unconsciously – lie behind the motives of men who act in history and which constitute the real ultimate driving forces of history, then it is not a question so much of the motives of single individuals, however eminent, as of those motives which set in motion great masses, whole people, and again whole classes of the people in each people; and this, too, not merely for an instant, like the transient flaring up of a straw-fire which quickly dies down, but as a lasting action resulting in a great historical transformation.». (…)” (The individual as a puppet in history, Il Programma Comunista, no. 7–1953)
The inexorable relative overproduction
The course of capitalism follows the path of the inexorable relative OVERPRODUCTION of capital: the overproduction of commodity capital, productive capital, and money capital, which brings with it the specter of the TENDENCY OF THE RATE OF PROFIT TO FALL (Capital, Volume III, Section III).
Following the epileptic resumption of production after it had been halted during the 2020 lockdowns, relative overproduction has once again begun to take hold, as reflected in the trend toward deflation, the ballooning of debt and speculative capital, and the return to lower interest rates by central banks (see “The Internationalist Proletarian no.16, April 2025, p. 8-11).
As we explained when analyzing the process of supply chain de-inflammation following the epileptic resumption of production and circulation in 2022: “without the generation of more electric shocks, spasms and collapses, the general trend would be to return to the path of overproduction and deflation. (...) What it means is that capitalism can only try to get out of the swamp into which overproduction is sinking it through a growing series of crises, conflicts and spasms.” (“The Internationalist Proletarian” no.9, April 2022, p. 16).
Every time capitalism approaches this situation once again, a series of processes are set in motion that compel the actors on the global imperialist stage to act in accordance with this general necessity of capitalism, thereby producing this outcome. And this despite how convinced they may be that they are acting of their own free will or in their own particular interests – and even if this is true to some extent – insofar these particular wills and interests are determined by and are a specific manifestation of the effect of capitalism’s economic laws.
Overproduction exacerbates trade war
All this overproduction stifles the rate of profit, which is the only spur to capitalist production. But this overproduction does not develop in a vacuum, but in a context of unbridled competition between capitalist imperialisms which, in turn, develops in a historical context of the already completed expansion of capitalism to all corners of the globe, displacement of the center of gravity of capitalism to Asia and rupture of the division of the world after the Second World War, with the rise of the most recently formed imperialisms and the decline of the oldest ones.
The epicenter of this overproduction is Asia, from where the DEFLATIONARY avalanche of commodities floods the world market, trampling on the rest of imperialisms. This leads to the exacerbation of the trade war in which the oldest imperialisms (and in particular the US) try to defend themselves by unsuccessfully erecting tariff walls, against this VOLCANO that they contributed to develop in order to try to reverse the downward trend of their rate of profit (see page 13).
The role of oil overproduction
The capitalist world is in the midst of a transition (not without setbacks and contradictions) from fossil fuels to other sources of energy that make them less dependent on oil and the geopolitical use of its production and distribution. The development of the installation and cheapening of "renewable" energies has placed energy prices in negative territory as a recurrent phenomenon (see page 18).
States that have traditionally based their economy on oil production need to sell to make enough profit now to invest in alternatives and decrease their dependence on oil production. Thus, the once all-powerful OPEC (which now, even as OPEC+, barely controls half of the world market) has begun to gradually increase its production, bringing the excess supply in 2025 to 1.5 million barrels per day, an excess that could reach 4 million barrels per day in 2026. This has caused oil reserves to reach their highest level since 2021, with 8,210 million barrels stored globally and has pushed down the price of oil below $59 (Brent) and $56 (WTI) per barrel.
In its process of retreat, the US has taken refuge in becoming the world's leading oil producer since 2018 and, more recently, has imposed its hegemonic access to the world's largest oil reserves: Venezuela. For the viability of fracking oil, prices below $50 (WTI) are a death sentence and for Venezuelan oil even prices close to $60 (Brent) are unviable (see pages 16 and 19 of this issue).
Capitalism needed the elimination of a part of the excess supply of oil and the material reality has pushed the US – due to its situation of greater exposure to the price – to be the agent of this need through the paralysis and destruction of part of this PRODUCTIVE OVERCAPACITY.
War is a necessity of the capitalist system
War is not the result of the pathological psychology of certain individuals, it is a necessity of the capitalist system. In capitalism, military war plays a necessary role as a continuation of the trade war and as the only means of settling the new division of the world, but, above all, it plays the role of a necessary regulator of the overproduction of commodities and means of production that must be cyclically destroyed in order to relaunch the rate of profit and a new cycle of accumulation: "The equilibrium will be restored by the immobilization and even the DESTRUCTION of capital in greater or lesser proportion. And this will be extended in part to the material substance of capital (...) The paralysis of production thus effected will prepare a subsequent expansion of production within the limits of capitalism. This will bring the circle back to date. (...) Moreover, as the conditions of production expand, as the market expands and as productive capacity increases, the same vicious circle as before will be resumed." (Capital, Volume III, Chapter XV, K. Marx).
Capitalism needed another electroshock and war is necessary to decide what part of the surplus capital has to be sacrificed: "Losses are inevitable for the class as a whole. But what part of them does each capitalist have to bear? This is decided by STRENGTH and Cunning." (Capital, Volume III, Chapter XV, K. Marx).
Lurches and continuities in the US direction
The US decline as a hegemonic capitalist power and the retreat imposed on it by the development of the productive forces in the rest of the areas where capitalism has already expanded has been reflected in the consciousness of the US bourgeoisie in two approaches: that of trying to maintain or expand its diplomatic and military positions, on the one hand, and that of the walled-in retreat sublimated as if it were a voluntary act, on the other.
It is symptomatic that, despite the lurches and changes of course when the exhaustion of one of the two approaches becomes evident, the succession between factions of the American bourgeoisie has also shown continuities: we have seen one faction maintain the tariffs initiated by the other, or the latter engage in military actions more typical of the former’s approach. It is not individuals who decide, but rather they are pushed to act by laws and processes they do not control.
Let us remember that "(...) Just as one does not judge an individual by what he thinks about himself, so one cannot judge such a period of transformation by its consciousness, but, on the contrary, this consciousness must be explained from the contradictions of material life, from the conflict existing between the social forces of production and the relations of production." (Preface to the Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, K. Marx, 1859)
The Ups and Downs of the Tariff Bully
The faction of the bourgeoisie in favor of walled-in withdrawal retook the helm of the US after the exhaustion of the attempt of the faction in favor of diplomatic-military expansion. Several sectors of the US bourgeoisie joined forces in this re-edition of the walled-in retreat, collecting and integrating the interests of the oil sector, the financial sector, the large technological platforms and the Latin American bourgeoisie based in the US.
The tariff offensive (see pp. 9-13 of this issue) that began with the pompous "liberation day" has traced a parabola in which the tariffs actually imposed or "agreed upon" were substantially lower than those initially announced, only to then succumb to the resistance of its own bourgeois social body and finally be annulled by the US courts themselves, which are now facing claims from thousands of US companies.
But the important results of this process have been the US capitulation to the counteroffensive of Chinese imperialism (blockade of rare earths, sanctions on companies, etc.) and having forced the rest of the competing imperialisms to strengthen ties between them, unravelling agreements that had been blocked for years such as EU-Mercosur, EU-India, EU-Australia, EU-Indonesia, etc. and rapprochements that seemed very difficult such as India-China.
Warmongering and annexationist bully retreat
The current ruling current in the US began its second term with the dismantling of USAID, the withdrawal of the US from the World Health Organization and the Paris Agreement, to later leave the UN Human Rights Council and, at the beginning of this year, stage its disdain for the institutions born of the Second World War as instruments of its hegemony: "The US is abandoning the UN framework treaty on climate change and, under the direct instruction of the country's president, Donald Trump, is also reducing or eliminating participation and funding in 31 bodies of the United Nations system, in addition to another 35 not linked to the multilateral organization" (Expansión, 09-01-2026).
The impotent withdrawal of these bodies has been complemented by the creation of the Board of Peace, to administer the reconstruction of Gaza (where there has supposedly been a ceasefire since October 2025 that consists of the Israeli army continuing to shoot) and with the pretensions of managing world peace. In addition to the US itself, Albania, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Belarus, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Egypt, Hungary, Indonesia, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kuwait, Morocco, Pakistan, Paraguay, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan and Vietnam are part of this body. Not Canada, not Mexico, not Australia, not South Korea, not Japan, not India, not Russia, not China, not Brazil, not South Africa, not the UK, not the EU, not the Philippines, etc. The US has managed to attract behind it (and we will see for how long) about 7% of the world's GDP! A complete RIDICULE, announced with great fanfare.
The present re-edition of the walled-in retreat has incorporated elements of diplomatic-military expansionism, serving as a FIG LEAF for the limitations and insufficiencies of its own approach, attempting to make the fading specter of its military power reappear. Examples of this include the restoration of the Monroe Doctrine to try to regain influence in Central and South America, the threats to annex Greenland, the bombing of seven countries in less than a year (Venezuela, Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Nigeria, Yemen, Iran), the intervention in Venezuela to control oil production, and the unleashing of the war against Iran.
Causes, expectations and results
The faction of the American bourgeoisie in favor of the walled-in retreat found itself in an internal situation that was increasingly difficult to control: its anti-immigration staging had failed; its tariff policy had been knocked out from within by its own bourgeois social body; oil prices were approaching the pain threshold for the US oil industry and were unviable for the Venezuelan one; industrial overproduction, driven from the Asian epicenter, put pressure on the world market; and rising oil production in an already saturated market threatened to plunge prices further.
All of this pushed the ruling faction of the US bourgeoisie to pick up the pace before completely losing the formal excuse to attack Iran and unleash war in the Persian Gulf. Emboldened by its success in Venezuela and swollen with its own propaganda regarding the previous bombings of Iran, the war against Iran appeared to the US as a panacea capable of simultaneously resolving several problems: diverting media attention from the collapse of its tariff policy as dictated by the Supreme Court; striking the Southeast Asian countries and, to some extent, the EU – both of which it had failed to subdue through tariffs – by generating a supply shock; raising oil prices to make fracking and Venezuelan oil profitable, while shifting the losses from lower volumes onto the low‑cost producers who were increasing their output; punishing the Gulf States by interrupting the development of their alternatives to the oil economy; pushing Arab, Asian, and European states, affected to varying degrees by the supply crisis, to join the US-led military coalition; restoring fear of US military power through a massive aerial demonstration; and finally, obtaining the electoral dividends that had accompanied past attacks on Iran.
But none of these perspectives or FLIGHT FORWARD, depending on how one looks at it, was destined to materialize so easily and most are condemned to produce effects contrary to those desired in the medium, long term, and even in the short term.
Although the dust raised by the war has displaced media attention from the collapse of tariff policy, the current tariffs will have to be validated by Congress in 150 days and – especially if the military attack does not end in a clear success, which is highly unlikely – it will become even more difficult for the US to impose its conditions on the rest. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has led several countries to move closer to Iran, which has allowed the transit of vessels in exchange for a fee in yuan, weakening the role of the dollar as an energy currency and strengthening Chinese imperialism. To prevent oil prices from spiraling out of control, the US has been forced to allow the sale of Russian and Iranian oil, while the paralysis and destruction of productive capacity in the Arab Gulf states – without managing to bend them into collaborating against Iran – undermines the basis for their future alignment with the US; by failing to get other states to submit to a military coalition under its command, the US exposes its inability to impose itself and pushes others – particularly the EU – to seek a more autonomous role and to strengthen ties with other imperialisms unwilling to be dragged along; the demonstration of destructive potential is costing the US billions, burning through its arsenal without managing to subdue Iran, which is responding with much cheaper military equipment; and finally, the ruling American faction, which had been lifted into power by its promises not to intervene militarily abroad, would only have enjoyed the support of its electoral base in the case of a very short action with spectacular success, whereas the reality is that no outcome that could be called a success is in sight, nor is it possible to know how much longer the situation will last.
The role of the Strait of Hormuz
According to data from the International Energy Agency (IEA), the Strait of Hormuz is home to the following volumes of crude oil, refined and natural gas:
"n 2025, nearly 15 mb/d of crude oil, nearly 34% of global crude oil trade, passed through the Strait of Hormuz – with most of the exports destined for Asia. China and India combined received 44% of these exports. (…) Japan and Korea particularly reliant on oil flows passing through the Strait. (…) just 4%, of the region’s crude flows are routed into Europe" (IEA, 28-02-2026).
If we talk about oil in general (crude oil plus refined products) the volume increases: "In 2025, nearly 20 mb/d of oil was exported via the Strait." (IEA, 28-02-2026), although the percentage of the total decreases since it corresponds to 20% of world consumption.
"Asian markets are the main destination of Qatari and UAE LNG. In 2025, almost 90% of the total volumes exported via the Strait of Hormuz was destined to the Asian market, while the share of Europe was just over 10%. (…) the share of LNG delivered via the Strait accounted for around 27% of Asia’s total LNG imports in 2025 and for just around 7% of Europe’s total LNG inflows" (IEA, 28-02-2026).
Add to this the following data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) in this June 2025 study: "We estimate that 84% of the crude oil and condensate and 83% of the liquefied natural gas that moved through the Strait of Hormuz went to Asian markets in 2024. China, India, Japan, and South Korea were the top destinations for crude oil moving through the Strait of Hormuz to Asia, accounting for a combined 69% of all Hormuz crude oil and condensate flows in 2024. These markets would likely be most affected by supply disruptions at Hormuz" (EIA, 16-06-2025). According to data from the Statistical Review of World Energy prepared by the Energy Institute, Asia-Pacific oil consumption calculated as of December 31, 2024 was 38.44 million barrels per day, 37% of world consumption.
It is obvious that the role of the Strait of Hormuz is not limited to the transit of 20% of the world's oil "in general". The Strait of Hormuz is, in fact, the ENERGY ARTERY for the supply of 27% of the natural gas and 42% of the oil that sustain the economies of the Asia-Pacific States. Attacking the Strait of Hormuz – or generating a situation that leads to its closure, even partial – does not merely raise the price of oil, it constitutes a DIRECT ATTACK ON THE ENERGY SUPPLY that keeps Asian capitalism functioning.
Asia-Pacific's structural dependence on this pathway makes any disruption an immediate risk to its economic stability. 50 products pass through the Strait of Hormuz (noble gases, urea, fertilizers, steel, diamonds, aluminum alloy, methanol, etc.), accounting "for a cumulative $773 billion in value and an average 14.9% of total global exports for each product category" (Bloomberg, 27-03-2026) and whose destinations are mainly ports in Asia-Pacific, although fertilizers – for example – also reach African ports. Its blockade also impacts part of the inputs that feed Asian manufacturing, in addition to generating a global shortage that increases prices on a global scale.
The closure of the Strait of Hormuz
The attack on Iran was to force its response and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. The US, despite all the subsequent marketing calling for the opening of the strait, knew perfectly well that this was going to be the first consequence of its action.
In fact, it can be said that the first closure of the Strait of Hormuz is the work of the US: "The US issued a warning to shipping that vessels in the region should stay 30 nautical miles away from its military assets." (Bloomberg, 28-02-2026).
Considering that at its narrowest point the strait is only 29 nautical miles (54km):"Japanese giant Nippon Yusen KK earlier told its fleet not to navigate Hormuz, while Greece told its vast merchant fleet to reassess passage (...). One owner had said they interpreted the US advisory as effectively closing the waterway." (Bloomberg, 28-02-2026).
In this way, the US managed to deal the Asia-Pacific states the blow to their supply chain, paralyzing part of the surplus oil and, specifically, the cheapest oil to extract that coincides with that of the countries that were hurting the price by increasing their production. The US plan also included escorting oil tankers and cargo ships through the strait, instituting itself as a gendarme in the area, including "plans to require ships escorted by the US Navy through the Strait of Hormuz to buy US government insurance" (Financial Times, 18-03-2026).
But the US and Israel have not been able to substantially eliminate the ballistic capability of Iran, which has retained half of its missile launchers and together with its Shahed drones has maintained its ability to impose the closure of the strait by its own means. The US is not willing to assume the cost of an intervention to secure the passage, assuming that it could achieve it, and it has not managed to drag the rest of imperialisms into a common front against Iran. This has substantially altered the plans described.
Instead of the US protecting the passage by collecting its bribe, it is Iran that is making maritime traffic economically and politically profitable. Since the beginning of the war, Iran has allowed ships from at least the following countries to pass: Turkey, Pakistan, India, Gambia, China, Oman and also France, Greece and Japan, for a nominal fee in yuan or stablecoins: "For oil tankers, the starting price in the negotiations is typically around $1 per barrel of oil, paid in yuan, or stablecoins" (Bloomberg, 01-04-2026).
In addition, Iran has announced that Iraq has permission to pass: "’Brotherly Iraq is exempt from any restrictions we have imposed on the Strait of Hormuz,’ (...) The declaration has the potential to unleash as much as 3 million barrels a day of Iraqi oil cargoes" (Bloomberg, 04-04-2026).
For its part, Iran continues to export through the Strait of Hormuz: "Exports are estimated at about 1.6 MMbpd in March, largely unchanged from before the conflict, with cargoes continuing to load at Kharg Island and transit the strait" (Bloomberg, 26-03-2026).
Although the passage of non-Iranian tankers has been increasing, for the moment it stands at one million barrels per day, as can be seen in the following graph.
Compensatory sources of supply
To avoid an excessive escalation of the price of oil and also as a gesture towards India, the US has allowed the purchase of Russian oil already loaded: "The backlog of tankers full of Russian crude is slowly starting to ease after remaining stable at about 140 million barrels since mid-December" (Bloomberg, 16-03-2026). And with the same objective, the US has allowed the sale of Iranian oil: "the exemption will allow 140 million barrels of Iranian crude oil loaded on ships to reach the market" (La Vanguardia, 22-03-2026).
On the other hand, "Saudi Arabia’s crucial East-West pipeline that circumvents the Strait of Hormuz is pumping oil at its full capacity of 7 million barrels a day, (...) Crude exports via Yanbu have now reached about 5 million barrels a day and the kingdom is also exporting 700,000 to 900,000 barrels a day of refined products (...). Of the 7 million barrels a day that go through the pipeline, 2 million are destined for Saudi refineries" (Bloomberg, 28-03-2026). Despite the Houthis' entry into the armed conflict, attacks from Yemen have focused on firing missiles at Israel and are refraining from blocking Saudi oil exports from the Red Sea (which would derail the truce with Saudi Arabia that has been in place since 2022).
The other main pipeline on the Arabian Peninsula that allows traffic to be avoided through the Strait of Hormuz, has also increased the volume of pumping: "Crude loadings from Fujairah averaged about 1.9 MMbpd between March 20–24, up roughly 57% from the 2025 average, according to tanker-tracking data" (Bloomberg, 27-03-2026). Attacks on the port by Iran make the export unstable, but the port has a storage capacity that can allow quick access to the accumulated oil if the attacks cease: "In addition to Adnoc’s crude export facilities, Fujairah port has storage capacity of more than 70 million barrels of oil and fuels for traders needing rapid supply access" (Bloomberg, 16-03-2026).
The debt problem that arose between Venezuelan oil and Indian refineries (see page 17) has vanished and Venezuelan production is slowly recovering: "(...) shipments to India multiplied in March, surpassing those to the US. Now, domestic exports are around 890,000 barrels per day, the highest figure since December 2019. (…) Venezuelan production is on the rise; This is achieved with a steady flow of imported diluents. Imports in March amounted to nine shipments, up from seven in February. In March, Indian refineries (...) bought 343,000 barrels per day" (El Nacional, 02-04-2026).
The magnitude of the supply mismatch
As mentioned above, world oil reserves are quantified at 8,200 million barrels. To get an idea of the order of magnitude, this amount represents (8,200 / 20 = 410) the oil that passes through the Strait of Hormuz for more than 1 year. That said, the reserves are not evenly distributed and are not directly accessible in their entirety.
So, if of the 20 million barrels per day (mbd) that crossed Hormuz, 7 mbd can be diverted through the Red Sea and around 2.6 mbd continues to pass through the strait – between Iranian and non-Iranian oil, an amount that could increase to 5 mbd if the transit of Iraqi oil becomes effective – the gross deficit is around 8 mbd. Even considering the projected global oversupply by 2026, estimated at 4 mbd, a net hole of 4 mbd remains in the global market.
The 280 million barrels of Iran and Russia would represent the 70-day coverage of these 4 mbd of net deficit or 35 days on the gross deficit of 8 mbd. But also in this case, access is not immediate or homogeneous and they are specific volumes corresponding to cargoes already shipped (unless the US de facto allows the continuity of these flows, although it does not formally declare it, which is in fact happening with Iranian oil). The new flow of 343,000 barrels per day from Venezuela to India serves as a patch, but also requires 45 days of transport to reach its destination.
Consequently, these compensations plus the level of global reserves explain why the rise in the price of oil is relatively limited (and more so if it is deflated in relation to the moments of previous increases above $100 a barrel) and falls rapidly whenever there is a sign of a cessation of hostilities. But this does not change the fact that the shock is real and structural and that its impact in terms of supply is concentrated in Asia, while its impact in terms of price manages to raise it without completely getting it out of control. In both cases, the US is BENEFITING from the situation.
Although the paralysis of traffic through the Strait of Hormuz is already causing a major shock to the supply chain, part of the facilities have also been destroyed, generating a more long-term effect: "More than 40 energy assets across nine countries in the Middle East have been ‘severely or very severely’ damaged by the war, International Energy Agency Executive Director Fatih Birol said, potentially prolonging disruptions to global supply chains after the conflict ends." (Bloomberg, 23-03-2026).
Impact on Asia-Pacific countries
The reserves are unevenly distributed in the different countries of Asia: "Among the large Asian countries, the most vulnerable are India and South Korea (...) since its current inventories cover the equivalent of 70 days of imports through Hormuz. In the case of China, that ratio shoots up to about 300 days (Beijing accumulated crude oil in the months prior to the war), while Japan has 170 days of coverage. In small Asian countries, the situation is more dramatic. Singapore has reserves for 40 days of Hormuz imports, and that ratio drops to 30 days in Myanmar, Vietnam and the Philippines. In the case of Sri Lanka, it is 60 days" (Expansión, 20-03-2026).
It is worth remembering that Japan and South Korea are members of the International Energy Agency and participated in the coordinated release of 400 million barrels of strategic reserves announced on March 12. This allowed the impact on prices to be partially cushioned, but it does not eliminate their structural vulnerability in terms of physical supply.
Chinese reserves are obvious, more specifically:
"Coal mining surged to a record, coinciding with a huge wave of solar and wind supply and their battery backups, which are more than meeting growth in electricity demand. China has also been steadily increasing oil and gas production at home. The country has been chipping away at fossil fuel use in key areas. EVs and hybrids now outsell traditional autos in China, leaving gasoline – which makes up more than a fifth of the country’s oil consumption – in long-term decline. Beijing has built significant buffers as well. Tens of millions of barrels of illicit crude from Iran, Russia and Venezuela are sitting on tankers near its coast, according to data provider Kpler. China’s strategic oil reserves have risen to an estimated 1.4 billion barrels – more than triple US levels, and enough to cover about six months of lost Middle Eastern imports in a worst-case scenario." (Bloomberg, 11-03-2026).
The implications of this are that Chinese imperialism is very well prepared for the situation that is developing, that it is therefore the least vulnerable to the blow dealt by the US and that those who are being particularly damaged by the US action are the rest of the countries in Asia, which the US would like to attract but can only RUN OVER.
This may accelerate the rapprochement of several of these countries with China, if the situation generated by the US is prolonged, and although China cannot replace the Persian Gulf countries as an oil supplier, it can use its position of strength as a selective hedge and increase its influence in the region. India has already had to ask China for help in supplying urea: "Approximately 47% of the world's supply of sulphur, 43% of urea, 27% of ammonia and 24% of phosphate (all fertilizers) are at risk following the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. UNCTAD (United Nations) estimates that 16 million tons of fertilizers transit through the area and that urea represents two thirds of the total. (…) India has asked China to authorize the sale of some urea shipments. (China controls urea exports through a quota system. (…) Beijing is the world's leading producer of urea" (La Vanguardia, 13-03-2026).
Differential rent and the price of oil
The conformation of the price of oil is subject to the laws of ground rent, explained by Marx in Section 6 of Book III of Capital. This theory was put forward in relation to agricultural products but is applicable to all resources subject to monopoly. More specifically, the price of oil is subject to the differential rent that arises when there is a gradation of fertility (or ease of oil extraction).
In general, the price of oil production is determined by the price of production on the least profitable land that must be used to satisfy demand. Extractive installations that produce at a lower cost are sold at the price marked by the worst land and obtain a surplus on the basis of that regulating price, the differential rent: "The price of production on the worst soil, i.e., which yields no rent, is always the one regulating the market-price, although (...) better and better soil was constantly drawn into cultivation” (Capital, Book III, Section 6, Chapter XXXIX).
But increased production on the best land may also affect the reference price if, as production rises, the worst land becomes redundant, is displaced from its role, and the next worst land takes on this price-regulating role, on the basis of which the rest derives its differential rent: "In such a case, the price of grain produced on the best soil is a regulating one ill so far as it depends upon the quantity produced on such soil to what extent soil type A [the worst land] remains the regulator" (Capital, Book III, Section 6, Chapter XXXIX).
As we have seen, there is an excess supply of oil over demand (see p. 18). If this is specifically generated by increased production in areas where the extraction price is lower, this displaces areas with the highest costs. Therefore, even an eventual balance between supply and demand, if based on this new composition, would imply a lower price.
The Arab States of the Persian Gulf
Let's start by elucidating how oil costs and prices are combined in this area of the capitalist world. To do this, we will consider three related quantities: the lifting cost, the full-cycle cost, the fiscal breakeven cost.
It is clear from this table that the cost of extraction in the main Arab states of the Persian Gulf is very low and that the equilibrium price for the full cycle (for existing oil wells) is between three and four times lower than its equivalent for the Venezuelan Merey or the US Shale.
This low cost is the reason why the paralysis or withdrawal of these wells from the market is particularly effective in raising the price of oil and guaranteeing the viability of the most expensive projects and the consequent strategic value of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz to achieve this result.
However, there is an important point to note from the table, that is, oil revenues still play an important role and the budget balance of the state – especially in Saudi Arabia – is based on a price that is substantially higher. This means that Saudi Arabia is interested in a high oil price, which is why it has led OPEC+ cuts in recent times.
In addition, Saudi Arabia normally produces around 9 million barrels per day but is now still able to produce 7 million barrels per day, which are exported through the Red Sea. From a strictly oil point of view, Saudi Arabia may be making up for the loss of volume with the price increase with the closure of Hormuz. The real SACRIFICES from an oil and gas point of view are: Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman and the United Arab Emirates, which has an exit in the port of Fujairah but is disabled from practice due to Iran's attacks. In any case, the percentage of dependency of each country must be taken into account to see the real impact of the closure in each of them.
But the impact of the conflict is not limited to the partial closure of Hormuz. Iran has attacked industrial, energy and airport infrastructure in several countries of the Arabian Peninsula, directly hitting the economic transformation project that these states had built over the last decade. All of them – Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman and Bahrain – have invested billions in escaping the oil trap by creating an alternative economic model based on tourism, airlines, financial centers, data centers, major sporting events, global logistics and free trades zones. The United Arab Emirates boasted in January 2026 that "85% of GDP already comes from activities not linked to oil" (El País, 27-01-2026) and its goal of becoming a regional hub for tourists from the US, Australia, China or Japan. However, all of these sectors depend on one prerequisite: stability. The current conflict destroys it. Air routes are detoured, insurance is flying up, major events are canceled, financial centers are losing attractiveness, data centers are attacked, and the region is no longer a safe space for long-term investments.
"The war in the Middle East is costing the region's tourism industry $600 million (€517 million) a day" (Financial Times, 13-03-2026) and its role as an aeronautical hub has been reduced to a minimum: "Emirates is operating flights to Dubai that are near-empty in some cases (...). Flights from destinations in the US and continental Europe have been impacted the hardest, with planes returning from Prague or Budapest only about 5% to 10% occupied (...) Flights leaving Dubai show a very different pattern, as many people depart the city on the reduced number of planes available. Emirates then flies the jets back to its hub with low occupancy" (Bloomberg, 16-03-2026).
In addition, these states are highly dependent on foreign labor: "24 million workers and salaried workers, the overwhelming majority of whom are Asian" (La Vanguardia, 25-03-2026) who, if the conflict were to increase their virulence, they might want to return to their home countries, although the economic trap may also cause them to remain despite the growing danger: "There are many Asian countries that are extremely dependent on remittances from their emigrants to Arabia. The most important is Nepal, where 25% of GDP depends on them. Also highly vulnerable are the Philippines (7.5% of its GDP), Pakistan and Bangladesh (about 6%), Sri Lanka (4.5%) (...) In the case of India, the state of Kerala (...) depends as much as Nepal on remittances from its workers in the Arabian Peninsula" (La Vanguardia, 25-03-2026).
The frustration with the situation generated by the US and Israel is evident: "’Who gave you the authority to drag our region into a war with Iran? (…)’, a Dubai billionaire and hotel tycoon, said in a post on X on March 5. ‘You have placed the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council and the Arab countries at the heart of a danger they did not choose.’" (Bloomberg, 06-03-2026).
In the background of the US’ actions as it runs roughshod over the Gulf States lies its relationship with China:
“Between 2014 and 2023, Beijing provided about $2.34 for every dollar Washington donated or lent to Middle East countries (...) China has amassed about $270 billion worth of investments and construction projects (...) In the United Arab Emirates, Chinese companies are developing the world’s largest battery energy storage system, while in Saudi Arabia they’re building solar plants and data centers. Chinese cars last year counted the UAE as their third biggest market globally” (Bloomberg, 10-04-2026).
This does not take away the frustration of the Arab States with Iran that responds by shooting at everyone: "despite the UAE and other Gulf states preventing American and Israeli forces from using their territory or airspace for strikes on Tehran." (Bloomberg, 06-03-2026). The countries that have received the most attacks – in descending order – are the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Even Hamas came to the defense of the Arab monarchies: “urged its ‘brothers in Iran to avoid targeting neighbouring countries’, saying in a statement that all regional nations should co-operate ‘to preserve the bonds of brotherhood’” (BBC, 14-03-2026).
Financial and monetary implications
Since the start of the war, "Chinese stocks have fallen less than those in other world markets, the yuan has remained stable against the dollar, and government bond yields have barely changed" (Bloomberg, 11-03-2026), while global investors have chosen to stay invested by rotating their portfolios: "money has clearly moved from one side of the world to the other (...) Emerging markets attracted 11,200 million dollars, with South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong leading the way; Japan recorded its largest weekly inflow of new money of the year (4,600 million); and Europe added 3,100 million between pan-European indices and local markets. The only exception was the United States" (Expansión, 24-03-2026).
At the same time, "foreign central banks have been net sellers of Treasuries for five consecutive weeks. Holdings at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York have dropped by roughly $82 billion to $2.7 trillion, the lowest level since 2012. (…) The share of Treasuries held by foreign investors had already fallen to around 32%, down from half in the early 2010s. Central banks became net sellers in early 2025. For the first time since 1996, global central banks now hold more gold in aggregate than US government bonds" (Bloomberg, 06-04-2026).
The combination of Chinese financial stability, global capital turnover to Asia and Europe, massive sell-offs of US debt and accelerating accumulation of gold by central banks confirms that the weakening of the US position as the financial center of world capitalism continues.
The specter of what was once the first power
The US founded their hegemony in the capitalist world on the basis of the bombings of Hamburg and Dresden as well as the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Since then, US imperialism has tried to demonstrate their terrorist capacity to the world with decreasing success: in 1990 (first Gulf War), in 2001 (Afghanistan) and 2003 (Iraq).
The withdrawing with their tail between its legs from Afghanistan in 2021 showed the world and the US bourgeoisie itself its own inability to keep its army deployed on the ground.
Each time, the US is less able to force its "allies" to participate in or facilitate its military action. The Azores Pact with the US, the United Kingdom and Spain is a long way off, and now the last two imperialist countries are putting obstacles in the way of collaborating with military action. European imperialism resists involvement: "'It's not Europe's war.' This was stated yesterday by the EU's High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security" (Expansión, 17-03-2026), "’We will not participate in this war’, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said Monday night. ‘We will not do it’. ‘The simple answer is no’, Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis (...). ‘Norway will not do that’, Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store agreed in Oslo. (...) ‘We are not a party to the conflict’, Macron said. ‘France will never take part in operations to open or free the Strait of Hormuz in the current context.’" (Bloomberg, 17-03-2026).
And not only has Spain denied the use of its military bases, but even Italy "denied the United States the use of the Sigonella military base in Sicily for several of its aircraft bound for the Middle East" (La Vanguardia, 01-04-2026). Also the United Kingdom "(...) has said it won’t join offensive operations against Iran (...)’We will not be drawn into the wider war’, Starmer said” (Bloomberg, 16-03-2026). It is not that they are acts of bravery but rather the necessary admission of their inability to join in and swing the balance in their favor. European imperialism is losing ground militarily, but British imperialism is also in decline: "The United Kingdom has been forced to borrow a frigate from Germany to meet its obligations to NATO" (The Telegraph, 27-03-2026). Neither Japan nor South Korea, much more impacted by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, have agreed to get involved.
The other situation that can no longer be hidden is the RUPTURE of the world division and the established order after the 2nd world slaughter. The president of the European Commission admitted this when she said "Europe can no longer be the guardian of the old world order, of a world that has disappeared and will not return" (Expansión, 12-03-2026). The situation pushes some to dream of emerging from the nightmare by setting themselves up as the unifying force of a group of non-aligned countries: "’Our objective is not to be the vassals of two hegemonic powers,' [Macron, French president] told to the students in Seoul. 'We don’t want to depend on the dominance, let’s say on China, or we don’t want to be too much exposed to the unpredictability of the US.' (…) He ticked off other similarly aligned countries: Australia, Brazil, Canada and India. Together, he argued, this coalition can work on artificial intelligence, space, energy, nuclear energy, defense, security – ‘whatever’" (Bloomberg, 03-04-2026).
And to complete the CIRCUS, the buffoon who represents US imperialism affirms (rightly) that NATO is a "paper tiger" but cannot make the US leave this organization because "in 2023 the US Congress passed a law [promoted by current Secretary of State Marco Rubio] that prevented a president of the country from taking the step unilaterally" (Expansión, 02-04-2026).
Ceasefire: US saved by the bell
The US has repeatedly fallen into the error of thinking that eliminating an individual was enough to achieve its objectives: the Shah in Iran, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Gaddafi in Libya, etc., and it has always turned out the other way because these individuals were nothing more than the manifestation of an existing social body or of the needs imposed by the development of the productive forces. The action in Venezuela, in which the individual Maduro has been handed over by the Army Party to make deals with the United States, has made them forget previous experience.
In a sense, the Iranian bourgeoisie has had more depth of thought than the US bourgeoisie and has designed its survival as an imperialist power by counting on its leaders to fall in the first blows, as they have. But the fact that the US and Israel liquidated the entire Iranian leadership in the first attack and that in successive attacks they have eliminated several more layers of command, has not prevented the Iranian army and Iran's Islamic Revolutionary (sic) Guard from continuing to function and their battalions from being able to continue attacks on pre-selected targets even if the chain of command is broken. Mistaking Iran for Venezuela has proven costly for the US.
Incapable of militarily defeating Iran despite firing all its very expensive arsenal, incapable of actively dragging the Arab states of the Gulf into the conflict despite being the target of Iranian fire, nor of dragging European and British imperialism, nor Japan or South Korea, left with the alternative of stopping bombing without having achieved anything and, even worse, leaving Iran as the de facto owner of the Strait of Hormuz as the status quo, the buffoon Trump issued an ULTIMATUM. After postponing the ultimatum, he did not want to fulfill, the buffoon rhetoric began to have delirious touches threatening to send Iran back to the stone age and wipe out an entire civilization. The only action that that would have been consistent with these statements was the dropping of atomic bombs on Iran. Fortunately for the buffoon, the Pakistani army managed to orchestrate a two-week ceasefire that allowed an honorable exit to the US and the US grasped at straws so that its BLUFFING would not be exposed.
In fact, the ceasefire is not only the way out that it could not find, but it could even be a situation in which the US can achieve part of its objectives. Now that much of the damage has been done and that the impact on the supply chain has materialized, in order to achieve part of the objectives, the maintenance of a sufficiently unstable situation that does not force the US to be exposed again or to continue wasting its arsenals without achieving anything, could be an interesting option for the US.
On an immediate level, with the Strait of Hormuz one step away from being closed again at any time, the price of oil could remain moderately elevated and could also function as a somewhat effective blackmail on the Arab and Asian states.
Even if the US could achieve these results in this way, the longer-term effects are along the lines of deepening its process of DECLINE and ISOLATION. The US has shown that it can still inflict damage and impose a partial collapse on the capitalist world, but it is not capable of defeating Iran, just as it could not defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan. The fear the US now manages to inspire is no longer that of a hegemonic power dominating the capitalist world, but that of an ADRIFT bully capable of causing trouble at any moment, and whom no one can trust
This will push the rest of the capitalist states even more to provide themselves with alternatives and to replace their dependence on both the US and oil. And yet, no one can rule out that, in its withdrawal as a capitalist hegemonic power, the US will be pushed in a desperate action and use the atomic bombs on which it founded its hegemony after the 2nd world slaughter.
Israel has its agenda, but it can't play alone
Although both Israel and the US have joined forces to attack Iran, the reality is that they have different motivations and objectives. Israel needs the US to help it bomb Iran so that it can carry out the offensive against southern Lebanon without having to deal with Hezbollah and Iran at the same time. On the other hand, the US needs Israel's help to try to subdue Iran.
For the Israeli bourgeoisie, it is a question of weakening as much as possible the allies of Iran and those opposed to Israeli expansion and consolidation. In the process initiated with the Hamas attack of October 7, 2023 and the subsequent occupation of Gaza by the Israeli army, Iran has been progressively losing its positions (in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria) under systematic attack by Israel and to a lesser extent by the US (see "The International Proletarian" no. 15, January 2025, p. 22). Iran has been accepting these losses in order to maintain its diplomatic relationship with Saudi Arabia and within the BRICS, trying to avoid precisely the current situation. The direct and coordinated attack by Israel and Iran has forced him to break the deck. Israel seeks to impose its conditions on Lebanon and therefore intends to continue the offensive even if the US and Iran reach a ceasefire agreement.
Capitalism is moving towards world war
The US is emptying its arsenals, using multi-million dollar missiles to shoot down drones of just a few thousand, which shows its difficulty in imposing a decisive air advantage and will leave it temporarily weakened to face other fronts while it replenishes its military capability. This emptying, however, serves as a stimulus for the arms industry and to justify that "defence spending will reach 1.5 trillion dollars in 2027, a figure that would represent an increase of 66% compared to the already historic 901 billion approved for this year (...) multiplying by more than six that of China" (Expansión, 09-01-2026). At the same time, European imperialism "plans to mobilize 800 billion euros for defence until 2030" (Expansión, 13-03-2026), in a context in which more than 100 countries increased their military spending in 2024, reaching 2.7 trillion dollars.
Another important factor of today's conflicts is that, although they remain geographically localized, they involve more and more capitalist powers, being local conflicts with global intervention. The war in Ukraine is a clear example. But the war in the Strait of Hormuz has shown the extent to which this trend has accelerated: Ukraine "Soon rushed some 200 trainers in drone interception to the Gulf states (...) to offer help with their war in exchange for support in his. Ukraine’s leader says he signed 10-year deals worth billions of dollars with three of these wealthy petrostates – Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates – at the end of last week. He said the agreements involved the supply and joint production of Ukrainian drones, (…) in exchange for Gulf energy and other ‘scarce resources’.” (Bloomberg, 01-04-2026). The sinking of an Iranian military ship returning from joint maneuvers with India and the US itself, by a US submarine off the coast of Sri Lanka, is also an indicator of the trend of conflicts to develop on a global scale. This war is therefore an episode in the PREPARATION OF THE THIRD WORLD WAR.
Against imperialist war, proletarian revolution
The only way to oppose the wars that capitalism produces is the resumption of the class struggle against our own bourgeoisie, the rupture of the national interclassist front (in the belligerent countries and in the rest). For this we need to fight against the organizational and ideological influence exerted by the bourgeoisie through state-integrated unionism and through parliamentarism, developing an extensive network of solidarity and struggle on the labor union level, outside the tentacles of the State, in which the International Communist Party has gained a decisive influence.
In order to carry out its historic mission, the working class needs the International Communist Party which must gather the most advanced and determined part of the proletariat, unifying the efforts of the working masses by directing them in the struggle for contingent interests and results, to the general struggle for the world revolution, by the transitional establishment of the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat towards a classless society, without private property, without wage labor, without state, without mercantile and company regime.
The slogan of revolutionaries worldwide must be uncompromisingly and without exception:
- Rejection of all nationalism: “the working class has no country.”
- Rejection of solidarity with the corporate economy and with the "national" economy.
- Revolutionary defeatism against the own bourgeoisie in times of commercial or military war.
- Joint and international organization of the proletarians of all languages in the International Communist Party for the COMMUNIST REVOLUTION ON A WORLD SCALE.