Really sharp article, Dave. I'm currently reading through Wallerstein's book, The Decline of American Power. Your article makes me think of his point that World War One and World War Two can be looked at as a 30 year war between the U.S. and Germany to replace Britain as world hegemon.
It makes me think further of a hypothesis posited by a close comrade based on historical analysis. That is, was the U.S., Nazi Germany, or Britain the more principle enemy of the world's people. My friend posits that it depends where you live and where you are trying to make revolution. For example was Nazi Germany more dangerous to the Indian people then Britain? I think that's highly questionable.
So while it's true that a declining superpower is dangerous and deadly, I sense that the same is true of rising power blocs for the people of the world as well.
I think when organizing in our community or in our region, it is crucial to keep this in mind and to maintain our independence and not put our hopes into other forces with whom it is highly questionable if those rising power blocs share similar strategic or political interests.
My own thinking is that it is important to drive home the message of revolutionaries maintaining their strategic and political independence again and again and I am interested to hear the thoughts of actors like yourself who I deeply respect.
Thank you for the thoughtful response, Nat Winn. I absolutely agree that we must be vigilant not to fall into "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" thinking. While tactical alliances may sometimes be necessary, shared opposition to a common adversary does not automatically create shared values, interests, or long-term goals.
This mistake is at the core of campist politics, where opposition to U.S. imperialism leads some activists to uncritically defend any state that challenges American power, regardless of that state's own authoritarian, capitalist, nationalist, or imperial behavior.
A principled internationalism rejects both imperial domination and the false choice of lining up behind rival power blocs, insisting instead on solidarity with working people, democratic movements, and oppressed communities in every country.
To be clear- The Islamic Republic's brutal repression of dissent has included the imprisonment, torture, and execution of countless activists, trade unionists, feminists, students, and leftists. Its persecution of communists and socialists—particularly in the years following the 1979 revolution—stands as a stark reminder that opposition to Western imperialism does not excuse authoritarian rule. A genuine commitment to liberation requires condemning the Iranian state's crimes against its own people as unequivocally as we oppose foreign intervention and imperial domination.
"The 2026 war was intended to reinforce U.S. dominance in the Middle East and demonstrate that Washington remained capable of disciplining states that challenged its authority. Instead, the conflict revealed the limits of American power and accelerated trends that were already undermining U.S. hegemony."
Well said. The US has experienced its "Suez moment" and from here on out, it can't be denied that its empire is in its last days. Here's hoping we can make a gentle transition to a multi-polar world. (This said knowing full well that the capitalists will do their best to hang on to their wealth and power even if it destroys our planet.)
Really sharp article, Dave. I'm currently reading through Wallerstein's book, The Decline of American Power. Your article makes me think of his point that World War One and World War Two can be looked at as a 30 year war between the U.S. and Germany to replace Britain as world hegemon.
It makes me think further of a hypothesis posited by a close comrade based on historical analysis. That is, was the U.S., Nazi Germany, or Britain the more principle enemy of the world's people. My friend posits that it depends where you live and where you are trying to make revolution. For example was Nazi Germany more dangerous to the Indian people then Britain? I think that's highly questionable.
So while it's true that a declining superpower is dangerous and deadly, I sense that the same is true of rising power blocs for the people of the world as well.
I think when organizing in our community or in our region, it is crucial to keep this in mind and to maintain our independence and not put our hopes into other forces with whom it is highly questionable if those rising power blocs share similar strategic or political interests.
My own thinking is that it is important to drive home the message of revolutionaries maintaining their strategic and political independence again and again and I am interested to hear the thoughts of actors like yourself who I deeply respect.
Thank you for the thoughtful response, Nat Winn. I absolutely agree that we must be vigilant not to fall into "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" thinking. While tactical alliances may sometimes be necessary, shared opposition to a common adversary does not automatically create shared values, interests, or long-term goals.
This mistake is at the core of campist politics, where opposition to U.S. imperialism leads some activists to uncritically defend any state that challenges American power, regardless of that state's own authoritarian, capitalist, nationalist, or imperial behavior.
A principled internationalism rejects both imperial domination and the false choice of lining up behind rival power blocs, insisting instead on solidarity with working people, democratic movements, and oppressed communities in every country.
To be clear- The Islamic Republic's brutal repression of dissent has included the imprisonment, torture, and execution of countless activists, trade unionists, feminists, students, and leftists. Its persecution of communists and socialists—particularly in the years following the 1979 revolution—stands as a stark reminder that opposition to Western imperialism does not excuse authoritarian rule. A genuine commitment to liberation requires condemning the Iranian state's crimes against its own people as unequivocally as we oppose foreign intervention and imperial domination.
Nice analyses. Very interesting and informative.
Thank you Katherine. I am trying make sense of this current moment, and glad this essay was helpful for you!
Well thought out and expressed, I hope you reach a lot of people; especially those with great agency.
"The 2026 war was intended to reinforce U.S. dominance in the Middle East and demonstrate that Washington remained capable of disciplining states that challenged its authority. Instead, the conflict revealed the limits of American power and accelerated trends that were already undermining U.S. hegemony."
Well said. The US has experienced its "Suez moment" and from here on out, it can't be denied that its empire is in its last days. Here's hoping we can make a gentle transition to a multi-polar world. (This said knowing full well that the capitalists will do their best to hang on to their wealth and power even if it destroys our planet.)