Gantry 5

 

The conflict surrounding Iran cannot be separated from confrontations within imperialism.

The war of aggression launched by the American-Zionist imperialist alliance against Iran and Lebanon continues 1 , it prolongs the one waged by the Zionist entity against the just national liberation struggle of the Palestinian people 2. The revolutionary Communist party has taken a clear position to condemn these aggressions and to highlight the complicity of imperialist France, as well as that of the Western states which, to varying degrees, support and/or justify these aggressions.
The situation developing in the Middle East has serious consequences for many economies around the world, consequences whose long-term severity is difficult to measure at this stage. These consequences highlight the need for fossil fuels, gas and oil, but also for raw materials derived from or dependent on them, the intensity of international trade, and the major role of communication routes, particularly maritime routes .
All these questions relate to the control of raw materials, their circulation and transformation, and therefore of the workforce, which are at the heart of the issues of domination and conflict within the imperialist system 4 .
Thus, what is unfolding around Iran is neither an isolated war nor a mere episode of instability in the Middle East, but rather part of a broader confrontation between rival imperialist powers. This brings us back to the nodal point of these confrontations: the conflict between the United States and China. China is the US's major strategic rival and is designated by the US as a systemic enemy .<sup> 5 </sup> In this confrontation, China, even if it appears to be keeping its distance from the war, is neither a detached observer nor a neutral force. Due to the war and the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, its energy needs are profoundly affected, especially after the United States took control of oil production in Venezuela .<sup> 6</sup> Regarding control of communication routes, China, which is developing its own transportation network, competing with that of the United States, sees its capabilities diminished in a strategic area.
Indeed, China's position in the region is not defined solely by declarations, but is primarily the consequence of its concrete interests linked to a development strategy based on capital accumulation geared essentially towards export-oriented production. Furthermore, the fact that Iran exports almost all of its oil, approximately 90%, to China creates a structural link between these two countries. The Middle East is therefore not a distant theater of operations for Beijing. It is directly linked to its energy security, its trade routes, and its long-term development needs—in short, to the very foundations of its growth.
The China-Iran relationship has also been formalized by a long-term strategic agreement paving the way for massive Chinese investments in infrastructure, energy, and technology. This in no way prevents China from strengthening its economic ties with the Gulf monarchies, many of which are also allies of Washington. There is no contradiction here; China is acting prudently. It is establishing its presence on all fronts without precipitating an open confrontation with the US until forced into it, its primary objective being to consolidate its influence.
All these facts demonstrate that China is not outside the imperialist competition. To think that it plays an anti-imperialist role is a profoundly flawed interpretation of current developments. In fact, China functions as a major capitalist power deeply integrated into the global imperialist system. It possesses powerful monopolistic groups. It exports capital on a massive scale. It engages in fierce competition for markets, resources, and strategic corridors. Its policy toward Iran does not indicate any alternative path. It merely reflects a different position within the same system—a position aimed at increasing its influence, creating dependencies, and extending its own power. This is why presenting the constitution of its communication networks (the Silk Roads ) in neutral, or even cooperative, terms is entirely inaccurate. In fact, it plays a role in reorganizing space by redirecting trade flows to its advantage. It locks regions into long-term relationships of dependency. Iran's place within these networks is neither accidental nor ideological. It is strategic.
In the Middle East today, two large-scale projects are unfolding simultaneously. On one side is the Euro-Atlantic bloc, led by the United States, a bloc marked by growing internal contradictions , particularly between the US, the EU, and NATO. It seeks to reshape trade routes, and alliances are being forged to preserve its dominant position. At the same time, an expanding Eurasian framework, centered on China, is fostering the creation of alternative corridors and connections. These are not simply parallel developments that coexist. They are in confrontation, they clash, and they are reshaping the balance of power. In this context, China's involvement in the Iranian conflict does not need to take the form of direct military engagement to be real.
From the war in the Middle East, China is drawing its own conclusions regarding military strategies. All of this contributes to a broader accumulation of experience. Moreover, China's central position in global supply chains, particularly in sectors such as rare earth elements and key industrial components crucial to modern warfare, means that the military operations of its rivals reinforce their dependence on Chinese production. From all these elements, a more complete picture emerges. The conflict surrounding Iran is not an isolated point of tension. It is international and linked to other tensions and other fronts—economic, technological, and military—within the imperialist system itself.