Analysis of: Iranian Americans are divided on the war and Iran’s future: ‘Bombing is not the same thing as liberation’
The Guardian | March 21, 2026
TL;DR
Iranian diaspora is split between those who initially welcomed US-Israeli strikes on the regime and those horrified by imperial violence destroying their homeland. The contradiction exposes how liberation cannot come from the bombs of powers seeking to install puppet governments and control oil.
Analytical Focus:Contradictions Historical Context Class Analysis
The US-Israeli military assault on Iran has exposed a fundamental contradiction within the Iranian diaspora: the genuine desire for liberation from theocratic oppression versus the recognition that imperial bombing campaigns serve not liberation but domination. This tension manifests along class and generational lines—wealthy monarchists in Los Angeles championing the return of the Pahlavi dynasty versus working and middle-class Iranians who remember the 1953 CIA-MI6 coup that installed the Shah, understanding that American 'liberation' historically means resource extraction and puppet governance. The article reveals how class position shapes political orientation within the diaspora. Those advocating for Reza Pahlavi's restoration represent primarily the propertied classes who benefited under the Shah's regime and fled after the revolution. Their support for military intervention, regardless of civilian casualties, reflects their material interests in regime change that would restore their class position. Meanwhile, the broader diaspora—those who left to escape war, conscription, or lack of economic opportunity—expresses the anguished contradiction of hating the Islamic Republic while recognizing that 'bombing is not the same thing as liberation.' The historical pattern is unmistakable: from Mossadegh's overthrow in 1953 to the present assault, US intervention in Iran has consistently aimed at controlling oil resources and installing compliant governments. Trump's explicit statements about approving Iran's next leader and his general 'fondness for the oil and precious minerals of other countries' strip away any pretense of humanitarian concern. The diaspora's trauma stems from living this contradiction—watching their homeland destroyed by powers claiming to liberate it, while knowing the alternative is continued theocratic repression that has already killed thousands of protesters.
Class Dynamics
Actors: Iranian working and middle class (inside Iran and diaspora), Iranian monarchist exiles (propertied class), US-Israeli military-industrial complex, Islamic Republic ruling clerical elite, Iranian protesters killed in January uprising, Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, Oil and mineral extraction interests
Beneficiaries: US and Israeli geopolitical strategists seeking regional hegemony, Oil and resource extraction corporations, Monarchist diaspora seeking restoration of property and status, Arms manufacturers and military contractors, Potential future puppet government
Harmed Parties: Iranian civilian population (thousands dead, infrastructure destroyed), Iranian working class facing poverty and hunger, Cultural heritage (damaged sites), Anti-regime activists facing violence from all sides, Iranian diaspora with family connections inside Iran
The power dynamic reveals multiple layers of domination: the imperial core (US-Israel) exercises military violence over the periphery (Iran), while within Iran the clerical elite maintains theocratic control through brutal repression. The diaspora monarchists, despite their exile, retain class solidarity with imperial power, as their restoration depends on external intervention. Meanwhile, ordinary Iranians—inside and outside the country—lack agency, caught between an oppressive regime and destructive imperial 'liberation.'
Material Conditions
Economic Factors: Control of Iranian oil reserves, Destruction of Iranian infrastructure, Economic sanctions and their effects, Class position of diaspora waves (propertied vs. working class emigrants), Post-war reconstruction contracts and debt mechanisms
The conflict centers on who will control Iran's productive capacity—particularly its oil and mineral wealth. The current regime extracts surplus through a combination of theocratic rule and integration into global markets (despite sanctions). US intervention aims to replace this arrangement with a more compliant structure that facilitates direct resource extraction by Western capital. The diaspora class divisions reflect this: monarchists anticipate restored access to property and capital, while working-class emigrants have no such material stake in regime change.
Resources at Stake: Iranian oil reserves, Strategic minerals, Regional geopolitical positioning, Infrastructure (now being destroyed), Cultural heritage sites, Human capital (educated Iranian population)
Historical Context
Precedents: 1953 CIA-MI6 coup overthrowing Mossadegh, 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), July 2025 twelve-day war, January 2026 mass protests and regime massacre, US interventions in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan
This represents a continuation of over 70 years of imperial intervention in Iran, always justified by different pretexts but consistently aimed at resource control. The 1953 coup established the pattern: democratic movements that threaten Western access to oil must be crushed and replaced with compliant autocrats. When the Shah's regime became unstable, the Islamic Republic emerged as an unintended consequence—itself now targeted for replacement. The cycle reveals that imperial powers care nothing for Iranian democracy or welfare; they seek only reliable access to resources. Each intervention creates conditions for the next: the Shah's brutality created the revolution; the revolution created the theocracy; the theocracy's brutality now provides justification for new intervention.
Contradictions
Primary: The fundamental contradiction is between the genuine Iranian desire for liberation from theocratic oppression and the impossibility of achieving liberation through imperial violence that seeks not freedom but domination and resource extraction.
Secondary: Monarchists claiming to represent Iranian interests while celebrating civilian deaths, US claiming democratic liberation while Trump declares he must approve Iran's next leader, Anti-regime Iranians forced to choose between theocratic oppression and imperial destruction, Diaspora unity fractured along class lines despite shared national identity, The regime's survival potentially strengthened by external attack, becoming 'more oppressive than before'
The contradiction between liberation and imperial violence cannot be resolved through this war. Either the regime survives and intensifies repression (using the war to justify crackdowns), or it falls and is replaced by a US-approved puppet government that will face its own legitimacy crisis. Genuine liberation requires internal revolutionary transformation led by Iranian workers and popular forces—the very people now being bombed. The diaspora's anguish reflects their intuitive understanding that this war forecloses rather than enables such transformation, leaving Iran 'poorer, hungrier, and more frightened.'
Global Interconnections
This conflict exemplifies the persistence of classical imperialism in the twenty-first century, despite its ideological packaging as 'liberation' or 'democracy promotion.' The core-periphery dynamics are stark: wealthy imperial powers destroy peripheral nation's infrastructure while claiming humanitarian motives, with the ultimate aim of resource extraction and geopolitical control. Trump's explicit statements about controlling other nations' oil—whether in Venezuela, Greenland, or Iran—strip away the humanitarian veneer. The diaspora's division mirrors global patterns of comprador class formation: a section of peripheral nation's bourgeoisie aligns with imperial interests, anticipating restoration of their class position through external intervention. The monarchists cheering destruction from Los Angeles represent this phenomenon precisely. Meanwhile, the broader working and middle class diaspora, with no material stake in restoration of the old order, experiences only the horror of watching their homeland destroyed. This class dynamic within diaspora communities—visible also among Cuban, Venezuelan, and other exile populations—reveals how imperial intervention operates through and reinforces class divisions even among the oppressed nationality.
Conclusion
The Iranian diaspora's anguished division illuminates a truth that extends far beyond this particular conflict: liberation cannot come through the bombs of imperial powers seeking to install puppet governments and control resources. The genuine mass uprising in January—crushed with thousands dead by the regime—represented authentic revolutionary potential. The US-Israeli war does not continue that struggle but forecloses it, destroying the material conditions (infrastructure, social cohesion, economic capacity) necessary for any positive transformation while likely strengthening the regime's grip through nationalist reaction. For the international working class, this underscores the necessity of opposing both local despotisms and imperial intervention, understanding that only independent working-class organization can create genuine liberation—a lesson written in blood from Guatemala to Iraq to Iran.
Suggested Reading
- Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism by V.I. Lenin (1917) Lenin's analysis of how advanced capitalist powers compete for control of resources and markets in peripheral nations directly illuminates US motives in Iran, particularly the explicit interest in oil and 'precious minerals.'
- The Wretched of the Earth by Frantz Fanon (1961) Fanon's examination of how colonized peoples experience psychological fragmentation between opposing their own oppressive elites and recognizing imperial violence speaks directly to the diaspora's anguished contradiction.
- The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein (2007) Klein's documentation of how disasters and wars create opportunities for imposing economic restructuring illuminates what 'liberation' likely means in practice: privatization, debt, and resource extraction under a compliant new government.