Oil, Empire, and the War to Control Iran's Resources

Analysis of: Middle East crisis live: three ships hit in strait of Hormuz as Iran calls vessels belonging to US or allies ‘legitimate targets’
The Guardian | March 11, 2026

TL;DR

US-Israeli war on Iran reveals oil as the prize: Hormuz blockade, Gulf strikes, and regime-change rhetoric expose the material stakes beneath 'security' framing. Workers across borders—from Filipino caregivers to Iranian civilians—bear the costs while energy capital and military contractors profit.

Analytical Focus:Material Conditions Contradictions Historical Context

The US-Israeli military campaign against Iran represents a crystallization of imperialist competition over strategic resources, disguised beneath humanitarian and security rhetoric. The Strait of Hormuz—through which one-fifth of global oil flows—has become the material fulcrum of this conflict. Iran's closure of the strait and mining operations directly threaten the energy supply chains upon which Western capital accumulation depends, prompting immediate US military action against mine-laying vessels and explicit threats from Trump demanding 'immediate' removal of any obstacles to oil transit. The war's stated objectives expose the contradictions at its heart. Defense Minister Katz declares strikes will continue 'to allow the Iranian people to rise up,' while Iran's police chief threatens to treat protesters 'as enemies.' Both regimes instrumentalize their populations while pursuing state interests. The targeted assassination of Iran's supreme leader and the injury of his successor reveal this as a war for regime change—not merely 'defense' or 'denuclearization.' Senator Murphy's revelation that war goals 'DO NOT involve destroying Iran's nuclear weapons program' confirms the nuclear pretext as ideological cover for the actual aim: installing a compliant government that will ensure favorable oil extraction terms. The humanitarian costs fall systematically on workers. Filipino migrant laborers remain trapped in Israel, unable to afford evacuation, while their government celebrates remittances. Lebanese civilians die in airstrikes (570 killed, 1,444 wounded). Iranian residential areas sustain bombing (8,000 homes hit, 1,300+ dead). Thai, Ghanaian, Bangladeshi, and Indian workers are injured in Gulf shipping attacks. Meanwhile, British bases host US bombers, Italy distances itself from 'actions outside international law,' and South Korea watches its missile defenses redeployed to serve American priorities. The war reveals how imperial centers externalize costs onto peripheral populations while allies subordinate their interests to US hegemony.

Class Dynamics

Actors: US military-industrial complex, Israeli state and defense establishment, Iranian theocratic ruling class, Gulf oil monarchies (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain), Migrant workers (Filipino, Thai, Bangladeshi, Ghanaian, Indian, Sri Lankan), Iranian civilian population, Lebanese civilian population, European NATO allies (UK, Italy, Netherlands), Energy corporations, International shipping capital

Beneficiaries: US and allied defense contractors receiving expanded military budgets, Energy corporations positioned to profit from supply disruption and price volatility, Israeli defense establishment receiving 40 billion shekel budget expansion, Gulf monarchies seeking Iranian regional rival weakened, US geopolitical hegemony over Middle Eastern oil flows

Harmed Parties: Iranian civilians (1,300+ killed, 8,000 homes destroyed), Lebanese civilians (570 killed, 1,444 wounded), Migrant workers trapped in conflict zones, Global working class facing fuel price increases and supply disruptions, Iranian workers under dual pressure of bombing and internal repression, Regional populations exposed to environmental damage from oil infrastructure strikes

The conflict demonstrates the hierarchical structure of global imperialism: the US exercises dominant military power while Israel operates as a regional enforcer with autonomous but aligned interests. Gulf monarchies provide bases and legitimacy while remaining subordinate partners. European allies like Britain initially resist then capitulate to US demands, revealing limited sovereignty within the alliance structure. Iran's theocratic state simultaneously represses its own population while positioning itself as victim of imperial aggression—both claims containing truth. At the bottom, migrant workers from the Philippines, South Asia, and Africa bear physical risks while remaining invisible in strategic calculations, their labor essential to the Gulf economies yet their lives expendable.

Material Conditions

Economic Factors: Control of Strait of Hormuz oil transit (20% of global supply), Oil price volatility (surpassing $100/barrel), Strategic petroleum reserve releases, Defense budget expansions (Israel's 40 billion shekel increase), Global shipping disruption affecting trade flows, Remittance economies dependent on migrant labor in conflict zones, Energy infrastructure as military target

The war centers on control over the conditions of global oil production and distribution. Iran's ability to close the Strait of Hormuz represents a material threat to the circuit of capital that depends on cheap, reliable energy inputs. The IEA's proposed record release of strategic reserves reveals how states function as collective managers of capitalist accumulation, intervening to stabilize commodity prices that threaten profit rates. Israel's 40 billion shekel defense expansion demonstrates how military Keynesianism channels public resources toward capital accumulation in the defense sector. Migrant workers occupy the lowest rungs of these production relations: Filipino caregivers in Israel, Thai sailors in the Gulf, and construction workers across the region provide essential labor while bearing disproportionate risks and lacking political representation.

Resources at Stake: Persian Gulf oil reserves and transit routes, Iranian nuclear materials (highly enriched uranium stockpile), Regional military basing rights, Strategic petroleum reserves of IEA member states, Gulf state sovereign wealth and oil revenues, Shipping infrastructure and maritime insurance markets

Historical Context

Precedents: 1953 CIA/MI6 coup against Mossadegh following oil nationalization, 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War with US support for Iraq, 2003 Iraq invasion justified by WMD claims later proven false, 2011 NATO intervention in Libya for regime change, Ongoing economic sanctions as siege warfare against Iran since 1979, 1990-91 Gulf War to secure Kuwaiti oil

This conflict represents a continuation of over a century of imperial intervention in the Middle East to control oil resources. From the carving of post-Ottoman borders to serve European oil interests, through the 1953 coup that installed the Shah after Iran nationalized its oil, to the present war, the pattern remains consistent: regional sovereignty over oil resources triggers imperial intervention. The nuclear pretext echoes the WMD justifications for the Iraq invasion—Senator Murphy's confirmation that war goals exclude nuclear disarmament exposes this as ideological cover. The conflict occurs within the context of declining US hegemony and rising multipolarity, explaining the urgency to secure control over strategic resources before alternative power centers (China, Russia) can establish competing arrangements with Iran. The redeployment of THAAD missiles from South Korea signals the prioritization of Middle Eastern resource control over East Asian alliance commitments.

Contradictions

Primary: The fundamental contradiction lies between capital's need for stable, cheap energy flows and the political independence of resource-rich states that seek to retain control over their natural wealth. This cannot be resolved within capitalism without either subordinating producer states through military force or accepting constraints on accumulation.

Secondary: Contradiction between stated war aims (denuclearization, civilian protection) and actual conduct (regime change targeting, civilian casualties), Contradiction between 'freedom' rhetoric and support for Gulf autocracies while attacking Iran, Contradiction between Trump's 'anti-war' base and expanding military commitments, Contradiction between environmental damage from bombing oil infrastructure and any pretense of climate concern, Contradiction between NATO alliance solidarity and individual member states' material interests, Contradiction within Iran between theocratic repression and anti-imperialist legitimacy

These contradictions are unlikely to find stable resolution. Military victory may destroy Iranian state capacity but cannot eliminate the underlying resource competition that generated the conflict. Regime change, if achieved, would require indefinite occupation or installation of a client state—both historically unstable solutions. Meanwhile, the war accelerates contradictions within the US alliance system (European and Asian partners questioning subordination to US priorities), within domestic US politics (opposition from both left and isolationist right), and within the global energy system (accelerating both fossil fuel price volatility and interest in alternatives). The most likely trajectory involves protracted conflict, regional destabilization, and intensified competition among major powers over diminishing hydrocarbon resources.

Global Interconnections

This war cannot be understood in isolation from the broader crisis of US hegemony and the transition to a multipolar world order. Iran represents one of the last major oil producers outside the dollar-denominated financial system, and its potential alignment with China and Russia through BRICS threatens the petrodollar arrangement that underpins US financial dominance. The aggressive military action reflects an attempt to resolve through force what cannot be resolved through economic competition—securing control over strategic resources as the material foundation of continued hegemony erodes. The global working class experiences this conflict through multiple channels: fuel price increases that function as a regressive tax, supply chain disruptions affecting consumer goods, refugee flows straining social services, and the redirection of public resources from social needs to military expenditure. The environmental dimension compounds these impacts—bombing oil infrastructure creates toxic conditions for Iranian civilians while releasing greenhouse gases that accelerate climate crisis affecting workers worldwide. The war thus demonstrates how imperialism externalizes costs from core to periphery while intensifying exploitation across both.

Conclusion

The Iran war exposes the material foundations beneath ideological justifications for imperial violence. 'Security,' 'freedom,' and 'denuclearization' function as legitimating rhetoric while oil transit routes, energy prices, and regime compliance constitute the actual stakes. For workers internationally, the war offers no partisan position worth supporting—neither the US-Israeli military campaign nor the Iranian theocracy serves working-class interests. The task is rather to identify and oppose the class forces driving the conflict: energy capital seeking guaranteed supply routes, defense industries profiting from expanded budgets, and states competing for control over the material conditions of accumulation. Practical solidarity means supporting anti-war movements in all countries involved, defending migrant workers trapped in conflict zones, and building the organizational capacity to challenge both imperial aggression and domestic repression wherever they occur.

Suggested Reading

• Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism by V.I. Lenin (1917) Lenin's analysis of how capitalist competition drives territorial expansion and resource control directly illuminates the oil-centered dynamics of this conflict and the role of finance capital in generating inter-imperialist rivalry.
• The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein (2007) Klein's documentation of how crises—including wars—are exploited to impose economic restructuring explains the regime-change logic and anticipated privatization of Iranian resources that motivates the intervention.
• The New Imperialism by David Harvey (2003) Harvey's concept of 'accumulation by dispossession' provides a framework for understanding how military force secures access to resources and markets when normal market mechanisms prove insufficient.
• The Wretched of the Earth by Frantz Fanon (1961) Fanon's analysis of colonial violence and the psychology of both colonizer and colonized illuminates the dehumanizing rhetoric employed against Iranians and the contradictions facing populations caught between imperial aggression and domestic repression.