Not ‘Anti-War,’ but ‘Pro-Resistance’: A brief reflection on 40 days of resistance in the Persian Gulf

A scene in Tehran, March 4, 2026 -- Tasnim News Agency, CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons

By Ali Abutalebi

On April 7, the Prime Minister of Pakistan posted on X a call for an ‘extension of the deadline,’ following Donald Trump’s threat to destroy Iran’s ‘civilization.’ Shortly afterward, diplomatic sources announced that U.S. and Iranian authorities had agreed to a ‘ceasefire’ and to resume talks in Islamabad.

These developments came after 40 days of unprovoked aggression against Iran by the United States and its puppet, the Israeli regime. The assault resulted in the assassination of the leader of the Islamic Revolution, Grand Ayatollah Khamenei, the killing of hundreds of innocent civilians, the destruction of critical infrastructure, and repeated attacks on Iran’s defensive military facilities.

Such actions are not unprecedented. The commission of war crimes by the U.S. ruling establishment has a long historical record. From Indochina and the Korean Peninsula to Afghanistan and Iraq, U.S. imperial power has repeatedly relied on large-scale violence to advance its geopolitical objectives.

But this war introduced two new dynamics.

First, the White House effectively dropped its mask and began speaking openly about the commission of war crimes. This shift shocked those naïve liberals who still believed that international law and diplomatic norms retained any real force in an era of hyper-imperialism.

Second, it revealed the scale and firmness of Iran’s defensive retaliation. Iranian military forces responded without hesitation, targeting U.S. bases across the region as well as Israeli positions in the occupied territories, and closed the Strait of Hormuz. As the martyred leader, Grand Ayatollah Khamenei, had warned: ‘Any aggression against Iran will trigger a regional war.’

Iran’s response took the form of a broad, decisive, and full-spectrum retaliation that exposed the depth of the White House’s miscalculation. In doing so, it proved that those U.S. military officials who had warned Donald Trump that Iran is not an easy enemy—and that the assassination of leaders and commanders would not lead to regime change—were right. At the same time, the abrupt and humiliating dismissals of several senior Pentagon officials revealed deep internal divisions, even as the Hegseth–Rubio camp remains determined to push forward with this reckless course.

Yet Iran’s national defense was not confined to the battlefield. Across both large and small cities, thousands of revolutionary patriots took to the streets, carrying Iranian flags and expressing support for the armed forces. They demonstrated a level of resolve rarely witnessed: even as enemy aircraft flew overhead and explosions echoed nearby, people did not retreat in fear. Instead, they responded by chanting ‘Allah-o-Akbar’—a sacred phrase meaning ‘God is greatest’—transforming it into a powerful expression of collective resistance.

This full-scale resistance pushed the White House into a state of political disorientation—partly as a deceptive tactic, and partly as a reflection of genuine failure. In multiple interviews, press conferences, and social media posts, we witnessed a contradictory narrative: on the one hand, repeated boasts about having defeated Iran, destroyed its air force and navy, and even brought about ‘regime change’; on the other, claims of ongoing negotiations and the prospect of an agreement with a ‘Most Respected, Top Person’ within the Iranian state.

Now, after the announcement of a two-week so-called ceasefire, and with both Iran and the United States speaking of a potential deal—ten articles reportedly proposed by Iran and fifteen by the White House—we are told to await Friday, the day designated for talks between the two sides in Islamabad.

Yet even as these words are being written, reports indicate that Lavan Island, an Iranian island in the Persian Gulf, has been targeted after the declared ceasefire deadline. Friends in Tehran report hearing explosions and air defense activity, while Lebanon remains under brutal attack by the Israeli regime, which claims that Lebanon is not covered by the ceasefire—despite Tehran’s explicit emphasis.

Although a comprehensive analysis of subsequent developments requires more careful observation and additional evidence, at this stage I want to highlight both the gains made by resistance forces in West Asia over these roughly six weeks for the Global South, and the key risks we must remain alert to.

What Have We Achieved?

The resistance of Iran against recent imperialist–Zionist aggression marks a turning point. It demonstrated that the foundations of what was once called a ‘paper tiger’ (albeit one with nuclear teeth) can indeed be widely targeted, and it ignited a flame of hope in the hearts of oppressed peoples across the Global South. A flame that makes one fact clear: resistance is not only possible, but necessary for any meaningful pushback against hyper-imperialism.

From this perspective, Iran achieved a significant victory. In an unequal battle, it fought bravely and imposed tangible setbacks on a powerful enemy, despite the martyrdom of many of its heroes. The imperial powers had assumed they could accomplish their objectives swiftly: overthrow the revolution and move to the next phase of fragmenting Iran into dependent states.

A second key lesson is that there is no strict hierarchy between the front lines of war and mass resistance. Commanders and soldiers fought in alignment with the presence of ordinary people in the streets, defending their homeland. What emerged was a kind of resonance: you give me support; I give you protection; We defend our homeland.

The entry of resistance forces in Iraq and Lebanon into the confrontation, alongside the readiness signaled by Ansar Allah in Yemen, has brought into view a broader picture of resistance. This is not a localized conflict, but a wide and potentially expanding front—one that can stretch across the Global South, from Yemen to the Philippines, from Burkina Faso to Cuba. These struggles are interconnected: we are part of the same front, engaged in the same broader confrontation.

At the same time, these six weeks are likely to raise a pressing question across the societies of the Persian Gulf—if it has not already emerged: why should vast public resources be spent on hosting U.S. military bases and purchasing weapons, only to facilitate wars against neighboring nations and draw these societies into conflicts not of their own making? This is often justified by the illusion that imperial powers provide ‘protection’ against supposed enemies who, in reality, are not natural adversaries.

Despite decades of Hollywood-driven narratives and racialized, chauvinistic propaganda, these societies possess a history of anti-colonial resistance in the twentieth century. One example is the movement led by Sheikh Saqr Al Qasimi, ruler of Sharjah, who was targeted in a British-backed coup in 1965. While the emergence of broad national liberation movements across all Persian Gulf states may still be some distance away (with Bahrain perhaps a partial exception, given its ongoing Shiite opposition movements), the prospect of mass demands for the removal of U.S. military bases is no longer far-fetched.

What Should We Consider?

The resistance front has achieved notable gains, but this does not mean everything is proceeding smoothly. First and foremost, the continued assassinations of political leaders and key commanders point to serious vulnerabilities and betrayal within segments of the Iranian establishment. While the technological superiority of the imperialist adversary must be acknowledged, it would be dangerously naïve to ignore internal actors who align, consciously, with the interests of global capitalism and seek to weaken the revolution from within.

As this confrontation has once again demonstrated—and as I have argued elsewhere—Iran cannot be defeated through military force alone. The more profound danger to the revolution comes from within: from neoliberal oligarchic forces that pursue a destructive agenda aimed at fragmenting society, sidelining revolutionary social and political leadership, and intensifying economic pressure on the working class. In doing so, they help ensure that sanctions against Iran achieve their intended effect.

A second critical point is that this so-called ceasefire does not mark the end of U.S. imperial antagonism toward the Iranian Revolution and Iran’s sovereignty—principles that have defined the spirit of the Islamic Revolution. At least since the 1953 coup d’état against Mohammad Mosaddegh, the United States has waged a sustained hybrid war against the Iranian people—political, economic, cultural, and, at times, overtly military, as seen in the current conflict.

We should not forget that Washington has never demonstrated lasting commitment to agreements. The experience of nuclear negotiations and the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) shows that no combination of talks, concessions, or diplomatic engagement has prevented imperial power from escalating its demands—from enrichment rights to missile capabilities, from control over resources to broader political submission. In essence, what is sought is not compromise, but capitulation.

Conclusion

As a conclusion, it is important to note that although Reza Pahlavi, the son of the deposed Shah, who has openly called for foreign intervention to ‘liberate’ Iran, has become more discredited and widely rejected following attacks on Iranian civilians, historical sites, and infrastructure, the neo-fascist current that has formed around him will not simply disappear.

The emergence of this reactionary tendency has deep sociological, geopolitical, and political-economic roots. Considering the bloody protests and unrest of last January, it will continue to seek every available instrument to advance its agenda, whether through external pressure, internal destabilization.

For this reason, Iranian progressive and revolutionary forces—secular and religious, socialist and Muslim justice-oriented—must urgently work to build a broad anti-fascist and anti-neoliberal front.

The forty days of national defense demonstrated a crucial reality: Iran cannot be defeated by Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirits or Lockheed Martin F-35s—and the imperial adversary has understood this. This is precisely why the strategy is shifting back toward internal sabotage: the imposition of neoliberal policies, the arming of separatists, the dismantling of mass support in the streets, and the pursuit of a soft coup against genuine revolutionary forces.

The struggle is not over; it has merely entered a new phase. And that is precisely why this article carries its title: at this moment, it is not enough to be ‘anti-war.’ One must be pro-resistance—everywhere.

Ali Abutalebi has been the executive director of Mazmoon Books since 2005. He founded the Iranian Campaign for Solidarity with Cuba, has worked as publication director at House of Latin America (HOLA), and authored several articles for the Iranian press and political websites, mostly focused on Latin American progressive movements. Ali published a book on Cuba titled Rest in Peace Ernesto.

This article was produced by Globetrotter.