Yossi Schwartz ISL (RCIT section in Israel/Occupied Palestine) 10.02.2026
Jerusalem estimates that there is a growing understanding in Washington that the chances of a breakthrough in negotiations with Iran are low, given deep strategic gaps between the sides. According to Zionist sources, the United States is demanding a policy of “zero enrichment” to prevent Iran from being able to produce nuclear weapons, while Tehran sees uranium enrichment as a sovereign right and a symbol of national independence. The gap between the “zero” requirement and the concept of “right” significantly narrows the room for compromise.
Iran is approaching Saudi Arabia, which has formed an alliance with Pakistan, which is producing nuclear weapons on its own. There is no reason for Pakistan not to assist Iran through teaching how to produce nuclear weapons or provide ready-made nuclear bombs.
According to senior politicians connected to Netanyahu’s government, the Americans fear that without real progress on the issue of uranium enrichment and the mechanisms to oversee the nuclear project, the talks will turn into another protracted and inconsequential round – one that will mainly serve Iran’s strategy of dragging out time. The criminal, Zionist Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is expected to warn President Trump at their meeting on Wednesday that Iran is taking advantage of the negotiations to negate the possibility of an American military attack. He is also expected to seek to limit the time of the talks and make it clear that any American compromise on the nuclear issue, or giving up on the ballistic missile issue, will allow Iran to recover militarily and once again pose a threat to the entire Middle East.
The problem for the Zionists praying for an American attack is that most of the population in the Arab countries sees Israel as a threat to the stability of the Middle East.
The final decision in Iran rests with Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and the regime’s centers of power – there is no willingness to give up on nuclear development, let alone eliminate the ballistic missile system or the connection with Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Hamas. The Trump administration, according to Zionist sources, is well aware of Iran’s “time-wasting” tactic, which is intended to ease sanctions and reduce economic and military pressure, without making substantial concessions.
Already in the first round of talks in Oman, according to political sources, the main differences were exposed: The United States is seeking a broad agreement that will also include the issue of ballistic missiles and the activity of Iran’s regional proxies, and at most, Tehran is willing to focus solely on the nuclear issue. There is a strong camp in Tehran – including generals, politicians, and clerics – that favors a tough line in negotiations with the United States.
Iran is concerned about the expected meeting between Netanyahu and Trump this week, fearing that it will lead to a hardening of Washington’s position and insistence on including the issue of ballistic missiles and the meltdown of Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Hamas.
The Trump White House is pursuing a well-known imperialist policy of “diplomacy under threat.” For the first time, there was an overt American military presence at the talks in Oman: the commander of US Central Command, Admiral Brad Cooper, participated, underscoring the close connection between the political move and the military threat. Alongside the diplomatic channel, the United States continues to concentrate forces in the region and examine the military option.
Meanwhile, the United States has imposed new sanctions on Iranian oil exports, including measures against merchant ships. Trump’s executive order threatened to impose 25% tariffs on countries that trade with Iran.
The hope of Israel and militaristic elements in the United States is that the demonstrations will resume and bring about the overthrow of the regime. However, this is a blindness on the part of the fools, since the regime’s armed forces are loyal to the regime, and there is no governmental collaborator like in Venezuela who will work for American and Zionist control. Iran’s crown prince does not enjoy considerable support among the masses in Iran or among other opposition groups; as in previous opposition organizations, Falawi has demanded the re-establishment of a monarchy.
In order to bring down the regime in Iran by the United States, it is not enough to bomb these or other targets. It will be a long war that will bring with it American casualties and great opposition of the American masses to the war. It will also bring the masses to stand behind Iran, as the Iranian people know the history of the CIA’s overthrow of the regime of Mossadegh and the crowning of the Shah, a puppet that served the United States and Israel.
The regime in Iran, in the event of war, will need the support of the Iranian working class, and it will be time to demand the arming of the working class and demand that the commanders of the workers’ units be democratically elected by the conscripted workers. And when the attack is involved, the armed workers will be able to turn their power and weapons against the oppressive Iranian regime.
This is the time for the demand of the masses in every country to immediately lift the sanctions on Iran in the rivalry between Iran and the United States, the latter being the most dangerous enemy.
This strategy is based on Trotsky’s The Proletariat Military Policy (PMP), which some organizations, like the ICL, argue that it was wrong for imperialist states, like the U.S. They wrote:
“The imperialist war is not our war, and the militarism of the capitalist state is not our militarism. We do not support the war and militarism of the imperialists any more than we support the capitalist exploitation of workers in the factories. We are against the war as a whole, just as we are against the rule of the class that conducts it, and never under any circumstances vote to give them any confidence in their conduct of the war or preparation for it, not a man, not a cent, not a gun with our support. Our war is the war of the working class against the capitalist order. But only with the masses is it possible to conquer power and establish socialism.”
Contrary to the ICL argument, this basically correct statement does not contradict the PMP, whose aim was not to support a war by an imperialist state, but to prepare an armed uprising of the working class that, at the beginning of an imperialist war, by mistake believed that the “democratic” imperialists wanted to fight fascism.
In addition, this policy is definitely correct for semi-colonies facing a war with an imperialist state.
Trotsky wrote: “To carry the class struggle to its highest form—civil war—this is the task of defeatism. But this task can be solved only through the revolutionary mobilization of the masses, that is, by widening, deepening, and sharpening those revolutionary methods which constitute the content of class struggle in “peacetime”[i]
The American SWP adopted the PMP in 1940: “We fight against sending the worker-soldiers into battle without proper training and equipment. We oppose the military direction of worker-soldiers by bourgeois officers who have no regard for their treatment, their protection, and their lives. We demand federal funds for the military training of workers and worker-officers under the control of the trade unions. Military appropriations? Yes—but only for the establishment and equipment of worker training camps! Compulsory military training of workers? Yes—but only under the control of the trade unions!”[ii]
The fact that Ted Grant said that the British imperialist eight army is “our army” has nothing to do with the PMP, but with his political nature as a centrist.
Endnotes:
[i] Leon Trotsky “Learn to Think,” 22 May 1938
[ii] SWP “Resolution on Proletarian Military Policy.” In the conference held in Chicago, 27-29 September 1940, Prometheus Research Library.