The Iran War and the Crisis of Global Hegemony

From the standpoint of international law, constitutional governance, and basic human ethics, the current war with Iran represents a grave violation of legal norms and basic morality.

Absent authorization from the United Nations Security Council or clear evidence of self-defense under the United Nations Charter, such military action is illegal under international law. It also raises constitutional concerns in the United States, where the power to declare war is vested in the United States Congress, not the executive branch acting alone. Beyond legality, the war poses a profound moral question: The deliberate use of violence that predictably brings civilian suffering, economic devastation, and regional instability cannot be reconciled with widely held principles of human dignity and the ethical restraint that should govern relations among nations.

Which brings me this point– The current confrontation involving Iran cannot be understood simply as a regional war or a dispute over nuclear weapons. Instead, it must be situated within a deeper structural crisis in the global capitalist system. From my perspective, the conflict is part of a larger struggle over global hegemony during a moment of systemic transition.

Let us be clear that capitalist systems regularly experience crises rooted in overaccumulation, declining profitability, and the growing dominance of finance capital over productive investment. And it is worth noting that the US has evolved from an industrial capitalist empire to a financialized empire. In a nutshell this means US global domination and hegemony is exercised through the dollar system, debt structures, and control of international financial institutions. Military power and sanctions function as enforcement mechanisms for this financial order.And Iran occupies a strategically important position in that system. It is a major energy producer located near the Strait of Hormuz and sits at the crossroads of Eurasian trade routes.

Trump’s War on Iran is sadly (but predictably) supported by the leadership of the Democratic Party; Thankfully, not by ordinary folk who are members of that Party…..

The point is that this War on Iran reflects a broader attempt to maintain U.S. influence over global energy markets and the financial architecture tied to them. But the deeper issue is not Iran itself; rather, it is the gradual emergence of an alternative economic bloc centered on Eurasian integration.

Venezuela must also be understood within this same global framework. Like Iran, Venezuela sits atop enormous oil reserves and has long sought to pursue an independent economic path outside the U.S.-dominated financial system. Since the presidency of Hugo Chávez, Caracas cultivated strategic relationships with countries such as China, Russia, and Iran in an effort to build a more multipolar world order and circumvent Western sanctions.

These partnerships have included energy trade, infrastructure financing, and technical cooperation designed to bypass the US-controlled financial channels. In this sense, Venezuela represents in the Western Hemisphere what Iran represents in the Middle East: a resource-rich state attempting to resist incorporation into a global economic order dominated by Washington and Wall Street. From my perspective, Venezuela and Iran both reflect a deeper struggle over control of strategic resources, financial systems, and the political architecture of the global capitalist order.

This is where Gramsci’s concept of hegemony becomes particularly relevant. In the Gramscian sense, hegemony refers not only to military dominance but to a broader system of political, economic, and ideological leadership that stabilizes a particular global order. Since the end of World War II, the United States has maintained a hegemonic position through institutions, alliances, and the central role of the dollar in international trade.

Hegemonic orders always eventually enter periods of crisis. This is when ruling institutions lose legitimacy or effectiveness, and the system enters what he famously described as an “interregnum.” To quote Gramsci directly from The Prison

Notebooks:

“The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.”


Some folks describe the “morbid symptoms” as “monsters.” But the fundamental point is that times like these create extremism, chaos, and instability. Meaning that wars and geopolitical instability emerge during such transitions. I view the current geopolitical environment through this lens.

The rise of China as a major industrial and technological power, combined with growing cooperation among Eurasian states, signals the possibility of a multipolar world economy. Infrastructure initiatives, energy partnerships, and new financial arrangements are gradually reducing dependence on Western-dominated systems.

That is why the neoliberals are supporting Trump’s War. They are in agreement about protecting the US Empire in ways that preserve core elite power without fundamentally transforming its underlying structure of domination and extraction. Economic sanctions, military alliances, and strategic conflicts are efforts to manage the transition and slow the emergence of rival economic blocs.

So the War in Iran represents a symptom of hegemonic crisis rather than its cause. It is one location in a larger struggle over the future organization of the world economy.

For organizers and social movements, this analysis carries several implications.

First, wars such as the Iran conflict should be understood as products of systemic dynamics rather than simply the decisions of individual leaders. Movements seeking peace must therefore challenge the economic and institutional structures that generate recurring geopolitical confrontation. NO WAR EXCEPT THE CLASS WAR

Second, the erosion of U.S. global hegemony creates both risks and opportunities. Periods of hegemonic crisis often produce authoritarian politics and militarization as ruling elites attempt to stabilize their power. But such moments can also open space for alternative economic models.

Finally, this transitional moment underscores the importance of building democratic economic institutions—from worker cooperatives to public banking and other forms of solidarity economy—that reduce dependence on systems driven by finance capital and militarized competition.

Social movements must work not only to resist war but also to construct what Gramsci calls a “counter-hegemonic project” capable of shaping the emerging global order. I believe that is best represented by the Solidarity Economy framework.

So yes, we must oppose this War. But the deeper challenge is to both resist war and empire, and also to build the economic and political foundations of a more democratic and cooperative world system. We have a new world to win….

---

David Cobb is the host of the popular podcast Redneck Gone Green, dubbed a “people’s lawyer”, David has spent his career litigating corporate polluters and civil rights violators. He was the Green Party Presidential nominee In 2004, In 2010 he co-founded Move To Amend, In 2016 he served as the Campaign Manager for Jill Stein’s presidential campaign. Currently he serves as the Co-Coordinator of the US Solidarity Economy Network and the People’s Network for Land Liberation, a consortium which seeks to de-commodify the land to reestablish a right relationship with the earth and all of our relatives and relations.

Resist & Build

Build & Fight