The death of Ali Khamenei has generated sharp and emotional reactions across ideological lines.
– Some celebrate the removal of a repressive leader.
– Others respond with silence or defensive reflex.
Yet for those committed to the defeat of imperialism and colonialism, the central question is not whether to mourn or rejoice.
The question is structural:
– What does this event represent within the global balance of forces?
If the elimination of Iran’s Supreme Leader occurred through forces aligned with the unipolar order, it cannot be separated from the long-standing project of strategic containment and destabilisation directed at Iran. Imperialism does not intervene to liberate oppressed peoples, it intervenes to reorganise power in its own interest.
Therefore, any serious anti-imperialist response must begin from that premise.
The Primary Contradiction and National Sovereignty
Iran’s internal contradictions are real and undeniable, the Islamic Republic has suppressed leftists, labour activists, women’s movements and dissenting currents over decades. These realities form part of the historical memory of the Iranian left. However, the existence of internal repression does not dissolve the external contradiction between an independent state and a system of global domination.
In the hierarchy of contradictions, anti-colonial theory has always insisted that when a nation is under direct or indirect imperial assault, the principal contradiction shifts outward.
This does not sanctify the ruling elite, it clarifies the terrain of struggle. The weakening of Iran at this historical moment intersects with broader attempts to preserve dollar hegemony, contain alternative economic blocs, and fracture emerging multipolar alignments.
Iran’s strategic positioning alongside Russia and China in energy corridors and financial cooperation makes it a target not for democratic reform, but for geopolitical neutralisation.
To defend sovereignty under these conditions is not to defend clerical authoritarianism, it is to reject externally imposed regime engineering.
The Trap of Binary Thinking
The reaction to Khamenei’s death exposes a recurring binary logic.
One side argues that because he presided over repression, his removal by imperial forces is inherently progressive, this position collapses anti-imperialism into liberal interventionism. Another side argues that because imperialism is the main enemy, the Iranian state must be shielded from all criticism, this position collapses class analysis into campism.
A third current retreats into neutrality, equating both sides and refusing to identify the structural imbalance of power. A dialectical approach rejects these binaries, it is possible to oppose imperialist aggression while supporting democratic transformation within Iran.
It is possible to defend sovereignty without romanticising theocratic authority.
It is possible to criticise repression without inviting foreign domination.
The left’s difficulty lies not in choosing sides emotionally, but in analysing contradictions concretely.
The Iranian Left’s Strategic Dilemma
The Iranian left carries a history of persecution that cannot be erased. Many of its militants suffered imprisonment and death under the Islamic Republic. This shapes understandable hostility toward the ruling establishment, yet the strategic question remains whether externally driven destabilization strengthens or weakens the capacity of Iranian workers and popular forces to determine their own destiny.
Historical precedents suggest that imperialist regime change rarely produces emancipatory outcomes, it often fragments states, deepens dependency, and places economic assets under foreign leverage. In that context, celebrating the removal of a ruler by outside force risks legitimizing a process that ultimately disempowers the very masses whose liberation is invoked. The consistent anti-colonial position insists that transformation must arise internally, through organized social forces, not through bombardment or covert intervention.
The Global Balance of Forces
Iran’s crisis unfolds within a broader contest over global order, efforts to move trade outside exclusive dollar settlement mechanisms and to expand economic cooperation beyond Western financial architecture are perceived as threats to unipolar dominance.
Whether one fully endorses the policies of emerging blocs or not, it is evident that strategic weakening of Iran would serve to reinforce U.S. primacy in West Asia and disrupt alternative alignments.
Thus the issue exceeds the personality of a single leader. It concerns the future configuration of global power. Anti-imperialists therefore situate the event within a long arc of interventions aimed at disciplining states that resist strategic alignment with Western hegemony.
The Way Forward
If the problem of Iran can only be solved by the Iranian people, then the program must reflect that principle.
External aggression must be opposed.
Sanctions that collectively punish the population must be rejected.
At the same time, internal democratic space must be expanded by Iranian social forces or motive forces themselves, workers’ organisations, women’s movements, and progressive currents require autonomy from both theocratic control and foreign manipulation.
The defeat of imperialism does not mean endorsing every government it targets, it means opposing the system that claims the right to decide which nations may govern themselves.
The struggle against colonial domination has always required strategic clarity:
– sovereignty is a condition for genuine social transformation, not its final stage.
At this moment, the task of the left is neither celebration nor uncritical defense.
It is to maintain analytical discipline, reject simplistic binaries, and insist that Iran’s future belongs to its people, not to the architects of global dominance.
*Khulu Radebe is a Community Activist and an Independent Critical Thinker
