More than 150 years after Karl Marx penned his famous line: “Capital comes dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt”, it remains hauntingly accurate today. Unlike many analyses of U.S. policy in the Middle East that begin with U.S. Presidents, diplomats, and military strategy, Marx directs our attention toward examining the underlying economic structure that governs state interactions. As the United States launches air strikes against Iran and tensions in the Middle East continue to build toward another potential regional conflict, Washington’s explanations for its actions, namely preserving regional stability and preventing Tehran from developing nuclear capabilities, seem to contradict its continued pursuit of nuclear cooperation with Saudi Arabia. For Marx, however, such contradictions are not anomalies but symptoms of a deeper economic logic.
Imperial powers rarely describe themselves as imperial powers. Instead, they define their actions in terms of civilisation, security, and peace. Today, the excuse for intervention takes many forms, including democracy, humanitarian responsibility, terrorism prevention and nuclear non-proliferation. The rhetoric has changed dramatically since the early days of U.S. involvement in the Middle East; however, the idea that powerful states have both the authority and obligation to transform distant societies remains relatively unchanged.
Marx recognised something behind the numerous narrative changes regarding this form of intervention. One key difference between capitalism and earlier economic structures is that capitalism does not have any internal limits. Therefore, yesterday’s profit becomes tomorrow’s investment. In order to compete effectively, businesses are constantly forced to expand and grow and thus invest in new markets, resources and opportunities. This creates a situation in which the decision to expand is no longer simply a business decision; rather, it becomes a condition of survival.
Today, this relentless drive is increasingly dictated not merely by the owners of physical factories or resources, but by the global financial system. As contemporary economic anthropologists like David Graeber have highlighted, the true engine of modern capitalist expansion is debt. Nations, corporations, and individuals are bound by a sprawling financial architecture that issues loans and demands continuous, compounding returns. Consequently, the mandate to expand is no longer just a strategic business decision or a bourgeois desire for more production; it is a systemic necessity to prevent financial collapse. Even those at the highest echelons of power are forced to perpetuate this cycle of endless growth simply to service the ever-expanding ledger of global debt.
Stay ahead of the geopolitical week.
MD Briefing delivers expert analysis across five global fronts — the Indo-Pacific, energy, geoeconomics, European security, and the Middle East — every Monday morning. Free.
While this financial architecture dictates the need for expansion, the execution of that expansion remains tethered to stark political and geographic realities. It is this realisation that helped shape Lenin’s theoretical framework for understanding imperialism. Lenin stated that as capitalism developed further, it increasingly spread beyond national borders by exporting capital; meanwhile, powerful states began utilising diplomacy, financing, and military might to maintain favourable conditions for accumulation. According to Lenin, imperialism represented more than just the physical occupation of territory. It was the external manifestation of capitalism’s need for continuous growth and expansion.
David Harvey later extended Lenin’s analysis to the globalised economy. Harvey describes this process as “accumulation by dispossession,” i.e., how all types of resources (natural resource-based, human labour-based), territories, and public assets are continuously incorporated into new circuits of capital. While ideology, security concerns, and domestic politics all play significant roles in shaping war decisions, they also take place within a larger economic-political environment in which military power and economic power often functionally interact with each other.
One geographic region where the interaction between military and economic power is especially clear is the Middle East. Situated at the intersection of three continents; possessing massive amounts of energy reserves; controlling some of the world’s most important sea lanes; and providing substantial influence over the broader balance of global power; the Middle East is positioned centrally within the global economy. Influencing the local power dynamics also influences major aspects of global trade, energy markets and international relations.
Iran provides one paradigmatic case study of this dynamic. In 1951, Iran’s Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh decided that Iran’s natural wealth should belong to Iranians rather than British investors via nationalising the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (currently BP). British and U.S. policymakers did not see this move as mere commercial disagreement; instead, they perceived a threat to energy security due to Cold War fears about Soviet influence in the region. By 1953, with financial backing from Washington, D.C., London, and Tehran’s own secret police along with training provided by Washington’s Central Intelligence Agency and London’s Secret Intelligence Service, the U.S.-backed coup successfully returned pro-Western leadership under Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. It maintained U.S./British control over Iranian oil until 1979, when Ayatollah Khomeini took power.
While a general account describes the 1953 coup as merely a result of Cold War geopolitics, a Marxist analysis of the same event will be much clearer: why would Washington and London treat one nation’s attempt to recover control over its own resources as an existential threat that needed to be met with covert regime change? Mossadegh’s nationalisation threatened more than a British monopoly; it attacked the overall structure of Western access to strategically located energy sources in the Global South that existed after WWII. The justification of this order was not a side effect of anti-communism but its economic foundation. As soon as these types of arrangements exist, they create a structural imperative for future governments to intervene when resource nationalism attacks the current energy regime.
Similarly, while the language surrounding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq differed significantly from the previous example (i.e., claims made by President George W. Bush and Secretary Colin Powell that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction), a similar logic can be identified below the surface-level rhetoric of democratic transformation and liberating Iraqi citizens from tyranny. Specifically, policymakers in Washington D.C. viewed Iraq as situated geographically in a central location among several countries in the Persian Gulf region, all of which are critically located near multiple vital shipping lanes and contain large quantities of crude oil, and as such policymakers believed a hostile Iraqi regime posed a direct challenge to America’s ability to assert long-term control over the region’s energy supplies, shipping lanes, and overall influence.
Calling the Iraq invasion a “War for Oil” would be inaccurate. Ignoring oil would be equally so. Energy security, military power, and regional influence were interconnected. The invasion was not merely about control of a resource. It was also about shaping the political climate in a region whose importance to the global economy could not be overstated.
Libya has followed a similar path to destruction. The 2011 intervention authorised by NATO to save civilians in Benghazi soon turned into regime change. The fall of Muammar Gaddafi led to a disintegration of the Libyan state, and the militias and foreign powers filled the vacuum. What began as an effort to stop disorder became a more permanent and deepened version of it.
Because the Middle East occupies a central position in the global energy economy, the effects of intervention do not remain isolated within the boundaries of the intervening state. Rather, they come back as blowback. They disrupt energy markets, generate large-scale displacement, and create security consequences that extend far beyond the region. Ultimately, violence exported abroad returns to reshape domestic politics at home, causing increased polarisation, militarisation and the exact type of security crisis that intervention was intended to mitigate.
These outcomes also reveal an important tension within Marxist analysis. An orthodox Marxist lens directs our attention to the economic structures behind intervention. Yet today’s global economy complicates this picture. Modern finance depends on expanding markets, secure investment conditions, and uninterrupted supply chains. Armed conflict destroys capital, severs supply chains, and threatens the borderless market integration that finance craves.
Yet this does not invalidate Marx’s argument. Capitalism promises prosperity through trade, investments and increasing levels of interdependence among states. Imperialism distorts that promise by using coercive mechanisms to establish economic relationships based on inequality and strategic superiority over others. Here lies one of the central contradictions of the modern international order. A system that requires stability frequently resorts to destabilising techniques. Military superiority can remove governments, but it cannot produce legitimacy for such removed regimes. Similarly, military superiority can secure territory; however, it does not guarantee long-term political settlements.
The relentless, suffocating pressure this financialised system places on nations inevitably creates geopolitical snapping points. In this light, America’s Middle East wars are perhaps less a deliberate master plan by financiers to steal oil, and more the tragic, destructive by-product of an economic engine that pushes regional tensions to the breaking point. Furthermore, we must acknowledge that humans are not purely economic actors. Just as ancient civilisations often mobilised huge resources for spiritual rather than material needs, modern conflicts are frequently fuelled by deeply held religious, nationalistic, and ideological belief systems that take on a formidable life of their own, sometimes overriding strictly rational economic interests. A contemporary Marxist analysis must therefore recognise the interaction between material interests and human beliefs.
This volatile intersection, where rational economic interests are eclipsed by deep-seated ideological rivalries and selective moral frameworks, is perfectly illustrated by current U.S. policy toward Iran. Washington portrays Iran’s nuclear ambitions as an unacceptably dangerous threat yet treats nuclear cooperation with Saudi Arabia as acceptable. There is no technological reason for the difference. One state is seen as an enemy while the other is viewed as a friend. Therefore, what defines this issue is not merely who has nuclear technology; rather, it is who is allowed to have access to nuclear technology within an inherently unequal international order.
This remains the lasting value of a Marxist perspective. It forces us to look beyond the personalities of those that serve as President and focus on the institutional frameworks that will survive each administration. Each president comes and goes; each public justification changes; each ally becomes an enemy (or vice versa); however, the strategic importance of the Middle East to the global economy has been consistent since Mossadegh’s ouster to Iraq, Libya, and today’s conflict with Iran. Different crises have caused identical responses.
Marx identified the defining attribute of capitalism, its constant pursuit of accumulation. Lenin emphasised how capitalist development has increasingly taken an imperialist form. Harvey stresses how globalisation reinforces both economic and geopolitical power. Together they provide a compelling argument as to why military force repeatedly emerges as a means of preserving an international economic order built on continual expansion.
Marx once argued that philosophers had interpreted the world in different ways, but the point was to change it. Regardless of whether one agrees with his political prescriptions, his foundational framework, when updated for the age of financialisation, poses a formidable challenge to the prevailing narratives of U.S. foreign policy. As long as America’s Middle East wars continue to engender the very instability they promise to prevent, we must look beyond the failures of individual administrations or the hubris of specific military campaigns. The root problem lies in the irreconcilable contradictions of the system itself: an imperial architecture that enforces “stability” through military violence, underwritten by finance capital’s dependence on endless debt and coerced expansion, and the insurgent ideologies that every intervention incubates. Intervention and blowback are not failures of the model but features of it. Until this structural engine is confronted, the cycle will remain permanent.
