Martin Greenfield says the left should not be surprised that unions have not clearly opposed the US-Israel war. Instead it should work to get its own house in order.
The responses of Australian trade unions to the US–Israel assault on Iran have, taken as a whole, been weak and politically limited.
Given the scale of the crisis caused by the war, it is worth examining what the movement has said since the US and Israel launched its attack. The answer is: very little – and what has been said reflects the political level of the contemporary union movement.
The Australian Council of Trade Unions has issued no statement at all. Most unions have remained silent. Among those that have spoken, some have even avoided naming the aggressors and instead frame their objections in terms of humanitarian concern or appeals for “peace” and “de-escalation”, rather than condemning the war as an imperialist assault led by the United States and Israel.
This should not surprise us.
But before criticising the unions too sharply, the socialist and anti-war left should look at its own positions and commitment to building a mass democratic anti-war movement.
Lacking political clarity
Across the union statements there is little attempt to situate the war within the framework of the modern imperialist system – except for the statement from the Maritime Union of Australia.
The Australian Education Union did explicitly condemn “the irresponsible and illegal bombing carried out by Israel and the United States against Iran”, naming the aggressors. That is welcome. But its explanation rests largely within the framework of international law, diplomacy and stability, combined with calls for “ceasefire and de-escalation” that mirror the rhetoric of the Australian government. It doesn’t call for Australia to withdraw its forces from the region, but to “reject any steps that would draw Australia into further military conflict”.
The National Tertiary Education Union statement was worse, opening with: “The NTEU condemns the escalation of military conflict in the Middle East following recent United States and Israeli strikes on Iran”.
Having its first condemnation for the escalation following the US-led attack shifts the blame onto Iran for responding militarily to being attacked. It fails to condemn the US and Israel, instead condemning the escalation and the repression of Iranians by the Iranian government, while adding that “this does not justify the recent actions”.
The NTEU has framed its response primarily through opposition to “escalation” and support for diplomacy and international law.
The Australian Services Union condemned “military strikes and the dangerous escalation” without naming the perpetrators at all. Instead, its statement devoted significant attention to condemning the repression carried out by the Iranian regime and expressing solidarity with Iranian democratic protesters.
Socialists of course oppose the repression of workers and women in Iran. But to elevate this to equal prominence at a time when Australia is politically aligned with an imperialist assault on the country is to obscure the central political question.
The Victorian branch of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union also did not identify the United States or Israel as responsible for launching the war. Its opposition was framed largely through domestic economic arguments about the costs of militarisation and the possibility of redirecting AUKUS spending into local manufacturing.
Opposition to AUKUS is necessary – but not as a budgetary adjustment. The issue is Australia’s integration into the US war machine.
Economism and ‘the cost of war’
Some of the union responses emphasised the economic consequences of the war for Australian workers as a central reason to oppose it.
There is a truth to this. Wars of this kind are pushing up fuel and transport costs and contributing to wider inflationary pressures that will fall disproportionately on working class people. It is correct to argue that workers should not pay for imperialism’s wars.
But when this becomes the primary framework for opposing the war, the result is an economistic and nationalist argument rather than an internationalist one.
The problem with the assault on Iran is not simply that it makes life more expensive in Australia. It is that it is an imperialist war directed against a country in the Global South, supported politically by the Australian state.
An example of this came not in a formal anti-war statement but in a report by the Electrical Trades Union of Australia on the Australia Progress 2026 Conference, which observed:
“Recent global instability, particularly the war in Iran, has highlighted the importance of energy security. Australia’s growing renewable capacity is already playing a role in insulating the country from international shocks.”
This treats the war primarily as a lesson in how Australia can protect itself from geopolitical disruption. It is not an internationalist response to imperialist war.
The missing imperialist framework
Most striking is what is absent from the statements.
Apart from the Maritime Union of Australia, none attempt to analyse the war as part of a wider imperialist strategy across the Middle East. None address the fact that Israel is simultaneously using the fog of war to intensify operations in Lebanon, southern Syria and against Palestinians in the West Bank.
None seriously examine Australia’s own integration into US war planning through AUKUS, direct military targeting from Pine Gap, the deployment of RAAF to the Iranian war theatre, and the expanding network of bases on Australian soil.
The MUA statement correctly described the assault as “the brutal expression of an imperialist system that puts corporate profit, arms dealers and Great Power rivalry ahead of human need.”
That is a clearer political starting point than the other responses. But statements alone do not shift the balance of forces. Without organised political work among members, even strong formulations remain words on paper.
The movement against the war is very small
While the overall union response is weak, the socialist and anti-war left cannot claim to be in a stronger position.
The movement against the war on Iran is still very small. That is an indictment of the left itself and the broader Palestine solidarity campaign in particular. Despite its size and persistence, the pro-Palestine campaign has not yet succeeded in building a genuinely mass democratic anti-imperialist movement capable of pivoting quickly to oppose a new war in the region.
Had such an approach existed, it could have influenced the union responses and helped transform the emerging anti-imperialist sentiment around Palestine into a movement challenging the Albanese government’s support for Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu’s war.
Instead, three small and politically distinct anti-war camps have emerged.
One tendency, that includes Labor Tribune, starts from the understanding that while our movement is internationalist, our main enemy is at home. From this perspective, the central task of the movement in Australia is to knock out the Albanese government’s support for the war, while expressing solidarity with the Iranian people in their struggle to survive the imperialist assault.
A second tendency prioritises the slogan of the “defence of Iran”. This includes many Trotskyist grouplets, ‘Third Worldist’ groups like Red Ant/Red Spark and the Communist Unity group, perhaps influenced by their Spartacist interlocutors. While this is a form of anti-imperialism, it risks giving political cover to the Iranian regime – or at least being interpreted as doing so. Further, it does not function as an effective mobilising slogan in Australia, where the immediate task is opposing our own government’s role in the war.
A third tendency – understandable but politically dangerous – begins to dovetail behind the imperialist assault itself. Sections of the Iranian diaspora, shaped by direct experience of repression under the Islamic Republic, have raised slogans centred on regime change or have equated the violence of the imperialist onslaught with the nature of the Iranian regime. There are echoes of this in some of the union responses.
This position weakens opposition to the war at precisely the moment when clarity is most needed.
Until the left can get its own house in order, it can hardly expect the trade union movement to leap to consistent anti-imperialist conclusions.
The main enemy is at home
Marxists do not analyse wars through the framework of international law or on the basis of abstract democracy. We analyse them according to the class interests they serve.
In the present case the Australian government is aligned politically and strategically with an imperialist assault led by the United States and Israel. The responsibility of the labour movement here is therefore clear: oppose Australia’s involvement in that assault and stand in solidarity with the people of Iran as they face it.
The main enemy of the Australian working class is not in Tehran, it is our ‘own’ capitalist class, US imperialism and their political enablers here in Australia.
No illusions – and a huge task ahead
For years sections of the far-left have maintained economistic illusions about the role of the trade union movement, imagining that it could help generate anti-imperialist leadership and big-upping this or that statement or left-sounding union leader.
The response to the war on Iran is a reminder that trade unions, as they currently exist, remain deeply integrated into the political framework of the Australian state and the Labor Party. It is therefore not surprising that their responses reflect humanitarian concern, domestic cost-of-living arguments and calls for diplomacy rather than militant opposition to imperialist war.
But the left cannot exempt itself from criticism either.
Until a political movement exists capable of shifting the consciousness of thousands of workers in a clear anti-imperialist direction, it is unrealistic to expect the unions to arrive there first.
Trade unions remain essential organisations of the working class. But anti-militarist and socialist conclusions do not arise automatically from workplace struggle. They must be fought for politically.
If thousands – and eventually millions – of workers are to reach anti-militarist, anti-imperialist and socialist conclusions, that will not come from waiting for better union statements. It will come from the hard work of building a political movement capable of making those conclusions common sense among workers and across the labour movement itself.