When an imperialist country is threatening to attack a less powerful country, anti-imperialists everywhere must focus all their energies on preventing the imperialist country from starting a war by aiming all their political firepower on the imperialist country. This is to recognise the difference in their respective capacities to exploit and oppress people around the world. This is particularly true if you happen to be living in either an imperialist country or a nation that supports an imperialist power. To criticise both the imperialist country and the country they are threatening equally is to re-enforce the inbuilt inequality in the situation and thus to favour the imperialist power. It is always in the interests of anti-imperialists to see the imperialist power defeated. Any defeat for any imperialist power is a blow against imperialism in general.I couldn't disagree with this position more. If my daughter gets beaten up every day on the playground by a large, violent bully, and then one day the bully is beaten up by a larger kid, I am not tempted to rush to the defence of the bully. (In this case, of course, the position of my daughter is occupied by the citizens of Iran, not least the women of Iran and the working class of Iran.) Unconditional support for regional imperial powers like Iran or for fascist rackets like Hizbollah is a dangerous, reactionary, stupid policy.
Thus the defeat of the Israeli Army (IDF) by Hezbollah last year should be seen as a victory for anti-imperialism regardless of any criticisms you may have of Hezbollah. Many of us gave Hezbollah unconditional, but not uncritical, support.
The ridiculous Leninist "unconditional but not uncritical support" formula should have been thrown away long ago. It is a prime example of the bankruptcy of the movement that calls itself "anti-imperialist".