In fact, virtually all Chinese adherents of Marxism-Leninism agree with your statement that "the primary cause of poverty and hunger among the populations of anti-American regimes is the blockade imposed by NATO, rather than oppression by the regimes themselves."
However, a fundamental disagreement arises thereafter: Chinese Marxist-Leninists believe that the root cause of everything lies in capitalist relations of production—specifically, the private ownership of the means of production and wage labor. They argue that when a weak capitalist nation breaks through a blockade and gradually evolves into a stage of monopoly capitalism, it will inevitably become the next imperialist power—citing the Empire of Japan as an example. Consequently, they maintain that such regimes should merely be utilized by the Left as instruments, rather than being objects of loyalty.
I believe this stems from the differences in historical memory between China and Western nations; in reality, Western countries never established independent leftist states through revolution.
In Chinese history: The Japanese Empire justified its invasion during World War II by claiming to "oppose British and American colonialism in East Asia," yet history proved them to be fascists.
Similarly, the Kuomintang under Chiang Kai-shek justified its resistance by citing opposition to "the Japanese Empire's aggression and colonial rule in China," even though they, too, proved to be fascists.
You hold the view that "no one but an anti-American regime can defend the Iranian people," whereas Chinese Marxist-Leninists believe that "the victory of the Communist Party of China demonstrates that the people are capable of defending themselves."