Re: [A-List] Gulf Allies Support Goals of New U.S. Strategy in Iraq

["Peter Hollings" <PeterHollings@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

A very interesting perspective. However, if the current power structures  
in the Middle East were to be replaced, isn't it likely that they would be  
replaced by ones less favorable to the US? What is there to favor  
progression away from semi-feudal, pro-western conditions, at least over a  
5 to 10 year horizon? Aren't we more likely than not to end up in the  
short term with angry, anti-US governments if some sort of "astonishing  
change" occurred?

If things boil over in the Middle East, isn't that more likely than not to  
be in response to anti-US sentiment and isn't the result to be the same?  
How can one argue that the opposite will occur  -- even to such an extent  
that Israel will become unnecessary as a US supporter in the region? No, I  
think it is more of what we have been thru made even worse by the hatred  
that we have engendered in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is not likely that  
there will be some benign flowering that renders Israel unnecessary. In  
fact, Israel is a burden for the US establishing peaceful relatios in the  
region.


Peter Hollings



On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 10:27:09 -0500, Yoshie Furuhashi  
<critical.montages@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 1/19/07, Nestor Gorojovsky <nestorgoro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Respuesta a:"Re: [A-List] Gulf Allies Support Goals of New U.S"
> > Enviado por:Macdonald Stainsby
> > Con fecha:18 Jan 2007, a las 6:02
> >
> > > Hey Yoshie.
> > > I have to beg to differ.
> > >
> >
> > Hey all:
> >
> > I think that we should all beg to differ in a dialectical way.
> >
> > What would be the use of Israel for the US if there existed no semi-
> > feudal states in the Gulf or if there were only a few, and the main
> > ones suffered some particularly astonishing change? Wouldn't Zionism
> > become a useless pain in the ass?
> >
> > In this case, in the hypothetic case of a series of rebellions in
> > these states (which are always more likely than a socialist
> > revolution in Israel), things would change a lot, wouldn't they?
> >
> > I am not predicting anything. I am just begging all of us not to call
> > a red herring a clam, while we discard a potential clam only because
> > it has been repeatedly used as a red herring _in an entirely
> > different context_. The Iraqi stalemate and the probability of an
> > attack on Iran with unknown consequences in the immediate future are,
> > methinks, an important change of context.
> >
> > I might be wrong, but perhaps Yoshie was thinking in that sense.
> > (Yoshie, up to you to belie me.)
>
> That's PRECISELY what I have been thinking!
>
> I used to think that the road to Mecca, i.e. the Gulf states, might go
> through Jerusalem, the Gulf states' support for the Israeli occupation
> eventually waking up the Arabs and Iranians to the main strategic
> asset of imperialism in the Middle East, the asset they need to
> reclaim.  But that doesn't seem to be happening.  They need to
> squarely confront the problem of the Gulf states first and foremost.
> If the Arabs could deprive imperialism of the pro-Washington power
> elite in the Gulf states, their hands would be immeasurably
> strengthened, putting them into a better position to end the Israeli
> occupation.



--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/