[A-List] Re: Awful Truth About Hillary.... + The Question of Iran at the Cairo Conference

[CeJ <jannuzi@xxxxxxxxx>]

> > The Pentagon's most likely next target is Iran.

I believe this is largely a red herring. Here is why. The US military
is not in any way ready to   attack Iran. First, because it is bogged
down in Iraq and Afghanistan. Second, ironically, because these
countries border Iran (and the running of their occupations requires
collaborators and proxies who, in part, have relations with Iran).

The biggest factor in the mix though is what Israel will or will not
do. The US's zionist-colonialist-imperialist proxy in the ME is also a
major 'mad dog' rogue state factor.
Israeli foreign policy and militarism might well be on a course to
force the US to take action or support its own actions against Iran.
The other wild card in the pack is Russia, which is facing a
transition in leadership in the near future. OTOH, the establishment
Dems in the US are where they are because they promise continuity in
US foreign policy and militarism.
But I think that the issue to watch with the Dems who would be king is
how many sign on to a form of the Biden plan for Iraq as the final
solution. I think Edwards is the only one of the major candidates who
does not now seem capable of embracing the Biden federal plan, but a
Pres. Edwards might be a totally different person.

Next, the question of Iran from YF's post:

> Tehran is crucial to the project of checking US hegemony, thus
> invaluable to struggles elsewhere, especially in the Middle East and
> Latin America; at the same time, what Tehran does in pursuit of its
> perceived national interest creates various problems, above all in
> Iraq.

Well the US foreign policy and military establishments would say that
Iran is crucial in revising and sustaining US hegemony worldwide and
in the ME (because of non-Arab Islam, because of the oil, because of
the geographic position of Iran, because Iran is a regional power with
an increasing population, etc.).

There are the interests linked to Iran that prevail in Iran (let's
assume that they have control
of the government), and then there are 'Iranian interests' that
prevail in Iraq. They are not the same thing, but I guess the question
is more, Do any Iranian interests prevail in occupied Iraq? That seems
to be another US establishment red herring (i.e., the idea that Bush
blew this righteous war and occupation and now Iran runs the show).

This is further complicated by the US national security state using
Iraq as their base to pursue 'regime change' in Iran (if only as a
form of revenge against 'revolutionary' Iran for attacking US
interests over 25 years ago). This institutional memory tied to
foreign policy, they must feel, is key to re-writing the history books
in order to keep US hegemony going forever (or until the end of the
world). Look how long the vindictiveness towards Vietnam has been the
official policy. The rise of the Ayatollah Khomeini and its alteration
of the course of history and US influence in the region is something
they hope they can revise, erase, and rewrite, like current day
Nicaragua or the Balkans.

On to the content of the article:


> All delegates agreed, however, on the urgent efforts to defend Iran's
> right to nuclear energy and oppose U.S.-led threats against Iran.  The
> declaration declared that "we have to join our efforts to stop this
> crazy war by organizing protests, demonstrations, and campaigns all
> over the world."
> --

The US will ratchet up the rhetoric and warmongering in order to
satisfy mad dog Israel. It might be forced into 'preemptive' action
against Iran in order to preempt Israel from bombing Iran.

That would bring Russia into things in an even bigger way. No wonder
the US establishment Democrats want to focus on Russia, with its
presidential election and who will follow Putin.

CJ