[Marxism] Re:Iraq-Iran

["Fred Feldman" <ffeldman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Actually, everything indicates that Jesse Jack is right.  In fact, his
argument just barely qualifies as speculation rather than proven fact.
In fact,  I think the turmoil in Iraq, which is now another reason for
attacking Iran since Iran is a major challenger to US dominance there
through its ties to the Shia (and a challenge in Lebanon as well),
probably delayed the timetable for moving on Iran.

It was a popular quip among the White House, Pentagon, and NSC staff
types -- those called, increasingly meaninglessly, the
"neoconservatives," that lots of people wanted to invade Baghdad, but
"real men want to go to Tehran."

I am pretty sure this is set in concrete as far as the administration
goes, and to stop it some very powerful sector of the rulers would have
to take the step of bringing down the administration.  Impeachment and
so forth. But the rulers are agreed that the nuclearization of Iran --
even if they don't immediately go for weapons -- and Iran's capacities
as a regional challenger must be defeated. Iranian oil must come under
direct or indirect US control again. The problem is that mistrust of the
administration's capacity to lead such a campaign is widespread.

Latest opinion polls show that while a plurality of those polled favor
military action if needed to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon,
54 percent have no confidence in the administration's capacity to make
the right decisions about this.  I think the real ruling-circles opinion
and debate is not around the first issue -- whether -- but around the
second -- can they do the job or will they muck it up?

The lack of confidence in this administration as a war leader against
Iran among the rulers and their operatives is real.  That is the real
message of the generals' attack on Rumsfeld and of the leaks to Seymour
Hersch and the prosecution of Libby -- all that awful  and disloyalty
that is regularly denounced on the right, and in the pages of the
Militant newspaper, for the few who still follow it.

But will they take the risks of breaking an administration and
unleashing a wave of exposures at a time when the US population is
growing more restive in a variety of ways?  They must fear the possible
collapse of some of their positions in the Middle East if the US becomes
entangled in a deep political internal crisis.  Would a new
administration be able to get the war drive back on track so easily
after the pause for factional warfare?  All this makes it quite possible
that the decisive sectors will decide to let the next war go ahead and
hope for the best.  (The Militant is militantly convinced that
Bush-Rumsfeld have the right policy for imperialism, and they are
outraged when anyone in the ruling circles says otherwise.)

Remember, the war will probably start with a bombing campaign against
the nuclear-rated sites, including the Iranians' dangerous "intellectual
capacity" to construct nuclear weapons. There may be a pause after that,
to give the Iranian regime a chance to collapse and make possible a
"peaceful": occupation  of some sort.  The rulers may hope for another
chance to assess the situation and push forward or retreat, temporarily
they hope, after that "succeeds" -- and destruction is something they
have been very successful at so far.

This is the road to disaster and ruin, but I imagine they have waded so
far in blood already that it must seem at least as hard to turn back as
go on.
Fred Feldman





________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism