[Marxism] Re: NYT: Britain adopts conciliatory tone with Iran (was April 6)

[Greg McDonald <sabocat59@xxxxxxx>]

Fred wrote:

"...By the way, I know we all reject the set-the-date for attacking  
Iran, but I
think it would be harmful to US interests to attack Iran without  
seriously
trying to get the sailors out.   An attack on Friday, would be very,  
very!,
VERY unpopular in Britain.

By the way, I very much doubt that the Bush administration would be  
able to
sustain an attack on Iran long enough to accomplish their goals under
present world political conditions.  Note also that Iran is now  
diversifying
their uranium-enrichment locations to assure that they cannot be quickly
eliminated by bombing.  This is one reason they have broken off  
cooperation
with the IAEA which requires public knowledge of the location of such
facilities.

I think Iran made this attack to demonstrate that they could and would
defend their borders, although all the internecine conflicts then get  
into
the soup....

Fred Feldman

(In a hopeful sign, Fred's thoughtful analysis of the near-term  
improbability of an aerial attack on
Iran seems to be gaining traction. I think we all have our fingers  
crossed on this one.  Let's hope it's not just another example of  
"speak softly and carry a big stick" ; or, rather, Bush's obvious  
answer to "Who would Jesus bomb?" ).--Greg


POLITICS-US:
Tough Week for Bush Middle East Strategy
Analysis by Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON, Apr 1 (IPS) - To the extent the administration of U.S.  
President George W. Bush has a coherent Middle East policy, it took  
some serious hits this past week.

No, not the democracy-promotion strategy, although that didn't fare  
very well either given what even the State Department conceded was  
the obvious rigging of the constitutional-reform referendum that  
Amnesty International called the "greatest erosion of human rights"  
in Egypt in the past 25 years.

No, that strategy, to the degree it was ever seriously pursued, was  
replaced about six months or so ago by a new approach designed to  
rally the region's Sunni "moderate" authoritarian governments --  
namely, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf emirates -- and  
forge them into a U.S.-led alliance, possibly even including Israel,  
against the region's "radicals" -- Iran, Syria, Lebanon's Hezbollah  
and Palestinian Hamas.

That new strategy was supplemented by an effort, officially launched  
in early February, to halt Iraq's rapid descent into full-scale  
sectarian civil war by sending some 35,000 additional troops to  
Baghdad and al-Anbar province. When completed by this summer, the so- 
called "surge" is supposed to bring total U.S. forces to as many as  
175,000, or about the same number that invaded Iraq four years ago.

But events of this past week raised serious questions about the  
prospects for success on both fronts...

...That the unsustainability of Bush's larger regional strategy was  
perhaps penetrating even the White House this past week was suggested  
by its uncharacteristically restrained reaction here to the continued  
detention by Iranian forces of the 15 British sailors seized in  
disputed waters near the entry to the Shatt-al-Arab in the Gulf eight  
days ago.

Unlike past outrages quickly seized on by Bush to remind "evil-doers"  
that "all options are on the table", British Prime Minister Tony  
Blair was left to fulminate against Tehran pretty much on his own.  
(END/2007)
full:http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=37176



________________________________________________
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