Re: [Marxism] Why Bush can get away with attacking Iran

[Andrew Chitty <andrewchitty@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Another reason not to expect the US to bomb Iran is that they need 
active Iranian cooperation (via its local proxies like the Badr Brigade) 
in order to keep the lid on the situation in Iraq. This is even more the 
case now the British have pulled out of Basr.

This whole discussion presupposes that the US administration functions 
as a unified entity acting in its foreign policy to advance the 
geopolitical interests of the US and of its ruling class. If instead the 
administration's decisions are the result of specific cliques or lobbies 
pursuing their particular aims, then all bets would be off. That is why 
Bricmont's arguments depend quite heavily on his assumption that the 
Israel lobby dictates US Middle East policy.

Marvin Gandall wrote:
> John Edmundson wrote:
>
>   
>> On Tue, 2007-09-04 at 14:07 -0400, Louis Proyect wrote:
>>     
>>> http://www.counterpunch.org/bricmont09042007.html
>>>       
>> "Both U.S. political parties are equally under the control of the Israel
>> lobby, and so are the media..."
>>
>> This is the same old 'tail wagging dog' stuff that pervades the left.
>> Israel (or its "lobby") has never dictated US foreign policy. Of course
>> the relationship between Israel and the US is a complex one but it seems
>> pretty obvious that its the one dishing out the billions that's in
>> charge, not the one with its hand out.
>>
>> I don't think it's wise to assume that the US won't attack Iran;
>> actually I wasn't aware that that position, as outlined in the
>> Counterpunch article was that pervasive but perhaps it is in the States.
>> On the other hand...I doubt the Saudis or many
>> other Middle Eastern governments feel as secure as Jean Bricmont
>> assumes.
>>     
> ======================
> I agree on both counts.
>
> Additionally and FWIW, here's how I weigh the situation:
>
> Arguing against war is the remarkable sang-froid being conspicuously
> displayed by the Iranians in the face of the war threats. This is a more
> reliable indicator than the leaks in the press and the speculation on the
> left. If the Iranian authorities were truly alarmed about a pending attack,
> you would expect them to be warning their own people and mobilizing them in
> an effort to deter the aggression and to encourage outside pressure by third
> parties and world opinion on the Americans. They are not doing so, as far as
> I can tell.
>
> Instead, by loudly announcing two days ago that they are making good
> progress on the nuclear front they seem to laughing in the face of the Bush
> administration, on the assumption that the latter is simply bluffing in an
> effort to frighten the Security Council into tightening sanctions. The
> Iranians seem to be signalling to the Europeans, Russians and Chinese that
> they don't accept that there is a credible threat of war, and that it is
> idle to threaten them with further sanctions (which are easily evaded), and
> that these countries should better expend their efforts pressuring the US to
> negotiate its outstanding differences with the Islamic Republic.
>
> Arguing for war is what Fred alluded to earlier: the US doesn't have to use
> land forces to wreak destruction on the country. It can bomb with relative
> impunity from air and sea. I'm concerned that US and Israeli politicians and
> generals may be interpreting last year's war in Lebanon not as a "defeat",
> as others do, but as a success - if not a military one, at least within the
> framework of their political objectives -  in that it has made Hezbollah and
> the other Lebanese justifiably wary of providing the Israelis with another
> pretext to inflict punitive destruction on the country.
>
> >From this perspective, the Americans may think a temporary spike in oil
> prices, Iranian civilian outrage, world-wide demonstrations, the loss of
> some aircraft, and stepped up attacks on their forces in Iraq a small price
> to pay for wreaking the kind of economic havoc which could foster internal
> discontent with the Ahmadinejad government for pursuing an "adventurist"
> foreign policy.
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>   


________________________________________________
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