Re: [Marxism] Bolton: Israel 'will attack Iran' before new USpresident in office, especially if it's Obama

[Marvin Gandall <marvgandall@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Fred Feldman writes:

> Marvin wrote:
> I'll read your stuff more carefully in future so as to avoid coming to the
> wrong conclusions about it.
>
> Fred replies:
> I hope that is a promise and not a mere threat, which could not be relied
> on. I learn most from people who criticize me carefully. Even in my
> loyallest days in the SWP, I always remember anything somebody said in
> answer to me, even if I polemicized against it aggressively and sincerely.
>
> And it sometimes contributed to changing my views on things, mostly based
> on
> experience (which as an old fashioned American in some ways is still my
> main
> teacher) but assimilating the experience was reinforced by the fact that
> the
> criticism had not dropped out of my mind.
>
> So please. Take me apart. I may get mad but I certainly won't kill you, so
> what the hell.

That's reassuring. I'll try to remember that.

> If you reread my stuff on Iran in the past, I think you might gather that
> I
> think that war with Iran (and war with Iran in particular -- here I might
> or
> might not differ with Artesian, I don't know) is deeply embedded in the
> current economic and overall international situation of US imperialism,
> and
> the current economic situation pushes in both directions -- against and
> for.
>
> The basic alternative to war with Iran, at the present time and for the
> future we can foresee right now, which is not much, is a deal with the
> current government of Iran for an alliance of sorts in the Middle East.
> This is entirely possible, and some prominent and intelligent ruling-class
> hired thinking guns like Zbigniew Brzezinski think this is what would
> happen. And he is far from alone. And his arguments are strong from a
> purely
> pragmatic point of view.

This is considerably more nuanced than your last post, what I'd come to
expect.

> But this would be a historic retreat for US imperialism. SHARING POWER
> (even
> though Iran's demands are modest, and the main one is for the regime to be
> permitted to survive) in the Middle East is unacceptable to Washington. It
> is often stated that the US state is learning that it must accept a
> multipolar world.
>
> But it seems that the most decisive layers may in fact think that there is
> a
> multipolar world, but that the US MUST FIGHT RUTHLESSLY TO MAKE IT
> UNIPOLAR.
> Am I convinced that this wing will remain dominant? No. Defeats abroad and
> economic crisis could force a retreat.

> But we should always remember President Clinton's declaration that the
> "America is the one indispensable country."  Everyone else is dispensable.
>
> As far as I can see, despite all the obstacles they have run into and I
> believe they are ALL worried, even the ones who act most cocky and
> invincible.  They have a lot to worry about. But are they ready to accept
> the perspective of retreat.

Well, that is what is being fought out right now and since the Iraq invasion
went bad, isn't it?  You still seem to believe - Sartesian certainly does -
that the US's current troubles are temporary and that it still enjoys or
will soon recover the power to enforce its unilateral will on the rest of
the world. You suspect I don't really understand the ferocious nature of the
beast and am contributing to dangerous complacency, which is what prompted
your last intervention.  I too accept that I can "learn most from people who
criticize me carefully", but for now, I lean towards the US having to make
necessary accomodations to its rising adversaries like China, Russia, and
Iran and its increasingly less respectful allies in Europe and elsewhere
because of how the world situation has changed in the past decade. There's
been a similar discussion on Michael Perelman's PEN-L list, where I
commented as follows:

" The power of the lone remaining imperialist state bent on world domination
also seems to be on the wane - Iraq and the debtor status of the US being
the most recent examples of America's increased vulnerability to the
military and economic challenges being presented to it from what we used to
call the third world. Perhaps it will make the necessary adjustments to cope
with "asymmetric" warfare and to correct its current account deficit, but
it's unlikely it will ever attain it's former preeminence in world affairs.
The present divisions within the US ruling class are between that faction
which recognizes this and wants to adapt to the new global reality, and the
reactionary wing represented by the Bush administration which refuses to do
so and is making the adjustment so wrenching."



________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40archives.econ.utah.edu