[Marxism] Iraq invasion plans

Fred Feldman ffeldman at bellatlantic.net
Sat Jan 28 12:11:07 MST 2006

David Walters wrote:

US plans to hit Iran militarily over it's nuclear energy policy (which
the US

sees as a threat to it because they believe it's a nuclear weapons

The discussion involves what the US could do or would like to do. It

the usual scenerios of bombing, how to get "all" the nuclear sites,

landings, what the political backlash would do, etc. Howeve, along these

one such scenerio, which is very scary, is an 'abbrviated invasion" into

mostly Arab speaking part of Iran, Krushistan, where, incidently, much

Iran's petro-chemical industry is. Now, this is really scary be the US,

theory, already has enough in place to do something like this.

Fred comments:

I want to express thanks to various comrades who expressed concern about
my absence (from their standpoint, disappearance).

That includes Louis Proyect, who was so worried that he went to the
length of misrepresenting my views on Bolivia to try to provoke me out
of my silence.  I accept the misrepresentation in the friendly spirit in
which it was offered.

I was in hospital three times for injury and cut off from phone and
conmputer service for several weeks.  Since I think resistance to war on
Iran is a very serious matter facing us, I come back in on this
question. So far, at least, Morales is making an excellent case for
himself and needs no defense explanation or retreat on my part.

I want to solidarize with david, a perceptive  comrade, whom I often
disapgree with on matters

that we both think are substantive, in sounding  the alarm about the
seriousness of the threat of a US attack on Iran.
Do you see powerful Democrats warning against it? Peace activists? The
Washington Post? The New YOrk Times? Hilary Clinton?  OK, ridiculous
idea, Russell Reingold?
The issue is not, is this an adventure? No, Iraq was an adventure.  This
is more like madness.  But can Washington afford to have a Middle East
power other than Israel emerge as 
a nuclear power? No.

And, of course, Iran is seeking nuclear capacity.  How else can they
effectively deter Washington and Israel.
Military power is Washington's strongest point.  Do not assume that all
Iran's threats can be backed up, because Washington doesn't.  Maybe an
attack will be an immediate disaster,l but maybe as in the case of 
Iraq, it will take more time.
One reason why people are afraid of taking the threat against Iran
seriously is that we are afraid of having to take on the prejudices of
Iran in public opinion.
After all, this would be the anti\Isamofascism war, the feminist war,
the gay rights war.
But we have to take it on.  Only if there is real division at home can
we expect some sector of the ruling class to decisively put its thumb on
the scales againt.
Washington's problems in Iraq push it towards attacking Iran to cover a
partial retreat and to counter the gains for Iran which are central
consequences of the setback in Iraq.
We must operate on the assumption that the Iran attack is a totally
serious prospect.  And therefore we must fight  against it, not just
weigh various estimates.
The attack is far from inevitable, but our weight must be on the scales.

More information about the Marxism mailing list