[Marxism] Forwarded from Syaavash

Louis Proyect lnp3 at panix.com
Sun Jul 23 10:19:02 MDT 2006


(Syaavash, this bounced because it was greater than 35K. Since the article 
is online, I took the liberty of forwarding the first few paragraphs. I 
should mention that the author is subbed to Marxmail.)

This is part of a long analyses on Middle East seeking an answer to the 
current crisis in the region. An approach from the opposite side of that of 
Yoshie Furuhashi. Lets forget about the real position of Ayat-al-lah 
Sistani in his recent statement on Palestine (and Lebanon?!), I am looking 
forward to read her critic on this piece. Syaavash


Read full article:  http://www.countercurrents.org/iran-mehrdad150706.htm


Now assuming that the Bush administration has embarked on the third stage 
of its plan to colonies the Middle East, it should be said that it is 
deploying more complicated and diverse methods than in the past. Assuming 
that a future darker than Afghanistan and Iraq awaits the Iranian people we 
should return to the principle question of this article: Can one stop 
Bush's attempts to impose sovereignty in the Middle East and stop another 
disastrous war?
The peoples of Iran and the Middle East have been placed in a perilous 
situation. Yet they don't face a blind destiny. One can say this with 
confidence. Stopping Bush's war machine, defeating his domineering 
intentions are difficult but not impossible.

If nothing is done, the Middle East is a scene of eternal tragedy, 
enslavement and captivity. The principle players are fundamentalists of all 
shapes and sizes Islamists, Jewish or Christian fundamentalists, 
nationalist and racist groups, a dozen corrupt dictatorial governments and 
finally the agents and operators of major oil cartels and arms 
manufacturers. In such a scenario, the player capable of overthrowing 
injustice, darkness and dictatorship appears absent. One cannot see a force 
capable of expressing the wishes and the interests of the masses and this 
is a serious problem facing the Middle East. The more one avoids 
confronting this reality, in the name of 'wisdom' or 'realism' the worse 
the situation will get and the more inevitable the prospect of a major 
disaster. As long as this shortcoming exists one cannot imagine a Middle 
East capable of standing up to the US aggression, capable of protecting 
itself from war, destruction and annihilation.

One cannot depend on regional states performing miracles. We can obviously 
set aside the members of the Empire's club, those who in reality act merely 
as second hand contractors. However, one should not be optimistic about 
those states that do not fit in this circle. Not only are these states no 
different from the others in the region when it comes to repression and 
dictatorship (often they are amongst the worst), but when confronted by 
imperialist offensives, they have neither the willingness nor the 
resolution to stand up to it. Nor do they have the necessary popular base 
and capability needed for such a confrontation. Amongst the regimes of the 
region, it would be difficult to find a single example that would not sell 
its independence and all its citizens' belongings and livelihoods, at the 
offer of an imperialist 'breathing space. Even when such regimes face the 
abyss and they are forced to defend themselves, they don't give up the hope 
for deals and negotiations and they do not miss any opportunity for seeking 
'diplomatic initiatives' (26). Rather than their anti-imperialist rhetoric, 
the problem of these regimes is their incompetence and inability at playing 
a sufficiently useful role as servants of the 'New order'. Iran's Islamic 
regime is a perfect example of such regimes.

Even if we assume that the will and intention to resist imperialism exists, 
a regime such as Iran's Islamic Republic can only confront a major super 
power, if it possesses sufficient defenses. It would utter folly to rely on 
the military power of a third world country to stand up to the US war 
machine. One cannot imagine that military maneuvers, showing off a few old 
and new military equipment, even the threat of using weapons of mass 
destruction can create any hesitations in the intentions of the custodians 
of the new world order (27). Such quixotic gesturing are merely open 
invitations to Washington to use its most destructive weapons with a 
vicious, barbaric attack without scruple. Such an invitation will pose no 
inconvenience to the US war machine. It will not affect their 'neo' 
consciousness.

The weapon of suicide bombings or the use of the Iraqi Shiites as a winning 
card, can itself become a source of encouragement to launch pre-emptive 
attacks (28). Irrespective of the usefulness of such tactics and 
irrespective of the capability of the Iranian regime to use them, one 
cannot ignore the fact that the threat of terrorist attacks or a religious 
war will only serve as justification for the theory of 'unlimited war on 
terror' and a cover for the 'clash of civilizations'. Many amongst 
influential neo conservatives believe that victory against 'jihadist 
terrorism' can be achieved by destroying their refuges and states 
supporting them. Many such ideologues are of the opinions that the road to 
victory in Baghdad passes through Tehran and drying up resistance in Iraq 
requires an attack against Iran and overthrow of the Islamic regime (29). 
"Real Men" (a name given by neo conservatives to themselves) have argued 
such ideas for many years. They believe in closing the 'Iran file'.

The sole weapon of any government in confronting imperialist powers is 
solid and powerful popular resistance and mass mobilization. Without such a 
support it is absurd to talk of resistance by a third world country. The 
Islamic regime in Iran has no such weapon nor does it possess the ability 
to gain one. The fundamental problem of the Islamic regime is not just that 
it has lost its social backing. More importantly it faces a paradox were it 
to rely on mobilizing its citizens in the event of an imperialist attack. 
This regime is unable to call on Iranians to defend their sovereignty 
against imperialist aggression, while for decades under the name of the God 
and Islam violently depriving them from their right to self-governing. 
Those in power in Iran will not be able to call on Iranians to defend the 
'republic' when in the words of its real leaders (individuals such as 
ayatollah Messbah Yazdi) there is no such thing as a 'republics' in Islam.

(clip)





More information about the Marxism mailing list