[Marxism] kolko on iran
esquincle at capital.net
Tue Oct 2 21:41:34 MDT 2007
Will the US Attack Iran?
We've read and heard Seymour Hersh.
I think it is worth paying attention to Kolko, as Znet does.
Whlie it is obvious that preventing such an attack is in the best
interests of the world's poor, -- here Kolko hopes that someone (a
vague, powerful group in the military and in the very bottom of
Manhattan) will stand up for the true interests of the American ruling
class -- to put a stop to the inhuman, criminal (and worse -
economically destabilizing!) idea of bombing Iran.
Kolko consistently tries to offer the big "real politic" picture -- and
he consistently tries to find that some hope yet lingers among (perhaps
a fragment of) the American bourgeoisie -- a kind of lesser-evilism
(but thankfully free and clear of and about the electoral crap) -- yet
still consistently despairing, if not contemptuous, of the real actors
in history (the members of the global working class). Still and all,
What the response from working people, nation by nation, to the
question of "what if the US attacked Iran?" remains outside of the
discussion. And yet that isn't that, really, what makes the stakes so
high? (For instance Kolko suggests that there would be (at least)
deepening resistance even within the Israeli military at the outset of
the proposed war upon Iran.)
Thinking about Kolko (and less so Hersh), the problem with the US
attack on Iran might just be that the ideology of the rulers (a
collection of ideas that amount to frank IDIOCY from the view of the
world's poor) has frankly triumphed over a more rational analysis of
their own "ruling class interests" -- _within_ the American bourgeoisie
and its primary relations. Maybe not, but Kolko's reasoning below
seems more likely to support, rather than discredit, this concept --
against his own conclusion.
ZNet | Iran
Will US Attack Iran? Hersh, Kolko Weigh In
Historian Gabriel Kolko writes in to say that "war with Iran is not
by Gabriel Kolko; AntiWar.com blogs; October 01, 2007
1. THE U.S. AND EUROPEAN ECONOMIES are now in a crisis, and it may be
protracted. The dollar is falling in value, Gulf States and others may
abandon it, etc. A war with Iran would produce economic chaos, because
oil would be scarce. There are states, like Russia and Venezuela, who
can sell it. In a word, the balance of world economic power is
involved, and that is a great issue.
2. THE GULF STATES do not like Shia Iran, but they export oil, becoming
rich thereby. They are dependent on peace, not war.
3. THE U.S. PUBLIC AND CONGRESS are variable factors. As the last
election proved, anyone who thinks the Democrats will stop wars is
fooling himself or herself. But war with Iran would require new
authorizations. Then the Congress would, potentially, be very
important. I may be wrong, but I may be right.
4. CHENEY AND THE NEOCONS huff and puff ideologies and are very
articulate ideologues. Will they volunteer to fight Iran, and what will
they do on the battlefield? How many effective fighters do they have at
the Weekly Standard or AEI?
5. THE AMERICAN MILITARY is at the present moment stretched to the
limit. They are losing both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Everything is
being sacrificed for these wars: money, equipment in Asia, American
military power globally, etc. Where and how can they fight yet another?
6. BUNKER BUSTERS can knock out so many bunkers, not all. If they are
nuclear they are very useful, but they are also radioactive. In
addition to killing enemies, they may kill friends and nearby U.S.
soldiers also. It depends where you must drop them.
7. WHAT WILL IRAN DO, and what sorts of technology do they possess?
They fought against Iraq about a decade, and suffered about half a
million casualties. Perhaps they will roll over, but it’s not likely.
There are a number of tiny islands in the Gulf they have had years to
fortify. Can 90 percent of their weapons be knocked out? The remainder
will be sufficient to sink many boats and tankers. The oil exported
through the Gulf will thereby be reduced, and perhaps cease altogether.
8. ISRAEL may be a factor. They must cross Syrian and Jordanian
airspace, and the Iranians will be prepared if they are not shot down
over Syria. Their countermeasures may be effective, but perhaps not.
Hence a number of Israeli pilots will realize they are embarking on
suicide missions. Will they? Some will, others will not.
9. IRAN IS LIKELY TO GET NUCLEAR BOMBS, sooner or later. So will other
nations. Israel has hundreds already. Israeli strategists believe
deterrence will then exist. Why risk war?
There may be other factors. But these are sufficient.
The Bush-Cheney administration, as the Iraq war proved, is full of mad,
irrational people, and there is no way to account for them. But not
everyone in Washington thinks like them, especially in the military,
and those on Wall Street who have the most to lose from a war have
great political influence. We are obligated to count on them because
that is they way the U.S. has operated for decades. According to an
article in Salon, Sept. 28, “the military would revolt and there would
be no pilots to fly those missions” were it ordered to war against
Iran. Without them, there is no danger. The American public is a small
factor, as elections have repeatedly shown, but may play some role
also. But the U.S. fights wars and loses most of them. The U.S. is very
likely to lose a war with Iran if it fights. It probably will not.
More information about the Marxism