[Marxism] Congress goes on vacation without acting onH.Con.Res.362 (naval blockade of Iran)

Marvin Gandall marvgandall at videotron.ca
Tue Jul 1 12:31:39 MDT 2008


> You're the one who does that Marvin, creates polemics out of nothing but
> your own wishful thinking..
> If you care to refer to the actual context and content of remarks, what
> was
> stated that there are major interests in and among the US ruling class
> that
> favor military attack on Iran.
> Obviously, the article by Hersh provides substance to that contention.
> And
> obviously, such attacks have already begun. Nobody is baiting here.
There is no dispute that the US has had a long history in Iran, as
elsewhere, of seeking regime change through a combination of special forces
military operations, economic sanctions, and political subversion of the
kind described by Hersh in his article. The Clinton administration used
these tactics in relation to Iraq. Whether an Obama administration will
attempt to resolve outstanding differences with the clerical regime, as he
promised earlier he would, or will step up US efforts to overthrow it by
these means remains to be seen.

There is considerably more agreement in political and media circles about
pursuing "low intensity warfare" against Iran than about a unilateral naval
and land blockade which would take the conflict to a much higher level. It
would almost certainly invite serious retaliation by the Iranians and their
allies throughout the Middle East, as well as strong opposition by Russia
and China and also quite possibly from US allies in the Gulf states and OECD
countries threatened by a cutoff of oil supplies from the region. This is
clear from the piece I posted yesterday from Thomas Powers, reporting on
opposition within the US political and military establishment to an open war
with Iran, from the standpoint of someone who thinks "it is very important
that we increase as much as possible the financial pressure, the diplomatic
pressure, the political pressure, and at the same time keep all the military
options on the table."

This thread began with your sweeping assertion, supported by Fred, that the
HR resolution calling for a naval blockade meant that open war with Iran was
"certain". I intereceded to suggest instead that other motives were
involved, notably stepping up the pressure on those negotiating with Iran to
put curbs on its nuclear program. You and Fred angrily treated the
suggestion as somehow representing a capitulation to US imperialism, without
attempting to engage with the substance of the argument. I call that
baiting. But big deal. I've dealt with worse.

More information about the Marxism mailing list