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

Marvin Gandall marvgandall at videotron.ca
Thu Jun 26 07:51:33 MDT 2008


S. Artesian writes:

> Well, obviously many of the forces of US capital do favor an attack. That
> much is obvious.  Just as many of the forces of US capital favored the
> invasion of Iraq...So it doesn't matter what some forces think; what
> matters is what capital requires...
===================================
Sorry, not so obvious to me. Can Sartesian name some names of Republican 
and/or Democratic strategists and politicians, "cruise missile" liberal 
intellectuals, journalists, business leaders or others who truly "favor an 
attack" on Iran? Don't bother citing Clinton, Obama, and McCain who have all 
tried to exploit the issue for political reasons. We know that in the run up 
to Iraq, bourgeois opinion was divided and there was public and often angry 
debate pitting almost all previous national security advisors and several 
ex-generals worried about a "quagmire" against Bush administration 
officials, including Colin Powell, who were building a case for invasion. 
Bush and Cheney were at the height of their popularity following 9/11 and 
the overthrow of the Taliban.

Today, there's not the same intense public and ruling class debate about a 
war in Iran, and it's not because the major part of US capital is united 
about the need for one, as Sartesian states, but the opposite: the prospect 
of success - and, therefore, the prospect of the Bush administration 
initiating military action - is perceived to be much less than it was prior 
to the adventure against a weakened Iraq so as to almost rule it out of the 
question. After more than 4000 US troops killed and 30000 wounded and and 
and nearly a trillion dollars spent and counting , many fewer politicians 
and journalists and CEO's are again willing to give the now widely despised 
and distrusted administration "the benefit of the doubt". Far from laying 
pipe for a strike and breaking with its allies, the administration 
emphasizes it's commitment to a multilateral diplomatic solution, albeit 
while keeping "all options on the table". If the Americans are intending a 
war, Condoleeza Rice and Robert Gates are hardly waging the preliminary 
propaganda campaign necessary to prepare the public for it, as their 
predecessors did in the case of Iraq. About the only ones predictably 
beating the war drums are neocon hawks like Bolton, once so prominent and 
influential, now mostly discredited and on the margins of American politics.

That said, it would be foolish to rule out what fools like Bush and 
Republicans facing defeat at the polls might do in desperation. But at this 
stage it's no more"obvious" that the majority of the US ruling class favors 
an assault on Iran than that leading circles in the US planned the attack on 
the twin towers. If war comes, it is more likely to be the result of an 
Israeli strike followed by counter-strikes by Iran and its allies which 
forces the US into the fray. US involvement is more likely to be reluctant 
rather than eager because the economic, military, and political costs of war 
are widely seen to outweigh the benefits. US planners seem to have done 
their calculations. The Iranians, who are cooling rebuffing the 
sabre-rattling and US-orchestrated pressure to halt their nuclear program, 
also seem to have done theirs. So should Sartesian, before declaring with 
such cocksure certainty that US capital wants and "requires" another war.






More information about the Marxism mailing list