[Marxism] Bolton: Israel 'will attack Iran' before new USpresident in office, especially if it's Obama
ffeldman at bellatlantic.net
Thu Jun 26 18:39:47 MDT 2008
I'll read your stuff more carefully in future so as to avoid coming to the
wrong conclusions about it.
I hope that is a promise and not a mere threat, which could not be relied
on. I learn most from people who criticize me carefully. Even in my
loyallest days in the SWP, I always remember anything somebody said in
answer to me, even if I polemicized against it aggressively and sincerely.
And it sometimes contributed to changing my views on things, mostly based on
experience (which as an old fashioned American in some ways is still my main
teacher) but assimilating the experience was reinforced by the fact that the
criticism had not dropped out of my mind.
So please. Take me apart. I may get mad but I certainly won't kill you, so
what the hell.
If you reread my stuff on Iran in the past, I think you might gather that I
think that war with Iran (and war with Iran in particular -- here I might or
might not differ with Artesian, I don't know) is deeply embedded in the
current economic and overall international situation of US imperialism, and
the current economic situation pushes in both directions -- against and for.
The basic alternative to war with Iran, at the present time and for the
future we can foresee right now, which is not much, is a deal with the
current government of Iran for an alliance of sorts in the Middle East.
This is entirely possible, and some prominent and intelligent ruling-class
hired thinking guns like Zbigniew Brzezinski think this is what would
happen. And he is far from alone. And his arguments are strong from a purely
pragmatic point of view.
But this would be a historic retreat for US imperialism. SHARING POWER (even
though Iran's demands are modest, and the main one is for the regime to be
permitted to survive) in the Middle East is unacceptable to Washington. It
is often stated that the US state is learning that it must accept a
But it seems that the most decisive layers may in fact think that there is a
multipolar world, but that the US MUST FIGHT RUTHLESSLY TO MAKE IT UNIPOLAR.
Am I convinced that this wing will remain dominant? No. Defeats abroad and
economic crisis could force a retreat.
But we should always remember President Clinton's declaration that the
"America is the one indispensable country." Everyone else is dispensable.
As far as I can see, despite all the obstacles they have run into and I
believe they are ALL worried, even the ones who act most cocky and
invincible. They have a lot to worry about. But are they ready to accept
the perspective of retreat.
I want to say something else right now and clearly. I do not think the
election of Obama, which I think is very possible (I am not sure that the
standard Republican baiting campaign can throw him back in the wake of
Hilary Clinton's failure. This was a lot like basic training for the whole
population on looking critically and standing up to whatever the Republicans
come up with. I don't think the developing campaign to have him repudiate
and reject Michelle Obama will do the trick. (And if he filed for divorce
under all the yelling by the Republicans, it would be politically suicidal.)
But I do not believe that the election of Obama will decisively settle or
even decisively shift the relationship of forces on war with Iran. The
question of Iran is, in many ways, the question of the multipolar world as
applied to the strategic US target of dominating the Middle East. It will
take quite a struggle on many levels to turn this against the tendency to
take arms against the sea of troubles in defense of unipolarism.
This is not a change in my position on the elections, which is my deep
conviction that the unity of the Black community and the support for Obama
among white youth and workers (also mostly young) is a progressive
development and bodes well for our future. I call for voting for McKinney as
always. But I am aware that 75 or 100 million people will be voting
differently, and I think what they do can also have political significance.
More information about the Marxism