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

Fred Feldman ffeldman at bellatlantic.net
Fri Jun 27 17:53:19 MDT 2008

Marvin wrote:
The Iran resolution self-conciously and pointedly states that "nothing in
resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force
against Iran" and calls instead for Bush to impose additional economic and
travel sanctions and to "initiate an international effort" to step up the
"economic, political, and diplomatic pressure" , including, if necessary, by
means of a naval blockade.

Fred replies:

I am positively horrified by the position Marvin is taking. I am amazed he
can go this far in minimizing and dismissing the quite serious and quite
immediate threats against Iran.

The resolution also calls for US to "prohibit the export to Iran of all
refined Iranian products....imposing stringent inspection requirements on
all PERSONS, ships, TRAINS [not just a naval embargo but a LAND act of war],
entering or departing Iran."

But Marvin cites the "self-conscious and pointed" statement that the use of
force is not authorized as though this obviously cancels out the
self-conscious and pointed calls for action.

Contrary to Marvin the resolution nowhere distinguishes between a naval
blockade and the other measures (most of them also acts of war under what is
left of international law these days) by suggesting that a blockade should
be imposed only "if necessary." (Why does Marvin CREATE this proviso which
is nowhere in the text.

The resolution calls for these measures to be taken with whatever allies can
be gathered and it calls for the action to start with the adoption of the
resolution. No endorsement by any other ORGANIZATION is suggested -- not the
UN, and not even NATO. The resolution clearly reflects the recognition that
in today's world no international organization can be trusted to
rubber-stamp war with Iran. The idea is basically France and Britain (both
imperialist enemies of Iran since the revolution, and MAYBE also Italy) and
those they can bribe or compel. The coalition of the willing.

The resolution's claim not to authorize the use of force is not a
contradiction to the calls for action, nor does it cancel out the proposals
for action. The proposals of the resolution express the view that a US (and
whatever allies are willing) naval blockade of Iran in NOT A USE OF FORCE.
ISN'T THIS OBVIOUS, MARVIN. And you seem to accept this claim also, when you
describe the resolution, as though the naval blockade did not render the
promise about not authorizing use of force into a dirty lie and attempted
deception of the people.

Of course, if Iran refuses to abide by the blockade and accede to US control
of its borders, and acts to oppose it, this will justify the US in using
force to defend "ourselves." If Israel bombs Iran while the US et al are
blockading, this will not violate the non-"authorization" of the use of
force. The US will naturally have to respond to attempts by Iran to
retaliate against Israeli attacks by attacking their capacity to "wipe
Israel off the map." Can't have "another Holocaust," can we?

Marvin, how can you not be outraged by this deception. How can you treat it
in fact as though it was the real practical "self-conscious, pointed" heart
of the resolution.

This is a war resolution pure and simple. To say that it is anything else is
self-deception turned deception of others.

If this resolution is blocked in some way, I will be a relieved bunny
(though it will not remove the danger). But there is no sign yet that this
will happen.

None of what I have projected is inevitable, but it is all built into this
resolution. This resolution is also founded on the fundamental, far from
reconciled conflict between US imperialism and the conquests of the Iranian
revolution in terms of national independence, weakening of imperialist
domination, and resulting challenges to US imperialist hegemony.

All of which generate a war danger which Marvin's attempts to accentuate the
positive and eliminate the negative serves in fact to cover up.

I attach again the basic provisions of the resolution, noting simply that
the supposed refusal to authorize "use of force" is consistent with, and not
contradictory to, the call for a naval blockade. And also to note that the
words "if necessary" which Marvin introduced into his argument as though it
were in the resolution, nowhere appears in the call for a naval blockade.

Just a general warning. When the relationship of forces seems favorable, it
does not mean that the necessity for struggle has disappeared. That is the
road to shifting the relationship of forces against us.

As a convenience to readers, I am attaching the text of the congressional
resolution that Artesian provided. It is very much worth reading and
Fred Feldman

Whereas nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization of

the use of force against Iran : Now, therefore, be it

  Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That 

    (1) declares that preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons 
capability, through all appropriate economic, political, and diplomatic 
means, is vital to the national security interests of the United States and 
must be dealt with urgently;

    (2) urges the President, in the strongest of terms, to immediately use 
his existing authority to impose sanctions on--

      (A) the Central Bank of Iran and any other Iranian bank engaged in 
proliferation activities or the support of terrorist groups;

      (B) international banks which continue to conduct financial 
transactions with proscribed Iranian banks;

      (C) energy companies that have invested $20,000,000 or more in the 
Iranian petroleum or natural gas sector in any given year since the 
enactment of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996; and

      (D) all companies which continue to do business with Iran's Islamic 
Revolutionary Guard Corps;

    (3) demands that the President initiate an international effort to 
immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and 
diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment 
activities by, inter alia, prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined 
petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all 
persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing 
Iran ; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials 
not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran's nuclear program; and

    (4) urges the President to lead a sustained, serious, and forceful 
effort at regional diplomacy to support the legitimate governments in the 
region against Iranian efforts to destabilize them, to reassure our friends 
and allies that the United States supports them in their resistance to 
Iranian efforts at hegemony, and to make clear to the Government of Iran 
that the United States will protect America's vital national security 
interests in the Middle East.
Full at:


More information about the Marxism mailing list