Imperialist bloodletting worsens in Middle East

11 posts / 0 new
Last post
Hawkeye
Imperialist bloodletting worsens in Middle East
Printer-friendly version

The discussion that follows was prompted by the article: Imperialist bloodletting worsens in Middle East. The discussion was initiated by Hawkeye.
Below is the discussion so far. Feel free to add your own comments!

Hawkeye
Iran threatened

The journal 'Foreign Affairs' of January/February 2012 carries an article entitled 'Time to Attack Iran'.  Fortunately that idea is questioned elsewhere in it.

Whereas ultimately the ongoing series of wars is unlikely to be ended prior to the ending of imperialism worldwide, as each war seems to be getting more destructive in both the short and long term, it seems necessary to ask what can be done to put the brake on the latest tendency to any specific war, and, if at all possible, prevent it, even though still under capitalism.

mikail firtinaci
while...

 While I agree that a war between Iran and Israel-US seems likely, I also do not see any possibility of stopping it without destroying imperialism. However, in a contradictory manner perhaps, this war, if it comes soon as some claim around April, then it may trigger or at least hasten the collapse of capitalism because Iran will definitely try to block the oil flow from Hurmuz Gulf. And since 1/5 of world oil is flowing from this sea, a war and Iran blocage will immediately rise the oil prices worldwide making the crisis even more unbearable to the system.

The question is: are the imperialist rivals that stupid to cause further ascelation of crisis through a war with Iran? Right now US strategy -if we believe Obama- is diplomacy, which means harsh sactions on Iran to stop its nuclear program. Even that can have immediate effects on, let's say European contries since a significant portion of European oil is also flowing from Hurmuz. 

baboon
With events in Syria - and

With events in Syria - and the UN - taking their turn, I think that we can see that the war has already started. Russia and, to some extent, China are going against the powers of the US, Britain, France and, in this case, Germany. The arms, the intelligence and the diplomatic conduits are flowing in from the "west". The local powers, their puppets in the main, are actively involved. The social movement has been obliterated, tthe Syrian regime is bankrupt in more ways than one, the opposition is completely opposed to each other and incoherent - and there is no economic rationale to this whatsoever. It's already costing a fortuen. This is a good example of imperialism in decomposition. There doesn't have to be a declared war any time soon but the perspective is grim for the population and the longer and shorter term effects will continue to be further destabilising.

Jonathan Steele in the Guardian, 18.1.12 quotes a credible report that Turkey has become Washington's proxy and "unmarked Nato planes have been arriving at Iskenderum, near the Syrian border, delivering Libyan volunteers and weapons seized from Gadaffi's arsenal. 'French and British special forces trainers are on the ground... assisting the Syrian rebels. While the CIA and Spec Ops are providing communications equipment and intelligence".

 

mikail firtinaci
you are spot on

 Baboon;

I think you are spot on on the role of turkish imperialism. Turkish state is such pineless organisation that one can even think it is something essential in the nature of this state that makes it so easy to shift from one side to the other. Yesterday AKP government was in total support of Essad regime. Just in one month after the rebellions began they started to shelter islamic guerillas. Now even they themselves except the fact that they are supporting the "armed resistance." It is no secret now even in Turkey.

Of course this is a feature of decomposition perhaps which makes alliance very fluid in terms of imperialist relations - which I definitely agree with ICC on this regard. 

 

 

 

jk1921
I saw an interview with a

I saw an interview with a Mid-East scholar on the tube the other day. He was talking about the continuing tensions in the region and mentioned the historic tensions between Turkey and Iran. Apparantely, during the 1991 Armenia vs. Azerbaijan conflict, Iran armed and funded the Armenians (an Eastern Orthodox country) against the Azeris (where the majority of the population are Shia Muslims, but of a Turkish ethnicity) out of fear of possibly being surrounded by Turkish imperialism. Supposedly, a large percentage of the population in Iran is of Azeri ancestry and Iran was concerned that Azerbaijan's victory in the war with Armenia would empower it (and its Turkish sponsor) to foment unrest within Iran's borders. It seems that even Iran, which the media constantly tell us is governed by irrational extremists with a fundamentalist death drive, imperialist real politik can still take center stage. Of course, the example given was from twenty years ago.

baboon
Ominous turns

I think that on the imperialist level there is every reason for revolutionaries and the working class to be concerned about the developing situation in Syria. To say, as the BBC constantly does, that the "situation is descending into civil war" is a gross oversimplification and underestimates the true nature of the dangers unfolding. The situation is far more chaotic and the potential for instability and devastation is much, much greater than Libya. There are a patchwork of Syrian "oppositions" each opposed to each other as much to the regime. Different factions are being armed by different countries, all with their own agenda. I don't propose to go into all the details but the major powers are also involving themselves more through proxies not least in an attempt to put further pressure on Iran - the latter being central to this whole war-like development. Russian English-language TV (RT) carried a report last week that the British were setting up training camps for opposition elements and now Russia and China are calling for Iran to be involved in further talks.

The fighting has spread to Lebanon (where British and French special forces are present) and Hamas has distanced itself from Iran over the Syrian conflict. "Messianic" elements of the Israeli ruling class might see this as a good opportunity to attack Iran? What's certain is that with the greater involvement of the major powers the danger of wider war becomes greater.

jk1921
"Messianic elements of the

"Messianic elements of the Israeli ruling class"? That's an interesting way to put it!

baboon
Netanyahu et al.

I don't have the quote to hand but it was the way the Netanyahu government was described by elements of the Israeli secret services, ie, "messianic", while saying that the idea of a strike against Iran was madness.

jk1921
Messianism

baboon wrote:

I don't have the quote to hand but it was the way the Netanyahu government was described by elements of the Israeli secret services, ie, "messianic", while saying that the idea of a strike against Iran was madness.

 

Certainly then there are similar messianic elements within other bourgeoisies--perhaps even the U.S.?

baboon
Yes, why not? There's a

Yes, why not? There's a certain irrational element that I think "messianic" describes that is the hall-mark of the representatives of a decomposing system.