> concretely, what small steps to "alter its [Middle > Eastern foreign] policy a little"
> can the US take to to accomodate the Arabs?
I do not mean that the U.S. capitalists need to accommodate the Arabs.
I mean that, as a class, they need to cut their losses in the Middle East sooner rather than later, and start to rethink their foreign policy almost from scratch. I know that is not likely to happen soon.
But if we follow the logic of the situation, that's conclusion is hard to escape. I can think of one million reasons why it might not happen that way. So I admit that what I'm saying is rather abstract, but that is what my vulgar, historical materialistic "model" tells me.
For example, views as "extreme" as those of Noam Chomsky (see below) may be fully rational from the point of view of the U.S. capitalist class as a whole. How likely is it for *that* to happen in our lifetimes? I don't know. Maybe it's very unlikely. But maybe not. And maybe it will happen in spite of the resistance of a large number of (most?) U.S. capitalists, trapped in their false consciousness.
You may note that I'm envisioning a popular movement pushing for a "radical" reform of U.S. foreign policy along Chomsky's (and Jimmy Carter's?) lines. And the word "rational" is in quotation marks because, by itself, this would be a reform to create the best legal and political international conditions for the U.S. capitalists to exercise their technological leadership in the capitalist world. Although that is not the whole socialist enchilada, I agree with Chomsky that this would be serious progress.
Here's Chomsky answering a question:
> State College, Pa.: Noam - I heard you talking about
> international law on alternative radio and (I think)
> expounding the idea that the Bush administration's
> flavor of premtive war is illegal. I agree that the
> Bush administration's actions are illegal. Would you
> comment on how much we should submit to international
> law in that area?
>
> Noam Chomsky: That depends on whether we want to be
> what's called an "outlaw state," which dismisses
> international law and norms and treaty obligations, or
> a law-abiding member of the international community.
> Public opinion studies strongly indicate that the
> general public wants the latter. State policy, to an
> extreme extent under Bush II, adopts the former
> conception, quite explicitly, in words and in practice.
> I think this country and the world would be far better
> off if the US is not an outlaw state.
Full transcript:
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/03/14/DI2006031400824.html>
Julio