Julio asks:
> Didn't the share of revenues from international transactions increase
> substantially for U.S. firms in the 1990s -- particularly for U.S.
> firms other than oil companies, military contractors, or companies
> that deal with Israel? Isn't this the bulk of U.S. capital? As the
> interest of U.S. capital -- other than the listed "special interests"
> -- in global business increases, wouldn't they benefit from a modicum
> of lasting stability and order in the Middle East -- particularly as
> the possession of WMD in the region gets to be more likely by the day?
==============================
Yes, they would benefit; as you know, capitalists as individuals and as a
class are the first to understand the relationship between stability and
profits. But they disagree at present with you and others about the path to
stability. They appear to believe that the Israelis have a greater chance of
stabilizing the situation through a limited withdrawal which incorporates
the bulk of their West Bank settlements behind their fortress wall and by
maintaining overwhelming military superiority, than by the US even hinting
at withdrawing any support for Israel and its current policies. They
believe - not incorrectly, in my view - that to do the latter would
stimulate rather than stem the radicalization of Islamist and secular
nationalist movements in the region, creating further instability not only
in relation to Israel but also to friendly conservative Arab regimes in
Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
You may think they are being short-sighted, but they will have to see further evidence their perspective is wrong before they make the kind of turn you propose. I wouldn't extrapolate too much from what has happened in Iraq, either. The invasion has been disasterous, but the chaos there has not been accompanied by further chaos on the Palestinian front; in fact, the situation in the latter has been arguably quieter since the building of the wall, the withdrawal from Gaza, and the realignment of Israeli politics from the extreme right to the centre-right. As far as WMD's are concerned, my impression is that it is the capitalists and their voices in the political and military establishment have resigned themselves to the fact that the Iranians, like the North Koreans and others, are going to develop nuclear weapons irrespective of US policy, and that the US may have to live with it as they have done with more serious threats to their national security in the past. In this area, there is reason to believe they may be concerned about the Bush administration's prediliction for military action. ================================== But the fact is that there's no perfect consensus "in all the ruling-class controlled media" about what foreign policy is best in the Middle East. Just like there is no perfect consensus in Congress. I was just reading yesterday some speeches made at the congressional International Relations Committee. There's a lot of second guessing going on. ============================= Second-guessing about what? I think there is a broad consensus about Middle East policy, as described above. Certainly, we haven't seen any calls from anywhere along the US political spectrum for Israel to dismantle the wall redefining its new border and to withdraw the bulk of its settlers from the West Bank who will be encompassed behind the wall. Nor have we seen any serious push for a reduction in the current level of mlitary and economic aid to the Israelis. The only second-guessing have been vague complaints about the undue influence of the Israel lobby which don't amount too much in practical terms, and won't unless the instability in Iraq spreads throughout the region. Despite everything, still too premature to say with certainty that it will, and that the supply of oil to US and other world markets will be curtailed.