Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
>
> Most leftists in the USA have yet to digest the fact that the White
> House is making an argument that it won't withdraw its troops from
> Iraq unless and until it succeeds in "regime change" in Iran and
> installs a pro-Washington government there, for, otherwise, America
> will end up leaving Iraq in the hands of Tehran.*
I think the question of whether or not most leftists do or do not recognize this is less important than the fact -- and I think it more useful yet to place that fact in a larger context than the plans of the Bush administration.
It was of immense importance to the U.S. to maintain military forces on the border of the PRC -- e.g., in Vietnam, but it was _not_ crucial, not really central to u.s. global strategy.
Maintaining hegemony, military and political, in the Middle East has been a central part of that strategy for 60 years. The overthrow of Mossedegh was the most important Middle-Eastern event of the 20th century. The overthrow of the Shah was the most serious defeat of U.S. imperialism in the 20th century. (After that defeat Israel's importance to the U.S. increased greatly.) U.S. policy (not merely Bush's or Clinton's policies) in the Mideast must be seen in that light.
The 'domino theory' was an absurdity in the case of Vietnam, a mere propaganda gimmick --but something like it may be the case in Iraq. How does an imperial power react when it faces the loss of a position vital to its power. We should be very fearful.
Carrol