[lbo-talk] Bush Cites Nuclear Risk of Leaving Iraq

Yoshie Furuhashi critical.montages at gmail.com
Thu Aug 30 13:23:52 PDT 2007


On 8/29/07, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>
> On Aug 29, 2007, at 10:07 AM, 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.* Leftists are as
> > incapable of coming to terms with Iran's Islamic government as the
> > White House and Congress are, so there is no coherent response to the
> > White House's commitment for "regime change" in Iran.
>
> By "coming to terms" do you mean referring to Khomeini as "dear imam"
> as you did in that extremely weird piece on MRZine recently?
>
> <http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/furuhashi170807.html>

I should have also mentioned Gorbachev's new post-Soviet career move in that piece:

The legendary Mikhail Gorbachev, the last president of

the former "evil empire" the USSR, has recently reappeared,

as sad as Marie Antoinette facing the scaffold, in the back of

a limousine side-by-side with a Louis Vuitton bag, the real

star of the slick TV ad. The limo cruises past what's left of

the Berlin Wall.

<http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IH16Ak01.html>

Anyway, here's another on the subject of the thread: <http://montages.blogspot.com/2007/08/can-leftists-come-to-terms-with-islamic.html>

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

What should leftists do instead?

The first thing that leftists need to learn to accept is the fact that there was no chance of socialist revolution in the late 1970s and early 1980s in Iran and that there is no chance of that in Iran today or anytime soon (or anywhere else for that matter).

The second thing that leftists need to accept is that they have to make a case for America's normalization of its relation with Iran under the Islamic government as it exists, with all its vices and virtues, without waiting for the Iranians to reform or revolutionize it into a government to leftists' liking, or else America is on a collision course with Iran.

The third thing that leftists need to accept is that most Iranians, including reformists, do not think of Khomeini the way leftists do, just as most Americans don't think of Jefferson the way leftists do, most Russians don't think of Lenin and Stalin the way leftists do, and so forth. Listen to how Mohammed Khatami speaks. Notice that, even in his argument for democracy, he defends his position by invoking Khomeini.

President Mohammad Khatami lashed out Sunday night

against foes of the country's reform movement, warning

the opponents of democracy were defying the vision of

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic

republic.

"The rejection of democracy and the defense of dictatorship

are threats to the Islamic Republic and such points of view

are in contradiction with the aspirations of the Imam

(Khomeini)," Khatami told government officials at a planning

meeting for the anniversary of Khomeini's death on June 4,

1989. ("'Dictatorship Threatens Islamic Republic': Khatami,"

IranMania.com, 3 June 2002)

The fourth thing that leftists need to begin to think about is what kind of historical materialism may be useful to Muslims as well as others who will never become historical materialists themselves but may still find historical materialism useful as an intellectual tool in a certain context, such as in an attempt to understand the empire's political economy, but not as the only intellectual tool in all or even most contexts.

On 8/29/07, Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:
> 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.

It's true that the question of oil raises the stakes significantly higher, but in the end Washington is like stereotypical villains of Hollywood action movies -- bent upon world domination! I was watching if Washington would curtail its military presence elsewhere, especially in East Asia (given the stability of Japan, the greatly improved US-China relation, and Pyongyang's nuclear deal with Washington) and Europe, to divert resources and manpower from there to the Middle East. But they have not made decisive moves yet, and it looks like they won't. -- Yoshie



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list