[lbo-talk] Economic Blowback from Bombing Iran

[ravi]

On 31 Jul, 2007, at 12:39 PM, Robert Naiman wrote:
> ravi, i think you're right to note that in the past some critics of
> the Empire have sometimes been overblown in their predictions of
> Armageddon in the wake of the next imperial adventure.
>
> but, we don't need to rely on these things. we can simply cite the  
> adversary.
>
> For example, here. Heritage concedes the potential of significant
> negative economic consequences for Americans from a U.S. attack on
> Iran - consequences that most Americans would never go for, if they
> had any say in the matter. <...>
>
> Heritage argues that these consequences can be mitigated by correct
> policies, but:
>
> 1.) Most Americans wouldn't like these policies (drilling in ANWR.)
> 2.) Most reasonable people would not accept the claim that these
> policies would be significantly mitigating (opening ANWR for drilling
> far in the future would reverse a current spike in the price of oil?)
>
> I think that's pretty damning, if that's the best Heritage can come  
> up with.
>

Yes, I agree entirely. But note that Heritage/BushCo are not in the  
reality-based world but in the reality-making world. That particular  
description was fodder for smirks but in truth provided a rare,  
honest insight into right-wing methodology. For Heritage and Co,  
"individualism/libertarianism/exceptionalism -> clash of  
civilisations + economic interests -> military adventure ->  
patriotism -> unipolar spending (including cuts in social programs) - 

 > internal social discord -> indiviualism" is a virtuous cycle, and  
it is their programme to create or at least advance the reality that  
sustains this.

IMHO, the reason why critics of such programmes gravitate towards  
particular types of consequences (100s of Americans killed) is that  
they subconsciously (historically, organically) know that those are  
the consequences that impact the [potential for] action by the  
people. Significant sections of the population either subscribe to or  
accept significant parts of the ideology offered by HeritageCo, and  
therefore forego having a say in the application and outcome. It  
takes reality enforcing events (such as the death of hundreds of  
"loved ones") to overcome sloppy analysis (of facts and ideology),  
inertia and built-in impulses. Critics have two avenues: continue to  
harp on dulled ears about the facts (the logical way) and have no  
effect (i.e., the truth will not set you off), or predict dire  
consequences in the hope of influencing public mood even if the  
consequence claims are not necessarily well substantiated.

I do not believe an invasion of Iran is on the cards... not only is  
it curtailed by logistic concerns but also the entire purpose of the  
threats towards Iran is to have an ongoing "crisis" to serve as a  
diversion.

	--ravi

P.S:

1. since this is an archived list, stating explicitly what should be  
obvious: not only do I not predict the deaths of 100s of "loved  
ones", I do not hope for it either.

2. I am not implying that Dennis "subconsciously" gravitates to  
prediction of dire consequences. That part is a general argument on  
my part.