******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ********************
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*****************************************************************
Thanks, Michael, for your critical observations.
While I usually agree with most what you say, I think I differ with you
on this issue. Allow me to briefly explain what I mean.
I am fully aware that the politics of Great Powers and regional powers
are full of manoeuvring and “deal making”. Britain, France and
Nazi-Germany also made various deals in the 1930s (e.g. the Munich Treaty).
Currently, we see negotiations (combined with selected military strikes)
between Russia, Israel, Iran (and the U.S. and Jordan in the sidelines)
about a compromise on the Southern borders of Syria. It is quite
possible that they will find a temporary agreement (which might include
handing over the South to Assad which shows, by the way, how awfully
stupid the FSA and other rebels have been with their pro-Jordan/US
orientation).
In our RCIT statements we have not given a timeline for the next war.
But I think we have to look at the fundamental, irreversible lines of
class contradictions. Against the background of a global crisis of
capitalism, the contradictions both between the Great Powers as well as
between the regional powers are accelerating. I think that we can agree
on this.
In the Middle East several fundamental and long-term conflicts of
interests clash. They are not identical but the overlap partly. The most
important of them are:
U.S. vs. Russia
Iran vs. Saudi Arabia
Israel vs. the Palestinian people
Israel vs. Iran/Hezbollah
U.S. vs. Iran
Russia vs. U.S. vs. Iran vs. Turkey vs. Assad in Syria
There are others too but these axes of contradictions have already
resulted in various wars. And today, when the global tensions are
accelerating (just think about the looming trade war), the danger of
explosion of such a war should be less acute? This is not logical.
Add to all these that the decisive issue is not so much if the White
House has already agreed on a date for attack on Iran. But, as you
surely know yourself, a process has a certain inner logic. If the White
House and Tel Aviv think that economic aggression and military bullying
is the best way to push Iran into capitulation; and if Teheran thinks it
has no reason to capitulate because a) it is a sizeable regional power
and b) it has the backing of Russia and China – isn’t it logical that
this will sooner or later result in a war?
For the same reason, we do not expect a long-term solution in East Asia.
The summit has only produced a temporary compromise.
You suggest that U.S. imperialism just wants to threaten with war but
has no interest in launching war. But first, the White House and the
Pentagon is certainly not naive – particularly since they have waged
several wars in the past decades. Secondly, what will the imperialists
do if threats are not sufficient to push Iran into capitulation?! And
given the support of Russia and China for Iran, I don’t believe that
Teheran will capitulate.
As you are certainly aware, I am saying all this not from a perspective
of a pro-Russian/Assadist social-imperialist but from a Marxist
viewpoint of anti-imperialism which oppose all Great Powers.
In summary, temporary compromises, manoeuvres, deals are possible and
indeed will take place. But in the longer term, war between the powers
is inevitable.
--
Revolutionär-Kommunistische Organisation BEFREIUNG
(Österreichische Sektion der RCIT,www.thecommunists.net)
www.rkob.net
ak...@rkob.net
Tel./SMS/WhatsApp/Telegram: +43-650-4068314
---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_________________________________________________________
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at:
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
