As the Tel Aviv-Washington axis loses in Lebanon, essentially having given itself a huge black eye, what lesson does it draw from this political loss? Non-state actors like Hizbullah have nothing to lose, so the Tel Aviv-Washington axis can't defeat it easily, but states, like Iran and Syria, have much to lose, so the axis can put pressures on them and weaken Hizbullah, Hamas, etc. indirectly.
The Tel Aviv-Washington axis is not wrong to draw such a lesson, for all factions in the Iranian government -- from populist to neoliberal -- and their support bases have a lot to lose if economic sanctions are put on Iran: capitalists will lose business, neoliberals will lose the confidence of capitalists, populists will lose government revenues, and workers and peasants will feel the consequences of both business and government revenue losses. The threat of economic sanctions will strengthen the neoliberal faction, who tend to take a soft line on national sovereignty and foreign and nuclear policies, against the populist faction, who tend to take a hard line on them (though the reality of economic sanctions will be another story). Will Moscow and Beijing continue to hold up against punitive economic sanctions? In the meantime, interest rates have been and will be going up in Japan, the USA, and the rest of the world, which will eventually narrow Iran's options as well as Latin America's and the rest of the world's (though how soon impacts will be felt is not certain). <http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/3215B390-8A9D-49F0-A9F2-21D061F56E05.htm> Nuclear deadline for Iran Monday 31 July 2006, 19:00 Makka Time, 16:00 GMT The UN Security Council has demanded that Iran suspend its nuclear activities by the end of August or face the threat of sanctions. The council adopted a resolution on Monday by a vote 14 to 1 that demands Iran "suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development". Qatar, the only Arab member of the council, voted against the resolution that has been under negotiation for weeks. If Tehran does not comply by August 31, the council would consider adopting "appropriate measures" under Article 41 of Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, which pertains to economic sanctions, the draft said. This excludes military action. The resolution is the first on Iran with legally binding demands and a threat to consider sanctions. On the eve of the vote, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, told a news conference that the resolution was unacceptable and his country had the right "to take advantage of peaceful nuclear technology". Germany and the council's five permanent members with veto power - the US, Russia, China, France and Britain - negotiated the text. But Russia and China are reluctant to impose sanctions and Valery Churkin, Russia's ambassador to the UN, has said the sanctions provision meant that the council would have "a discussion" only on punitive measures. . . . <http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/31/ap/world/mainD8J71PO80.shtml> Bush Cites Objectives for Mideast Deal President Bush lays out objectives for 'sustainable' cease-fire agreement in Middle East MIAMI, Jul. 31, 2006 By DEB RIECHMANN Associated Press Writer (AP) (AP) President Bush insisted anew Monday that any Mideast cease-fire be conditioned on a wider agreement and said he would look to the United Nations to act to establish "a long-lasting peace, one that is sustainable." As Israel cut short a halt in bombing and launched new strikes in southern Lebanon, Bush spelled out a series of what he called "clear objectives" to accompany a halt in the fighting. "Iran must end its financial support and supply of weapons to terrorist groups like Hezbollah. Syria must end its support for terror and respect the sovereignty of Lebanon," Bush said in a speech at the Port of Miami. . . . -- Yoshie <http://montages.blogspot.com/> <http://mrzine.org> <http://monthlyreview.org/>
