Yoshie:
> > Charming whom? The American people? But it's not the American people > > who are demanding a war with Iran; it's the White House that's going > > forward in the absence of opposition.
me:
> but the Iranians could aim their effortt to "charm" the US people -- > and people all over the world -- in order to try to undermine popular > support for elite policy. They might try to split Europe against the > US, too.
Yoshie:
It's futile to try to charm the Americans, for they are feckless. They couldn't change their own government even if their lives depended on it.
blame the "Americans"? _all_ of them are "feckless"? aren't there class differences? isn't there a more sophisticated analysis of why the people in the US haven't changed their own government?
The Europeans are better at standing up for their own short-term self interests than the Americans, but they don't stand up for others -- they never have and never will.
France, Germany, & Turkey opposed Bush's splendid little war (in different ways). It's true that there was a heavy admixture of opportunism in these actions, but Iran has to take the friend's their given.
Iran has as many friends as it can conceivably win: Moscow, Beijing, Damascus, Algiers, Hizballah, Hamas, and Latin socialists, of which the first four are purely motivated by their own national interests. The best friend the Iranian people have outside their country, aside from Hizballah, is Hugo Chavez, but even Chavez won't stop exporting oil to the USA in the event of a US attack on Iran, even though he said he would.
so Iran is sunk? Yoshie:
> > Take the Iraq War. The American people have already spoken, through > > elections, opinion polls, and so on. Most of them want the troops > > out, and few of them want Washington to "Surge," though none is > > charmed by Iraqi insurgents, Shi'i or Sunni.
me:
> It's true, but why not take the long view?
In the long run, won't we be all dead?
in the long run, the balance of social forces -- and even the structure of the system of production -- can change.
> if people _keep on_ > struggling, it might have an effect.
<
It has a little effect. Washington won't nuke Iran, for instance. But not very much.
so we should give up? me:
> Even the > damned Demoncrats (and some GOPsters like Hagel) have turned against > the surge.
Yoshie:
Among the "electables," Chuck Hagel is the best man, imho. Maybe Tehran wants to talk to him, bypassing Bush and the Democrats. But, this being an American election, that will probably make him unelectable. :->
a "charm offensive" isn't aimed at going around the enemy leadership. Rather, if the elite rejects the charm, it falls on others. Y:
> > What the Americans need is not Iranian charms but their own resolve to > > make their opinion count through action.
me:
> what kind of action?
We've lately seen many examples of regime or behavior change overseas, from the Left or Right: Yugoslavia, Ukraine, France, and so on. Try that.
are you favoring the Blanquist putsch strategy to change the regime? or is a long-term organizing effort needed? me: >> What's your alternative plan for Iran, Yoshie? she:
> > As far as Iraq is concerned, Iran needs influential Arab Sunni allies > > in Iraq -- especially former Ba'athists among guerrillas and tribal > > leaders -- and Shi'i and Kurdish leaders who are popular, principled, > > and pragmatic enough to ally with the hypothetical Arab Sunni allies.
me:
> a tall order.
Yes, but that's the only way to go. Some Iranians (especially Iran-first reformists), like some Turks, have a counterproductive tendency to think that they are actually Europeans who are unfortunately stuck in West Asia. But their destiny is tied up with Arabs, not Europeans.
-- Jim Devine / "The truth is more important than the facts." -- Frank Lloyd Wright
