[Marxism] NY Times still not convinced of US-Iran "common interests" in "Quisling regime" in Iraq

[Paula]

Louis wrote:

I simply can't get on board with these Marcyite-type Manichean divisions
of world politics between white hats and black hats.

I agree. And I would add that today's world is easier to understand if we 
stop thinking that every developing nation is, automatically, an oppressed 
victim of US/Western imperialism. Iran was once a victim. But Iran had its 
revolution, it overthrew the Western-dominated regime, it grew and developed 
into a regional power. So did Turkey. Iran and Turkey are taking advantage 
of American weakness, as any normal capitalist nation would. If Iraq is 
going to fragment - the 'soft partition' Dreyfuss mentions - then why 
shouldn't they claim a piece of the cake? In this sense fragmentation could 
be a compromise between the different powers vying for influence, a 
compromise that is not an alternative to war, but will emerge out of war 
(see Lenin on the relationship between war and imperialist competition).

US policy towards Iran is contradictory because the two nations have, at one 
and the same time, common and opposed interests. They are like two thieves 
planning a joint robbery and simultaneously intending to rob each other of 
the booty. They will collaborate where they have to, and stab each other in 
the back.

As to the 'Shiite paradox' in the second of Dreyfuss's articles, the 
explanation I believe is something like this. The Shiites are the largest 
ethnic group. They predominate in the areas where the oil is (an important 
exception is Kirkuk), in the capital, and in the South, the only region that 
has access to the sea. With Saddam's state destroyed and the Sunnis booted 
out from power, it was inevitable that the Shiites would take over. The US 
administration must have known this. It must have gambled that it could 
wrest the Shiite leadership away from Iranian influence, and thus use the 
occupation of Iraq to counter Iran's spreading influence in the region 
(among other things). The question is whether this gamble will pay off. And 
I don't think we can answer this question just yet. But the fact that people 
are talking about a 'Shiite paradox' shows that the war is bringing to 
public attention one of the underlying factors that set it off in the first 
place - regional competition between the US and Iran.

Fred wrote:

Louis has been giving some ground to Islamic-Republic-phobia...

Islamo-phobia and Irano-phobia are extremely important problems in the West. 
But, IMO, the way to oppose them is to explain the true nature of the 
'clash' between Islam and the West, between Iran and the US, etc. This clash 
has nothing to do with religion, values or civilization. It is a clash 
between economic, political and military rivals, between declining and 
emerging empires. American and Iranian people, regardless of faith, have a 
common interest in opposing this conflict, which in both nations will only 
lead to repression and militarism.

In any case, the contradictory US-Iran relationship is only a small part of 
a larger global set of contradictions, a highly dynamic network of rivalries 
and alliances spanning the entire world. And I'm afraid Venezuela is right 
in the middle of it.

What is the alliance between Chavez and Ahmedinejad about? Between Chavez 
and Putin? Putin and Hu? Are these alliances intended to bring peace to the 
world, to help the poor and oppressed? More plausibly, they are intended to 
boost the economic and political influence of rising powers.

When these leaders argue for a 'multipolar order', they don't intend to 
eliminate the national division of the present world order; they want to be 
its new poles. They don't oppose imperialism; they want to be the new 
imperialists. As any normal capitalist nation would, because ruthless 
competition and striving for power over others is what capitalism is all 
about.

And nothing good will come of this. Not only are these kind of alliances 
guaranteed to exacerbate tensions with the old Western empires; they will 
also exacerbate tensions between the rising powers themselves, so that soon 
we may see Iran clash with Turkey and/or Russia; or India with China and/or 
Pakistan; or Venezuela with Brazil, etc.

Paula C.