[Marxism] The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States

[Paula]

J writes (and I'm sure Nestor agrees):

> The tenor of this analysis is insidious in the extreme. It attempts to 
> posit
> the notion that what we are dealing with are two nations of equal power.

No, that is not the posited notion. Imperialist nations don't need to have 
parity of power, and rarely do. Recall Trotsky's comment, posted by Carlos 
Eduardo, concerning the rivalry between Britain and Italy. Clearly Britain 
was the stronger of the two; but what was the true nature of this rivalry?

I grant you that the United States is far more powerful than Iran. But it is 
also far more powerful than, say, Belgium. I seem to remember that, in the 
recent discussion about Ireland on this list, somebody called New Zealand an 
imperialist nation, and nobody objected. If Belgium and New Zealand are 
imperialist, why not Iran? Or is it only the white nations that need apply 
for the position?

Note that Trita Parsi was talking only about regional hegemony. It is quite 
possible, at the regional level, for a minor power to challenge a major one.

On the other hand, Iran would be involved in a contest over global hegemony 
if it formed a bloc with any of the major contestants - powers such as the 
US, EU, Russia or China. Just like Italy did when it entered into an 
alliance with Japan and Germany, against Britain.

J also says:

>There is no moral equivalence between an oppressed and an oppressor nation.

It is not the Marxist way to classify nations in this either/or fashion - 
either oppressed or oppressor; either center or periphery; either moral or 
immoral; either democratic or fascist, etc. Marxism views all phenomena as 
connected to each other and in constant change, and not in terms of 
categories that fix their essence for eternity. A dialectician bears in mind 
that the oppressed can become oppressors, and masters can become slaves.

Paula