[Marxism] Bolton: Israel 'will attack Iran' before new USpresident in office, especially if it's Obama

[S. Artesian]

I believe this thread started way back with the Ruthless One wondering why 
we would take threats of war seriously when it is so inimical to the 
interest of the bourgeoisie and it will produce recession. I stated way back 
when, after stating that many significant forces are pounding the war drum, 
and I would consider that would be obvious from the action of those powerful 
forces demanding and getting the resignation of Adm William J Fallon from 
Centcom,  that in reality it does not matter what the bourgeoisie think or 
what they want.  What matters is what capital requires, what the bourgeoisie 
must do to outrun declining profits.

So... Cheney is a major element of the ruling class, and certainly more 
powerful than Rice or Gates;  and he is that, more powerful, for a reason. 
If your argument is that the ruling class is more divided about Iran than 
Iraq-- fine, I don't intend to argue that point, because I don't know, and I 
honestly don't care.  "Splits among the ruling class"  are not signifcant 
drivers of world history and/or the extent and duration of wars.

The Ruthless One stated that many elements of the ruling class were against 
the such an attack.  And I responded that obviously many are not against 
such an attack.  Many, looking at elections and polls, hedge.  BFD.  Many 
want a UN sanction  before such an attack.  BerFD.  That's supposed to 
indicate what?  To me it indicates , hedging, wanting to  be able to deny 
all responsibility at the same time as funding such an attack, allowing 
plans and bellligerent acts to go forward that will lead to the attack.  To 
me, it sounds like somebody authorizing a hit, but only when he or she is 
out of town and has an alibi. It sounds to me a lot like what happens after 
you've lost control of one battlefield but still see the need to go on to 
the next battlefield.

We ought to keep in mind that Congress doesn't exactly wield a big stick in 
curbing the belligerence of the executive branch. An  historical fact, about 
splits in the ruling class, and Congressional Resolutions, even laws: 
Remember Vietnam. [Period, not Question Mark].   Remember the US Congress 
forbidding direct combat roles for US ground troups.  Remember Peace 
Agreements.  Well more Vietnamese died after the Congress passed those laws. 
Bombing tonnage accelerated after those laws.  Weapons and munitions 
shipment accelerated.

And lets not forget Israel, because in the middle of that long "national 
nightmare, when the Israeli Army was surrounded in the Sinai in 1973 and 
threatened with annihilation or surrender, the US not only mounted one of 
the most massive resupply operations in post WW2 military history, it also 
let it be known that it would not allow the destruction of the Israeli Army 
and would intervene militarily at whatever level was necessary to ensure its 
survival.

And I should I mention the Congress cutting off funding to the Contras? 
That sure worked well.

I would think, Israel remembers 1973 and knows it can count on the US to 
ensure its military survival by any means necessary if it, Israel, decides 
to attack Iran.

When you list your "the relationship of forces," are you trying to argue 
that there are divisions among the ruling class, or that there is consensus 
or even unanimity among the ruling class AGAINST such an attack, because if, 
as you argue the ruling class is  rational enough to make such a 
determination  based on a rational assessment of forces..... if capital is 
so rational, and the bourgeoisie can  measure these things, why and how do 
they get things so f==ked up to begin with?

I am not absolutely certain that the US will attack.  Never said that.  I 
did say that many elements in the US ruling class want an attack.  I did say 
capital compels the bourgeoisie to seek not just devaluation, but 
destruction of assets; war being a major, significant, powerful way to 
destroy assets and mask overproduction.  The US may not attack this time, 
may not want to risk the resignation of senior military officers (no, I 
don't know how many, but I think their will be several); may not want to 
risk nuclear escalation.  But that is hardly a lock; it is not dead cinch 
certain.

As for quoting significant sectors--- I would think that Cheney should be 
enough, I mean he is VP, and the President from the state of Halliburton and 
the Electoral College of the Oilfields; but if not, I consider the HOR 
resolution absolutely clear in its endorsement of an attack, as long as 
certain formalities are observed, on Iran.  Don't you think all those now 
hedging their language might simply be lying?  I mean the ruling class does 
have a tendency to lie.

Why would you believe for one second anything Rice, Gates, the HR, the 
Senate, the Clintons, the Democrats, the NYT, etc. any section of the ruling 
class says about their peaceful plans or peaceful intentions? I actually 
find that astounding.

Again, just so it's judiciously clear; I did not say the attack is 
inevitable.  I did say that there is signficant support for such an attack. 
I did say that the logic of capital drives inevitably towards such attacks.

And I would think, that given the current hedge atmosphere, the language the 
bourgeoisie will use in endorsing such an attack is going to be opaque, 
coded, not explicit, although the HOR resolution is hardly opaque.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Marvin Gandall" <marvgandall at videotron.ca>
To: <sartesian at earthlink.net>
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 3:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] Bolton: Israel 'will attack Iran' before new 
USpresident in office, especially if it's Obama