Opinions on the situation between the USA and Iran today?

[Os Cangaceiros]

Anyone have any thoughts on the supposed prospective thawing of USA-Iran relations?

[TruProl]

Be surprised if it happens. If it does who else is the Bourgeois establishment going to start lying about posing a threat to the U.S.A?

[Flying Purple People Eater]

No thawing is going to happen until America devours or invades Iran like it did with Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Iran is one of the most oil-rich countries on earth along with Iraq and Saudi Arabia, holding one tenth of the world's oil reserves.

The mullahs that rule Iran are rightist monsters, but all America wants is another Shah to feed it up with oil. You can see this war-mongering in how Iran is caricaturised as a 'rogue state', coupled with how American media has been notorious for misquoting Iranian officials who've used Persian poeticismsby basically misrepresenting them as being 'LOL LET'S NUKE ISRAEL'.

I'll try to find some examples.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I think that the USA has been slacking off on it's foreign imports recently. Go to this page and graph "all countries", looks to me like foreign imports have declined recently to their lowest level since the mid-90's:

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_m.htm

So I don't know if it can be solely blamed on that aspect alone...

[argeiphontes]

I'd expect them to become less dependent on foreign oil as they frack (maybe that's only gas?) and exploit the Canadian tar sands. Drill, baby, drill.

It might be a question of obedience to American domination on the one hand, and having an external threat to justify domestic surveillance and other oppression, the real motive of which is probably preparing a control apparatus for the dystopian future. (I could just be paranoid, but somebody has to be thinking up how they'll keep their asses in the future.)

Iran is a regional power and they don't like it, but it's nice to have enemies, so I'm not sure how this will go. I'm not sure what they'd do without external enemies, because "terrorism" is pretty vague despite their best efforts to cause more of it.

Also, war with Iran wouldn't be as easy as Iraq I think. The military is pretty strung out as it is, the population doesn't like "boots on the ground", and also establishment lies about WMDs are wearing a little thin. Syria seems to have successfully called that shameless warmonger Kerry's bluff, so maybe Iran will do the same.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Peace is in the interests of most Capitalists in both the USA and Iran for a host of reasons (but there are some "spoilers" on both sides like the military-industrial complex in the US and religious hardliners in Iran)

[Paul Pott]

Iran has tried to start a rapprochement with the west many times now, each time it has been rebuffed in the end.

Why is this time different? The goal of the US is to bring down the political establishment in Iran altogether, which favors the national bourgeoisie.

All this means is that the hardliners will come back to power in 2017, like they did in 2005. In the meantime, the US will use the thaw in relations to build up anti-nationalist elements in Iran to repeat the turmoil of 2009 when that happens.

[argeiphontes]

Iran has tried to start a rapprochement with the west many times now, each time it has been rebuffed in the end.

Yeah, I had to LOL when MSNBC had a headline like "Signs of diplomacy from Teheran" or something. It's listening to signs of diplomacy from the US where you hear nothing but crickets. Like Chomsky likes to say, Iran isn't suicidal.

[MarxSchmarx]

Iran is part of a broader stalemate the US faces in the mid-east.

I'm surprised there has been no discussion of the Syria issue. Iran is arguably Syria's number one backer at least as far as nation-states go, and the Americans see this as a rare opening to pick off assad because after all the denounciating of ahmedinijad they had no choice but to tell him off.

Long term what America wants is a relationship with Iran akin to their relationship with Saudi Arabia or even Gaddafi's libya, other theocratic nightmares committed to wiping Israel off the map, but over whom they have some amount of leverage. The americans understand that they are getting nowhere with isolating Iran but military intervention just isn't an option. There's an opening with the new prez on the nuclear issue, and the Americans don't want it to go to waste.


PS by americans i mean the government, not the people

[Paul Pott]

Russia has been more important to Assad's war effort than Iran, so far, and it's extremely unlikely the new Iranian government will abandon Syria.

Iran is the only force that stands between the US and total hegemony in the middle east. The US desires neocolonial domination of Iran, removing it as a troublesome force in the region and on the global oil markets, and most of all opening it up to exploitation by western finance. A war like Iraq 2003 is just the last resort in this goal, and apparently the US still sees hope in triggering a political collapse through economic pressure and taking advantage of Iran's many internal contradictions. Any superficial rapprochement with Iran as the Islamic Republic is just a show - just like the entire "Iranian nuke" thing - while they further other designs.

Your assertion that Saudi Arabia for whatever reason wants to "wipe Israel off the map" is ridiculous and betrays a cartoonish, and frankly Zionist, (mis)understanding of the motives and goals of Arab ruling classes. States like Saudi Arabia pay lip service to anti-Zionism because that is what their people and the rest of the people of the Arab world want to hear, but are far too entangled with western capital to seriously question abetting the existence of the Zionist state, not that they would if they weren't.

Libya under Gaddafi was trying to become a western ally, but when the opportunity presented itself to remove the national bourgeois regime there, the west leaped at it.

[MarxSchmarx]

Russia has been more important to Assad's war effort than Iran, so far, and it's extremely unlikely the new Iranian government will abandon Syria.


Iran won't abandon syria (it's not the president's decision anyway), but I don't see why that stops the Americans from being perceived to go after Syria's ally in the region.




Iran is the only force that stands between the US and total hegemony in the middle east. The US desires neocolonial domination of Iran, removing it as a troublesome force in the region and on the global oil markets, and most of all opening it up to exploitation by western finance. A war like Iraq 2003 is just the last resort in this goal, and apparently the US still sees hope in triggering a political collapse through economic pressure and taking advantage of Iran's many internal contradictions. Any superficial rapprochement with Iran as the Islamic Republic is just a show - just like the entire "Iranian nuke" thing - while they further other designs.

[/quote]

Maybe. The Islamic republic knows its financial isolation is untenable and have been eager to be involved in the global economy for some time (they frequently site Japan as a model for the sort of economy they aspire to). The Americans appear to be calculating (IMO quite correctly) that the Iranian government is quite open to letting global capital take over their country and could be brought around through diplomacy.




Your assertion that Saudi Arabia for whatever reason wants to "wipe Israel off the map" is ridiculous and betrays a cartoonish, and frankly Zionist, (mis)understanding of the motives and goals of Arab ruling classes. States like Saudi Arabia pay lip service to anti-Zionism because that is what their people and the rest of the people of the Arab world want to hear, but are far too entangled with western capital to seriously question abetting the existence of the Zionist state, not that they would if they weren't.

Libya under Gaddafi was trying to become a western ally, but when the opportunity presented itself to remove the national bourgeois regime there, the west leaped at it.

I don't think the Iranians are any more serious about about going after zionism than the Saudis. Gaddafi's trust in the west was misplaced, sure, but that didn't stop the west under bush of all people to respond to his overtures.

[sixdollarchampagne]

... Your assertion that Saudi Arabia for whatever reason wants to "wipe Israel off the map" is ridiculous and betrays a cartoonish, and frankly Zionist, (mis)understanding of the motives and goals of Arab ruling classes....

If you google "In Persian language, it is impossible to say 'wipe _____ off the map,'" some references come up that do, in fact, assert that you simply cannot say that in Farsi/Persian (i.e., that expression is not an idiom in the language of Iran), so the claim repeatedly made in the US popular media, that Iran has threatened the Zionist State in that way, appears to be false.

That said, Iran is, reportedly, a country in which execution by hanging is a public spectacle, which sure seems pretty nightmarish to me. Nonetheless, I would be opposed to any US attack on Iran (or on any other country, for that matter), since I think that is what Lenin's stance would be.

[fahadsul3man]

If you google "In Persian language, it is impossible to say 'wipe _____ off the map,'" some references come up that do, in fact, assert that you simply cannot say that in Farsi/Persian (i.e., that expression is not an idiom in the language of Iran), so the claim repeatedly made in the US popular media, that Iran has threatened the Zionist State in that way, appears to be false.

That said, Iran is, reportedly, a country in which execution by hanging is a public spectacle, which sure seems pretty nightmarish to me. Nonetheless, I would be opposed to any US attack on Iran (or on any other country, for that matter), since I think that is what Lenin's stance would be.

Lenin would definitely be not in favor of this USA intervention in Iran but also he would be against the Iran's absurd religious based laws.

Sent from my sexy nexy 4 using tapatalk 4 beta