[Peace-discuss] Iran, Israel and Obama

[Brussel Morton K.]

 From the Monthly Review, a thoughtful article, long but worth  
thinking about.

Obama, Iran, and Israel
by Behzad Majdian

The election of Barrak Obama to the office of president of the United  
States has generated tremendous elation and enthusiasm in the U.S. and  
around the world.  The rise of Obama has been accompanied by the rise  
of hope and anticipation that a new and better world is about to  
begin.  Some Obama enthusiasts have gone further and argue that  
Obama's election has signaled a fundamental change in the U.S. and we  
are about to see the dawn of a new era in the country.  Much to  
dislike of Obama enthusiasts, I will argue that such hopes and  
arguments are not only naïve and foolish, but also potentially  
dangerous.  (I do acknowledge that the election of a black man as  
president of the United States is in itself a monumental  
accomplishment in itself, but this is beside the point here.)

There are also those who believe that Obama is America's Gorbachev.   
This is a wishful assessment.  Obama's mandate is not to "restructure"  
the system he is presiding over, which was the case with Gorbachev.   
(Perestroika, Gorbachev's main motto, literally meant restructuring.   
He used it to denote "mass initiatives," "the consistent  
implementation of the principles of social justice," and "socialist  
self-government," among others.)  As I will argue later, Obama is  
incapable of effecting a fundamental change.  Rather, what he is  
capable of doing, and will actually do, is something more modest, that  
is to say, something along the line of managing and fixing some of the  
damage done by the Bush administration at home and abroad.

Under George W. Bush, the credibility and standing of the United  
States suffered a major blow in the eyes of the people and countries  
sympathetic to America.  Obama is here to restore their faith in the  
United States.  More importantly, Obama is here to tackle, or at least  
manage, some of the economic problems that three decades of neo- 
liberal economic policies and unbridled free-market capitalism have  
delivered to America's doorsteps.  A growing number of people in the  
country are beginning to lose their confidence in the viability of the  
system, and something needs to be done about it, and done very quickly.

Moreover, Obama is not a new Franklin D. Roosevelt either.  Nor does  
he find himself in a situation similar to the one encountered by  
Roosevelt.  For one thing, Obama is not facing a country with fifteen  
percent of its workforce on strike.  Furthermore, there are no vivid  
signs of turmoil and anti-capitalist sentiments or movements brewing  
in the country, at least not yet.  All Obama can, and will, do is to  
re-introduce or re-implement some weaker forms of some of Roosevelt's  
New Deal reforms that neo-liberal restructuring of the economy has  
undone or undermined in the course of the last three decades.  The  
other point worth mentioning here is that while Roosevelt was a center- 
left progressive -- or perhaps behaved as one in part because he faced  
a militant and powerful workers movement in the country -- Obama is a  
center-right politician who projects himself as a left-leaning  
progressive.

In some respects, Obama is a carbon copy of Bill Clinton.  One  
indication of the similarity between the two is the composition of the  
cabinet Obama has put together and the people he has surrounded  
himself with.  Positions in his administration are filled mostly with  
conservative Democrats, Republicans, and people from Bill Clinton's  
administration.  Another sign of the similarity is that just like  
Clinton, Obama has the political savvy and astute ability to mislead  
left-leaning and progressive-minded individuals into believing that he  
espouses their views and is committed to their values.

The main difference between the two has to do with the circumstances  
under which they arrive at the White House.  When Clinton began his  
term, the neo-liberal re-organization of the economy, which had begun  
with Ronald Regan and had continued under the first George Bush, was  
in need of being consolidated into a comprehensive system of  
legislations and public/economic policies.  Moreover, the project of  
establishing legal structures needed to advance the interests and  
aspirations of transnational capitalism (often dubbed "globalism") was  
at the top of the political agenda in Washington.  Clinton met both of  
these challenges.  The ratification of NAFTA, dealing the final blow  
to welfare and other entitlement systems, and the passage and  
implementation of a whole host of deregulatory and anti-union policies  
and legislations are the main legacy of the Clinton era.

Another difference between Obama and Clinton is that the former comes  
to power at the time when some of the disastrous results of the neo- 
liberal adventures that were formalized into laws under the latter's  
administration are beginning to show their ugly and monstrous heads.   
Obama has the misfortune of facing the monumental task of managing the  
consequences of Clinton's "achievements" and Bush's failures.

Obama is the man!  He has come to the rescue!  He will fix the  
problems and make things right again.  He is the embodiment of "hope"  
and will "change" things in Washington.  These exuberant and naïve  
sentiments about Obama were on the air in the country and abroad  
around the time of his election -- and have not subsided yet.  Obama's  
campaign grasped the depth and breadth of citizens' despondence and  
dissatisfaction with the American political system very early on  
during the Democratic primaries and masterfully crafted the vague  
message of "hope" and "change" and offered it to the electorate.  The  
message was presented, to quote Noam Chomsky, as "a virtual blank  
slate on which supporters could write their wishes."  However, as  
Chomsky is quick to point out, "One could search websites for position  
papers, but correlation of these to policies is hardly spectacular  
and, in any event, what enters into voters' choices is what the  
campaign places front and center, as party managers know well" (Z  
Magazine, Feb. 2009).

In conversations with some of my friends in Iran, I find myself  
bewildered by the extent of their credulity and naiveté about the  
whole Obama fanfare.  Much to my dismay, I find that they are not  
alone in this.  After eight years of suffering at the hand of George  
Bush's America, a large majority of the people around the world have  
psyched themselves into believing that Obama is a qualitatively  
different president and that a new era is about to begin in the U.S.  
under his leadership.  It seems to me that a lot of people around the  
world, especially the younger generation in the developing countries,  
have become intoxicated -- or to put it bluntly, duped -- by the Obama  
euphoria.  They have bought into his so-called message of "change,"  
which is jazzed up and hyped by the Western media and fanned by the  
intellectual and cultural cheerleaders of American corporate interests  
around the world.

My sense is that the majority of the people in the U.S. do not share  
the enthusiasm of much of the world.  The core enthusiasts of the  
Obama phenomenon in the U.S. consists mainly of some broad sections of  
the educated and forward-looking middle-classes in the 20-40 age-group  
who were horrified by Bush's presidency and see Obama as a breath of  
fresh air.

Against this euphoria about Obama, I would argue that the differences  
between him and Bush, or any other former president, are quantitative  
rather than qualitative.  As was the case with Bush, Obama in his  
position as the head of the American state will also sit behind the  
wheels of the American capitalist system and has to drive it to where  
it needs to go.  Bush was a terrible driver; he caused too many  
accidents; killed and maimed too many people; damaged the engine; gave  
a lot of people motion sickness; and angered a great many  
conscientious people in the U.S. and around the world.  Obama, on the  
other hand, is a smooth operator; and he seems to be an excellent  
driver as well.  He will, or at least he will try to, drive the  
American system to its desired destination in a safe and enjoyable ride.

What has taken place in the U.S. with the election of Obama is not a  
fundamental or qualitative change of any sort, but merely a cosmetic  
one.  We no longer have the hubris and arrogance of a crass and vulgar  
emperor who told the world that 'America makes the rules and the world  
must go along with them.'  What we have now is an educated,  
intelligent, well-mannered, reasonable-sounding, and well-spoken man.   
With Obama's election, all of a sudden, America does not look as ugly  
as it did just a few months ago.

The point is that this change of face does not alter the structure of  
the forces, nor does it change the nature of the interests, that make  
America what it is.  The objectives of American capitalism under Obama  
leadership will remain as they were before him: reaping super profits  
in the U.S. and around the globe, and dominating the world for  
strategic interests and supremacy of the global free enterprise  
system.  Obama cannot change these objectives, even if he wanted to.

What he can, and will, do instead is to use his political acumen,  
intelligence, cool and calm demeanor, and his command of words (in  
short his "magic") to make these objectives appear acceptable,  
"reasonable," "natural," and un-threatening -- even "moral" -- to  
those who do not belong to the tiny class of transnational super-rich  
elites and their servants.  Obama will use his magic to make us  
believe that the needs and interests of this tiny minority represent  
those of humanity, something that Bush could not even begin to put  
into words.

Moreover, unlike Bush who was a ruthless and tactless aggressor, Obama  
will be more like a shrewd general who knows when to act like a wise  
statesman and when to wage war.  He will resort to intimidation,  
bullying, and eventually war, only when all else fails.  He will speak  
softly, make tactical retreats now and then, and would be willing to  
give concessions here and there in order to secure the interests and  
domination of the global free enterprise system that the U.S. has been  
leading for a long time.

As far as the Middle East is concerned, especially the Persian Gulf  
region, America's strategic objectives will remain what they have been  
for the last three decades, that is to say, to destroy post- 
revolutionary Iran, and achieve full supremacy in the region.  As  
Chomsky once argued, Iran's sin is that it not only refuses to take  
orders from Washington, but worse, it dares to challenge U.S.  
hegemonic domination in the Middle East.  This sort of behavior is  
completely unacceptable and unforgivable in the eyes of the architects  
of U.S. foreign policy.  America must be obeyed, and those who refuse  
must either be broken (e.g., the case of Saddam) or be bought (e.g.,  
the case of Gaddafi).  Iran is the only country in the region that is  
sabotaging, and standing in the way of, the U.S. strategy of attaining  
absolute and full control in the Middle East.  (Syria, Hezbollah, and  
Hamas' opposition to the U.S. would collapse rapidly if post- 
revolutionary Iran were neutralized.)

Bush's policy of breaking Iran ("regime change") did not succeed.  His  
bullying tactics failed to intimidate Iran into submission.  Given  
that American power in the Middle East has been weakened in recent  
years, and that it is still trapped in Iraq and is sinking deeper in  
the quagmire of Afghanistan, Obama would be willing to grant some  
concessions to Iran.  However, this would only come about if Iran  
would be willing to accept the unquestionable supremacy of the U.S. in  
the region.

Obama will definitely try a conciliatory tone in his approach, at  
least for a while.  Like a shrewd general who would first try to lure  
and trick his smaller opponent into giving up before he resorts to  
intimidating and bombing, Obama will soon start the diplomatic game of  
luring and tricking Iran into accepting the U.S. terms for a détente.   
He will hope that this would be an easy game to play and Iran would be  
cheap to buy.  If all fails, without a doubt, Obama would be willing  
to hit Iran.  The frightening thing here is that he would encounter  
much less resistance than Bush would have faced had he attacked Iran.   
The euphoria around Obama has deluded most people into believing that  
since he is a fair-minded and reasonable person, he can do no wrong;  
and if he decides to bomb Iran, it must be the case that there are no  
other options.

Now, in light of these, what should be the response of Iran to the  
challenge posed by Obama's election?  In the last few years, Iran has  
played its cards at the diplomatic table extremely well.  I would  
argue that Iran must stick to its game plan.  Iran should not revise  
its strategic goals; nor should it scale them down.  In particular, it  
should not retreat, not even a millimeter, on the issue of the nuclear  
energy.

In response to the cosmetic change in Washington, Tehran must come up  
with its own version of a cosmetic change.  Iran should start speaking  
in a softer tone of voice.  It also needs to cut down on needless and  
wild rhetoric and appear more reasonable than it has in the past.   
Moreover, it should try harder to master the political art of spinning  
and learn how to play the game of public relations which the American  
political class is an expert at.  Iran must become flexible enough to  
retreat here and there, make tactical concessions from time to time,  
but never retreat or concede on its strategic interests.

Iran does not need the United States, albeit a détente will be  
beneficial to Iran.  Provided that Iran can continue to deter military  
aggressions against itself, as it has done successfully so far, the  
status quo in the Middle East is worth maintaining.  The status quo  
allows Iran to pursue its strategic objectives.  Stated alternatively,  
it does not curtail Iran's ability to maintain its political  
independence and its superpower status in the region.  True, sanctions  
do hurt Iran in the short run.  However, in the long run, they force  
the country to grow more self-reliant.  They also force Iran, as they  
have already done, to develop its own homegrown technological and  
industrial capabilities and infrastructure.

The question of responding to Obama aside, what worries me the most is  
the latest shift in Israeli politics.  As indicated by the results of  
the latest elections, the prevailing political sentiments in the  
country have shifted from center-right to far-right.  Having suffered  
two military defeats at the hands of Hezbollah and Hamas (defeat in  
the sense that it could not achieve its military objectives --  
Israel's first set of defeats ever), and facing worldwide condemnation  
and growing resentment against its war crimes, Israel finds itself in  
a bind and seems increasingly nervous.  The level of anxiety rises,  
almost on a daily basis, as the population of Israel and its political  
class witness Iran's advances in nuclear and aerospace technologies.   
The Israeli leadership fears that its so-called "technological edge"  
in the region might evaporate into thin air in a matter of 4-6 years.   
This is extremely troubling and completely unacceptable to the Zionist  
megalomaniacs who run the warfare state of Israel.

As things stand, the state of Israel is doomed; it has reached the end  
of its rope.  Jewish immigration to Israel has declined drastically  
since the 33-day war with Hezbollah two years ago.  The war exposed  
the fragility of security and the dangers of living in Israel.  As  
Iran tests more powerful rockets and builds up its missile stockpiles,  
living in Israel is beginning to look even more dangerous.  The next  
big thing that will hit Israel will not be Iranian ballistic missiles,  
but the flight of capital and talent out of Israel as the direct  
consequence of the fear that Iran has the capability to hit Israel,  
and hit it hard.  Moreover, the Palestinian population in the occupied  
territories is increasing rapidly, and in a matter of a decade or so,  
Palestinians will outnumber Jews in Israel.  As Israel's intransigence  
and cruelty toward Palestinians increases, and as fanatical Jewish  
settlers become more racist and violent, Palestinians lose their faith  
in the so-called "two state solution."

The state of Israel is stuck between a rock and a hard place.  To save  
itself from its predicament, it has two choices.  It either has to  
dismantle the existing apartheid system in the country, kick the  
Jewish settlers out of the occupied territories, and return the land  
to Palestinians, i.e., in short, make a serious effort to seek peace,  
which seems very unlikely; or start a new major war -- of course with  
Iran -- and use the opportunity to ethnically cleanse Palestinians in  
the occupied territories (with a combination of indiscriminate bombing  
and expulsions) and deal a fatal blow to Hezbollah (by bombing  
southern Lebanon and parts of Beirut back to the stone age).  Given  
that by its very nature, Israel is a warfare state, the second option  
seems to be the more likely scenario.

My fear is that some of the Zionist lunatics in the state of Israel  
have already decided on taking a pre-emptive strike against Iran and  
have begun to press the Obama administration for support and help.   
Washington might be able to keep Israel on a tight leash for a while,  
but the mad and bloodthirsty dog might tear the leash, or with the  
force of its fury, drag the master along into a war with Iran.

These are dangerous times for Iran, and the best thing Iran can do is  
to strengthen its air defenses, expand its deterrent capabilities, and  
aggressively push ahead with its nuclear and missile technology  
programs.  Iran must prepare for the worst, and yet hope that the  
Obama administration will make a serious attempt, or be able, to reign  
in Israeli warmongers and force them to pursue peace.  Although the  
latter is highly desirable, Iran should not bank on it.

Finally, next to facing Obama's challenge and dealing with Israel's  
threat, the most pressing problems for Iran to address at this  
critical conjuncture are the Iranian economy and the alienation of its  
urban youth.  In order to secure its survival and well-being, Iran  
needs to achieve two very important objectives, and do so very  
quickly.  The first is to get the Iranian economy going.  The second  
is to find a way to win the hearts and minds of its educated urban  
youth.  Removing restrictions on social freedoms and addressing the  
problems with its fledgling and dysfunctional democracy will  
definitely help, but will not be enough.

These two objectives can be combined through developing imaginative  
and pioneering public and economic policies.  Iran must come up with  
innovative and creative ways to put the energies and talents of its  
youth to good use.  It must find a way to motivate them to devote  
their skills and talents to serving the interests of the country.  As  
things are now, their energies and talents are being wasted in living  
unproductive and uninspiring lifestyles that preoccupy themselves with  
espousing and imitating the worst aspects of western culture that  
satellites beam down to them on a daily basis.  The next 4-6 years  
will be crucial years for the future of Iran and should not be wasted.
Behzad Majdian blogs at <iranian.com/main/member/behzad-majdian>.   
This article first appeared in Iranian.com on 28 February 2009; it is  
reproduced here for educational purposes.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090303/12ae1ea2/attachment-0001.htm