[Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal

[Robert Naiman]

When I was in high school, I read an interview with a Russian Jew who had
lived through the Russian Civil War. He was asked why so many Russian Jews
had supported the Communists. He said: "There were two groups of people
with guns. One group wanted to kill Jews. The other didn't. It wasn't hard
to choose sides."

Robert Naiman
Policy Director
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
(202) 448-2898 x1




On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:49 PM, Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss <
peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:

> There were people in the American government that argued that attacking
> Iraq in 2003 was not the best way to control the Mideast. We could oppose
> the attack without supporting them or their vicious politics.
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on
> behalf of Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.
> net]
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 12, 2018 2:32 PM
> *To:* C G Estabrook
> *Cc:* Peace-discuss List
> *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of
> anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal
>
> You're now making the point that I was making from the beginning. Anybody
> who expects that Russia will take its interests as they perceive them into
> account less than other countries do is likely to be disappointed.
> Accepting this reality doesn't require being particularly cynical about the
> motivations of the Russian government. It just means accepting that the
> Russian government is like other governments.
>
> This doesn't mean that one has to accept a "vulgar Marxist" view that what
> governments will do is always reducible to or understandable by reference
> to crude self-interest. Competing factions articulate different arguments
> for national self-interest, and these arguments can have very different
> moral consequences, and some of the people supporting the arguments care
> about the moral consequences.
>
> So, for example, right now there are people in Washington who are arguing
> that continuing to support the Saudi-UAE assault on Yemen is not in the
> interest of the U.S., and the U.S. should instead pressure Saudi-UAE to
> stop the assault on Hodeida and agree to the UN peace deal. People who care
> about moral consequences want that argument to win, even if they themselves
> would be happy to see the U.S. empire crash and burn.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Robert Naiman
> Policy Director
> Just Foreign Policy
> www.justforeignpolicy.org
> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
> (202) 448-2898 x1
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:12 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss <
> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
>
>> Wouldn’t we be shocked if someone said, “Americans always lean toward the
>> side that serves their interests”?
>>
>> In our case the interests are those of dominant social groups in this
>> country - and in an age of neoliberalism, run counter to those of the
>> majority, here and abroad.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jul 12, 2018, at 10:52 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss <
>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
>>
>>  "Russians always lean toward the side that serves their interests.”
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20180712/e4bcaac5/attachment-0001.html>