Who’s the Real Aggressor in the Middle East?

Israel’s Defense Minister,
Ehud Barak, warned that Israel had “proved in the past that it won’t
hesitate to act when its vital security interests are at stake….We
must work towards an accord-but if not, then we must strike our enemy
when it is required.” (Los Angeles Times, July 10, 2008)

But who’s the real aggressor
here? Iran’s military exercises came in response to a whole history
of U.S. imperialist aggression in the Middle East, years of threats
of regime change, reports of U.S. military preparations for war, and
rapidly escalating U.S. and Israeli military threats and maneuvers which
point to a real and growing danger of a U.S.-Israeli military attack.

Provocations and Threats
By the U.S. and Israel

Iran’s missile tests took
place the day after the U.S. and Britain concluded their own naval exercises
in the Persian Gulf-right off Iran’s shores. Yet there was no outcry
in the imperialist media about those
exercises, in fact one had to search the coverage to even find mention
of them.

The U.S. and Britain claimed
they were undertaking their naval maneuvers because Iran threatened
to impede Persian Gulf shipping if attacked. Why did Iran make such
a threat? In part, because in early June, Israel conducted a practice
run-involving over 100 fighter planes and multiple-midair refuelings-for
bombing Iran.

This is a very chilling
threat. Israel is a country with 150 nuclear warheads, according to
former President Carter, and its leaders and U.S. leaders have repeatedly
stated that “all options”-i.e., nuclear weapons-are on the table.

And Israel is a country that
has bombed other countries across the region-including Iran’s
neighbor Iraq in 1981 and Syria last fall. Yet when Israel conducted
its exercises-specifically practicing for bombing Iran-there was
no international outcry, no denunciation of aggressive, warlike, and
dangerous actions.

Iran has no nuclear weapons,
and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has repeatedly acknowledged
that its inspections have found no evidence Iran has been or is pursuing
a nuclear weapons program, even as it demands Iran provide further information
about its uranium enrichment program. And a number of imperialist military
experts have downplayed the military significance of Iran’s missile
launches, saying they did not signify any new development of Iran’s
military capabilities, much less preparations for a “first strike”
against Israel or U.S. forces in the region, but rather represented
a warning that Iran would respond to any attack.

Yet Iran’s tests stirred
U.S. and Israeli outcry. A White House spokesman declared Iran’s missile
tests violated UN Security Council resolutions and demanded Tehran “stop
the development of ballistic missiles, which could be used as a delivery
vehicle for a potential nuclear weapon, immediately.” (Los Angeles
Times, July 10, 2008) He failed to mention-as did the U.S. media-that
Iran does not have any nuclear weapons, while the U.S. has thousands
of nuclear-armed missiles and bombs, able to strike anywhere in the
world at a moment’s notice.

In addition to using the Iranian
missile test to ratchet up pressure on Iran, the U.S. used the Iran
missile “crisis” to push forward its own aggressive military buildup,
specifically for building a “missile defense” system in Europe.
Such a system is widely understood by military experts to be part of
a “first-strike” military capability-not a “defensive shield”-and
mainly directed at Russia.

“U.S. Interests” Are
Unjust, Imperialist Interests

Why is the Bush regime-and
the whole U.S. ruling class, including the Democrats-making such a
to-do about Iran and a few missiles? What are the “U.S. interests”
that they claim to be “defending” in the region?

Control of the Middle East-and
Iran is a key state in the whole region-has been crucial to U.S. imperialism’s
ability to be a world superpower for decades. The region is a key geopolitical
cross-roads and militarily strategic region. It’s home to 60% of the
world’s oil reserves and controlling the energy spigot is a crucial
means of shaping the world economy and exerting leverage on all who
depend on oil. It’s also a source of enormous superprofits for imperialist
capital as a whole. So U.S. domination of the Middle East is in service
of enforcing its global domination.

For over 60 years, the U.S.
imperialists have intervened overly and covertly in the region-militarily,
politically, and economically — to maintain this setup. They”ve installed
and supported tyrants, threatened and waged war, and built Israel into
a regional military garrison and strike force.

Iranians know this first hand.
In 1980, the U.S. encouraged Saddam Hussein to attack Iran, sparking
the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war, one of the bloodiest ground wars since
World War 2. In 1953, the U.S. CIA organized a coup that overthrew the
Mossadeq government and put the ruthless butcher and torturer-Shah
Reza Pahlavi-on the throne. Today, 55 years later, the U.S. is once
again threatening Iran with “liberation.” And if Iran refuses “liberation,”
there’s always “obliteration” as Hillary Clinton warned.

America’s so-called “war
on terror” was launched after September 11, 2001 to further protect
those interests-and specifically to recast the political and social
terrain of the region in order to defeat challenges coming from both
Islamic fundamentalist political trends and the U.S.’s imperialist
rivals to those interests.  Iran has been a target-and a prize-from
the beginning. This is not because its reactionary theocratic rulers
oppress the Iranian people; the U.S. has targeted Iran because the Islamic
Republic is an obstacle to U.S.-enforced regional transformation in
service of unchallenged global empire.

The difficulties the U.S. has
run into in achieving these goals-including how the U.S. invasions
of Afghanistan and Iraq have helped strengthen Iran and fuel Islamic
fundamentalism-have only created greater necessities for the U.S.
establishment to take down the Islamic Republic. This is why regime
change has never been taken off the table and why the U.S. negotiating
stance has been shaped to isolate and weaken Iran’s rulers and set
them up for possible war-not simply resolve the nuclear enrichment
issue.

Intensifying Trajectory
of Confrontation and Possible War

Complex maneuvering-military
threats and moves, political posturing and signaling, diplomatic negotiations-is
rapidly taking place around Iran. Different scenarios are possible.Yet
the deeper necessities and dynamics mentioned above are what is
most fundamentally driving events.

This is the context for Iran’s
missile tests-and the belligerent U.S.-Israeli response, which comes
two weeks after Seymour Hersh’s revelation that the Bush regime authorized
$400 million for covert operations to destabilize Iran, including by
assassinating Iranians.  All these are further signs of the intensification
of the current trajectory of confrontation and preparations for possible
war, and of the real and growing danger of a U.S.-Israeli military attack.

Only the
People Can Stop War-Not Obama and the Democrats

It is being made clear-once
again-that Obama and the Democrats will not do anything to stop such
a war-in fact they are adding their voices to the war chorus-whatever
tactical differences they may have with the Bush regime. Right now,
the Democratic-controlled Congress is considering a bill (H.R. 362)
that calls for stringent sanctions against Iran and enforcement measures
that could lead to imposing a naval blockade, which would be tantamount
to a declaration of war. And there are reports the Democrats are pushing
this even more aggressively than the Republicans.

After Iran’s missile tests,
Barack Obama released the following statement:

“These missile tests demonstrate
once again that we need to change our policy to deal aggressively with
the threat posed by the Iranian regime. Through its nuclear program,
missile capability, meddling in Iraq, support for terrorism, and threats
against Israel, Iran now poses the greatest strategic challenge to the
United States in the region in a generation. Now is the time to work
with our friends and allies, and to pursue direct and aggressive diplomacy
with the Iranian regime backed by tougher unilateral and multilateral
sanctions. It’s time to offer the Iranians a clear choice between
increased costs for continuing their troubling behavior, and concrete
incentives that would come if they change course.” (barackobama.com,
July 9, 2008)

First, Obama is proceeding
from a fully imperialist viewpoint: he repeats the same charges against
Iran made by the Bush regime (which are a mixture of lies, half-truths,
distortions, and “imperialist-speak”) and agrees with the overall
ruling consensus that Iran is the main obstacle to continued U.S. dominance
in the Middle East and so must be dealt with aggressively.

One of Obama’s criticisms
is that current U.S. policy hasn’t been effective enough in weakening
and isolating Iran and forcing it to agree to U.S. terms, so he’s
proposing further “unilateral and multilateral sanctions” and “aggressive
diplomacy” to do so. But these moves are first, acts of imperialist
aggression. It was these kinds of imperialist sanctions and diplomacy
that led to the death of well over 500,000 Iraqis during the 1990s.
Second, they”re part of a package which includes military threats
and preparations (and Obama also insists that “all options” remain
on the table).  In fact, Obama has stated that diplomacy, sanctions,
and economic pressure are crucial to putting the U.S. in the best position
if war becomes necessary.

Obama and his team do seem
to have some differences with the Bush regime over how to deal with
Iran, as well as broader issues of imperialist strategy. But these differences
are over how to best manage a global empire, including waging and winning
the overall “war on terror.” And everything Obama has done-and
what he conspicuously has not done, like clearly oppose any U.S. or
Israeli attack on Iran-shows that he will not put any serious roadblocks
in Bush’s way if he decides to wage war.

So for any serious mass resistance
to emerge against U.S.-Israeli aggression, interference, and possible
war on Iran, people need to reject the terms of debate and discussion
being insisted upon Obama, McCain, Bush, and the whole U.S. ruling class.
That framework would have us judge everything-and act-from the viewpoint
of supporting U.S. imperialist interests-U.S. dominance, U.S. interference,
the U.S. military and its troops-and U.S. wars. But all this is thoroughly
immoral, reactionary, and unjust. None of it-in any form — is in
the interests of the peoples of the planet, of the Middle East, or the
vast majority living in this country.

The situation is very grave,
very dangerous, and moving very rapidly. The time to resist any U.S.
or Israeli aggression or attack is now-right now.