The crisis of the United States and its alliance system, led by the Gulf states and Israel, is now evident, as is the firefighting role of the liberal and trade union "opposition." For internationalists, it is a challenge they must face. The announcement on April 7 of a truce that will likely be very short-lived is nevertheless an opportunity to take stock of the war with Iran, attempting to analyze some aspects in greater depth. Asking who has won, at least so far, raises a methodological issue. If, as Clausewitz writes, war "is nothing other than politics itself, laying down the pen and taking up the sword, but nevertheless continuing to govern itself according to its own laws," then judgment must be based on the declared political objectives of the attack on Iran the end of the Iranian nuclear program and regime change and acknowledge that they have not been achieved. The United States and Israel have decapitated the regime and inflicted severe blows on Iran's productive, logistical, and military apparatus without breaking either its will or its resistance. In return, they have sidelined (who knows for how long) the opposition that in the preceding months had resisted a brutal repression and challenged the security forces, even militarily. And they have shifted the balance of power within the regime even further in favor of the Pasdaran.
Iran has demonstrated that it has prepared for war with strategic planning centered on a decentralized defense system, capable of withstanding the elimination of its main command centers, and on an offensive system based on missiles and drones, often low-cost, with which it has saturated enemy defenses, consumed their stockpiles, imposed exorbitant costs on them, and ultimately breached them. Shortly after the attack, the Financial Times warned that "the US and Israel consumed their stockpiles of anti-missile weapons at an unprecedented rate during the 12-day war, when Iran fired hundreds of missiles at Israel. Today, the US military assesses that the Iranian response could severely strain supplies of those crucial munitions, which it is already struggling to replenish, and this affects not only the war in Ukraine but also Washington's war plans for potential conflicts with China and Russia."With drones and missiles, Tehran has relatively easily attacked the technological hubs of American and Israeli military power in the region including the radars responsible for early warning and anti-missile defense and Oracle and Amazon data centers in the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain but above all, the strategic hubs of their policy.
The Gulf countries, long a home or temporary refuge, a business hub or tourist destination for billionaires, financiers, adventurers, tax evaders, and fugitives, Western politicians seeking sponsorship (Italy knows something about this), and now also influencers and gurus, have been plunged overnight into a potentially catastrophic nightmare scenario for their businesses. Israel, even more than in the 12-Day War, has seen the myth of Iron Dome crumble, the advance warnings that allowed the population to flow orderly into shelters vanish, and the enemies whose defeat (Iran) or annihilation (Hezbollah) had been declared resurgent.
The United States finds itself mired in a war that benefits its main adversaries China and Russia first and foremost and with the first coffins to be delivered to the soldiers' families, the worst misfortune one could wish on an American president. The entire world sees its strategic supplies threatened oil, gas, helium (and therefore microchips), and fertilizers, as well as the Asian goods that fuel world trade and is experiencing price increases higher than those of the 1970s. Furthermore, the ceasefire agreement de facto recognizes Iranian control over Hormuz, on which Tehran is also demanding a toll.
The European bourgeoisies, for a change, are attempting to shift the costs of the conflict onto each other, confirming their own irrelevance and the throes of the project of an imperialist pole on the Old (in every sense) Continent. France and Germany dream, respectively, of nuclear hegemony and the largest armed forces in Europe. Spain one day denies Trump bases and the next sends a frigate to defend Cyprus (similarly, in December, after rejecting rearmament and genocide, it increased military spending by two billion and authorized military supplies to Israel without even passing through Parliament). Italy confirms its status as a ragged imperialist and the country historically most prone to American interests in Europe (Sigonella was the exception that proves the rule).
Unlike Iran, where the regime, with boundless cynicism—at least for now—can unflinchingly sacrifice Iranian lives to ensure its survival, in the US and Israel the impact of the conflict has led to shifts in public opinion, social backlash, and internal strife within the ruling classes and state apparatuses. The attack on Iran is opposed by two out of three Americans and is costing Trump a significant amount of support six months before the midterm elections. Part of the nationalist and Christian electoral base, which had voted for Trump for his isolationist and "pacifist" promises, is in revolt, with former prominent supporters like journalist Tucker Carlson virulently attacking him daily. The third No Kings day, beyond the inherent weakness of the brand and the numbers (how reliable is unknown), nevertheless appears to have mobilized not only large urban areas but also smaller towns. However, the main symptom of the crisis is the internal conflict within the apparatus of American imperialism. Trump, after advisor Mike Waltz and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, has also fired Attorney General Pam Bondi, and the next to be purged could be Tulsi Gabbard, the intelligence chief who denied the threat of an Iranian attack at the start of the war. War Secretary Hegseth and Secretary of State Rubio appear to have sidelined Trump's deputy, Vance, who apparently opposes attacking Iran. Hegseth also recently took early retirement, during the ongoing war, of his own chief of staff and two other senior military personnel. Last fall, when the armed forces' top brass were convened in an unscheduled manner, without warning or agenda, the generals' coldness toward Trump (who himself had complained about it) was clearly evident and has now filtered down to the rank-and-file. Soldiers and veterans are openly challenging the government, risking harsh disciplinary measures. A few weeks ago, a fire broke out aboard the USS Gerald Ford, the largest and most expensive ($13 billion) aircraft carrier in history. It took thirty hours to put out, burning the quarters of six hundred sailors, forcing the commander to evacuate them. A previous fault had clogged the restrooms, and speculation is gaining traction that the sailors, already exhausted by an unusually long 10-month mission, first in Venezuela and then in the Middle East, may have set the fire themselves: an episode that resembles a Mel Brooks-style screwball comedy rather than a John Wayne war film.
In Israel, censorship is no longer able to conceal the effects of the Iranian attacks. Those who can are emigrating, and frustration is opening ever wider cracks in the wall of complicity with the state, where old feuds that died down on October 7 are resurfacing. A year ago, the Israel Institute for Democracy revealed that a quarter of Israelis had considered emigrating, but the figure rose to 40% among left-wing respondents, 35% among centrists, and even among right-wing secularists, with peaks of 60% among wealthy, secular, and dual-citizen youth. Therefore, anti-government demonstrations (including those demanding the introduction of the death penalty for "terrorists") no longer mobilize a few dozen activists. On Easter Eve, thousands demonstrated in dozens of locations, including a thousand in Tel Aviv's Habima Square. The police attacked, and dozens were arrested, including Alon-Lee Green, leader of Standing Together, the left-wing organization uniting Jewish and Palestinian activists. The protesters also found support in the Supreme Court, which, to Netanyahu's ire, authorized the protests, overriding military-imposed bans. Using hyperbole, we could say that the conditions for regime change are almost there: not in Tehran, but in Tel Aviv and Washington. But there would be no one willing to lead it.
In the potentially explosive crisis facing Trump and Netanyahu, "progressive" parties and trade unions, albeit with distinct approaches in the two countries, appear to have adopted the same tactic: encouraging the most militant and intolerant fringes to challenge the two governments, sometimes offering them limited and indirect support, without ever making any public statements other than institutional initiatives and declarations, while awaiting the polls. The objective is clear: to exploit the discontent and propose to advance the same policies as Trump and Netanyahu, softening their harshness and, above all, promising more tangible results. The criticisms, in fact, never touch on the substance. Trump is accused of having struck Iran without adequate preparation and precise objectives. Netanyahu is accused of saying no to universal conscription to avoid losing the far-right's votes and of not having a plan to end the war. And, surreally, both are accused by their fellow citizens of being subservient to each other. After the attack on Iran, Peter Lerner, director of the International Relations Department of Histadrut, the Israeli trade union, published an editorial accusing the global labor movement of "an instinctive aversion to the use of force under any circumstances," which, however, "can sometimes be morally justified and even necessary to defend democratic societies from violent threats." In the US, United Auto Workers leader Shawn Fain remains stubbornly attached to the Dadaist-esque proposal for a general strike on May 1st... 2028, ahead of the presidential elections.
Iranian and Israeli workers are affected by the bombings and the economic impact of the war. In Iran, the website SlingersCollective has published some correspondence. One comes from an auto parts factory, where workers are without pay due to the production shutdown; the other, from a house cleaner in Tehran, explains that colleagues have been left without jobs because many of their employers have abandoned the capital to take refuge in their villas in northern Iran and Turkey. In Israel, Haaretz and websites like The Marker and Davar have reported on construction workers killed by Iranian missiles on building sites and the unsafe conditions not only in construction but also in agriculture and home care. Goldman Sachs predicts the war will cost 10,000 jobs a month to US workers, especially in tourism, public services, and retail. In Italy, the news that Salvini's Ministry of Infrastructure has cut €1 billion for the maintenance of public housing "due to the war in Iran," a half-hearted denial, confirms that the war economy spares no one. Finally, militarism and the cult of the Fatherland are resurfacing in classrooms and universities, a natural precursor to the return of the more or less compulsory military service being debated throughout Europe. However, beyond its unacceptable burden of barbarity, the war also contains the seeds for the maturation of a class-based, internationalist, and antimilitarist political consciousness among millions of proletarians. While the institutional opposition is concerned with gaining a few extra votes, the class-based left should throw itself headlong into stimulating this process, defending it, and reaping its fruits.
https://alternativalibertaria.fdca.it/wpAL/
_________________________________________
Source: A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten