Immanuel Wallerstein thanked me for sending him my DU post!

[leveymg]

Got a brief e-mail back from Immanuel Wallerstein. See, below. Had sent him my DU comment on his article, "Playing with Fire: the US, Iraq and Iran". http://fbc.binghamton.edu/commentr.htm

For critical sociologists, this is like getting a note from God (Wallerstein is the father of World Systems Theory, a major school of post-Marxian social theory)

- Mark:bounce:


In a message dated 6/6/2005 9:12:16 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [e-mail] writes:
thank you for sending me this/immanuel wallerstein

At 05:23 PM 6/1/2005, you wrote:
Did Iran win the Second US-Iraq War? " http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3763016#3763287 ">q://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3763016#3763287

<img src="cid:[e-mail].1" width=48 height=48 alt="877083.jpg">

At this point, it is clear that both the US and Iraq have come out the losers. Who does that leave to reap the rewards?

Initially, it looked like Israel was going to be the big winner, manipulating its slow-witted Big Uncle to get rid of Saddam at no cost to itself. Until recent weeks, it even appeared likely that BushCo was going to be prodded into taking it a giant step further, and we would we pushed into bombing Iranian nuclear and missile sites or enabling the Israel Air Force to do that. Somehow, the prospects of that, and the risk of a general Middle East war, seems to be receding.

What causes me to say that the rush toward war appears to have slowed? For one, the fact that those most directly involved in the OSP-AIPAC scandal and prosecutions are all Iran specialists. With the recent indictment of Larry Franklin (Feith's Iran desk officer) and moves toward prosecution of AIPAC's Iran expert,and the sudden flight back home of their handler at the Israeli Embassy (also an Iran specialist), the FBI seems to have rolled up the principal operational officers in the neocon Iran war party.

Another is the stiff resistance which the Bolton nomination has met in the Senate, and the fact that it is also opposed by some very powerful figures in the Administration, the Pentagon, and the intelligence community. Bolton has been a leading voice in lead up to hostilities with Iran.

Then, last week, the Europeans on the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) agreed to continue talks with Iran over its nascent fuel enrichment program, rather than referring the matter to the UN Security Council for sanctions, as had been threatened.

Finally, unlike last year, George W. Bush did not show up in person to applaud Ariel Sharon's performance at the annual AIPAC pep rally at the Washington Convention Center last weekend. In fact, after the two met at the Crawford ranch a couple weeks ago, both Ariel and W emerged looking like they had drained each other's blood. This was in marked contrast to the sprightly prance through the Texas bluebells that Bush took just a few days later with Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah.

There is no doubt that Iran is emerging stronger and more secure in itself and its neighborhood after the BushCo neocons and Likud so overplayed their hands in Iraq. There will be hell to pay for their strategic blunder, and it appears that the next round of blood-letting may be within the corridors of power in Washington and Jerusalem, rather than along the Coast of the Persian Gulf.

"

Mark


Prof. Immanuel Wallerstein
Dept. of Sociology
Yale University
P.O. Box 208265
New Haven, CT 06520-8265

:bounce:

[whistle]

1. Your Dr. Immanuel Wallerstein has a refreshing wit I see....

...<snip>

Finally, unlike last year, George W. Bush did not show up in person to applaud Ariel Sharon's performance at the annual AIPAC pep rally at the Washington Convention Center last weekend. In fact, after the two met at the Crawford ranch a couple weeks ago, both Ariel and W emerged looking like they had drained each other's blood. This was in marked contrast to the sprightly prance through the Texas bluebells that Bush took just a few days later with Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah.
<end snip>

Perhaps it might be proper for the illustrious Dr Wallerstein, to go to the White House and give this renegade Yale Graduate upstart pResident a good thrashing!

Congratulations Mark, I can see why your have such pride in getting this response.:applause:

[leveymg]

3. Actually, I wrote that part. Thanks. His reponse was a brief "Thank you

for send me this/Immanuel Wallerstein." That's enough to start my day off on the right foot.

As for W getting a good thrashing from Wallerstein at the WH - LOL.

Regards - :hide: B-) B-) B-) B-) B-) B-) B-) B-) :dunce: B-) B-) B-) B-) B-) B-) B-) B-) :hide: :spank: :popcorn:

[Old and In the Way]

2. Well done!

Good analysis of the situation, too. I wonder if the reports/rumours of Saudi Arabia's rigging their their oil infrastructure with dirty bombs sobered up the neo-cons and/or motivated the saner elements of the power structure to reconsider their plans for the Middle East.

Whatever, something seems to have changed the political dynamics both here and abroad. Perhaps we'll be seeing more evidence of this administration's real ME agenda leaked to the public over the coming months. At some point, these people need to be held accountable for their discretionary actions, which has made our world a far more dangerous place than it was 5 short years ago.

[leveymg]

4. Yes. I can feel the shift. These things can change quickly, and I know

that the Likudniks see an attack on Iran and/or Syria as essential to their political survival. The original plan. "A Clean Break" given to Netanyahu by Feif-Wurmser-Perle called for Syria to be attacked next after Iraq with Iran to follow. See, Bamford, A Pretext for War, p. 262 (softback)

It worries me that maybe they're still on track?

[welshTerrier2]

5. too optimistic?

great write-up ... i enjoyed reading it ...

i wish i could be as optimistic as your post seems to be ...

the signs i've been seeing over the past few weeks have come from both sides of the aisle ... while this is certainly scant proof of the likely course of events, it is so current as to make me believe an attack on Syria and then Iran is very possibly still imminent ...

first, i've heard numerous allegations about Syria providing refuge and support to the "insurgents" in Iraq ... this is exactly the kind of thing you say to justify an attack on Syria ... it's almost "self-justifying" in the sense that if Congress still buys into continuing to "stabilize" Iraq, and unfortunately they do, then it would be very awkward to object to attacking Syria if the military analysis concluded an attack was a necessary extension of accomplishing the EXISTING mission ... the argument would be that failing to "clean-out" Syria would put our troops in Iraq at greater risk and would likely prolong the "war" by years ... will any Democrat stand up and object to that statement?

and on Iran, even the Democratic Party's platform has a very hawkish plank about not letting Iran develop nuclear weapons ... the plank calls for MANDATORY inspections ... is Iran likely to allow that to occur? and just last week speaking on the Senate floor, Senator Obama stated that "Iran is meddling in Iraq" ... he, of course, offered no observation about what the US is doing in Iraq ... it sounded very much like he was banging the war drums to threaten Iran ...

i'm worried that the Democratic Party has embraced the neo-con militarism ... i think that those of us who want the troops brought home now have NO REPRESENTATION in the Congress ... and i think that the US is jeopardizing not only our own country but global PEACE as well ...

i wish i could put as much faith in the signs you've observed; i'm fearful that an expanded war sits just over the horizon ...

[leveymg]

6. I, too, was almost fatalistic about the possibility of a wider Mideast war

this summer. However, I just don't see the propaganda build-up right now.

You are entirely correct that many Dems holding national office -- particularly those being groomed for the presidential race -- have signalled a willingness to along with the Bush Administration in applying tighter screws on Iran. That isn't the same thing, however, as agreeing to involve the US in a regional war with massive casualties.

I think what's happened is that BushCo failed to convince the Europeans, the Saudis, the Russians and the Chinese to look the other way while the IAF bombs Bushehr. Failing to garner any real international support at this point for an attack on Iran, they had to tell Sharon no. Hence, the long faces at Crawford and the hollow, half-hearted messages about Iran WMDs that didn't resonnate out of the DC AIPAC meeting.

Syria is really an unknown. I haven't seen much in the way of a Washington policy concensus one way or the other. Unless there is some insane provocation -- a Hezb'allah-linkable bombing against an American or European target, or such -- I can't really see that developing in the near future.

Let's just hope all this stays on the other side of the horizon. Perhaps, I am too optimistic. Thanks for your thoughts.