War against Iran; a prelude to war against China?
As the “ultimatum date”, April 20
approaches, the discussions on the “wars” in general, and the “inevitability”
of war against Iran is covering the entire “discussions” on the social media.
Even the well known (to a large degree) objective political and military experts
are not sure what the actions of Trump administration will be, especially
against Iran. The possibility of an act of war against Iran seems to be high.
However, if we are not considering Trump as a king but a bureaucrat in a country where just a lobby,
in this case Israeli Lobby, can extend
immense power in decision making, I wonder what kind of influence the entire
finance capital and large industries could have. The historically proven political
fact that bureaucracy by itself is not an “elite”, “ruling” class, but a social class that does not create a
"value", but controls the process of coordination, distribution, and
consumption of the created "value that serves to the interests of dominant
classes; it is fair to say that the final decision will be made by the dominant
classes in accord with and through their “non-elected” members of the state institutions which has vast
think-thank experts to make sure that the decisions will serve to them. In all cases the benefit has to
always overweigh the cost of any action. Let’s leave this fact to a side and determine the
objective realities of the world and get to the objective facts as close as we
can, and based on and proceeding from those facts analyze the situation and
weigh the likelihood of a war against Iran and its implications.
Discussion on war with Iran
The fact of US is a declining empire
in the world is obvious to any rational person. With the latest statements and
declared policies, its becoming more desperate and dangerous for world peace
and for itself is another obvious fact. Increasingly
It is being isolated from the world not only politically but with the “tariff”
policy, it is being isolated economically not only from the world in general but from its close allies in particular. Exceptionalist and bellicose economic
policy against Russia turned Russia into an increasingly industrialized, self reliant country. The cost
of economic sanctions overweighed the benefits in a profound degree. The
military action in Ukraine staged in order to weaken Russia, turned Russia into the most experienced and powerful
military force in the world. Acknowledged military defeat in Ukraine
skyrocketed the frustration and desperation. In this sense, it is possible that
US may take a self-destructive desperate action against Iran through which, if
it is successful, can create a sense of a defeat for Russia (and China) as a
revenge. This way, it may reestablish its credibility among its allies like
Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Philippines etc., who are wondering if their fate
will be same as that of Ukraine.
Discussions on the reasons for a war on Iran have two different points of
view; 1) US is following and carrying out the desires and demands of Israel, 2)
US did not give up on dismantling Russia but replaced the course which was blockading
and weaking China through weaking and dismantling Russia first, to first China and
then Russia. As far as ‘for whom the war will be waged against Iran is
concerned, it is mutually inclusive and complimentary of both Israel and US. Israel has its owned opportunistic reasons so
does the US.
The excuse for the war that Iran
is so close to having a nuclear bomb is as much a “valid excuse” as the validity of WMD - weapon of
mass destruction excuse had, for the
invasion of Iraq. We are not asking the
valid question of “who really designated USA to decide on who can have nuclear
weapon, who cannot and when”. The historical fact is that USA is the first
and only country developed Nuclear Weapon to project its power and subjugate
others. All the rest of the countries, however, primarily developed nuclear
weapons as a means of deterring the others, especially the US. This is beside the point.
The excuse of “nuclear” weapon is
extended to the demand that Iran will have to stop all his nuclear industry
including those for civil purposes, plus
to stop all its missile industry and destroy its missile stocks. It sounds like
a demand is consciously being made knowing that it would be unacceptable by any
country since they are asking Iran to be disarmed and subjugate to the US
demands now and for the future. It is equal to saying “we know our demands are
unacceptable, so be ready to war”. It is the bluff at the highest degree in
case of which is called (I am sure it will be), the war will be inevitable unless
the US is ready to admit another humiliation by not attacking Iran. It shows
that US is determined to wage a war against Iran, but what is the hidden
agenda, the main purpose of the war?
The war that may be waged against
Iran, will actually be an indirect war
against Russia and China; 1) to test the waters how will they react, 2) an
image and damage control for the world, especially for its allies and proxies,
3) worst case scenario, Neo-Cons are still under the illusion that Russia and
China will remain neutral.
US preparation for war against Iran is widely propagandized
through Western Media and its proxy outlets in other countries. Indian media, as
an extension of Western media especially when it comes to China Phobia, repeats
the Neo-Con fantasies and fallacies and
calls for “India to step in” . The
general proxy narrative is that “Israel’s
operations weakened Hamas and Hezbollah, and the US bombing the Houthis have
considerably altered the power dynamics in West Asia. Russia, caught in
conflict with Ukraine and it is not in a
position to support it, Moscow will refrain from taking measures which will
antagonise Trump.. China will continue to sympathise with Iran but will not
sacrifice its commercial interests with the West…Iran is weak and vulnerable at
the moment. It is teetering on the brink of a collapse with economic meltdown, protests,
and the gradual loss of proxies in the region.”
These are analyses based on fantasies and wishful thinking.
Considering the fact that US
-British could not beat a small country like Yemen for years, defeating Iran seems
extremely questionable.. US is losing multi million dollars missiles each day
for the last month in order to shoot down Hothi’s cheap drones. US, or anyone
else for that matter, does not have
infinite ammunitions, most of its arsenal has been depleted for the Ukraine war
and now against Yemen. As the US military experts pointed out, the US military
arsenal is at critical level to wage a war. Comparing to Iran, Yemen is a small country
with minimal military power. Iran is a huge country with 95 million population
with a strict ideology that does not accept defeat. Iran has thousands of long range missiles
with which can devastate Israel and all US military bases in Middle East. If
the US uses the bases in the small countries in middle east that would be the end of those countries
like Oman, Kuwait, Bahrain, UAE. For this obvious reason, Persian Gulf
countries officially stated that they
would not allow any access or use of their land for war against Iran. In
addition, they will not allow the use of their airspace to attack Iran and air refueling of US war planes.
Aircrafts Carriers of US would be
sitting ducks for the Iranian missiles. US's already relocating U.S. aircraft
carriers away from vulnerable positions in the Persian Gulf is an indication for the expectation of
a possible retaliation by Iran. U.S. military is positioning B-2 stealth
bombers at Diego Garcia, yet it is still within the range of Iranian missiles.
As it has proven but kept away from the Western Media, Iran has air defense that
even the Israeli planes could not determine what they were and flew back on
their last attack to Iran. Despite all their self-flattering propaganda, they haven’t
come up with any concrete evidence of success.
That is why, US has only one attack
chance to destroy all Iran’s capabilities to retaliate which is not possible
even if US uses tactical nuclear weapon. Iran will probably not take a
pre-emptive action, but will retaliate with its full arsenal. No large country
like Iran would be subjugated through bombing from the air. It requires land invasion
and for that a million foot soldiers. They may be, actually probably thinking
of using Kurds in Iraq, Syria and Iran, and ISIS for a land invasion.
For US this war, could not be a
winnable war against Iran. They probably will cause significant damage to Iran, but they will not be able to defeat Iran. Primarily, Israel will be on the worst looser
side of this war. The fate of Israel already questionable the way it is, a war
against Iran could remove that question and be a practical response.
Exceptionalist, supremacist fantasy
of US will bring about huge military humiliation to themselves in addition to a
deepening economic crises they will face since the petrol prices will multiply
in a couple days which will reflect itself on the cost increase of every
consumer goods and thus a speedy decrease in the living standards of people in
US and West.
Will a war against Iran be in the interests of Finance capital and of all other
industries? I doubt it. The only industry that never loses is military Industry
which makes money regardless of win or lose. It is not an “independent”
industry but a part of Finance Capital Conglomerate who has financial stakes in
every industry, in every trade, in every phase of commercial life. The interests of “part” is always subordinated
to the interests of “whole”, in this case cost will overweigh the benefits in a
destructive way.
So, it seems that a war against Iran, despite all the bellicose rhetoric, is unlikely.
It is more like a dangerous bluff at its extreme at the end of which there will
be some type of attack to a degree at the minimum. However, I may be wrong if
the calculations of Neo-Con thinkers, experts and decision makers remain to be based
on fantasies and wishful thinking.
Due to the latest and continuing military
exercises of China around Taiwan, there is an argument floating around that if
and when the US attacks Iran, in response China may take a simultaneous swift military
action against Taiwan.
Discussions on war with China
During and after the elections in
US, I had argued that its is an election between the Russia-Phobia faction and
China-Phobia of faction of Neo-Cons the results of which will not change the
core of foreign policy. All the earlier rhetoric of Trump about peace,
dismantling USAID (concentrating and centralizing with different name under his
supervision for better use) has been about image and damage control that
suffered heavy blows especially during the last couple of years. Trump’s first
serious step was a “peace” deal on Ukraine which I argued that it was not about
Ukraine but it was about a “face-saving exit and to find out what concessions to
Russia could make it break its ties with China or at least remain neutral in
US-China conflict. As I have forecasted, both attempts failed miserably.
War against China is as hot a
subject as war against Iran. More so,
the war against China is a child’s fantasy compared to the other fantasies the
Neo-Cons have. Let’s study the subject based on the objective realities and
confirmed objective facts.
People confuses the wars between
countries who have land borders with wars between countries who have no land
access but vast waters between them. Conclusion of wars are not determined by
head count, quantity of war machines, at current era, quantity of naval ships.
It is logistics that determines the duration and conclusion of a war. Logistics
means cost, cost means economics. What Engels said over a century ago about winning
a war is fully valid ;” In the last analysis.. money must be provided through the medium of
economic production; and so once more force is conditioned by the economic
situation, which furnishes the means for the equipment and maintenance of the
instruments of force. But that is not even all. Nothing is more dependent on
economic prerequisites than precisely army and navy. Armament, composition,
organisation, tactics, and strategy depend above all on the stage reached at
the time in production and on communications.” Supplying an army with
ammunitions and food, replenishing the equipment, rotating the men thousands of
miles away overseas is not only challenging but costly endeavor. As I have
noted earlier, no country has infinite military means and ammunition. It has to
be produced constantly since an expensive gun without ammunition has no value
in a war. That requires a stable economy and developed industry to produce
them. Based on this fact, in case of a
war of US thousands of miles away against China in Asia pacific, one does not
have to be a military expert to deduce which one is more advantageous than the
other. Even according to the US CSIS “the
U.S. defense industrial ecosystem lacks the capacity, responsiveness,
flexibility, and surge capability to meet the U.S. military’s production and
warfighting needs… China is heavily investing in munitions and acquiring
high-end weapons systems and equipment five to six times faster than the United
States. China is also the world’s largest shipbuilder and has a shipbuilding
capacity that is roughly 230 times larger than the United States.”
As far as logistics is concerned
in a war of US against China in its doorstep, US has no chance of winning a war
against China. Conformingly, Donald Trump’s pick to lead the Joint Chiefs of
Staff has said that “ the US military would be unprepared for a protracted war
with China due to shortcomings in the defense industrial base”. That admission speaks for itself.
It is worth to mention that US
could not beat Vietnam despite the fact that it had proxies in the south and
thus didn’t have a land access problem. What is it that makes them think they
will beat 1.5 billion China is mind boggling. On this note, let’s get in to the subject of proxies
for land access and proximity.
Since the wars can only be won decisively on the ground, no country in
the world has the capability of invading and beating China. Let’s entertain the idea and study based on the
statement of Stalin which stated; "History shows that when any state
intends to make war against another state, even not adjacent, it begins to seek
for frontiers across which it can reach the frontiers of the state it wants to
attack, usually, the aggressive state finds such frontiers.” That is exactly
what US did in Ukraine case, and trying to set it up against China in bordering
and close proximity countries.
Regardless of all their rhetoric
they do know that they have no chance against China. Although due to their
wishful thinking they deny it but deep down they do know that any war against
China will be a war against North Korea and Russia against which no alliance
can win. That’s why it could only be land
and proximity proxy wars at the expense of the people of these proxy countries.
US proxy war is going on in
Myanmar and other bordering hot spot regions where their "assets" are
busy in order to turn their countries, regions into US military land bases.
Myanmar is important for the US
in its conflict with China. In other words, they want to turn Myanmar into what
Ukraine was against Russia; a prospect of bordering military base, a proxy of
US war against China. They will keep on spending money in Myanmar for the so
called “guerillas” of the exile government set up in Washington and ready to implant,
they will keep on trying to seize the drug dealing business to make the
financing easier. Will they be successful ? I doubt it, but we can never know.
Myanmar people will sober up some day to the realities, stop killing each other,
unite and kick the proxies out.
As one can notice India is mentioned more than
once because the racist state and government of India is living in a similar fantasy
land like that of US Neo-Cons. However, despite all the India’s high self-praising
rhetoric, it has neither economic nor military power to challenge China.
Besides, they have no reason to make a suicidal act against China, first of all
that war would end up in a short time with so many new nation-states leaving a
small section as India. That is a different subject to talk about.
US has been defeated by another
country in the region who has a small border with China, that is Afghanistan.
Actually that by itself should be another example and comparison with a war
against China.
No countries in South East Asia,
including Singapore would be a proxy to US. They have declared and practicing
their “neutral” stands on both economic and political issues between China and
US. Some Neo-Cons and Western Media with
their fantasy expecting that Vietnam, a country that they waged war and
massacred millions of its people, is a US ally. As I have noted before it is a child’s
fantasy totally disconnected from the realities and culture of the region.
So, there seems to be no serious candidate
for a land access proxy other than Myanmar in where it is not predictable if
they will be able to achieve their goals.
Let’s study the “proximity”
countries candidate for war proxy for US.
South Korea is a semi-colony of
US with close to 25,000 military personal. The commander of US Forces in Korea also
serves as the commander of the Combined Forces Command and currently retains
wartime OPCON (operational control). It
is not commonly known strange fact that
the military command of a country (SK) retained by the commander of another
country (US). There are two important
facts to consider when we evaluate South Korea as a war-proxy against China; 1)
a nuclear powered North Korea with its advanced military technology and strong
military, 2) increasing anti-war tendencies and protest in South Korea. As far
as our subject is concerned, South Korea as a proxy will have to deal with
North Korea who has a defense agreement with China. Thus, the factor of South
Korea is not a positive one for US, but a negative one for it will bring North
Korea to the equation. In addition, any attack to North Korea will bring Russia
who has a defense agreement with NK.
South Korea is China's
second-largest trading partner as per 2023 statistics its exports $124.8 billion and imports $142.8
billion. The self destructive tariff policy of US bringing China and South
Korea closer in trade. Political developments, and the existence of North Korea
may push South Korea to neutrality- especially since the alternative would be a
destruction of South Korea.
With that equation; US-South
Korea, against China-Russia- Nort Korea, the participation of Japan is highly
unlikely, selecting neutrality seems more likely- with the Russian military
bases a couple miles north of Japan, the alternative for Japan does not seem to
be better than that of South Korea. Most of the regional pro-US “experts” point
out that Japan will not participate in a war unless China attacks in its structures
"other than the US bases".
The hype and rhetoric of Neo-cons
related to the “allies” in East and south East Asia is a fantasy divorced from
the concrete realities. US does not have
any “alliance” in the region that is capable of adding any serious military power against China. Since
US will not and cannot attack and win a war against China, waging proxy wars
against China through its “allies” can only bring destruction to its allies and
sink its own economy deeper in crises.
The issue of Taiwan is being used
by the US to corner and force China to give concessions, subjugate China to its
economic-political demands. However, with the declining hegemony of US militarily, possible outcome is obvious to all except those living in a fantasy land. Most
of the Western and proxy narrative give the impression that Taiwan is a large
country with a large military and military means to defend itself. Taiwan is
approximately 35,980 sq km (including the unoccupied islands), Cuba is 110,860
sq km, three times larger than Taiwan, Donbass
region of Ukraine is approximately 53,201 sq km, 1,5 times larger than Taiwan.
Moldova is similar size with Taiwan. Although most pro-US "experts" in
the region admit that during the first days of a possible war, China could
destroy all the air force and navy of Taiwan, they spin it with their fantasy and
somehow come to the conclusion that it would be a "Chinese defeat"
because the US will be involved soon enough. The same fantasy they had on
Ukraine who has a strong military and no ocean to cross over between her and the Western countries to
support it militarily. Under current conditions, US will not and cannot risk a
direct confrontation with China, especially over Taiwan. So, Taiwan as an “ally”
to US has no military value incase of a war.
I doubt that China will ever carry
out the first strike- if we are talking about nukes. I do not believe in nuclear
war between superpowers. That is always possible but highly unlikely in this
technological era where there are so many new weapons if and when used in quantity,
as powerful as nuclear weapons, yet they are manageable. As Mao stated once; “If anyone attacks us and if the conditions
are favorable for battle, we will certainly act in self-defense to wipe him out
resolutely, thoroughly, wholly and completely (we do not strike rashly, but
when we do strike, we will win).” Under
the current objective realities, the war against China which practically means
a war against the existential alliance of Russia-China- North Korea would be a
losing war . A war especially a war waged by countries from oceans away will
have no serious impact on China but will face a humiliating defeat.
Conclusion
Neocons of US, with their exceptionalist,
supremacist, bellicose and aggressive policies deriving from an illusion that the
world is still a unipolar world in which they are the only hegemon, shot
themselves on the foot on each step. The fantasy of extending Russia and
dismantling it through economic sanctions backfired and made Russia to focus on
economic self sufficiency. The war in Ukraine resulted contrary to their
expectations and turned Russia in to a world military power with
advanced weapons and experienced army. It is admitted even by the Western
experts that Russia’s military industry is producing more in one year than the
entire West combined can. With the last disappointment after the “peace process”
scheme went down to drain, Neo-Cons have become desperate. Desperation and
frustration made them to give an “ultimatum” to Russia and Iran which again
will come back and bite themselves. There is nothing they can do against
Russia. So they have picked Iran with the fantasy that they can beat Iran and
gave them an ultimatum till April 20. An ultimatum that they cannot turn back
without being humiliated. In this sense, at least an attack to Iran in some form
is highly likely. A full blown attack to
Iran seems to be unlikely because the result would be much more humiliating and
costly than a withdrawal of ultimatum. We will have to wait and see in a few
weeks what the choice of the Neocons will be; political humiliation or military
and economic humiliation.
To couple a war against Iran with
the war preparations against China, Neocons literally digging their grave in a
way that to recover from the economic and military consequences would take
years if not decades. Considering the current economy of Russia and China
versus the current degrading economic situation of US in addition to its stretched
thin and weakened military, the “empire” would be heading towards its end in
high speed if they actually carry out their plans against Iran and China while
the war in Ukraine is going on.
It is likely that acknowledging
the realities of multipolar world at some point will make them realize that
bellicose military policy will always work against their own interests under
the current conditions. US is still a superpower due to its dominance in financial
world, trade transactions and the exchange value of its currency. Yet, having
an economy based on finance and thus, instead of reinvesting the surplus in tangible
production industry, buying more stocks-investing money in finance turned US
into a largely consumer country from a producer country . China, on the other
hand, investing all its surplus to the industries that produce tangible goods,
forcing the private industries to invest as such has become a producer country. They are
mutually dependent, however the producer country has the upper hand since the
US is not “the world” and entire world is consumer and needs affordable products
they do not produce. As long as US remains to be a consumer country with the
military industry and technology its main economic base which heavily relies on
an unstable world with conflicts and
wars, US will be gradually degrading
economically while the producer countries who heavily rely on a stable world
with no conflicts and wars in order to be able sell their goods, will get
stronger economically. Economic power is the first and foremost decisive factor
in any war and the conclusion of a war.
US under the current objective
realities do not have the economic power to wage a protracted war in addition
its overly stretched and weakened military power.
The assessment of Engels all the
way Back in 1877 shows how correct he was ; “It is not the
“free creations of the mind” of generals of genius that have had a revolutionizing
effect here, but the invention of better weapons and the change in the human
material, the soldiers; at the very most the part played by generals of genius
is limited to adapting methods of fighting to the new weapons and combatants….the
whole organisation and method of warfare of the armies, and along with these
victory or defeat, prove to be dependent on material, that is, economic
conditions: on the human material and the armaments, and therefore on
the quality and quantity of the population and on technical development… we see
absolutely clearly that it is not by any means true that “the primary
must be sought in direct political force and not in any indirect economic
power”. On the contrary. For what in fact does “the primary” in force
itself prove to be? Economic power, the disposal of the means of power of
large-scale industry.” *
The thinktank group of the
finance capital who have the final say on any decision that will affect their
interests are not a bunch of utopians but objective analyzers to determine the
policies in line with their interests to follow . It is most likely that US
will pull itself back for respite, recuperate and strengthen their economy
through re-industrialization and prepare itself for the next wars. This again,
for US, requires developing its economy
on a "war footing", prioritizing military needs and production over
civilian consumption through increased government control, resource
reallocation, and defense industry focus. US will remain to be bellicose and
aggressive in its rhetoric whether it has the power or not.
Erdogan A
April 4, 2025
Thailand
.jpg)
No comments