|
The antagonism shown by Washington to both Iran and Iraq is
further evidence that Washington does not mount opposition to a power
simply because it is state socialist, or revolutionary socialist. Neither
Iran nor Iraq fit into any of these categories in any comprehensive sense.
Washington has been antagonistic to both regimes because of the relative
independence of these regimes. These are regimes that would seek to be establish
themselves as regional powers. Consequently and such independence, no matter how
moderate, is viewed as a challenge to Washington's imperialist interests. In a
sense Washington, although a global power, is still weak in the sense that it
cannot brook even relative national independence in the Middle East, Near East,
Africa and South America. Washington feel threatened by any characteristics of
independence shown by any powers in these parts of the world. This is why it has
been so antagonistic to Libya too. The existence of a relatively independent
political power in Africa or South America is a cause of anxiety in Washington.
It fears that such powers can then proceed to establish a regional system of
power independent of Washington --a pan African or South American unity that
could then challenge Washington foreign policy.
|