The slide to war: have the ruling class gone mad?

The Middle East is sliding, inexorably it seems, towards regional war. Whose interests would such a war benefit? In a discussion we had in the International Secretariat of the Revolutionary Communist International, we asked ourselves this question.

Considered ‘rationally’ one would have to conclude that it would be a disaster for capitalism. US imperialism is not the least among those that stand to lose out. And yet, the most powerful imperialist nation on Earth appears either unable or unwilling to halt the march of events.

It might appear that they have lost the ability to reason. But that’s not entirely true.

When you look at the behaviour of the imperialists, we see that what would seem to be rational for the system as a whole is not necessarily rational for the individual parts of the system who would lose out. One can see this in both Ukraine and in Israel. 

Before the Ukraine war broke out, the logical thing, from the point of view of the interests of global capitalism and for the West, would have been to make a deal with Putin, accept that Ukraine would not be joining NATO, and to apply the Minsk agreements. That would have meant Putin being granted influence inside Ukrainian politics, and war would have been avoided.

Before the Ukraine war broke out, the logical thing, from the point of view of the interests of global capitalism and for the West, would have been to make a deal with Putin / Image: Kremlin.ru, Wikimedia Commons

The problem with this is that it would have meant an admission of weakness on the part of the United States. And if they make such admissions repeatedly around the world, in the spheres of influence they have held for a very long historical period, it would send a clear message: “we're no longer as strong as we were”. It would be an open admission that they are a weakened empire. But they cannot admit this, and therefore their actions are the complete opposite of what would seem the “rational thing to do”.

The reason for this is that repeated admissions of weakness globally means giving up on spheres of influence, and allowing other, rising powers, such as Russia and China, to step in. They have therefore ramped up the war in Ukraine, to the point where they could now be facing a much bigger defeat, far worse than what they would have faced had they made a compromise deal with Putin back in 2022. 

In Israel, we see how they have systematically stated that escalation is not in their interests. And yet, they are tobogganing precisely towards a regional war. Again, the ‘rational’, logical thing would have been to put serious pressure on Netanyahu along the following lines: they could have stopped supplying the weapons and technology he needed for his army; they could have held back from sending in extra forces to the region.

This would have been the only real way of seriously pressuring the Israeli government into abiding by US advice. But that would also have meant retreating in the face of Iran, further weakening the influence of the US in the region. Therefore, the logic of the situation pushes them, in spite of everything, into supporting what in the long run must prove damaging.

But there is a logic in this apparent madness. As Alan Woods pointed out at this discussion of the International Secretariat of the RCI:

“It is a serious mistake to imagine that the imperialists, the leaders of these bourgeois governments, all approach politics from the point of view of what is ‘rational’ for the system as a whole. They do not. And therefore, one can make the mistake of assuming, in a mechanical way, that everything they do flows from their objective, rational interests.

“Does anyone imagine that the rulers of Germany in the recent period have applied sane policies in the interests of German capitalism? Absolutely not! They have behaved in the most stupid, almost insane, suicidal manner. By obediently following the dictates of the US imperialists they have ruined Germany. They are slowly beginning to realise that, but it’s too late. The damage has been done. In Britain, is Starmer seriously acting in the interests of British capitalism by constantly falling into line with the United States, to the extent of supporting all of their lunacy?

“The calibre of today’s bourgeois politicians is an indication of the decline of the whole system. In the past there were intelligent leaders, who were capable of soberly looking at the overall interests of the ruling class of their country. One such leader was Harold Macmillan – the last intelligent Conservative leader in Britain – who understood that Britain had lost its empire, and behaved accordingly.”

We need to recall that Anthony Eden, Tory prime minister in 1955-57, had dragged Britain along with France into the 1956 Suez Canal fiasco. In collaboration with Israel, they invaded Egypt to regain control of the Suez Canal after it had been nationalised by Nasser.

Eden had not understood that Britain was no longer the power it had once been. After they were forced to pull out in a humiliating manner and leave it to the Americans, Britain’s reduced status of a second rate world power was made evident to all. In the discussion, Alan Woods explained:

“When Macmillan became Prime Minister in January 1957, Britain still possessed fifteen territories across Africa. He went to Africa and made a famous speech. “There’s a wind blowing through Africa of national independence,” he said. More than two-thirds of British African possessions were granted independence during the Macmillan government. By 1964, there were only four left. 

“It was a step back, but it was an intelligent thing to do, because it was in the interest of British imperialism. The reason for that is that he understood that they could not be held, and his policy was to give formal independence and attempt to continue thereby the economic domination of these territories. Since then, the British ruling class haven’t had anybody remotely as intelligent as Macmillan.

“The French behaved differently. The French imperialists continued to occupy Indo-China to the bitter end. They fought the battle of Dien Bien Phu despite the fact that they were in decline, and they lost everything. The Americans then stepped in and made the same mistake. In North Korea, they also made the same mistake, continuing to fight, and then had to withdraw with their tail between their legs.

The French imperialists fought the battle of Dien Bien Phu despite the fact that they were in decline / Image: public domain

“Kissinger eventually drew the right conclusion in relation to Vietnam, when he said something intelligent: “they are winning because they are not losing.” And he added, “we are losing because we are not winning,” a very profound statement. In other words, in order to defeat the Vietnamese, they needed a decisive victory, which they were not able to achieve. It was a colossal, shattering defeat for the US, a product of absolute stupidity and a refusal to accept the facts. The French did the same thing in Algeria, very well depicted in the film The Battle of Algiers.

“Imperialist powers cannot win all the wars they enter. And it takes able leaders to understand that. It is worth recalling Genghis Khan, a bloodthirsty monster who used terror as an instrument of war, but he was also very astute. He applied two rules of warfare: firstly, never enter a battle you cannot win, and secondly, look for allies. 

“To win a war you’ve got to define what you mean by winning. Kissinger was being serious when he said, “they win by not losing, and we lose by not winning”.”

This principle can be applied fully to Israel today. At the end of all this, they're not going to destroy Hezbollah, in the same way that they haven't destroyed Hamas. It’s going to end badly.

Because of the terrible brutality, the cruelty suffered by the people in Gaza, for every one that they lose, they get 10 or 20 new recruits, full of hatred and a desire for revenge and a willingness to fight and give their lives. And that will continue for a long time, even after the Gaza war is finished. Israel is not winning because Hamas has not lost.

With Israel now drawn into southern Lebanon, and Hezbollah engaging the enemy on its home territory, it will be able to inflict heavy losses on the IDF / Image: public domain

Hezbollah is another proposition altogether. Yes, it has been dealt heavy blows. It does not possess the technological advantages of Israel. But it is a far more powerful fighting force than Hamas, and the Israelis have been unable to break it with a few short, sharp blows. With Israel now drawn into southern Lebanon, and Hezbollah engaging the enemy on its home territory, it will be able to inflict heavy losses on the IDF.

We should remember that Israel is a very small country, and it is therefore very vulnerable. And this will become more apparent in a wider and more serious war potentially involving Iran, which Netanyahu is now dragging the whole country into.

Is that in the long-term interest of Israel? It clearly is not. It is already having a terrible economic impact inside Israel, is creating increasing insecurity for the masses, and has tarnished the image of Israeli ‘invulnerability’ that the Zionist ruling class has fostered.

But wars operate according to their own logic, and it would be a mistake to imagine that they will not break out because they are not in the ‘rational’ interests of the belligerents.

The catastrophic consequences of this war will also unleash other events, which will also develop according to their own logic. It will create a situation pregnant with revolutionary possibilities, not only in the Middle East – above all in the reactionary Arab regimes that have abetted Israel – but far beyond the region.