風蕭蕭_Frank
以文會友
邁克爾·哈德森：對伊朗的戰爭是為了爭奪美國對世界的單極控製權
https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2025/06/22/michael-hudson-war-iran-us-unipolar-control/
經濟學家邁克爾·哈德森解釋了對伊朗的戰爭如何試圖阻止各國擺脫美國的單極控製和美元霸權，並破壞歐亞大陸與中國和俄羅斯的一體化進程。
邁克爾·哈德森 2025-06-22
特朗普轟炸伊朗 白宮演講 萬斯·盧比奧·赫格塞斯
唐納德·特朗普於2025年6月21日在轟炸伊朗後在白宮發表演講
反對對伊朗開戰的人表示，鑒於伊朗並未對美國構成任何明顯的威脅，這場戰爭不符合美國的利益。
這種訴諸理性的做法忽略了指導美國外交政策半個多世紀的新保守主義邏輯，而這種邏輯如今正威脅著中東地區，使其陷入自朝鮮戰爭以來最慘烈的戰爭。
這種邏輯極具侵略性，令大多數人深惡痛絕，嚴重違反了國際法、聯合國和美國憲法的基本原則，因此，該戰略的製定者們羞於闡明其利害關係，這是可以理解的。
真正的利害關係是美國試圖控製中東及其石油，以此作為美國經濟實力的支撐，並阻止其他國家擺脫以美國為中心的新自由主義秩序，建立自己的自主權。而這種秩序是由國際貨幣基金組織、世界銀行和其他機構為鞏固美國單極權力而管理的。
20世紀70年代，關於建立新國際經濟秩序（NIEO）的討論非常多。美國戰略家將此視為威脅。諷刺的是，我的著作《超級帝國主義》竟然被政府當作教科書，因此我受邀就我所認為各國將如何擺脫美國控製發表看法。
當時我與赫爾曼·卡恩在哈德遜研究所共事。1974年或1975年，他邀請我旁聽一場軍事戰略討論，討論當時已經製定的計劃，這些計劃可能推翻伊朗，並將其分裂成多個民族地區。赫爾曼發現，最薄弱的環節是俾路支省，位於伊朗與巴基斯坦的邊境。庫爾德人、塔吉克人和突厥裔阿塞拜疆人等其他民族也將參與對抗，這使得美國外交部門有機會利用一個關鍵的潛在盟友獨裁政權，在必要時重塑伊朗和巴基斯坦的政治走向。
三十年後，即2003年，韋斯利·克拉克將軍指出，伊朗是美國為了主宰中東需要控製的七個國家的首位，這七個國家依次為伊拉克、敘利亞、黎巴嫩、利比亞、索馬裏和蘇丹，最終是伊朗。
美國爭奪世界單極控製權
如今，關於國際經濟如何變化的地緣政治動態的討論，大部分都集中在金磚國家和其他國家試圖通過貿易和投資去美元化來擺脫美國控製的嚐試上，這可以理解（而且是正確的）。
但目前重塑國際經濟的最活躍動力，是唐納德·特朗普自今年1月以來旋風式的總統任期試圖將其他國家鎖定在美國中心的經濟體係中，他同意不將貿易和投資重點放在中國和其他尋求擺脫美國控製的國家上。 （與俄羅斯的貿易已受到嚴厲製裁。）
正如下文所述，伊朗戰爭的目的同樣在於阻止與中國和俄羅斯的貿易，並阻止其脫離以美國為中心的新自由主義秩序。
特朗普希望以自己適得其反的方式重建美國工業，他期望各國會回應他製造關稅混亂的威脅，與美國達成協議，不與中國進行貿易，並接受美國對中國、俄羅斯、伊朗以及其他被視為對美國單極全球秩序構成威脅的國家實施的貿易和金融製裁。
維護這一秩序是美國當前與伊朗鬥爭的目標，也是其與俄羅斯、中國以及古巴、委內瑞拉和其他尋求重組經濟政策以恢複獨立的國家的鬥爭的目標。
從美國戰略家的角度來看，中國的崛起對美國的單極控製構成了生存威脅，這既因為中國的工業和貿易主導地位超越了美國經濟，威脅到美國市場和美元化的全球金融體係；也因為中國的工業社會主義為其他國家提供了一個可能效仿和/或加入的模式，以恢複近幾十年來被侵蝕的國家主權。
美國政府和眾多美國冷戰分子將這個問題界定為“民主”（定義為支持美國政策的國家，即附庸政權和寡頭政權）與“專製”（尋求國家自力更生，並免受對外貿易和金融依賴的國家）之間的矛盾。
這種國際經濟框架不僅將中國，也包括任何其他尋求國家自治的國家，都視為
對美國單極統治的生存威脅。這種態度解釋了美國/北約對俄羅斯的攻擊，導致了烏克蘭的消耗戰，以及最近美國/以色列對伊朗的戰爭，這場戰爭正威脅著將整個世界卷入美國支持的戰爭。
襲擊伊朗的動機與伊朗試圖通過研製原子彈來保護其國家主權無關。根本問題在於，美國主動試圖阻止伊朗和其他國家擺脫美元霸權和美國的單極控製。
新保守主義者是這樣闡述美國推翻伊朗政府並實現政權更迭的國家利益的——這不一定是世俗的民主政權更迭，而可能是占領敘利亞的伊斯蘭國/基地組織瓦哈比恐怖分子的延伸。
隨著伊朗分裂，其各部分淪為一係列附庸寡頭，美國外交得以控製所有中東石油。一個世紀以來，對石油的控製一直是美國國際經濟實力的基石，這得益於美國石油公司在國際上開展業務（不僅僅是作為美國國內的石油和天然氣生產商），並將從海外獲取的經濟租金匯回美國，為美國的國際收支做出了重大貢獻。
控製中東石油也使美元外交成為可能，沙特阿拉伯和其他歐佩克國家通過大量持有美國國債和私營部門投資，將其石油收入投資於美國經濟。
美國通過對美國經濟（以及其他西方經濟體）的這些投資，將歐佩克國家扣為人質，這些投資可以被美國沒收，就像美國在2022年攫取了俄羅斯在西方的3000億美元儲蓄一樣。這在很大程度上解釋了為什麽這些國家不敢在今天的衝突中支持巴勒斯坦或伊朗。
但伊朗不僅是全麵控製近東及其石油和美元儲備的基石，也是中國“一帶一路”倡議通往西方鐵路運輸新絲綢之路的關鍵環節。
如果美國能夠推翻伊朗政府，這將切斷中國已經建成並希望進一步向西延伸的漫長運輸走廊。
該國地圖（AI生成內容）可能不正確。
伊朗也是阻止俄羅斯通過裏海進行貿易和開發以及繞過蘇伊士運河進入南部的關鍵。而在美國的控製下，伊朗的附庸政權可能會從俄羅斯的南翼威脅其。
一張標有路線的世界地圖，人工智能生成的內容可能並不正確。
對新保守主義者來說，所有這些都使伊朗成為美國國家利益的核心樞紐——如果你將國家利益定義為建立一個由附庸國組成的強製性帝國，通過遵守美元化的國際金融體係來遵守美元霸權。
我認為，特朗普警告德黑蘭市民撤離他們的城市，隻是為了煽動國內恐慌，以此作為美國試圖動員民族反對派，將伊朗分裂成各個組成部分的前奏。這與美國希望將俄羅斯和中國分裂成不同的地區民族國家類似。
這正是美國對一個仍在其掌控之下的新國際秩序的戰略希望。
當然，諷刺的是，美國試圖維係其日漸式微的經濟帝國，卻最終適得其反。
其目標是通過威脅造成經濟混亂來控製其他國家。但正是美國製造的這種混亂威脅，驅使其他國家另尋出路。而目標並非戰略。
美國計劃利用內塔尼亞胡作為烏克蘭澤連斯基的對手，以他願意戰鬥到最後一個以色列人（就像美國/北約戰鬥到最後一個烏克蘭人一樣）來要求美國幹預，這種策略顯然是以犧牲戰略為代價的。
這是對全世界尋找逃生出口的警告。
就像美國旨在讓其他國家依賴美國市場和美元化的國際金融體係的貿易和金融製裁一樣，試圖在中歐到中東建立軍事帝國，在政治上是自毀前程的。
它正在使以美國為中心的新自由主義秩序與全球多數派之間業已發生的分裂，無論出於道德原因，還是出於簡單的自我保護和經濟利益，都變得不可逆轉。
特朗普的共和黨預算計劃及其大幅增加的軍費開支
伊朗導彈能夠輕而易舉地穿透以色列備受吹捧的“鐵穹”防禦係統，這表明特朗普施壓美國軍工聯合體，要求其在美國境內建造類似的“金穹”防禦係統，並向其提供數萬億美元的巨額補貼，是多麽愚蠢。
到目前為止，伊朗人隻使用了他們最老、效率最低的導彈。
其目的是削弱以色列的反導防禦係統，使其在幾周內無法阻止伊朗的嚴重襲擊。
幾個月前，伊朗已經展示了其規避以色列防空係統的能力，就像特朗普上任總統期間，它展示了如何輕易襲擊美國軍事基地一樣。
實際上，美國的軍事預算遠高於國會批準特朗普萬億美元補貼的提案中所報告的數額。
國會通過兩種方式為其軍工綜合體 (MIC) 提供資金：顯而易見的方式是國會直接支付武器采購費用。鮮為人知的是，MIC 的支出是通過美國向其盟友——烏克蘭、以色列、歐洲、韓國、日本和其他亞洲國家——提供的對外軍事援助來購買美國武器。
這就解釋了為什麽軍事負擔通常是美國全部預算赤字的根源，並因此導致政府債務上升（當然，自2008年以來，大部分債務是通過美聯儲自行籌資的）。
替代性國際組織的必要性
毫不奇怪，國際社會一直未能阻止美以對伊朗的戰爭。
由於美國、英國和法國的否決，聯合國安理會無法采取措施應對美國及其盟友的侵略行為。
如今，聯合國作為一個能夠執行國際法的世界組織，已被視為毫無權威、無關緊要。 （其處境就像斯大林評論梵蒂岡反對派時所說的：“教皇有多少軍隊？”）
正如世界銀行和國際貨幣基金組織是美國外交政策和控製的工具一樣，許多其他由美國及其盟友主導的國際組織也是如此，其中包括（與當今西亞危機相關的）國際原子能機構（IAEA）。伊朗指責該機構向以色列提供了針對伊朗核科學家和設施的攻擊目標信息。
要擺脫美國的單極秩序，需要一套獨立於美國、北約和其他盟友的全方位替代性國際組織。
特朗普對伊朗的攻擊
6月21日，特朗普對伊朗最著名核設施發動導彈襲擊，其所引發的喧囂和憤怒最終並未成為美國征服中東的頂峰。但它的意義遠不止於此。
特朗普肯定聽信了軍方的警告，即所有與伊朗衝突的計劃都表明美國損失慘重。
特朗普式的解決方案是在社交媒體賬戶上吹噓自己在阻止伊朗研製原子彈方麵取得了巨大勝利。
伊朗方麵顯然很樂意配合這種公關伎倆。美國的導彈似乎落在了雙方商定的地點，而伊朗正是為這種外交停火而撤離的。
特朗普總是把任何行動都宣稱為偉大的勝利，在某種程度上，他確實戰勝了他最狂熱的新保守主義顧問們的希望和慫恿。美國此時已經放棄了征服伊朗的希望。
現在的戰鬥僅限於伊朗和以色列之間。以色列已經表示，如果伊朗停止敵對行動，以色列也將停止敵對行動。伊朗也曾希望，一旦以色列對以色列針對平民的暗殺和恐怖主義行為進行應有的報複，就能實現停戰。
以色列是最大的輸家，其充當美國代理人的能力已嚴重受損。據報道，伊朗火箭彈的襲擊已使特拉維夫三分之一的地區和海法大部分地區化為廢墟。
以色列不僅失去了其關鍵的軍事和國家安全機構，而且隨著其遷徙，大量技術人才也將隨之流失，其產業也將隨之流失。
美國通過支持以色列的種族滅絕，介入以色列的事務，使得聯合國全球多數成員國中的大多數國家都反對以色列。
華盛頓對魯莽的內塔尼亞胡的不明智支持，催化了其他國家加速脫離美國外交、經濟和軍事軌道的動力。
因此，美國對伊朗的石油戰爭現在可以被添加到美國自朝鮮戰爭、越南戰爭、阿富汗戰爭、伊拉克戰爭以及導致其在烏克蘭即將失敗的其他冒險行動以來所輸掉的眾多戰爭名單中。它的勝利是針對格林納達和德國工業的——可以說是它自己的帝國“後院”。
Michael Hudson: War on Iran is fight for US unipolar control of world
https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2025/06/22/michael-hudson-war-iran-us-unipolar-control/?
Economist Michael Hudson explains how the war on Iran seeks to stop countries from breaking away from U.S. unipolar control and dollar hegemony, and to disrupt Eurasian integration with China and Russia.
By Michael Hudson 2025-06-22
This appeal to reason misses the neoconservative logic that has guided U.S. foreign policy for more than a half century, and which is now threatening to engulf the Middle East in the most violent war since Korea.
That logic is so aggressive, so repugnant to most people, so much in violation of the basic principles of international law, the United Nations, and the U.S. Constitution, that there is an understandable shyness in the authors of this strategy to spell out what is at stake.
What is at stake is the U.S. attempt to control the Middle East and its oil as a buttress of U.S. economic power, and to prevent other countries from moving to create their own autonomy from the U.S.-centered neoliberal order administered by the IMF, World Bank, and other institutions to reinforce U.S. unipolar power.
The 1970s saw much discussion about creating a New International Economic Order (NIEO). U.S. strategists saw this as a threat, and since my book Super Imperialism ironically was used as something like a textbook by the government, I was invited to comment on how I thought countries would break away from U.S. control.
I was working at the Hudson Institute with Herman Kahn, and in 1974 or 1975, he brought me to sit in on a military strategy discussion of plans being made already at that time to possibly overthrow Iran and break it up into ethnic parts. Herman found the weakest spot to be Baluchistan, on Iran’s border with Pakistan. The Kurds, Tajiks, and Turkic Azeris were others whose ethnicities were to be played off against each other, giving U.S. diplomacy a key potential client dictatorship to reshape both Iranian and Pakistani political orientation if need be.
Three decades later, in 2003, General Wesley Clark pointed to Iran as being the capstone of seven countries that the United States needed to control in order to dominate the Middle East, starting with Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, and Sudan, culminating in Iran.
The U.S. fight for unipolar control of the world
Most of today’s discussion of the geopolitical dynamics of how the international economy is changing is understandably (and rightly) focusing on the attempt by BRICS and other countries to escape from U.S. control by de-dollarizing their trade and investment.
But the most active dynamic presently reshaping the international economy has been the attempts of Donald Trump’s whirlwind presidency since January to lock other countries into a U.S.-centered economy, by agreeing not to focus their trade and investment on China and other states seeking autonomy from U.S. control. (Trade with Russia is already heavily sanctioned.)
As will be described below, the war in Iran likewise has as an aim blocking trade with China and Russia and countering moves away from the U.S.-centered neoliberal order.
Trump, hoping in his own self-defeating way to rebuild U.S. industry, expected that countries would respond to his threat to create tariff chaos by reaching an agreement with America not to trade with China, and indeed to accept U.S. trade and financial sanctions against it, Russia, Iran, and other countries deemed to be a threat to the unipolar U.S. global order.
Maintaining that order is the U.S. objective in its current fight with Iran, as well as its fights with Russia and China – and Cuba, Venezuela, and other countries seeking to restructure their economic policies to recover their independence.
From the view of U.S. strategists, the rise of China poses an existential danger to U.S. unipolar control, both as a result of China’s industrial and trade dominance outstripping the U.S. economy and threatening its markets and the dollarized global financial system, and by China’s industrial socialism providing a model that other countries might seek to emulate and/or join with to recover the national sovereignty that has been eroded in recent decades.
U.S. administrations and a host of U.S. cold warriors have framed the issue as being between “democracy” (defined as countries supporting U.S. policy as client regimes and oligarchies) and “autocracy” (countries seeking national self-reliance and protection from foreign trade and financial dependency).
This framing of the international economy views not only China but any other country seeking national autonomy as an existential threat to U.S. unipolar domination. That attitude explains the U.S./NATO attack on Russia that has resulted in the Ukraine war of attrition, and most recently the U.S./Israeli war against Iran that is threatening to engulf the whole world in U.S.-backed war.
The motivation for the attack on Iran has nothing to do with any attempt by Iran to protect its national sovereignty by developing an atom bomb. The basic problem is that the United States has taken the initiative in trying to preempt Iran and other countries from breaking away from dollar hegemony and U.S. unipolar control.
Here’s how the neocons spell out the U.S. national interest in overthrowing the Iranian government and bringing about a regime change – not necessarily a secular democratic regime change, but perhaps an extension of the ISIS/Al-Qaida Wahhabi terrorists who have taken over Syria.
With Iran broken up and its component parts turned into a set of client oligarchies, U.S. diplomacy can control all Middle Eastern oil. And control of oil has been a cornerstone of U.S. international economic power for a century, thanks to U.S. oil companies operating internationally (not only as domestic U.S. producers of oil and gas) and remitting economic rents extracted from overseas to make a major contribution to the U.S. balance of payments.
Control of Middle Eastern oil also enables the dollar diplomacy that has seen Saudi Arabia and other OPEC countries invest their oil revenues into the U.S. economy by accumulating vast holdings of U.S. Treasury securities and private-sector investments.
The United States holds OPEC countries hostage through these investments in the U.S. economy (and in other Western economies), which can be expropriated much as the United States grabbed $300 billion of Russia’s monetary savings in the West in 2022. This largely explains why these countries are afraid to act in support of the Palestinians or Iranians in today’s conflict.
But Iran is not only the capstone to full control of the Near East and its oil and dollar holdings. Iran is a key link for China’s Belt and Road Initiative for a New Silk Road of railway transport to the West.
If the United States can overthrow the Iranian government, this interrupts the long transportation corridor that China already has constructed and hopes to extend further west.
Iran also is a key to blocking Russian trade and development via the Caspian Sea and access to the south, bypassing the Suez Canal. And under U.S. control, an Iranian client regime could threaten Russia from its southern flank.
To the neocons, all this makes Iran a central pivot on which the U.S. national interest is based – if you define that national interest as creating a coercive empire of client states observing dollar hegemony by adhering to the dollarized international financial system.
I think that Trump’s warning to Tehran’s citizens to evacuate their city is just an attempt to stir up domestic panic as a prelude to a U.S. attempt to mobilize ethnic opposition as a means to break up Iran into component parts. It is similar to the U.S. hopes to break up Russia and China into regional ethnicities.
That is the U.S. strategic hope for a new international order that remains under its command.
The objective is to control other nations by threatening economic chaos. But it is this U.S. threat of chaos that is driving other nations to seek alternatives elsewhere. And an objective is not a strategy.
The plan to use Netanyahu as America’s counterpart to Ukraine’s Zelensky, demanding U.S. intervention with his willingness to fight to the last Israeli, much as the U.S./NATO are fighting to the last Ukrainian, is a tactic that is quite obviously at the expense of strategy.
It is a warning to the entire world to find an escape hatch.
Like the U.S. trade and financial sanctions intended to keep other countries dependent on U.S. markets and a dollarized international financial system, the attempt to impose a military empire from Central Europe to the Middle East is politically self-destructive.
It is making the split that already is occurring between the U.S.-centered neoliberal order and the Global Majority irreversible on moral grounds, as well as on the grounds of simple self-preservation and economic self-interest.
Trump’s Republican budget plan and its vast increase in military spending
The ease with which Iranian missiles have been able to penetrate Israel’s much-vaunted Iron Dome defense shows the folly of Trump’s pressure for an enormous trillion-dollar subsidy to the U.S. military-industrial complex for a similar Golden Dome boondoggle here in the United States.
So far, the Iranians have used only their oldest and least effective missiles. The aim is to deplete Israel’s anti-missile defenses so that in a few weeks it will be unable to block a serious Iranian attack.
Iran already demonstrated its ability to evade Israel’s air defenses a few months ago, just as during Trump’s previous presidency it showed how easily it could hit U.S. military bases.
The U.S. military budget actually is much larger than is reported in the proposed bill before Congress to approve Trump’s trillion-dollar subsidy.
Congress funds its military-industrial complex (MIC) in two ways: The obvious way is by arms purchases paid for by Congress directly. Less acknowledged is MIC spending routed via U.S. foreign military aid to its allies – Ukraine, Israel, Europe, South Korea, Japan, and other Asian countries – to buy U.S. arms.
This explains why the military burden is what normally accounts for the entire U.S. budget deficit and hence the rise in government debt (much of it self-financed via the Federal Reserve since 2008, to be sure).
The need for alternative international organizations
Unsurprisingly, the international community has been unable to prevent the U.S./Israeli war against Iran.
The United Nations Security Council is blocked by the United States’ veto, and that of Britain and France, from taking measures against acts of aggression by the United States and its allies.
The United Nations is now seen to have become toothless and irrelevant as a world organization able to enforce international law. (Its situation is much as Stalin remarked regarding Vatican opposition, “How many troops does the Pope have?”)
Just as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund are instruments of U.S. foreign policy and control, so too are many other international organizations which are dominated by the United States and its allies, including (relevantly for today’s crisis in West Asia) the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), that Iran has accused of having provided Israel targeting information for its attack on Iranian nuclear scientists and sites.
Breaking free of the U.S. unipolar order requires a full spectrum set of alternative international organizations independent of the United States, NATO, and other client allies.
Trump’s attack on Iran
The sound and fury of Trump’s missile attack on Iran’s most famous nuclear sites on June 21 turned out not to be the capstone of America’s conquest of the Middle East. But it did more than signify nothing.
Trump must have listened to the military’s warnings that all game plans for conflict with Iran at this time showed the United States losing badly.
His Trumpian solution was to brag on his social media account that he had won a great victory in stopping Iran’s march toward making an atom bomb.
Trump always announces any act as a great victory, and in a way it was, over the hopes and goading of his most ardent neoconservative advisors. The United States has deferred its hopes for conquest at this time.
The fight is now to be limited to Iran and Israel. And Israel already has offered to stop hostilities if Iran does. Iran gave hope for an armistice once it has exacted due retaliation for Israeli assassinations and terrorist acts against civilians.
Israel is the big loser, and its ability to serve as America’s proxy has been crippled. The devastation from Iranian rockets has left a reported one-third of Tel Aviv and much of Haifa in ruins.
Israel has lost not only its key military and national security structures, but will lose much of its skilled population as it emigrates, taking its industry with it.
By intervening on Israel’s side by supporting its genocide, the United States has turned most of the UN’s Global Majority against it.
Washignton’s ill-thought backing of the reckless Netanyahu has catalyzed the drive by other countries to speed their way out of the U.S. diplomatic, economic, and military orbit.
So America’s Oil War against Iran can now be added to the long list of wars that the United States has lost since the Korean and Vietnam wars, Afghanistan, Iraq, and the rest of its adventures leading up to its imminent loss in Ukraine. Its victories have been against Grenada and German industry – its own imperial “backyard,” so to speak.
