风萧萧_Frank
以文会友
迈克尔·哈德森：对伊朗的战争是为了争夺美国对世界的单极控制权
https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2025/06/22/michael-hudson-war-iran-us-unipolar-control/
经济学家迈克尔·哈德森解释了对伊朗的战争如何试图阻止各国摆脱美国的单极控制和美元霸权，并破坏欧亚大陆与中国和俄罗斯的一体化进程。
迈克尔·哈德森 2025-06-22
特朗普轰炸伊朗 白宫演讲 万斯·卢比奥·赫格塞斯
唐纳德·特朗普于2025年6月21日在轰炸伊朗后在白宫发表演讲
反对对伊朗开战的人表示，鉴于伊朗并未对美国构成任何明显的威胁，这场战争不符合美国的利益。
这种诉诸理性的做法忽略了指导美国外交政策半个多世纪的新保守主义逻辑，而这种逻辑如今正威胁着中东地区，使其陷入自朝鲜战争以来最惨烈的战争。
这种逻辑极具侵略性，令大多数人深恶痛绝，严重违反了国际法、联合国和美国宪法的基本原则，因此，该战略的制定者们羞于阐明其利害关系，这是可以理解的。
真正的利害关系是美国试图控制中东及其石油，以此作为美国经济实力的支撑，并阻止其他国家摆脱以美国为中心的新自由主义秩序，建立自己的自主权。而这种秩序是由国际货币基金组织、世界银行和其他机构为巩固美国单极权力而管理的。
20世纪70年代，关于建立新国际经济秩序（NIEO）的讨论非常多。美国战略家将此视为威胁。讽刺的是，我的著作《超级帝国主义》竟然被政府当作教科书，因此我受邀就我所认为各国将如何摆脱美国控制发表看法。
当时我与赫尔曼·卡恩在哈德逊研究所共事。1974年或1975年，他邀请我旁听一场军事战略讨论，讨论当时已经制定的计划，这些计划可能推翻伊朗，并将其分裂成多个民族地区。赫尔曼发现，最薄弱的环节是俾路支省，位于伊朗与巴基斯坦的边境。库尔德人、塔吉克人和突厥裔阿塞拜疆人等其他民族也将参与对抗，这使得美国外交部门有机会利用一个关键的潜在盟友独裁政权，在必要时重塑伊朗和巴基斯坦的政治走向。
三十年后，即2003年，韦斯利·克拉克将军指出，伊朗是美国为了主宰中东需要控制的七个国家的首位，这七个国家依次为伊拉克、叙利亚、黎巴嫩、利比亚、索马里和苏丹，最终是伊朗。
美国争夺世界单极控制权
如今，关于国际经济如何变化的地缘政治动态的讨论，大部分都集中在金砖国家和其他国家试图通过贸易和投资去美元化来摆脱美国控制的尝试上，这可以理解（而且是正确的）。
但目前重塑国际经济的最活跃动力，是唐纳德·特朗普自今年1月以来旋风式的总统任期试图将其他国家锁定在美国中心的经济体系中，他同意不将贸易和投资重点放在中国和其他寻求摆脱美国控制的国家上。 （与俄罗斯的贸易已受到严厉制裁。）
正如下文所述，伊朗战争的目的同样在于阻止与中国和俄罗斯的贸易，并阻止其脱离以美国为中心的新自由主义秩序。
特朗普希望以自己适得其反的方式重建美国工业，他期望各国会回应他制造关税混乱的威胁，与美国达成协议，不与中国进行贸易，并接受美国对中国、俄罗斯、伊朗以及其他被视为对美国单极全球秩序构成威胁的国家实施的贸易和金融制裁。
维护这一秩序是美国当前与伊朗斗争的目标，也是其与俄罗斯、中国以及古巴、委内瑞拉和其他寻求重组经济政策以恢复独立的国家的斗争的目标。
从美国战略家的角度来看，中国的崛起对美国的单极控制构成了生存威胁，这既因为中国的工业和贸易主导地位超越了美国经济，威胁到美国市场和美元化的全球金融体系；也因为中国的工业社会主义为其他国家提供了一个可能效仿和/或加入的模式，以恢复近几十年来被侵蚀的国家主权。
美国政府和众多美国冷战分子将这个问题界定为“民主”（定义为支持美国政策的国家，即附庸政权和寡头政权）与“专制”（寻求国家自力更生，并免受对外贸易和金融依赖的国家）之间的矛盾。
这种国际经济框架不仅将中国，也包括任何其他寻求国家自治的国家，都视为
对美国单极统治的生存威胁。这种态度解释了美国/北约对俄罗斯的攻击，导致了乌克兰的消耗战，以及最近美国/以色列对伊朗的战争，这场战争正威胁着将整个世界卷入美国支持的战争。
袭击伊朗的动机与伊朗试图通过研制原子弹来保护其国家主权无关。根本问题在于，美国主动试图阻止伊朗和其他国家摆脱美元霸权和美国的单极控制。
新保守主义者是这样阐述美国推翻伊朗政府并实现政权更迭的国家利益的——这不一定是世俗的民主政权更迭，而可能是占领叙利亚的伊斯兰国/基地组织瓦哈比恐怖分子的延伸。
随着伊朗分裂，其各部分沦为一系列附庸寡头，美国外交得以控制所有中东石油。一个世纪以来，对石油的控制一直是美国国际经济实力的基石，这得益于美国石油公司在国际上开展业务（不仅仅是作为美国国内的石油和天然气生产商），并将从海外获取的经济租金汇回美国，为美国的国际收支做出了重大贡献。
控制中东石油也使美元外交成为可能，沙特阿拉伯和其他欧佩克国家通过大量持有美国国债和私营部门投资，将其石油收入投资于美国经济。
美国通过对美国经济（以及其他西方经济体）的这些投资，将欧佩克国家扣为人质，这些投资可以被美国没收，就像美国在2022年攫取了俄罗斯在西方的3000亿美元储蓄一样。这在很大程度上解释了为什么这些国家不敢在今天的冲突中支持巴勒斯坦或伊朗。
但伊朗不仅是全面控制近东及其石油和美元储备的基石，也是中国“一带一路”倡议通往西方铁路运输新丝绸之路的关键环节。
如果美国能够推翻伊朗政府，这将切断中国已经建成并希望进一步向西延伸的漫长运输走廊。
该国地图（AI生成内容）可能不正确。
伊朗也是阻止俄罗斯通过里海进行贸易和开发以及绕过苏伊士运河进入南部的关键。而在美国的控制下，伊朗的附庸政权可能会从俄罗斯的南翼威胁其。
一张标有路线的世界地图，人工智能生成的内容可能并不正确。
对新保守主义者来说，所有这些都使伊朗成为美国国家利益的核心枢纽——如果你将国家利益定义为建立一个由附庸国组成的强制性帝国，通过遵守美元化的国际金融体系来遵守美元霸权。
我认为，特朗普警告德黑兰市民撤离他们的城市，只是为了煽动国内恐慌，以此作为美国试图动员民族反对派，将伊朗分裂成各个组成部分的前奏。这与美国希望将俄罗斯和中国分裂成不同的地区民族国家类似。
这正是美国对一个仍在其掌控之下的新国际秩序的战略希望。
当然，讽刺的是，美国试图维系其日渐式微的经济帝国，却最终适得其反。
其目标是通过威胁造成经济混乱来控制其他国家。但正是美国制造的这种混乱威胁，驱使其他国家另寻出路。而目标并非战略。
美国计划利用内塔尼亚胡作为乌克兰泽连斯基的对手，以他愿意战斗到最后一个以色列人（就像美国/北约战斗到最后一个乌克兰人一样）来要求美国干预，这种策略显然是以牺牲战略为代价的。
这是对全世界寻找逃生出口的警告。
就像美国旨在让其他国家依赖美国市场和美元化的国际金融体系的贸易和金融制裁一样，试图在中欧到中东建立军事帝国，在政治上是自毁前程的。
它正在使以美国为中心的新自由主义秩序与全球多数派之间业已发生的分裂，无论出于道德原因，还是出于简单的自我保护和经济利益，都变得不可逆转。
特朗普的共和党预算计划及其大幅增加的军费开支
伊朗导弹能够轻而易举地穿透以色列备受吹捧的“铁穹”防御系统，这表明特朗普施压美国军工联合体，要求其在美国境内建造类似的“金穹”防御系统，并向其提供数万亿美元的巨额补贴，是多么愚蠢。
到目前为止，伊朗人只使用了他们最老、效率最低的导弹。
其目的是削弱以色列的反导防御系统，使其在几周内无法阻止伊朗的严重袭击。
几个月前，伊朗已经展示了其规避以色列防空系统的能力，就像特朗普上任总统期间，它展示了如何轻易袭击美国军事基地一样。
实际上，美国的军事预算远高于国会批准特朗普万亿美元补贴的提案中所报告的数额。
国会通过两种方式为其军工综合体 (MIC) 提供资金：显而易见的方式是国会直接支付武器采购费用。鲜为人知的是，MIC 的支出是通过美国向其盟友——乌克兰、以色列、欧洲、韩国、日本和其他亚洲国家——提供的对外军事援助来购买美国武器。
这就解释了为什么军事负担通常是美国全部预算赤字的根源，并因此导致政府债务上升（当然，自2008年以来，大部分债务是通过美联储自行筹资的）。
替代性国际组织的必要性
毫不奇怪，国际社会一直未能阻止美以对伊朗的战争。
由于美国、英国和法国的否决，联合国安理会无法采取措施应对美国及其盟友的侵略行为。
如今，联合国作为一个能够执行国际法的世界组织，已被视为毫无权威、无关紧要。 （其处境就像斯大林评论梵蒂冈反对派时所说的：“教皇有多少军队？”）
正如世界银行和国际货币基金组织是美国外交政策和控制的工具一样，许多其他由美国及其盟友主导的国际组织也是如此，其中包括（与当今西亚危机相关的）国际原子能机构（IAEA）。伊朗指责该机构向以色列提供了针对伊朗核科学家和设施的攻击目标信息。
要摆脱美国的单极秩序，需要一套独立于美国、北约和其他盟友的全方位替代性国际组织。
特朗普对伊朗的攻击
6月21日，特朗普对伊朗最著名核设施发动导弹袭击，其所引发的喧嚣和愤怒最终并未成为美国征服中东的顶峰。但它的意义远不止于此。
特朗普肯定听信了军方的警告，即所有与伊朗冲突的计划都表明美国损失惨重。
特朗普式的解决方案是在社交媒体账户上吹嘘自己在阻止伊朗研制原子弹方面取得了巨大胜利。
伊朗方面显然很乐意配合这种公关伎俩。美国的导弹似乎落在了双方商定的地点，而伊朗正是为这种外交停火而撤离的。
特朗普总是把任何行动都宣称为伟大的胜利，在某种程度上，他确实战胜了他最狂热的新保守主义顾问们的希望和怂恿。美国此时已经放弃了征服伊朗的希望。
现在的战斗仅限于伊朗和以色列之间。以色列已经表示，如果伊朗停止敌对行动，以色列也将停止敌对行动。伊朗也曾希望，一旦以色列对以色列针对平民的暗杀和恐怖主义行为进行应有的报复，就能实现停战。
以色列是最大的输家，其充当美国代理人的能力已严重受损。据报道，伊朗火箭弹的袭击已使特拉维夫三分之一的地区和海法大部分地区化为废墟。
以色列不仅失去了其关键的军事和国家安全机构，而且随着其迁徙，大量技术人才也将随之流失，其产业也将随之流失。
美国通过支持以色列的种族灭绝，介入以色列的事务，使得联合国全球多数成员国中的大多数国家都反对以色列。
华盛顿对鲁莽的内塔尼亚胡的不明智支持，催化了其他国家加速脱离美国外交、经济和军事轨道的动力。
因此，美国对伊朗的石油战争现在可以被添加到美国自朝鲜战争、越南战争、阿富汗战争、伊拉克战争以及导致其在乌克兰即将失败的其他冒险行动以来所输掉的众多战争名单中。它的胜利是针对格林纳达和德国工业的——可以说是它自己的帝国“后院”。
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.
