Why did Bush pick zbig's coauthor Gates as our new secdef.
Prefer a harder line myself:
Posted on 05/30/2008 7:38:25 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
When he is not accusing American Jewish leaders of McCarthyism, Zgibniew Brzezinski keeps busy by advocating the appeasement of Iran. In this Washington Post op-ed, for example, Brzezinski (along with William Odom) writes:
Given Iran's stated goals -- a nuclear power capability but not nuclear weapons, as well as an alleged desire to discuss broader U.S.-Iranian security issues -- a realistic policy would exploit this opening to see what it might yield.
The problem, though, is that no policy that takes Iran's stated goal seriously (i.e., sees it as an "opening") can be considered realistic. Indeed, it appears that even Brzezinski (the top foreign policy adviser to Jimmy Carter who concluded that the Soviet Union wouldn't invade Afghanistan because it promised not to) isn't a big enough fool to believe that Iran wants only nuclear power, not nuclear weapons. Thus, he begins his essay by referring to Iran's "desire to have its own nuclear arsenal." (Naturally, Brzezinski asserts that current U.S. policy is "intensifying" that desire, but he doesn't claim the desire doesn't exist, nor could he with a straight face).
Moreover, Brzezinski quickly moves away from the premise that Iran's goals don't include obtaining nukes. His fall-back position is that a nuclear Iran is not problematic because "the traditional policy of strategic deterrence, which worked so well in U.S. relations with the Soviet Union and with China and which has helped to stabilize India-Pakistan hostility" will also "work in the case of Iran." Brzezinski asserts that "the widely propagated notion of a suicidal Iran detonating its very first nuclear weapon against Israel is more the product of paranoia or demagogy than of serious strategic calculus." But, of course, this notion finds support in statements by leaders of Iran. One can argue that these statements shouldn't be taken seriously. But Brzezinski would rather not rely on this counterintuitive argument. Thus, he ignores the statements by Iran's leaders and resorts to name-calling. The intellectual dishonesty does not come as a surprise.
If it is true, however, that we have little to fear from a nuclear Iran, then why should we "accommodate its. . .interests" in order to avoid this outcome, as Brzezinski advocates? Here, Obama's mentor indulges in fantasy. He postulates that his accommodationist approach
could help bring Iran back into its traditional role of strategic cooperation with the United States in stabilizing the Gulf region. Eventually, Iran could even return to its long-standing and geopolitically natural pre-1979 policy of cooperative relations with Israel.
But this traditional, longstanding Iranian role pre-dates the 1979 revolution (the one that Carter and Brzezinski saw as insufficiently threatening to warrant backing the Shah of Iran). Brzezinski provides no reason to believe that the current regime or any spin-off thereof will opt to help the U.S. stablilize the Gulf region, much less cooperate with Israel.
Clearly, only regime change (in the strong sense) provides any prospect of bringing about Brzezinski's rosy scenario. And that is why a policy that promotes such change seems vastly superior to one that seeks to accommodate the existing regime's interests.
ZB is an effing idiot. If you want to return to the Jimmy Carter foreign policy and defense era where America was weak and shamed, by all menas vote for Osbama
************************EXCERPT***********************
Current U.S. policy toward the regime in Tehran will almost certainly result in an Iran with nuclear weapons. The seemingly clever combination of the use of "sticks" and "carrots," including the frequent official hints of an American military option "remaining on the table," simply intensifies Iran's desire to have its own nuclear arsenal. Alas, such a heavy-handed "sticks" and "carrots" policy may work with donkeys but not with serious countries. The United States would have a better chance of success if the White House abandoned its threats of military action and its calls for regime change.
Consider countries that could have quickly become nuclear weapon states had they been treated similarly. Brazil, Argentina and South Africa had nuclear weapons programs but gave them up, each for different reasons. Had the United States threatened to change their regimes if they would not, probably none would have complied. But when "sticks" and "carrots" failed to prevent India and Pakistan from acquiring nuclear weapons, the United States rapidly accommodated both, preferring good relations with them to hostile ones. What does this suggest to leaders in Iran?
To look at the issue another way, imagine if China, a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and a country that has deliberately not engaged in a nuclear arms race with Russia or the United States, threatened to change the American regime if it did not begin a steady destruction of its nuclear arsenal. The threat would have an arguable legal basis, because all treaty signatories promised long ago to reduce their arsenals, eventually to zero. The American reaction, of course, would be explosive public opposition to such a demand. U.S. leaders might even mimic the fantasy rhetoric of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad regarding the use of nuclear weapons.
A successful approach to Iran has to accommodate its security interests and ours. Neither a U.S. air attack on Iranian nuclear facilities nor a less effective Israeli one could do more than merely set back Iran's nuclear program. I
Or just not bother to vote in November as many advise on this Forum.
The basic technique in the oh-so-sophisticated Scowcroft/Brezinski school of geopolitics is to assume that doing nothing about a problem is always the best course of action and then to concoct loftily-phrased excuses and justifications for same.
Current Late 1970s U.S. policy toward the regime in Tehran will almost certainly result in an Iran with nuclear weapons.
Thank you!
Good morning.,...here we seem to have a window into Obama’s policies...wonderful isn’t it.
ZB is the architect that gave Iran away and gave rise to islamofascism. Its 25 years later and we are still suffering from their incompetence. I am not prepared to do that again.
(Texas) Tech researchers train Iraqi scientists to dismantle nuclear facilities
The idea of Zbig lecturing us on how to deal with Iran is a joke in itself. He was so successful during the Carter Administration!
Zbig is essentially a fake. He was originally presented as a “tough guy” on national security issues, but his record indicates he is anything but.
Brazil, Argentina and South Africa? Good grief, these people are hopelessly naive fools. Leaders and citizens in those countries did not believe their religion was going to take over the world. They actually cared about staying alive.
But...but...you actually believe what Iamanutjob says? /s
Why did Bush pick zbig's coauthor Gates as our new secdef.
Prefer a harder line myself:
Last year at this time, I thought only Hillary could scare me more than McCain. But Obama scares me more than both of them.
I will be holding my nose in November and I'm fervently hoping (with serious doubts) that McCain will pick a very conservative running mate.
You negotiate from strength. These people will never sit down and discuss anything unless it’s in their interest. That said, once they stand to lose something they’ll negotiate.
That Brzezinski son of a bitch is like a guy that will not provide fire power so that you get your head blown off. He is totally as bad as Pelosi, Reid and the rest of their ilk. In fact he is worse. He is the kind of clown they model their ill educated views upon.
Current U.S. policy toward the regime in Tehran will almost certainly result in an Iran with nuclear weapons.Zbig Zboy was right on Iran when he urged Carter to support the Shah. Carter of course refused. After the Muzzie dictatorship took over, Zbig Zboy assured everyone that Islamicist gov't wouldn't spread. Since he's permanently linked with Carter, he'll defend those policies to the day he dies, and I hope it's a double funeral, and soon. Thanks Ernest.
Thinking like that will never get you a job in the Obama State Department.
Bump, Phil.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.