Posted on 06/13/2008 12:09:51 PM PDT by NativeNewYorker
Former White House National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski said President George W. Bush should privately dissuade Israel from carrying out any military strike against Iran in an attempt to cripple its nuclear program.
In an interview on Bloomberg Television's ``Political Capital with Al Hunt,'' Brzezinski said an armed conflict between Israel and Iran would widen to include the U.S. as Iran struck back against American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Concerns about the possibility of Israel attacking Iran were raised last week by comments from a senior Israeli official. Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz, a contender for prime minister, told the Yediot Ahronot daily that sanctions haven't worked and Israel would have to attack if Iran doesn't abandon the nuclear effort.
``The Iranians cannot effectively retaliate against Israel, so they'll retaliate against us,'' Brzezinski said. ``And then we will be tempted to retaliate against Iran, and we'll be drawn into a very destructive conflict from which we will not extricate ourselves for many years to come.''
Brzezinski, 80 and now a counselor at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, said presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama should consider choosing as a running mate someone who has strong national- security credentials and shares his opposition to the Iraq War.
General Jones
One possibility, he said is retired Marine General James Jones, the former supreme commander of NATO. While saying Jones would have to be scrutinized to ensure that he would be an effective campaigner and that his views are compatible with Obama's, Brzezinski called Jones ``a good debater'' and someone who ``certainly knows the international environment.''
Other vice-presidential possibilities, Brzezinski said, are Senators Joseph Biden of Delaware, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and Chris Dodd of Connecticut, a senior member of that panel.
Brzezinski, an Obama supporter, said choosing someone with national-security experience would be helpful because ``although Obama has a broad grasp on international affairs'' and a strong understanding of ``what the historical moment is and what it implies for America,'' the Illinois senator ``has not had direct military service and things of that sort.''
Choosing a running mate who held a different view of the Iraq conflict would make it difficult for Obama to campaign as an opponent of the war, Brzezinski said. He said that wouldn't be a problem for Biden because while he voted to authorize the use of force against Iraq in 2002, he renounced that view. Dodd also has said he regrets supporting the war authorization.
`Dysfunctional' Scenario
Brzezinski has previously counseled Obama not to choose as his running mate Senator Hillary Clinton of New York, saying such a choice would produce a ``dysfunctional'' administration.
While Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said this week that it is ``Bush's dream'' to harm Iran, Bush said in Germany that he would prefer to solve the standoff with Iran through diplomacy backed by tougher sanctions. Bush also repeated his view that ``all options are on the table'' in dealing with Iran.
The Iranian government is defying United Nations Security Council demands to suspend the enrichment of uranium and open its program fully to inspectors.
Brzezinski said the most effective strategy for dealing with Iran's nuclear program would be a combination of stiffer economic sanctions and positive incentives to negotiate. The U.S. and some of its European allies say they suspect Iran's civilian nuclear effort is a cover for a weapons program, an allegation Iranian leaders deny.
Threats `Counterproductive'
He said threats of military action are ``counterproductive'' because they unite the Iranian population in opposition to the U.S.
Brzezinski said Bush has leverage to discourage an Israeli strike because Israeli warplanes would have to fly through airspace controlled by the U.S. in order to attack Iran, and the U.S. could deny permission to do so.
``We have to make a judgment,'' he said. ``Is this in our interest or isn't it? We're going to be blamed for it. If we're going to be blamed for it, then we have to really decide whether we want this to happen.''
Zbigniew Brzezinski should kindly go STHU, go sit on an air hose and turn it on full blast.
Tell Brezinski to go pound sand.
This Brzezinski sack of shit helped depose the Shah and hand Iran over to the fanatics. This POS would love to see Israel tormented with nukes by the Iranian Islamic menace he created
Why did they dig up this old hack, Brzezinski? No one has asked him his opinion on anything for the last 28 years. Is he supposed to give advice to the Obama Admininstration? I don’t care what he has to say on anything, and I don’t think Israel should care, either.
He’s a senior advisor to Obama, which for Jews and friends of Israel should be all they need to know...
The daily threats seem to be from Iran towards Israel. Old diplomats sure have an odd viewpoint sometimes.
This Jew made up his mind about ZB and his jackass boss from the late 1970's a LONG time ago. Generally, if either of those two morons is for something, I'm against it; if they're against it, you can bet large chunks of money that it is in this nation's best interest.
ZB should STFU. The US can absorb one or two nukes - it'd be incredibly painful for anyone at or near ground zero, and for their families, but we as a nation would survive. One bomb will destroy Israel, because in addition to the nuke casualties and the EMP effects, every surrounding Arab nation will see such an event as the best opportunity in the next 100 years to beat Israel, so Israel will end up nuked and at war on every front. Oh, and with arsewholes like ZB doing everything possible to deny any US aid to Israel or any US involvement anywhere nearby.
If'n I was leading Israel, I'd already have the targets mapped out and the pilots honing their skills every single day for a massive raid on Iran, with a drop-dead date of no later than 11/30/08. You can't do this with a President Obama, but Israel MUST KO Iran's nukes before any become operational.
Ah, yes, yet another demonstration of ZB's utter idiocy. Iran won't be able to effectively retaliate against a NJ-sized country of 7 million located within easy range of many missiles and most fighter-bombers, but it CAN effectively retaliate against a 300 million-strong superpower some 5,000 miles away, a superpower with the most modern and effective military in world history. Yeah, right.
``And then we will be tempted to retaliate against Iran, and we'll be drawn into a very destructive conflict from which we will not extricate ourselves for many years to come.''
Uh, if we retaliate against Iran, that conflict will be over in a matter of days, if not under 1 hour. LET them try to take us on. Bush or McCain would do what Carter should have done 30 years ago.
It is at least good to know that certain things don't change: the sun still rises in the east, springtime brings baseball and scantily-clad young ladies, and ZB is still one of the biggest horse's arses ever to advise a President in our history.
Israel nukes iran, iran ceases to be a problem. The mohammedans learn a painful lesson in physics.
America nukes iran, iran ceases to be a problem. Again, the mohammedans learn a painful lesson in physics and international relations.
There is no down side.
ZB, celebrating 30 years of sucking up to Iran.
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.