You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Syria-Lebanon-Iran
Brzezinski: U.S. in danger of 'stampeding' to war with Iran
2007-09-24
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski likened U.S. officials' saber rattling about Iran's alleged nuclear ambitions to similar statements made before the start of the Iraq war.
Who?
"I think the administration, the president and the vice president particularly, are trying to hype the atmosphere, and that is reminiscent of what preceded the war in Iraq," Brzezinski told CNN's "Late Edition" on Sunday.

Earlier this month during a televised speech asserting that U.S. troops should not be immediately withdrawn from Iraq, President Bush said, "Iran would benefit from the chaos and would be encouraged in its efforts to gain nuclear weapons and dominate the region." However, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in an interview that aired Sunday on CBS' "60 Minutes" that "insecurity in Iraq is detrimental to our interests."
They also concealed their nuclear program.
And the Left believes Short Round, of course.
Brzezinski also disapproved of Bush's statement. "When the president flatly asserts they are seeking nuclear weapons, he's overstating the facts," he said. "We are suspicious. We have strong suspicions, but we don't have facts that they are."
How about a 15kT bomb going off at ground zero again? Would that be OK? Followed by ten more at other population centers and veiled threats of more to follow?
The whole point of 9/11 was that we couldn't wait to see what suspicious nations were doing with suspicious programs and suspicious characters. Zbig obviously didn't get it and this point, doesn't want to, since (I'm suspicious here) he wants a job in the Hildebeast administration, given that his pal Obama isn't going to get the big job in the Oval Office.
Brzezinski, who served under President Jimmy Carter, said he is not sure how to interpret Iran's intentions. Iran has insisted its nuclear program is intended solely for peaceful purposes.
Maybe it wasn't entirely Carter's fault after all . . . .
Oh, great, a National Security Advisor who can't figure out what Iran is up to. That inspires real confidence, doesn't it.
"I think it's quite possible that they are seeking weapons or positioning themselves to have them, but we have very scant evidence to support that," he said. "And the president of the United States, especially after Iraq, should be very careful about the veracity of his public assertions."
Is Brzezinski still part of our inner intelligence circles? I'm guessing he's not.
But Henry Kissinger, the former national security adviser and secretary of state under President Nixon, appeared not to doubt Iran's alleged ambitions. "I believe they are building a capability to build a nuclear bomb," Kissinger told CNN. "I don't think they're yet in a position to build a nuclear bomb, but they may be two or three years away from it."
I'd rather they be two or three centuries away from it.
Brzezinski, who is advising the Democratic presidential campaign of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, urged American officials to be patient, whatever Tehran's intentions may be.
Hide and watch. Then hide again when they pull out a nuke. "Oops, sorry! I hate it when I'm wrong!"
Don't worry, the MSM will stuff his comments today down the memory hole if the Mad Mullahs™ explode a nuke. Count on it in fact.
"If we escalate the tensions, if we succumb to hysteria, if we start making threats, we are likely to stampede ourselves into a war, which most reasonable people agree would be a disaster for us," he said.
Please expand on who you consider to be reasonable people?
Him. Barack. Hilde. The Breck Boy. Kos. Howard Dean. Maddy Half-bright. Harry Reid (D-Saster). How many more 'reasonable' people do you need?
"And just think what it would do for the United States, because it would be the United States which would be at war. We will be at war simultaneously in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan. And we would be stuck for the next 20 years."
Better than the alternative!
A 10kT nuke does tend to ruin one's day.
Kissinger said the international community should enlist support from countries opposed to Iran becoming a nuclear power.
They're chicken$hits. Like you.
"The current objective has to be to unite the countries that will suffer directly from Iranian nuclear weapons, the members of the Security Council and other countries in a program of diplomacy," he said.
That would be nice. It might actually work to some extent. But careful not to let that point of no return slip past you unnoticed. Which would be Iran's sole purpose during this do-nothing process.
Getting those affected countries to unite isn't going to work unless they see that the U.S. is willing to stand by them today and tomorrow. They've got reasons to worry precisely because of people like Zbig, Obama and Hildebeast. Anyone see the Dhimmicrats working with the Gulf Council states? Anyone see the Dhimmicrats persuading the Russkies and the Chinese to forsake their own interests in Iran so as to contain the nuclear power the Mad Mullahs™ would have? Nah, me neither.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reiterated last week that Bush was committed to diplomacy when dealing with Iran, but has not taken any options off the table. "We believe the diplomatic track can work," she said. "But has to work both with a set of incentives and a set of teeth."
We tried that already, didn't we?
Condi is uttering one of those basic statements of diplomacy -- words work better when you've got a club in your hands and the will to use it if pushed. Condi understands that, and Zbig apparently doesn't, which explains a great deal about why the Carter administration was such a disaster.
During the "60 Minutes" interview, Ahmadinejad denied claims by the administration that Iranian weapons are being used against American troops in Iraq. "We don't need to do that. We are very much opposed to war and insecurity [in] Iraq."
Cheap words from a sawed-off pathologically lying egomaniac.
Ahmadinejad said U.S. officials are blaming his country for problems caused by the American-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Heard that, did he?
"American officials, wherever around the world that they encounter a problem which they fail to resolve, instead of accepting that, they prefer to accuse others," he said. "I'm very sorry that, because of the wrong decisions taken by American officials, Iraqi people are being killed and also American soldiers."
Both because of Iranian meddling.
Ahmadinejad also said Iran has no use for an atomic bomb.
No, not Iran personally. AQ however would.
Not sure Short Round would hand AQ a nuke. But they just might hand one to Hezbollah.
"If it was useful, it would have prevented the downfall of the Soviet Union," he said. "If it was useful, it would [have] resolved the problem the Americans have in Iraq. The time of the bomb is passed."
** Boggle **
The International Atomic Energy Agency said last week it has verified that Iran's declared nuclear material has not been diverted from peaceful uses, though inspectors have been unable to reach conclusions about some "important aspects" of Iran's nuclear work.
How 'bout the undeclared stuff?
Which 'important aspects'?
Kissinger and Brzezinski also disagreed over whether Columbia University in New York should have offered to present a lecture by Ahmadinejad, scheduled for Monday.
K: "I don't like him, so give him the rope!"
B: "He should be able to speak because I'm not sure of his intentions!"
K: "You're an idiot!"
B: "I'm not sure what you meant!"
Ahmadinejad has questioned whether the Holocaust happened and has made statements suggesting that Israel be politically "wiped off the map," though he insists that can be accomplished without violence.
He also leads a country that murders gays, apostates and dissidents. For starters. Let's not forget that.
Kissinger said Sunday on CNN that Columbia's invitation to the Iranian president to speak was not "appropriate." Kissinger clarified, "I do not oppose his speaking. I oppose its sponsorship by Columbia University."

Brzezinski said Ahmadinejad should be able to speak. "It seems to me a university's a place where ideas, issues -- very controversial issues -- should be discussed, can be discussed," Brzezinski said. "Look, if his views are odious, we can say so, but we have a society of openness," he said. "If we start censoring in advance what it is we like to hear and what we don't hear, we're on a slippery slope."
Just hand MSNBC a DVD of your pre-recorded speech and after much introspection, hair pulling, and many sleepless seconds they'll take care of the rest.
Let's see if Columbia will invite Larry Summers, Condi Rice, or Victor Davis Hansen to speak, and protect their right to do so.
Prior to departing Tehran, Ahmadinejad called his planned address to the General Assembly "a good opportunity for presenting his own the Iranian people's clear views regarding the problems of the world and materialization of peace and tranquility," IRNA, Iran's state-run news agency, reported Sunday.

Some students and Jewish leaders planned to protest at the Ivy League school, which last year withdrew a speaking invitation it had extended to the Iranian president after citing security concerns.
Iranian EFPs popping up all along his planned route, are they?
Posted by:gorb

#32  A STATE OF WAR NOW still EXISTS, SAVE FOR NO ONE SIDE ATTACKING THE OTHER??? with Syria training and arming its proxy Hizb'allah in Lebanon, who still hold at least two Israeli soldiers hostage, and Israeli jets making sonic booms and occasionally dropping things over Syria.

I hope that helps, JosephM.
Posted by: trailing wife   2007-09-24 23:22  

#31  Lest we fergit, WND.com + WORLDTRIBUNE + RUSSIANS have claimed that IRAN MAY ALREADY HAVE THE BOMB(S), as does Osama and AL-QAEDA vv SUITCASE NUKES, via post-USSR Russian Black Market and its networks. Syria has had decades already wid its nucprog to covertly collect nucmats. IN ANY CASE, IFF SYRIA > argues that Israeli strike has ruined any hope of Israeli-Syrian peace, DOES THIS MEAN NEW COLD WAR = WAR OF ATTRITION, ostensibly via LEBANON-NORTHERN ISRAEL; or THAT A STATE OF WAR NOW EXISTS, SAVE FOR NO ONE SIDE ATTACKING THE OTHER??? *TOPIX/WORLDNEWS > AL-QAEDA NETWORK EXTENDS INTO SYRIA.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2007-09-24 23:14  

#30  #29

In. A. Nutshell.
Posted by: Natural Law   2007-09-24 20:44  

#29  I'm willing to wait a few decades to find out.

I'm not. Due to proliferation of nuclear weapons technology and the Internet's facilitation of global terrorism, we have no such luxury as "decades" to wait. Muslim majority nations must swiftly be brought to heel and made to understand that their continued existence is suffered by us only through Islam's absolute abandonment of jihad against the West. Anything less must earn them harsh iron-fisted military subjugation or flat-out annihilation. No other options have even a remote hope of delivering us from Islam's evil and withering embrace.
Posted by: Zenster   2007-09-24 20:05  

#28  "What is most important to the world" > TOPIX NEWS/OTHER > EXISTENTIAL BATTLES FOR THE MIDDLE EAST. Whether Muslim or Jew, Partisan or Neutral, the Nations of the ME [and other world regions] are fighting LOCAL WARS FOR NATIONAL-ETHNIC SURVIVAL, i.e. wars AGAINST OBSOLESCENCE AND SELF-IMPLOSION/SUICIDE. IN the INVERSE > WAR(S) FOR RELEVANCE = RELATIVITY/COMPARATIVITY > WARS FOR CONTIN DIVERSITY.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2007-09-24 19:59  

#27  The big option is: take the oil fields, and keep
the locals away. Muslims don't recognize the
very sovereignty system that permitted Western recognition of their de facto frontiers. Africa was carved up into colonial administrative centers only 122 years ago, at the Berlin Conference. It was only 30 years ago, that self-government began in most of the carved-ups.

We need to re-colonize much of the Middle East, while recognizing Russian interests. Their place in Iran somewhat mirrors our relationship with Saudi Arabia, thus we could work with them on occupation, perhaps at another Berlin Conference. If we take a leap of faith that Russia will eventually evolve into a Western democracy, we could at long last give them a warm water port. I would place a harsh 200 mile exclusion zone (re local savages) around the oil fields, and bring in inoffensive Christian Philipino and Indian Hindu workers to replace locals.

At long last our leaders have to admit it: a Muslim with a smile on his face, has a knife in his back pocket. Their 2-cent "prophet" ordered enemy status with Jews and Christians, and their system compels submission to that dictate. The President's Muslim "allies" HAVE to hate him, and they do. Strategic deception ("taqiyah") compels
them (CAIR, et al) to pretend otherwise.
Posted by: McZoid   2007-09-24 19:25  

#26  our leaders need to learn that it CANNOT work with Muslims

Mark me down as one who needs to learn this also.

Though Alan MacFarlane now explicates why Japan was a good candidate for democracy in The Making of the Modern World, it was not at all clear in 1945 that it would be.

We've invested a lot in Iraq to find out if a Muslim country can move or be moved into the modern world. I'm willing to wait a few decades to find out. The alternative is likely to be a lot more expensive on every dimension.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2007-09-24 18:43  

#25  If we escalate the tensions, if we succumb to hysteria, if we start making threats, we are likely to stampede ourselves into a war

Moo...
Posted by: badanov   2007-09-24 18:21  

#24  our leaders need to learn that it CANNOT work with Muslims

Not much will change until then. We must never allow reinstallation of shari'a.
Posted by: Zenster   2007-09-24 17:42  

#23  Worked in Japan. I'm not so sure about Germany.
Posted by: lotp   2007-09-24 17:25  

#22  elarson:

We learned that nation-building worked with Germany and Japan, after occupation; our leaders need to learn that it CANNOT work with Muslims. They have declared us their mortal enemies. We need to admit that and make an adjustment.
Posted by: Albemarle Elmuque2506   2007-09-24 16:23  

#21  How'd that Iranian diplomacy work out for you in '79? What makes you think it would be any different today?

Doing the same thing, the same way, over and over again... but THIS TIME just HAS to be different.
Posted by: eLarson   2007-09-24 16:09  

#20  I am not with the President on all issues, but I support him 100% on attacking Iran. Without benefit of the CIA/DIA evidence that Mr Bush has on his desk, I believe that intense attacks on leadership and command centers - and nuke sites - would turn the people against the government.

What does the President know that we don't? Although Ahmadinejad remains popular among Persians (not Azeris, Balochis, etc) the Ayatollahs are resented for their use of public power to take personal wealth. The 10 top mullahs are so wealthy that they resist putting family money into working projects. Result: unsafe factories, intense worker resentment (millions of Iranians participate in May Day Rallies; these always result in at least some protest). The Ayatollahs use a local Gestapo (Basij) to break strikes. Then there are the secularist elites, who don't enjoy life under the Ayatollahs. Then there is the professional military, that has no use for jihad gambles. Elements of these groups would be in a position to pass state secrets. I wouldn't doubt that tens of thousands of pages of useful documents have come into the hands of US intelligence agencies, from walk-ins, in not mail-ins. Then there is technical information from spy satellites, etc, and that from friendly governments if not "assets" within the Iranian government.

Caveats: prospects of occupation would unite opposition, so it should be renounce on the first day of attacks. Proffers for negotiated peace agreements - as done in Afghanistan - would only allow a Taliban like group to shadow a new regime. In the current context, democraticization would again legitimate neo-Ayatollahism; Iranians can be prepped for secularism. Capping escalation scenarios in face of potential missile attacks against both US concentrations and would be catastrophic (trust me: a missile threat to a single US aircraft carrier, will result in nuclear retaliation directed at the source of danger). Operating under anything but a Reagan fait accompli plan would serve the enemy (Bush must NOT plea the cause either the UN or by Nixonite solemn declarations to the American people).

The current Iranian government has to go, and by any necessary means.
Posted by: Albemarle Elmuque2506   2007-09-24 15:56  

#19  Darth, he probably drools a bit more now that he is older.
Posted by: Ol Dirty American   2007-09-24 15:31  

#18  Yo, Zbigniew, stuff a sock in it you worthless hasbeen.

Whack Job should be treated like the terrorist he is. Bust his ass the minute he steps off the airplane, send him to Gitmo and keep him there until hell freezes over.

Word. Oh yeah, and what Darth said.
Posted by: Zenster   2007-09-24 13:58  

#17  What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire?

I thought the later was Reagan's achievement?

p.s. Zbigniew, read recent news coming out of Russia?
Posted by: gromgoru   2007-09-24 12:20  

#16  It says so much that Carter had Brzezinski as his NSA. It all started on their watch and they will get to carry the weight of that in history books yet to be written. They are doing everything in their power to put as positive a spin on that as possible. Time is running out and history will have the last say. Unless of course all the textbooks are written by Columbia professors and then.....well that's a rant for another day.
Posted by: Total War   2007-09-24 12:06  

#15  As for Whack Job speaking at Columbia, or even the General Assembly for that matter, it would be one thing if he represented a country where free speech and freedom of the press were permitted. It would be nice if average Iranians were allowed to have satellite dishes so they could watch TV that is not necessarily approved by the Mad Mullahs. It would be nice if they could have unlimited, unfettered access to the Internet. But they don't and until they do Whack Job can STFU. And if the likes of Brzezinksi can't understand that they have no business pretending to serve the American people. Whack Job should be treated like the terrorist he is. Bust his ass the minute he steps off the airplane, send him to Gitmo and keep him there until hell freezes over.
Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305   2007-09-24 11:42  

#14  Zbigniew Brzezinski, in danger of no longer being noticed by the cool kids in the media and policy elite, goes on TV and says a bunch of things calculated to appeal to the cool kids in the media and policy elite.
Posted by: Mike   2007-09-24 11:41  

#13  We will be at war simultaneously in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan. And we would be stuck for the next 20 years."

If the US goes to war with Pakistan, it will not be alone... there will be 1.5 million Indian troops on the ground.
And there will be no "Pakistan" after such a war.. nowhere to get stuck...
Posted by: john frum   2007-09-24 10:57  

#12  No, Mr. Brzezinski, the danger is not that we will stampede into war with Iran. The danger is that they will develop and deploy a nuclear weapon while numbnuts like you are still yammering about diplomacy. The very real danger is that having developed a nuke they are crazy enough to use it. Have you ever heard of radioactive fallout, Mr. Brzezniski? Have you weighed the risks of using conventional weapons to disable the Iranian nuke program against the risk of letting them proceed? I wish somebody would ask him that. When Brzezinski was in office it was his job to understand the peril that Islam presents to the civilized world and he failed. Sure, everybody else at the time was more concerned about the Soviets but his job was to understand all threats to national security so that his soft-headed boss could take appropriate action. They both failed miserably and that is why we need to bomb Iran now. Brzezinzki, Achmadinutjob and Jimmuh Carter all have one thing in common which is that everything they ever say is all bull$h!t. I can't stand it when they talk like that. STFU, Brzezinski.
Posted by: treo   2007-09-24 10:31  

#11  Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
Posted by: Anonymoose   2007-09-24 10:18  

#10  We will be at war simultaneously in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Where did Mr. Brzezinski get Pakistan from? Is he that certain Senator Obama will win the next election? As opposed to President Bush, who predicts the honourable Senator Clinton will lead the Democrats to lose the White House in 2008. (Thanks for the heads up on that, JosephM!)
Posted by: trailing wife   2007-09-24 10:17  

#9  They pay a lot of attention to his former boss too
Posted by: john frum   2007-09-24 09:31  

#8  I'm not certain why anyone listens to Zbigniew Brzezinski. He has nothing to say.
Posted by: JohnQC   2007-09-24 09:27  

#7  Brzezinski, as a Pole, was obsessed with the Soviets. Islam was not even a blip on his radar screen. He did absolutely squat in the 1979 hostage crisis. Like Darth said, he was a cunt then and he's a cunt now.
Posted by: Spot   2007-09-24 09:24  

#6  Brzezinski, who served under President Jimmy Carter, said he is not sure how to interpret Iran's intentions.

Because taking American diplomats hostage was sufficiently ambiguous not to be interpreted as the act of war it unambiguously is under international law. He should have been tried and shot as a traitor decades ago.
Posted by: Excalibur   2007-09-24 09:21  

#5  He was a drooling, dipshit, liberal coward when he was an adviser, and he still is a drooling, dipshit, liberal coward now.
Posted by: DarthVader   2007-09-24 09:08  

#4  he did very little countering of the Soviets, and he advocates less with the Iranians. Why listen to what this loser and his former boss have to say about anything. They should be derided as the failures they were.
Posted by: Frank G   2007-09-24 08:51  

#3  "(diplomacy) has to work both with a set of incentives and a set of teeth."

And the teeth are in a glass in the bathroom.
Posted by: Glenmore   2007-09-24 08:46  

#2  JF: Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

There's actually nothing wrong with his logic. The problem is that he thinks it's OK to counter the Soviet Union via proxies, but not OK to fight Islamic crazies (who are about to develop an A-bomb, and possibly hand it off to terrorists) directly.
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2007-09-24 08:39  

#1  Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski,
President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser
Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998

Question: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?
Posted by: john frum   2007-09-24 08:31  

00:00