Article

2007-09-24 Syria-Lebanon-Iran

Brzezinski: U.S. in danger of 'stampeding' to war with Iran

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by gorb 2007-09-24 04:36|| || Front Page|| [11131 views ] Top

#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|| 2007-09-24 08:31|| Front Page Top

#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|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2007-09-24 08:39|| Front Page Top

#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">Glenmore 2007-09-24 08:46|| 2007-09-24 08:46|| Front Page Top

#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">Frank G 2007-09-24 08:51|| 2007-09-24 08:51|| Front Page Top

#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">DarthVader 2007-09-24 09:08|| 2007-09-24 09:08|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2007-09-24 09:21|| Front Page Top

#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">Spot 2007-09-24 09:24|| 2007-09-24 09:24|| Front Page Top

#8 I'm not certain why anyone listens to Zbigniew Brzezinski. He has nothing to say.

Posted by JohnQC 2007-09-24 09:27|| 2007-09-24 09:27|| Front Page Top

#9 They pay a lot of attention to his former boss too

Posted by john frum 2007-09-24 09:31|| 2007-09-24 09:31|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2007-09-24 10:17|| Front Page Top

#11

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Posted by Anonymoose 2007-09-24 10:18|| 2007-09-24 10:18|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2007-09-24 10:31|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2007-09-24 10:57|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2007-09-24 11:41|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2007-09-24 11:42|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2007-09-24 12:06|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2007-09-24 12:20|| Front Page Top

#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">Zenster 2007-09-24 13:58|| 2007-09-24 13:58|| Front Page Top

#19 Darth, he probably drools a bit more now that he is older.

Posted by Ol Dirty American 2007-09-24 15:31|| 2007-09-24 15:31|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2007-09-24 15:56|| Front Page Top

#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|| http://larsonian.blogspot.com]">[http://larsonian.blogspot.com] 2007-09-24 16:09|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2007-09-24 16:23|| Front Page Top

#23 Worked in Japan. I'm not so sure about Germany.

Posted by lotp 2007-09-24 17:25|| 2007-09-24 17:25|| Front Page Top

#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">Zenster 2007-09-24 17:42|| 2007-09-24 17:42|| Front Page Top

#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|| http://www.freefirezone.org]">[http://www.freefirezone.org] 2007-09-24 18:21|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2007-09-24 18:43|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2007-09-24 19:25|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2007-09-24 19:59|| Front Page Top

#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">Zenster 2007-09-24 20:05|| 2007-09-24 20:05|| Front Page Top

#30 #29

In. A. Nutshell.

Posted by Natural Law 2007-09-24 20:44|| 2007-09-24 20:44|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2007-09-24 23:14|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2007-09-24 23:22|| Front Page Top

23:58 3dc
23:56 OldSpook
23:56 Zenster
23:46 trailing wife
23:45 Zenster
23:39 JosephMendiola
23:37 Zenster
23:28 trailing wife
23:26 JosephMendiola
23:22 trailing wife
23:21 JosephMendiola
23:19 Mike N.
23:14 JosephMendiola
23:11 Grunter
23:07 trailing wife
22:55 OldSpook
22:53 OldSpook
22:51 trailing wife
22:45 Natural Law
22:40 Barbara Skolaut
22:30 OldSpook
22:26 smn
22:08 Zenster
22:04 OldSpook