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

[RamboLiberal]

Source: CNN

Former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski likened U.S. officials' saber rattling about Iran's alleged nuclear ambitions to similar bellicose statements made before the start of the Iraq war.

"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 with Wolf Blitzer" Sunday.

In October 2002, five months before Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was toppled for what the United States said was his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, President Bush said, "Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

-----

"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."

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/23/iran.us/index.html

[DrDan]

1. I am in love with his daughter

smart, beautiful, outspoken, not afraid to take a stand, beautiful . . . .

[yurbud]

21. ...and she probably knows how to destabilize an occupation by funding jihadis

way more important than baking cookies.

[Tom Joad]

2. I never liked Zbigniew Brzezinski during the Carter Presidency, but he is saying some important

things now.

[ohio2007]

4. You didn't like Carters foreign policies?

He had a lot to do with them.

[Tom Joad]

10. I just happened by a quote today, where B. said something to the effect that

a nuclear war would bring about the death of about 10% of the world's population, but it wouldn't be the end of the world. This kind of "realist" thinking (that i don't think was all that realistic) kinda sucked.

the resurgence of the draft, the arming of afghan fighters... not a very peaceful foreign policy. but not worse than what we are used to.

I think also zbig pushed carter to the Right, in many ways.

[eridani]

16. That bit about backing fundies in Afghanistan in order to

--get at the Soviet Union was way short of brilliant.

[liberalpragmatist]

26. It's ironic...

... he was fairly hawkish towards Iran back during the Carter presidency; he encouraged Carter to lead a military intervention to reinstate the Shah and after the revolution, he advocated a military response to the Hostage Crisis.

Still, whatever the merit of his views at the time, he's got a pretty firm grasp on things today.

[libodem]

3. how does that go?

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me...(you can't get fooled again) Not that I'd ever quote numbnutz but good lord are we going to get fooled again?

[FormerRepub]

5. On attacking Iran

I saw today where the Iranians were claiming that the U.S. isn't strong enough or something like that to attack Iran. I think they may be trying to bait our impulsive chief executive into something stupid.......We have 160,000 troops directly in range of Iranian missiles. We also have, is it 2 or 3?, carrier strike forces in the area near Iran. Is this what they call "brinksmanship" or a game of chicken? Whatever it is, I don't trust the Bush Administration to play our cards right. Scarey stuff.

[bemildred]

7. I think it's kind of the other way.

The US government is working as hard as it can to get Iran to do something stupid so as to have a pretext to start a war with them. A similar campaign is being conducted against Syria. So far those two have have refused to take the bait. I'm hoping that is a matter of government policy.

[eridani]

17. We can't invade, but we can sure the hell bomb n/t

[Kaleko]

6. A few good people

No Iran War, says Admiral William Fallon, head of US Central Command in Financial Times article:


“This constant drum beat of conflict is what strikes me, which is not helpful and not useful,” he told al-Jazeera, according to the transcript. “I expect that there will be no war and that is what we ought to be working for.”



Remember, Fallon is Petraeus' boss, who told him that he considered him to be "an ass-kissing little chickenshit." Then added, "I hate people like that." <http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39235>


All we need is a few more good wo/men in high powered positions who relentlessly tell the truth. Create a scandal of such magnitude, impeachment will look lenient.

[micraphone]

8. NZ Newspaper quotes Newsweek about Chinney

considering asking Israel to bomb Iran....

"Vice President Dick Cheney had at one point considered asking Israel to launch limited missile strikes at an Iranian nuclear site to provoke a retaliation, Newsweek magazine reported.

The news comes amid reports that Israel launched an air strike against Syria this month over a suspected nuclear site.

Citing two unidentified sources, Newsweek said former Cheney Middle East adviser David Wurmser told a small group several months ago that Cheney was considering asking Israel to strike the Iranian nuclear site at Natanz.

A military response by Iran could give Washington an excuse to then launch airstrikes of its own, Newsweek said.

Wurmser's wife, Meyrav Wurmser of the neoconservative Hudson Institute think tank, told Newsweek the claims were untrue.

Wurmser left Cheney's office last month, the magazine reported. The steady departure of neoconservative hawks from the administration has also helped tilt the balance against war, it said. "
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4213034a12.html

This is the (Darth) power behind the throne.

[Kaleko]

12. "The steady departure of neoconservative hawks from the administration..."

hm, that sounds melodious to sore ears. Thanks for the article, micra.

Folks, we have to make it safe for more and more insiders to step forward and speak out. We have to create an atmosphere of welcome for whoever is now brave enough to come clean publicly -- or else we'll all go down with this ship of fools.

[Pachamama]

9. Yes, but remember that Bush is his boss....

:eyes:

[Kaleko]

13. And yet there still ARE a few good men and women

who will stand up to the Bush-mob. Integrity is not dead in this country yet. In fact, it gets honed like steel during trials by fire like this.

From the IPS article:

"Admiral Fallon demonstrated his independence from the White House when he refused in February to go along with a proposal to send a third naval carrier task force to the Persian Gulf, as reported by IPS in May. Fallon questioned the military necessity for the move, which would have signaled to Iran a readiness to go to war. Fallon also privately vowed that there would be no war against Iran on his watch, implying that he would quit rather than accept such a policy."

[Pachamama]

22. I agree, from all that I have seen, Admiral Fallon is a man of integrity - but you said the key word

"few good men and women"....

There are actually a lot of good men and women in this country and in our military. What we need is more that will still by their integrity and not be afraid.

My grandparents escaped Nazi Germany. My Grandfather knew many who were "good people" but were afraid to speak out. Speaking out and acting is what counts in the end, regardless of the personal consequences. My Grandparents were lucky. They survived. But they knew a lot of people (fellow academics and physicians) that weren't so lucky. They died and suffered for speaking out.

[Joe Bacon]

11. Hagee wants Jesus to come back ASAP!

Remember that Hagee is pushing this because he wants Jesus to come back for Armageddon!

I wonder what that ass will say after Israel is counternuked and JC and his SONSHINE BAND pull a no-show?

I wonder what LIEberman will say when Israel is counternuked?

[sam sarrha]

15. if Jesus came back he would slap that bitch down with a knotted cord for selling out his people

[sam sarrha]

14. isnt the wet brain alcoholic pResident subject to a piss test as an employee of the government. what

drugs is that madman on...

[Douglas Carpenter]

18. Been there, done that by Zbigniew Brzezinski

Been there, done that by Zbigniew Brzezinski who was National Security Advisor to President Carter from 1977 to 1981.

link:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-brzezinski23apr23,0,3700317.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions


snip:"But there are four compelling reasons against a preventive air attack on Iranian nuclear facilities:

First, in the absence of an imminent threat (and the Iranians are at least several years away from having a nuclear arsenal), the attack would be a unilateral act of war. If undertaken without a formal congressional declaration of war, an attack would be unconstitutional and merit the impeachment of the president. Similarly, if undertaken without the sanction of the United Nations Security Council, either alone by the United States or in complicity with Israel, it would stamp the perpetrator(s) as an international outlaw(s).

Second, likely Iranian reactions would significantly compound ongoing U.S. difficulties in Iraq and Afghanistan, perhaps precipitate new violence by Hezbollah in Lebanon and possibly elsewhere, and in all probability bog down the United States in regional violence for a decade or more. Iran is a country of about 70 million people, and a conflict with it would make the misadventure in Iraq look trivial.

Third, oil prices would climb steeply, especially if the Iranians were to cut their production or seek to disrupt the flow of oil from the nearby Saudi oil fields. The world economy would be severely affected, and the United States would be blamed for it. Note that oil prices have already shot above $70 per barrel, in part because of fears of a U.S.-Iran clash.

Finally, the United States, in the wake of the attack, would become an even more likely target of terrorism while reinforcing global suspicions that U.S. support for Israel is in itself a major cause of the rise of Islamic terrorism. The United States would become more isolated and thus more vulnerable while prospects for an eventual regional accommodation between Israel and its neighbors would be ever more remote."

read full article:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-brzezinski23apr23,0,3700317.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions



http://www.dontattackiran.org

____________________________________________-

"I think of war with Iran as the ending of America's present role in the world. Iraq may have been a preview of that, but it's still redeemable if we get out fast. In a war with Iran, we'll get dragged down for 20 or 30 years. The world will condemn us. We will lose our position in the world."

Zbigniew Brzezinski, Vanity Fair, 2006.


.

[Gman]

28. Swap "Iraq" for "Iran" and that's exactly what happened now

Of course, everyone knew this would happen.

[Gman]

19. Brzezinski signed off on PNAC in support of American hegemony

and for the last few years has had an attitude of "OMG, what have I done?"

[Bushwick Bill]

20. Bingo.

Zbiggie is neocon lite. Hell, he should be mad they stole his shit. Rebuilding America's Defenses is basically a ripoff of Zbig's Grand Chessboard, from controlling energy supply and chokepoints, all the way down to the Pearl Harbor catalyzing event. Zbiggie is just mad the neocons are carrying out the plans poorly.

[CRH]

23. Double Bingo!! Few people on this site realize Brezezinski's The Grand Chessboard, ...

1997, was used as cliff notes for the PNAC aspirations. There was not one original thought in the PNAC documents, their plans were in total a rip-off of Brezezinski's 'geostrategic imperatives'. From thoughts of domination through economic and military hegemony, to managing Eurasia (like it was our lone superpower right), the arrogance that is solely attributed to Bush and the neo cons first found forum in "The Grand Chessboard".

From page 40 a quote that says it all ...

~~In brief, for the United States, Eurasian geostrategy involves the purposeful management of geostrategically dynamic states and the careful handling of geopolitically catalytic states, in keeping with the twin interests of America in the short term preservation of its unique global power and in the long-run transformation of it into increasing institutionalized global cooperation. To put it in a terminology that hearkens back to a more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep the tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together. ~~

It is the savage bungling of his master plan and the means of implementation he speaks against, not the imperial hegemonic goals of control of the resources and economic wealth of the world.

edit: to correct punction

[Gman]

27. Elsewhere in the book

I got the impression that B saw the European Union as the biggest threat to US hegemony. But being the cowards that they are, the neocons knew better than to pick on Europe. Instead, just like the cowards they are, they stand at a safe distance and hurl insults as they did with France and Germany in the runup to this war. ("old Europe", "cheese eating surrender monkeys")

I agree that B is distressed that the strategy he outlined in the book has been so bastardized. B intended American hegemony to be preserved through a combination of diplomacy, economic trade policy and military might, if necessary. The neocons left the first two out and went straight to military might.

[CRH]

29. Agree with your last paragraph completely, ...

In the Chessboard Brezezinski stated the neither Russia or China alone could challenge the US lone super power standing, but the danger of collusion should the two find common interests could be formidable. My impression was that Europe could be handled and directed through economic carrot and stick influence as well as shaping their interests through common need, (i.e. future eurasian energy sources and security dependence), and through the NATO alliance. A year later the civil wars in the former Yugoslavia occurred, followed with a US led NATO coalition with some grumbling, but no real detractors. In effect whether caused by the civil wars or other instigations, the baltic states turmoil played right into the master plan of isolating Russia while picking off the buffer zone countries, and with the added benefit of the corporate globalization of the resources and societies, not to mention forward reaching military installations.

Excerpt page 84 (Chessboard)

~~ In any case, it ought to be axiomatic that Europe's political unity and security are indivisible. As a practical matter, in fact it is difficult to conceive of a truly united Europe without common security arrangement with America. It follows, therefore, that states that are in a position to begin and are invited to undertake accession talks with the EU should automatically also be viewed henceforth as a subject in effect to NATO's presumptive protection.

Accordingly, the process of widening Europe and enlarging the transatlantic security system is likely to move forward by deliberate stages. Assuming sustained American and Western European commitment, a speculative but cautiously realistic timetable for these stages might be the following:

1. By 1999, the first new Central European members will have been admitted into NATO, though their entry into the EU will probably not happen before 2002 or 2003.

2. In the meantime, the EU will initiate accession talks with the Baltic republics, and NATO will likewise begin to move forward on the issue of their membership as well as Romania's, with their accession likely to be completed by 2005. At some point in this stage, the other Balkan states may like wise become eligible. ~~

end excerpt:

It helps to keep in mind that during the writing of this book, Russia was in the process of being looted of half a trillion dollars fomenting further economic collapse, and further isolating the former superpower, while the buffer states in Central Europe are by plan being folded into NATO influence, ( first the weaponry), and then the later plan of privatizing and globalizing the economies, ( the economic subjugation). The latter, the effective liberation of resources and labor from the nation states purview when privatized into the global market, and then hamstringing national economies with the various debt instruments used toward eventual economic subjugation, i.e. the World Bank , IMF, the usual culprits.

Europe is mostly treated as an assumed inferior partner in the organization and utilization of the master global plan of controlling and distributing the resources and wealth of Eurasia. Unfortunately for these imperialistic partners, the folks that inhabit the middle east resources, are terribly resistant to others' plans for their homelands, cultures, and economies. Hell of a thing, being born on top of all that black industrial gold. Leaves the people in the position of seeming antagonistic when they won't give it away to the more 'civilized' industrial societies of the first world.

[rodeodance]

24. I believe people CAN Learn from their mistakes and he is one of them.

[TheLastMohican]

25. Who? The big Zbig?

The person openly calling for ruling the entire planet via USA? Who is more megalomaniac him or Bush?

He just doesn't like that the PNACers poorly executed what he had in mind. Watch him sqeal as Russia, India and China unite to control the Eurasia.

[CGowen]

30. Cheney is not Kasparov, throwing pawns at your chess opponet won't work n/t