Former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski warns Newsmax.TV that a confrontation with Iran would be disastrous for the United States, lasting for years and possibly devastating America’s economy.
“A war in the Middle East, in the present context, may last for years,” Brzezinski, who served in the Carter White House [not noted for its wildly successful foreign policies], tells Newsmax in an exclusive interview. “And the economic consequences of it are going to be devastating for the average American.
May last for years. Or for minutes, depending on what kind of war it is.
I here what he’s saying, but he fails to address– or NewsMax failed to ask– what the cost of the alternatives are if time is not on our side. We might not be interested in war with Iran, but what if Iran is interested in war with us?
Brzezinski never thought that far ahead. What if Iran is the one who instigates war? Especially after developing a credible nuclear (Jimmy Carter probably made him say "nookier") capability.
That was Carter's foreign policy in a nutshell. Be fearful and timid, and the world will feel sorry for us. A similar theme from the Obama FP cabal.
I'm no fan of Iran at all but I think people should keep in mind that they really want the bomb for the same reasons we still have it…deterrence. Same for the French, the Russians, the Chinese, etc. All of the nuclear powers have it for the same reasons INCLUDING Israel.
They (Iran) are losing friends left and right and they are surrounded by our forces or those of our allies. They're vulnerable and they know it. One of the things we learned after the collapse of the Soviet Union is just scared they were of us as we were of them as well as how they misread our intentions on some things and how we did the same thing.
All of our saber rattling and dictating to Iran gives justification for their wanting the bomb the first place. The mullahs are dangerous just as all theocratic governments are, but they do have a somewhat legitimate beef with us. We did arrange the coup that brought the Shah and his brutal regime to power. They were invaded by Iraq in 1980 and the Western powers gave Iraq a lot of help including the US. We have a history of invading other countries for all manner of reasons-Grenada, Panama, the 2003 invasion of Iraq, etc. Leaving aside their links to terrorism the Iranians haven't invaded anyone.
Some may not like what Brzezinski has said but his points are valid and we should think hard and long before we start pulling triggers.
Ummm… really?
You really think they want deterrence?
So. The rhetoric since 1979 is nothing? The creation and sustaining of Hamas is nothing? The active export of the Republican Guards throughout the MidEast, Mexico, Venezuela, and throughout Europe and to Chechnya are just deterrence?
Wow.
I have real estate to sell you. Don't worry, you obviously don't need to see it, it's fabulous.
I didn't imply or say that those were nothing you script reading dope!
Yes, you did. You toss history out the window with garbage. The Ayatollahs have worked for a means to destroy Israel, including a nuclear weapon, for over 30 years. Their rhetoric is backed up by actions that can't be dismissed. There's no justification, no threats, no BS reasons – Iran wants the bomb, has wanted it, and will use it to destroy Israel and America as soon as possible. It's current non-theocrat leader Ahmadinjad (sp?) is a hard-core millenialist who desires to the use the bomb to end the world.
You're a fucking moron to dismiss what Iran has done, does, said, and says. Good luck with that, I'm sure there's a welfare program to help you.
Why don't do some laundry fat boy! Your "Pinhead or Patriot?" tee shirt smells. When you're done get in your shitbox drive to the center of the nearest suspension bridge and take a hard right turn! You crank snorting jerk-off:)
No point speculating when we have authoritative sources. Here's what said in an April 2010 US Unclassified Report on Military Power of Iran:
"Iran's military strategy is designed to defend against external or 'hard' threats from the United States and Israel. Iran's principles of military strategy include deterrence, asymmetrical retaliation, and attrition warfare. Iran's nuclear program and its willingness to keep open the possibility of developing nuclear weapons is a central part of its deterrence strategy."
The report goes on to describe Iran's "defensive military doctrine, which is designed to slow an invasion and force a diplomatic solution to hostilities."
See link: http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/IranReportUnclassifi...
Iran a problem, yes. Egypt just elected a member of the Muslim Brotherhood as President and the Brotherhood has the majority in parliament. Wait a year and see what happens to the peace treaty with Israel. If that is abrogated, things will get mighty interesting. $250/barrel for oil, anyone?
After spending hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives to create an unstable Iraq that's more amenable to Iran than it is to us and an Afghanistan that will likely collapse within a few years after troop withdrawal, everyone is eager to fight a war in Iran? Three words: fat f–king chance.
Put your finger on the wrist of the American people and take a pulse. It ain't in the mood for another war. Probably not for decades.
If Iran lobs a nuke at us or closes the Straits… fine. We can go to war. Outside of that, we blew our wad, pretty much, in Iraq. Results were lackluster, at best.
Under any administration, Republican or Democrat, you are likely to find very little political will to do something like a war with Iran. You are also likely to find little money to do it with as well.
So lemme get this straight. You liked stability under Saddam, who was looking to peddle nerve agent to AQ, and to rebuild his nuclear program, over post-Saddam Iraq. Interesting.
You also think that because we might not want war, then war won't come? What if Iran lobs a nuke at Tel Aviv? Oman?