GlassSteagallfan
27th November 2012, 17:12
Brzezinski: Containment Is Least Worst Option For Iran If Diplomacy Fails
November 27, 2012 • 8:39AM
What might happen if the P5+1 talks with Iran on Iran's nuclear program, were to fail to produce an agreement that everyone could accept? The worst option, in the view of former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski would be military action. Brzezinski described that, and three other options, in order of worst to least worst, in remarks before a conference of the National Iranian American Council and the Arms Control Association, Monday morning, on the topic of the future of diplomacy with Iran. Brzezinski made clear that a military attack on Ira, whether by the U.S., Israel or the U.S. and Israel in combination, would be a disaster. It would produce a regional crisis, and widespread hatred against the U.S., including inside Iran, where the population is generally friendly towards the U.S., drawing the U.S. into a protracted conflict. The larger region would be set aflame, and spread to Iraq and from there into Syria. It would complicate the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan and disrupt the flow of oil through the straight of Hormuz. Furthermore, an attack on Iran would bring the risk of civilian casualties and even the release of radiation from Iran's nuclear facilities, and there's no guarantee that it would even bring the result that the U.S. says it wants. "All of this makes an attack a very unattractive remedy," Brzezinski said. "Therefore, I dismiss it as a serious alternative. It would be an act of utter irresponsibility and potentially a very significant immorality that the U.S. is part of."
The second alternative Brzezinski put forward would be a campaign of subversion, that is, sabotage, assassination and cyberwarfare. For some strange reason, Brzezinksi didn't acknowledge that both the U.S. and Israel are or have been already engaged in such activities against Iran, but he did warn that such a strategy would set into motion a degradation of the international system which would be very harmful to U.S. interests, and, it might lead to military action, anyway, if it still didn't cause Iran to give up its nuclear program. Thirdly, there's the option of further tightening sanctions. The problem, here, is that such action assumes that it would force Iran to do what couldn't be achieved by negotiations. Secondly, further tightening of sanctions, to the point of strangulation, opens the question, are we trying to change Iran's behavior or change the regime?
The least objectionable option, Brzezinksi argued, is to combine sanctions that are painful, but that don't strangle Iran, with support for democratic tendencies inside Iran, with a Cold War-style security regime for U.S. allies, including Israel, in the region. "This option creates a condition which might endure," Brzezinski said. He dismissed the notion that Iran would suddenly get adventurous if it managed to build a bomb under such conditions. This option, therefore, is likely to produce the best results. "The sooner we get off the notion that sooner or later we'll strike, the better," he concluded.
At the end, Brzezinski was asked what advice he'd give President Obama if Israel were to attack Iran before Iran had crossed the U.S. redline. Without hesitation, he said that there is no implicit obligation for the U.S. to follow whatever Israel does. "Our obligation is to say to Israel, 'you're not going to make our national security decisions for us." He stressed that it is important for the U.S. to be clear to Israel on that.
http://larouchepac.com/node/24600
November 27, 2012 • 8:39AM
What might happen if the P5+1 talks with Iran on Iran's nuclear program, were to fail to produce an agreement that everyone could accept? The worst option, in the view of former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski would be military action. Brzezinski described that, and three other options, in order of worst to least worst, in remarks before a conference of the National Iranian American Council and the Arms Control Association, Monday morning, on the topic of the future of diplomacy with Iran. Brzezinski made clear that a military attack on Ira, whether by the U.S., Israel or the U.S. and Israel in combination, would be a disaster. It would produce a regional crisis, and widespread hatred against the U.S., including inside Iran, where the population is generally friendly towards the U.S., drawing the U.S. into a protracted conflict. The larger region would be set aflame, and spread to Iraq and from there into Syria. It would complicate the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan and disrupt the flow of oil through the straight of Hormuz. Furthermore, an attack on Iran would bring the risk of civilian casualties and even the release of radiation from Iran's nuclear facilities, and there's no guarantee that it would even bring the result that the U.S. says it wants. "All of this makes an attack a very unattractive remedy," Brzezinski said. "Therefore, I dismiss it as a serious alternative. It would be an act of utter irresponsibility and potentially a very significant immorality that the U.S. is part of."
The second alternative Brzezinski put forward would be a campaign of subversion, that is, sabotage, assassination and cyberwarfare. For some strange reason, Brzezinksi didn't acknowledge that both the U.S. and Israel are or have been already engaged in such activities against Iran, but he did warn that such a strategy would set into motion a degradation of the international system which would be very harmful to U.S. interests, and, it might lead to military action, anyway, if it still didn't cause Iran to give up its nuclear program. Thirdly, there's the option of further tightening sanctions. The problem, here, is that such action assumes that it would force Iran to do what couldn't be achieved by negotiations. Secondly, further tightening of sanctions, to the point of strangulation, opens the question, are we trying to change Iran's behavior or change the regime?
The least objectionable option, Brzezinksi argued, is to combine sanctions that are painful, but that don't strangle Iran, with support for democratic tendencies inside Iran, with a Cold War-style security regime for U.S. allies, including Israel, in the region. "This option creates a condition which might endure," Brzezinski said. He dismissed the notion that Iran would suddenly get adventurous if it managed to build a bomb under such conditions. This option, therefore, is likely to produce the best results. "The sooner we get off the notion that sooner or later we'll strike, the better," he concluded.
At the end, Brzezinski was asked what advice he'd give President Obama if Israel were to attack Iran before Iran had crossed the U.S. redline. Without hesitation, he said that there is no implicit obligation for the U.S. to follow whatever Israel does. "Our obligation is to say to Israel, 'you're not going to make our national security decisions for us." He stressed that it is important for the U.S. to be clear to Israel on that.
http://larouchepac.com/node/24600