SIGN UP - IT'S FREE!
SEARCH FSM
| National Debt Clock |
A million seconds pass in 12 days.
A billion seconds pass in 31 years.
A trillion seconds pass in 31,688 years!
January 11, 2010
Exclusive: Brzezinski and CFR Promote Appeasement of Iran (Part One of Two)
In the just published January/February 2010 Foreign Affairs journal, Zbigniew Brzezinski praises President Barack Obama for his “truly ambitious efforts to redefine the United States’ view of the world and to reconnect the United States with the emerging historical context of the twenty-first century.” He believes Obama deserved his Nobel Peace Prize because the president has “a solid grasp of what today’s world is all about.” Brzezinski served as national security advisor to President Jimmy Carter during the lowest point of American policy in the late 20th century. He apparently thinks those dark days have returned and the new century will be dominated by America’s rivals and adversaries. Washington should engage these rising powers and accommodate them rather than protect its own national interests and alliances from their destructive influence.
He thus calls on Obama to “expand contacts with Cuba” while we still have time to make nice with the Castro brothers. He says “China should be treated not only as an economic partner but also a geopolitical one,” relationships the recent Copenhagen UN climate conference has shown to be impossible on both counts. U.S.-Russia relations should also be improved, as if the cause of tension has come from America rather then from Moscow’s threats against its neighbors. Obama should also improve relations with Islam (as if it was a monolith) and be a “fair-minded and assertive mediator” between Israel and the Palestinians, which by his tone means Washington should sacrifice its democratic ally for the benefit of a failed, corrupt wannabe state that is divided between warring factions in the West Bank and Gaza.
On the continuing tension with Tehran, Brzezinski does not go as far as he did in a September 21st interview with The Daily Beast website about blocking Israeli military action against Iranian nuclear development sites. There Brzezinski said Washington should deny Israel use of Iraqi airspace, “We have to be serious about denying them that [over flight] right. ... If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not.” If the Israelis do not turn back, Brzezinski is willing to have American pilots shoot them down. In Foreign Affairs he only warns, “Those advocating a tougher stance should remember that the United States would bear the painful consequences in the event of an attack on Iran, whether the United States or Israel launched it. Iran would likely target U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, possibly destabilizing both; the Strait of Hormuz could become a blazing war zone; and Americans would again pay steep prices at the gas pump.”
In Brzezinski’s view, the balance of power in the Gulf rests with Iran, and not with the United States and its allies. If Iran is the stronger power, then the course of appeasement outlined by Brzezinski makes sense. He asks, “Is Washington willing to engage in negotiations with some degree of patience and sensitivity to the mentality of the other side? It would not be conducive to serious negotiations if the United States were to persist in publically labeling Iran as a terrorist state, as a state that is not to be trusted, as a state against which sanctions or even a military option should be prepared.” If, in contrast, the United States is the stronger power, it can base its policies on the reality that Iran is a terrorist state with a regime that has proven it cannot be trusted. And Washington can formulate a course of action to gain the outcome it desires, the prevention of Tehran becoming a nuclear weapons state.
It should be remembered that the Islamic Republic came to power in Iran by overthrowing the Western-oriented Shah in 1979 while the Carter administration, in which Brzezinski was serving, sat on its collective hands.
Brzezinski has long been associated with the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) which publishes Foreign Affairs, and his essay was given lead placement in the year’s first issue.
In November, the CFR published a Contingency Planning Memorandum calling of the United States to block any Israeli attack on Iran’s facilities suspected of developing nuclear weapons. The memo proposed that “the United States could also consider the option advocated by former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, that of the United States actively impeding an Israeli attack once it is under way.” Given that the CFR is considered one of the most prestigious think tanks in Washington, the Iranian policies it is promoting deserve close scrutiny.
Despite Iran’s expansion of its nuclear efforts by building a new uranium enrichment facility at Qom (revealed to the public in September), President Obama still wanted to offer Tehran carrots rather than sticks. He called on Iran to respond to his offer to improve relations if Iran ended its nuclear program. Tehran was supposed to respond by the end of 2009, but the regime ignored the deadline. On January 6th, China blocked U.S. efforts to impose stronger sanctions on Iran at the UN. “This is not the right time or right moment for sanctions because the diplomatic efforts are still going on” said Chinese envoy Zhang Yesui in New York. Negotiations have been going on since 2003, during which Iran has made steady progress in its weapons research efforts. It would seem that a new approach would be in order.
The CFR memo was written by Steven Simon currently an Adjunct Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies. He was from 2006 to 2009 the Hasib J. Sabbagh Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at the CFR. He served on the National Security Council during the Clinton administration and has worked for the Rand Corporation. In previous writings for the CFR, he has opposed U.S. actions in Iraq. In a February 2007 CFR Special report, Simon called for a rapid “military disengagement from Iraq.” In the May/June 2008 issue of Foreign Affairs he wrote, “The Bush administration's new strategy in Iraq has helped reduce violence. But the surge is not linked to any sustainable plan for building a viable Iraqi state and may even have made such an outcome less likely – by stoking the revanchist fantasies of Sunni tribes and pitting them against the central government. The recent short-term gains have thus come at the expense of the long-term goal of a stable, unitary Iraq.” These views certainly reflected those of his benefactor at the CFR, Hasib J. Sabbagh.
Sabbagh is a Palestinian who made his fortune as founder of the Consolidated Contractors Group of Companies, one of the Middle East’s largest construction companies. He has invested heavily in the West Bank and Gaza. A long time friend of Yasser Arafat, Sabbsgh went to Saudi Arabia to ask King Khalid Bin Abdul Aziz to intercede with the U.S. to stop the 1982 Israeli drive into Lebanon. He then acted as an intermediary between the PLO and the U.S. in arranging for the safe evacuation of the PLO from the Israel encirclement. A champion of Palestinian statehood, Sabbagh’s work for “peace” cited by the CFR has been very one sided.
By taking foreign money from a source hostile to the United States and its allies, the CFR loses credibility on any statement its staff makes on American policy. Are the analysis and recommendations offered really meant to be in the best interests of the U.S. or do they serve the agendas of the foreign interests who financed them? Many K Street lobbying firms work for foreign governments and corporations formulating arguments to advance their clients’ objectives in Washington and in the arena of public opinion. There can be no assumption that what they say has any relevance to what is good for America. Indeed, the assumption must be that their pronouncements do not have American interests at their heart, but only the desires of their clients and funders. Does the CFR want to be placed in the same category as these untrustworthy mercenary lobbyists? Certainly, anything coming out of the Sabbagh-endowed chair must be treated with suspicion if not consigned outright to the propaganda bin.
Part Two of this essay will look in detail at the arguments made by Simon to determine whether they are in accord with U.S. national security interests and Middle East objectives or whether they primarily work to the advantage of our Iranian adversaries and their terrorist allies in the region.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor William R. Hawkins is a consultant specializing in international economic and national security issues. He is a former economics professor and Republican Congressional staff member.
Reader Comments: Submit Your Comment (0) | Sign Up for FSM Updates!
