I was surprised to find that Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor from 1977 to 1981, described very nearly what the Obama administration’s current Iran policy seems to be. Runs from 32:52 to 35:10 (Sorry I couldn’t embed with the exact time-stamp).
A few minutes can explain a lot. Well worth your time.
Addition: Here’s a brief summary of that argument:
1. The Iranians and the Iranian regime, despite what their intentions may be, have a right to enrich uranium up to 5% according to international law. They’re doing this.
2. We’re asking them to abandon this right as a precondition to any negotiations, creating an asymmetry. We should offer to lift sanctions first in return just to get them to swallow their pride and sit down for talks. This pride may extend beyond the mullahs and regime, and go into the cultural and national psyche of Iranians.
3. Whatever their intentions may be, unlike North Korea, the Iranian regime isn’t out and proud about nuclear enrichment and weaponization. They’re at least claiming to follow international law which gives us some leverage.
As Kissinger points out, if we pursue this track we also need to be thinking that it all may be a time-buying exercise by the regime, we’ll have to use back channels and other means to at least get a sense that we’re getting SOMETHING for our troubles.
***After Syria and the Assad/Putin affair, and watching this administration’s leadership and strategy, I can say I’m highly sketical, to put it mildly.
I can see Obama straining for some kind of legacy here, to lay himself down and bring some sort of Egypt/Israel peace accord home after seizing the Rohani window, but it’s clearly a longer shot. Even if your aim is some kind of peace treaty, the price is high, and Obama’s typically been longer on ideals & speeches and shorter on delivery.
He’s also got the pro-peace, activist base to appeal to at home. Domestically, Obamacare is crumbling and his poll numbers are sinking, which may create some daylight between the liberal/Left activist base and the realpolitik of the liberal internationalist policy-makers and elite.
Looking at the current state of Egypt, the continuing civil-war in Syria spilling over its borders, the Kurdish uprisings, the restless Turks and the spurned Saudis, it’s reasonable to wonder if Obama’s attuning himself to the costs associated both domestically and abroad for pursuing such a deal.
So, who’s running our foreign policy?
Well, people like Susan Rice and John Kerry, apparently working according to plans very similar to those Brzezinski laid-out above, under the ultimate direction of Obama.
You do diplomacy with leaders you have.
The President has said that a nuclear Iran isn’t an option.
So, what other, other options do we have?
Addition: Over Egypt, John Kerry’s doing things his way, against the wishes of the administration and Susan Rice’s aggressive, disjointed, democracy promotion.
So what are our interests and how do we secure them as the fires in the Middle-East rage? Michael Totten makes a case here in Why We Can’t Leave The Middle-East.’ He gets push-back in the comments.
If only we could break through the hard-line, repressive, Islamist thugocracy down to the pragmatic, pro-democratic Green thinking, this would be a masterstroke, went the current and perhaps wishful thinking.