[Marxism] Zbig proposes shooting down Israeli aircraft attacking Iran (dream on)

Marv Gandall marvgandall at videotron.ca
Wed Sep 23 11:48:45 MDT 2009

>From Zbigniew Brzezinski's interview last week with the Daily Beast:

DB: How aggressive can Obama be in insisting to the Israelis that a military
strike might be in America’s worst interest?

ZB: We are not exactly impotent little babies. They have to fly over our
airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch?

DB: What if they fly over anyway?

ZB: Well, we have to be serious about denying them that right. That means a
denial where you aren’t just saying it. If they fly over, you go up and
confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes
for this but it could be a Liberty in reverse. [Israeli jet fighters and
torpedo boats attacked the USS Liberty in international waters, off the
Sinai Peninsula, during the Six-Day War in 1967. Israel later claimed the
ship was the object of friendly fire.]


DB: Did it surprise you that it took the Obama administration so long to do
away with the missile-defense program? Is he setting firm lines that can’t
be crossed, such as with Iran and Israel?

ZB: Well, Obama has been very impressive in refining our policy toward the
world on a lot of issues, very impressive. But he has been relatively much
less impressive in the follow-through.

DB: You mean his policy sounds ideal but the follow-up isn’t good?

ZB: Not as precise, clear-cut, and forthcoming as would be desirable.

DB: What would you like have seen already from this administration?

ZB: By now we should have been able to formulate a clearer posture on what
we are prepared to do to promote a Palestinian-Israeli peace. Simply giving
a frequent-traveler ticket to George Mitchell is not the same thing as
policy. It took a long time to get going on Iran, but there is an excuse
there, the Iranian domestic mess. And we are now eight months into the
administration, and I would have thought by now we could have formulated a
strategy that we would have considered “our” strategy for dealing with Iran
and Pakistan. For example, the Carter administration, which is sometimes
mocked, by now had in motion a policy of disarmament with the Russians,
which the Russians didn’t like, but eventually bought; it had started a
policy of normalization with the Chinese; it rammed through the Panama Canal
treaty; and it was moving very, very openly toward an Israeli-Arab political
peace initiative.


DB: President Carter early on ran into strong opposition from American-based
pro-Israeli lobbying groups that opposed the administration’s ideas for a
peace initiative in the Middle East. What lesson should the Obama
administration learn in formulating its own approach to an
Israeli-Palestinian dialogue?

ZB: The lesson is if you are forthright in what you are seeking, you tend to
mobilize support within the Jewish community. Because a majority of American
Jews are liberal, and in the long run they know that peace in the Middle
East is absolutely essential to Israel’s long-term survival.

DB: Are you concerned about Afghanistan?

ZB: Quite unintentionally, but potentially and tragically, we are sliding
into a posture which is beginning—and I emphasize the word “beginning”—to be
reminiscent of what happened to the Soviets.

DB: We have plenty of time to reverse course?

ZB: There is some time to reverse course. But time flies.



More information about the Marxism mailing list