United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Brzezinski to Newsmax: War With Iran Could Last Years, Devastate Global Economy Read more on Newsmax.com: Brzezinski to Newsmax: War With Iran Could Last Years, Devastate Global Economy
Source:
Newsmax
URL Source: http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/br ... n-war-oil/2012/07/18/id/445804
Published: Jul 19, 2012
Author: Todd Beamon and Kathleen Walter
Post Date: 2012-07-19 19:53:43 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 2312
Comments: 6
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, tells Newsmax in an exclusive interview. “And the economic consequences of it are going to be devastating for the average American. “High inflation. Instability. Insecurity. Probably significant isolation for the United States in the world scene,” Brzezinski says. “Can you name me any significant country that’s going to be in that war together on our side? “That’s something no one can afford to ignore,” Brzezinski adds. Read more on Newsmax.com: Brzezinski to Newsmax: War With Iran Could Last Years, Devastate Global Economy Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now! Brzezinski's warning comes as Iran apparently is ramping up tensions in the region. On Wednesday, a bus carrying Israeli youth exploded in a Bulgarian resort, killing at least six people and wounding 27, police and hospital officials said. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called it "an Iranian terror attack" and promised a tough response. Syria, meanwhile, a close ally of Iran's, appears on the brink of collapse as fighting engulfs Damascus. On Monday, a bomb killed the chief of its security operations — a devastating strike that indicates a serious weakening in the security around President Bashar al-Assad's regime. As the U.S. fortifies its presence in the Persian Gulf in preparation for a possible showdown with Tehran over its nuclear arsenal and its threats to close the Strait of Hormuz, Brzezinski paints a frightening picture of how the U.S. would be affected by yet another war in the Middle East. “Rushing to war is not a wise course of action,” he says. “You can always start a war, and you know pretty much what happens when you start it. But you don’t know how long it will last, what its consequences will be – and they will be certainly very costly for the United States.” Iran recently renewed its threats to close the Strait of Hormuz unless sanctions against it were revoked. Tehran has repeatedly threatened to close the vital oil-shipping channel, through which 40 percent of the world’s seaborne oil exports travel, in retaliation for sanctions placed on its oil exports by Western nations. “We would open it by force — and we have the power to do it, and I’m fairly confident we would do it,” says Brzezinski, who now is Robert Osgood Professor of American Foreign Policy at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University in Washington, D.C.. His latest book, released in January, is Strategic Vision: America and the Crisis of Global Power. “But let’s not be simple-minded about it. We can open it up, but you can be absolutely certain that the costs of oil will skyrocket because it will still be a dangerous passage. “In effect, the American taxpayer should be ready to pay $5 to $10 a gallon for the pleasure of having a war in the Strait of Hormuz,” Brzezinski explains. “This is another reason why it’s a wise course of action to be prudent and patient. Time’s on our side.” He concurs with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak that Iran probably will not have a nuclear weapon for “at least three years or so” — but, regardless, a Tehran with such arsenals is a major game-changer in the region. “I think some concern is justified, but hysteria and exaggeration are not. Certainly, a nuclear-armed Iran introduces a whole new destabilizing reality into the Middle East. “On the other hand, several years are several years. A lot can change in several years, including the regime which, if there is no confrontation with the West, is likely to be much more vulnerable to internal pressures for change. “So we have to take this into account and not rush to war,” he says. While many world leaders express concerns privately that Iran could make pre-emptive strikes against Israel and the U.S., Brzezinski said the chances of that, right now, are “close to zero.” “First, their delivery systems are very inefficient — and probably most of them vulnerable to elimination in the course of any attack. And, secondly, one thing you can say about the Iranian regime, it’s not very attractive.” Then, in a suggestive nod at Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Brzezinski adds: “It shoots its mouth off. It says extreme things, which are actually costly to Iran, but it’s not suicidal.” Diplomacy is clearly the best weapon of choice now, Brzezinski says. “A great deal depends on how accommodating the Iranians are in the negotiations — but a great deal also depends on how intelligent we are in the negotiations,” he says. “If the negotiations are designed to humiliate Iran and to put it in some sort of separate box, confining it to a status totally different from all the other signatories of the nonproliferation treaty, then we probably will not get an agreement.” And he says he would urge President Barack Obama to continue down this road. “I will advise him to stay on course. Not to be intimidated. Not to be rushed. Time is on our side. “We don’t have to reach an agreement by some finite date,” Brzezinski adds. “We can take a few months. That’s better than going to war.” Brzezinski also says in his exclusive Newsmax interview: Any international response to Iran would, essentially, fall to the United States. “Let’s not kid ourselves. When people talk about taking on Iran by force, they really mean the United States.” As U.S. involvement in Iraq nears its 10th year, Brzezinski still opposes it. “We have now an Iraq which is much more vulnerable to Iranian pressure. Saddam Hussein was an odious dictator, but he was also a very effective opponent of Iran. He was also a very effective opponent of al-Qaida. We now have an Iraq that’s unstable.” Despite the “War on Terror,” al-Qaida remains a world threat: “We have managed to decimate its leadership. We have deprived it of an open and secure base, which it had in Afghanistan. We have fragmented it. But at the same time, it is still a dangerous and painful reality that segments of al-Qaida, cells of al-Qaida now operate in different parts of the world.” The United States, and other countries, remain vulnerable to a terrorist attack. “We have had nine years or more, 10 years since 9/11. Not one significant terrorist act in the United States. We have had terrorist acts in Great Britain. We have had it in other parts of the world — Spain, certainly the Middle East — not in the United States.” The United States must take another approach in Syria, rather than demanding that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad step down to end the bloodshed there. “Let’s stop sort of waving the sword and making these threats unless we’re prepared to deliver. I don’t approve of the notion that we should be announcing who should step down from the position of a head of a state unless we are seriously prepared to remove that person. But if we are not, if we are being prudent and careful, then let’s also be careful with how we talk.” Read more on Newsmax.com: Brzezinski to Newsmax: War With Iran Could Last Years, Devastate Global Economy Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: A K A Stone (#0)
Since both mcRomney and o'Bungler are NWO toadies pushing for more and bigger wars in the Middle East, how exactly do you justify pushing one over the other? Oh, that's right... mcRomney is better than o'Bungler, is your rationale... You are SUCH a coward.
"Most people prefer to believe that their leaders are just and fair, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which he lives is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all." Michael Rivero
Moderator X may get pissed at you for challenging our dear, dear Sunday school boy from O-HI-O.
You are the coward. You can't choose between the two people that will definitely be president. So you go ahead and let Obama stay in office. Pretend that writing in a candidate is going to make a difference. It wont. A second term president is far less accountable then a first term President. If you think they are the same you are STUPID. I guess Obamacare isn't a big deal to you.
12 hours..... that's All the time that the USSA/Israel/UK nexus has. In 5 years, Hoover Dam will no longer be producing electricity. They also observed rainfall of around 10 centimeters over a three-day period. Teruo Aoki, senior researcher at the Meteorological Research Institute of the Japan Meteorological Agency who took part in the observations for three weeks, expressed his surprise. "I had not expected rain to fall there (Northern Greenland;)," he said. "The melting was greater than expected." http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/social_affairs/AJ201207180031
If you walk into a casino where all the games are rigged, what is the best course of action? The answer, of course, is NOT to play. But you're too much of a sheep, to understand that. SUCKER. Since there are NO real differences between the two corrupt sock-puppets, there is no choice. Anyone person with a modicum of intelligence will recognize this. The only REAL choice is whether one wishes to continue the suspension of disbelief, or wake up to reality. "The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it." Please. THAT'S the best you got? Maybe you should EDUCATE yourself on the subject, before you make an even bigger ass out of yourself... From the link I provided: "Most people prefer to believe that their leaders are just and fair, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which he lives is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all." Michael Rivero
The answer, of course, is NOT to play. That's an extraordinarily poor analogy. The casino owner can't take your money if you decide not to play. You will be forced to live with the taxing and spending policies of whomever is in the White House over the next four years, regardless of whether or not you vote.
#2. To: Capitalist Eric, Moderator X (#1)
#3. To: Capitalist Eric (#1)
You are SUCH a coward.
#4. To: A K A Stone (#0)
#5. To: A K A Stone (#3)
You can't choose between the two people that will definitely be president.
So you go ahead and let Obama stay in office.
-- Morpheus, The Matrix, 1999 --If you think they are the same you are STUPID.
I guess Obamacare isn't a big deal to you.
Mitt Romney reminds critics that he believed "RomneyCare" was good for the state of Massachussetts, but shouldn't be implemented nationwide, and that's how he's substantively different from Barack Obama. In 2007, however, Romney said: "I’m proud of what we’ve done. If Massachusetts succeeds in implementing it, then that will be a model for the nation," suggesting that, like Obama, he is not opposed to federal mandates either-- just controversial ones that his partisan opponents pass.
#6. To: Capitalist Eric (#5)
(Edited)
If you walk into a casino where all the games are rigged, what is the best course of action?
"we must as a species go into a period of shrinkage that we have not experienced since the Dark Ages and the Black Plague" -- lucysmom (A.K.A. minnigold)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]