Zbigniew Brzezinski made some interesting statements Sunday on CNN during Fareed Zakaria's GPS.
Brzezinski brought up the Solidarity movement in Poland, and Tiananmen Square as analogies, but also mentioned that Iran's election crisis is different from those earlier crises.
Zbig also interestingly brought up the infamous neocons: "And there are those who are supporting the regime, who in many respects are like our neocons -- very similar to our neocons."
Zbig believes that Obama so far has been handling the crisis correctly, and again mentioned the neocons: "he has struck absolutely the right note... He's identifying himself morally, historically with what is happening in Iran. But he's not engaging himself politically. He's not interfering, because that... could be exploited by the neocons in Iran to crush the revolution, to wipe it out."
Referring to those who are criticizing Obama for not being tougher, "One of the paradoxes here domestically is that many of the people who call for the most energetic involvement by Obama in the process, they simply would prefer to have an American-Iranian showdown.
"Whereas, in fact, if there is a change of regime in Iran, there's a greater chance of accommodation."
Looking down the road, Zbig adds, "...once we no longer have a Manichean, black-and-white, good-and-evil type of a regime confronting us in a hostile fashion, it will be easier to deal with the specific problems that we confront."
Adding to the confusion was Netanyahu on "Meet the Press" this morning saying that he supports the demonstrators in Iran. But does he really? The crisis certainly seems to distract from the push by the U.S. toward the establishment of a Palestinian State.
Remember, Israel's Channel One TV reported that Netanyahu was told Tuesday (June 9th) by an "American official" in Jerusalem that, "We are going to change the world. Please, don't interfere." The report said Netanyahu's aides interpreted this as a "threat." The Iranian elections were just a few scant days later.
Some Israelis Insulted by Obama Picture; Netanyahu's Aides Interpret U.S. 'Threat'
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=148609
Then there was the ex-head of Mossad, who last year hinted that Ahmadinejad might be part of a Mossad program. Or is there a mix of F1 and F2 forces involved on BOTH sides of the Iran turmoil?
Ex-Mossad chief: 'Ahmadinejad is Israel's greatest gift'
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=149102
Will the current crisis make the plans for the Muslim Caliphate and the establishment of metals-backed currency easier or more difficult to carry out?
Is this another one of those transitions? Again, quoting the unnamed U.S. official: "We are going to change the world. Please, don't interfere."
-----------------------
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0906/21/fzgps.01.html
(snip) Few people have a keener understanding of geopolitics and of Iran than Zbigniew Brzezinski. He is a scholar of the world, a student of history, and he was also America's national security adviser during the 1979 Iranian revolution, 30 years ago this week.
Zbig, welcome.
ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI, FORMER U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: It's good to be with you, Fareed.
ZAKARIA: My first question, Zbig. You are a great student of ideological regimes. That was, in a way, your scholarly training.
Does this strike you as the beginning of the end of Iran's governing ideology?
BRZEZINSKI: Yes, I agree with you. It is the beginning of the end, but the beginning could be prolonged. And this is why we have to be very careful in how we handle it. And we have to be very careful in trying to understand it.
You said that I was in the White House when the theocratic Iranian revolution took place. That is true. But I was also in the White House when the Solidarity movement appeared in Poland, which then eventually became victorious.
And there are some interesting analogies, but also some very important contrasts between the two. And it is important particularly to understand the contrasts.
ZAKARIA: Tell us what the difference is. Why is this not going to look like 1989 in Europe, or the flowering of freedom in the former Soviet Union?
BRZEZINSKI: One very important reason. And I was up to my ears in dealing with it, and trying to steer it and to manipulate it.
The revolution in Eastern Europe, the Solidarity movement in Poland, or the other movements in the Czech Republic and Hungary, and so forth, were for democracy. And there are aspects to what is happening in Iran which are similar for democracy.
But the movements in Eastern Europe were also intensely nationalistic. That is to say, they were opposing foreign domination, foreign imperialism, direct control from another capital, namely from Moscow. That element is not there in Iran.
We're dealing with a country which is very nationalistic. Parts of that country may not be as hostile to us as the ayatollahs have been over the last 30 years. But they're not struggling against a foreign domination. And that makes the movement somewhat weaker. It isn't quite as united as in Eastern Europe. And thus, in Iran, we have two different forces at work. You have those who are for more democracy, but who are also nationalistic. And there are those who are supporting the regime, who in many respects are like our neocons -- very similar to our neocons.
They're Manichean. They look at the world as divided into good and evil, and many of them see America as the personification of evil. So, that makes it much more complicated, and makes our role much more sensitive.
ZAKARIA: And, Zbig, does that mean -- you point out that we need to be sensitive here, because Iran is a nationalist country.
Do you think that President Obama has struck the right tone, trying to offer some support, but being very clear to say this is an internal Iranian affair? We are not trying to pick sides. We are not trying to -- you know, we don't have a dog in this fight, in that sense.
BRZEZINSKI: Fareed, I never hesitate to criticize presidents when I have a different point of view.
But I think on this, he has struck absolutely the right note. He's offering moral sympathy. He's identifying himself morally, historically with what is happening in Iran.
But he's not engaging himself politically. He's not interfering, because that would turn badly. And it could be exploited by the neocons in Iran to crush the revolution, to wipe it out.
I don't know if the revolution will prevail. It may take time. The longer it lasts, the better are its chances. But we don't want it to escalate into a total showdown, because if there's a total showdown now, the chances are that the worst elements -- the Iranian neocons -- will prevail.
ZAKARIA: Is it fair to say, Zbig, that this was the concern that George H.W. Bush had during the revolutions of '89, which is why he was cautious about, as he put it, going to Berlin and dancing on the Wall? His fear was that either the communist regimes in Eastern Europe would crack down, or that the Soviet Union would crack down, and therefore was trying to play this balancing game of offering some support, but not so much that you insert America into the process.
BRZEZINSKI: Absolutely. And I was a private citizen at the time, but he called me in a couple of times to discuss this with him. And he was prudent and intelligent -- and, ultimately, masterful -- because things worked out the way we wanted them to work out.
I think Obama has redefined America's relationship with Islam. And thereby, he has weakened the capacity of the ayatollahs to present us as a satanic force.
But we should have no illusions that Iranian nationalism is going to be easy to deal with. And even if Mousavi wins, for example, we'll still have a complicated problem in the nuclear area. But hopefully, the nature of the dialogue, the atmosphere will change for the better.
ZAKARIA: Finally, Zbig, how does one ensure that this works its way out to be something more like Eastern Europe, and not something like Tiananmen Square? How do you think the -- you know, what's the trajectory here?
BRZEZINSKI: Well, I think it will not work out the way Eastern Europe worked out. And hopefully, it will not end the way Tiananmen Square ended. Eastern Europe became intensely pro-Western, pro- American, and so forth.
I think we should have no illusions about this. The Iranians have a long historical memory. They look at the West, and particularly at America and Britain, with somewhat critical eyes. They have grievances against us, and they feel that we have done things to them which they weren't entitled to have happened.
So, I think the accommodation will not be easy. But once we no longer have a Manichean, black-and-white, good-and-evil type of a regime confronting us in a hostile fashion, it will be easier to deal with the specific problems that we confront.
One of the paradoxes here domestically is that many of the people who call for the most energetic involvement by Obama in the process, they simply would prefer to have an American-Iranian showdown.
Whereas, in fact, if there is a change of regime in Iran, there's a greater chance of accommodation. And I think that is to be fervently wished for.
But that requires patience, intelligent manipulation, moral support, but no political interference.
ZAKARIA: Final question. If Ahmadinejad does in fact stay the president, would you advise President Obama to pursue the negotiating strategy, or are all bets off now?
BRZEZINSKI: No, of course, I would support negotiating strategy, because it seems to me that, if the regime is there, we still have a stake in some outcome better than the one that otherwise is probable.
We negotiated with Mao Zedong, who said that if there are nuclear weapons and the Chinese have them, there may be 300 million dead in a war, but so what. We negotiated with Stalin. I see no reason why we shouldn't negotiate with Ahmadinejad, if he comes out on top. But clearly, it would be a more difficult process.
(snip)
Serving Freedom
and Liberty
