Zbigniew Brzezinksi - You're so naive! Or why Iran attack is a GOOD thing

[HamdenRice]

Zbigniew Brzezinski has written an LA Times editorial about why attacking Iran would be a foolish thing for the Bush administration to do. Yet, I find his reasoning to be naive, considering the demonstrated goals of the Bush administration.

Here's an excerpt of the article, and his major points, refuted.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-brzezinski23apr23,0,3700317.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

Been there, done that
Talk of a U.S. strike on Iran is eerily reminiscent of the run-up to the Iraq war.
By Zbigniew Brzezinski, Zbigniew Brzezinski was national security advisor to President Carter from 1977 to 1981.
April 23, 2006

IRAN'S ANNOUNCEMENT that it has enriched a minute amount of uranium has unleashed urgent calls for a preventive U.S. airstrike from the same sources that earlier urged war on Iraq. If there is another terrorist attack in the United States, you can bet your bottom dollar that there also will be immediate charges that Iran was responsible in order to generate public hysteria in favor of military action.

But there are four compelling reasons against a preventive air attack on Iranian nuclear facilities:

<end quote>

Brzezinski then explains the four reasons air strikes would be bad. Let's go through them one by one, but rather than from a rational, national perspective, from the narrow, selfish, irrational perspective of the Bush administration.

First, "If undertaken without a formal congressional declaration of war, an attack would be unconstitutional and merit the impeachment of the president. Similarly, if undertaken without the sanction of the United Nations Security Council, either alone by the United States or in complicity with Israel, it would stamp the perpetrator(s) as an international outlaw(s)."

But the stated goal of the administration is to destroy the structure of international law and any international legal constraints on the US, and domestically to create a "unified executive" in which the president rules supreme, and in which anything he does is automatically legal. So violating international law and the constitution advance his "law reform" agenda.

Second, ZB says, "Second, likely Iranian reactions would significantly compound ongoing U.S. difficulties in Iraq and Afghanistan, perhaps precipitate new violence by Hezbollah in Lebanon and possibly elsewhere, and in all probability bog down the United States in regional violence for a decade or more."

But that's a decade of ever increasing military spending and no bid contracts for Halliburton and arms purchases from the Carlyle Group. What's wrong with that? Rumsfeld has already said that this is the "long war" that will not end in any of our lifetimes. Well the youngest of us, newborns, have a life expectancy of about 80 years, so the plan already exists for the war to continue for 80 years. A decade is child's play. Their stated goal is a neo-con revolution throughout the middle east, so what would be wrong with the expansion of the conflict from their perspective?

"Third," he writes, "oil prices would climb steeply, especially if the Iranians were to cut their production or seek to disrupt the flow of oil from the nearby Saudi oil fields. The world economy would be severely affected, and the United States would be blamed for it."

And ZB, your point is? Aren't high oil prices exactly what this Texas oilpatch president loves? Who cares about the rest of the economy as long as oil companies enjoy record profits?

Last, "Finally, the United States, in the wake of the attack, would become an even more likely target of terrorism..."

They can't keep middle America afraid without another attack of "terraa." 9/11 is already getting stale and Americans don't experience the chaos of Iraq first hand. Even the non-conspiratorial writers and editorialists are already snickering that we are overdue for a terror attack. So a terror attack is about the only thing that might, in their deluded reasoning save the administration from complete collapse, Democratic control of the House and a rash of investigations and perhaps impeachment.

[HamdenRice]

1. afternoon ...

self aggrandizing kick, b/c I posted this, this morning when DU was like a ghost-town.

[Terran1212]

2. Good points all