VOA News reported on March 4 that the United States, Great Britain, and France are increasing their pressure for additional sanctions against Iran in response to its nuclear fuel enrichment program. 

The UN Ambassadors of the three western powers told their counterparts on the Security Council that day that Iran has done nothing to relieve international concerns that its nuclear enrichment program has military applications.

The report quoted UK Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant, who said that the recent report from the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), reinforced fears that Iran is acting deceitfully. 

"While existing measures have had some effect, they have not yet led Iran to change course on its nuclear activities. That is clear from the most recent report of the IAEA, whose charge sheet against Iran is getting longer with each report. It reinforces our fears that Iran is acting duplicitously and illegally," said Grant.

A special report in the New York Times for March 4 entitled “Iran’s Nuclear Program,” included an entry stating: “The U.S. is circulating a draft of new, tougher, sanctions against Iran that would both broaden the scope and intensify three previous rounds of sanctions enacted in an effort to persuade Iran to halt uranium enrichment and negotiate the future of its nuclear development program.”

“An Expert's Long View on Iran,” a March 5 Wall Street Journal report, included an interview with long-time U.S. foreign policy insider Zbigniew Brzezinski — who was President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor, is a member of the internationalist Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), was a co-founder of the equally internationalist Trilateral Commission, and has attended meetings of the secretive Bilderberg Group.

The Journal summarized Brzezinski’s views as follows:

Try to stop Iran's nuclear program, and make Tehran pay a price if it keeps pursuing it, but don't count too much on sanctions; offer a robust American defense umbrella to protect friends in the region if Iran crosses the nuclear threshold; give rhetorical support to Iran's opposition while accepting America's limited ability to help it; eschew thought of a pre-emptive attack on Iran's nuclear facilities; and keep talking to Tehran.

Brzezinski said in the interview that he sees two American goals in Iran: "One is to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, assuming that is its objective, and to neutralize its strategic political significance if it does. The second goal is to facilitate, carefully and cautiously, the political evolution in Iran toward a more acceptable regional role."

And if a halt to Iran's nuclear program can't be negotiated? Brzezinski said: "Then I think we have no choice but to impose sanctions on Iran, isolate it." But sanctions alone, he says, won't "determine the outcome."

However, cautioned Brzezinski, it's essential to construct sanctions in a way that "doesn't stimulate more anti-Westernism, or a fusion of Islamic extremism and nationalism." He would continue speaking with Iran, too: "Most major issues internationally that have been resolved by negotiation have involved negotiations over a long period of time."

Brzezinski would also avoid a military strike at Iran's nuclear facilities at all costs. Iran, he said, would make no distinction between an Israeli or an American strike. "The Iranians would strike out at us, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in the Strait of Hormuz." If energy prices then soar, "we will suffer, the Chinese will suffer, the Russians will be the beneficiaries. The Europeans will have to go to the Russians for energy." In effect, he argues, the United States, more than Iran, would be isolated.

One reason that Iran has become such a regional power that Western nations find so troublesome is that the the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and subsequent removal of Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein removed Iran’s most powerful adversary from the Middle East chessboard. And with Hussein out of power, Shiite Iraqis with connections to Iran moved into the vacuum and have tried to transform Iran’s former enemy into a partner in its own radical brand of revolutionary Islam.

A leading voice against U.S. interference in the region has been Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) who was a steadfast opponent of the invasion of Iraq, and is equally opposed to the imposition of sanctions against Iran.

In “Iran Sanctions are Precursor to War,” his Texas Straight Talk column posted on his congressional website last December 21, Rep. Paul decried legislation approved by the House the previous week to impose a new round of sanctions on Iran, stating:

This policy is pure isolationism. It is designed to foment war by cutting off trade and diplomacy. Too many forget that the quagmire in Iraq began with an embargo. Sanctions are not diplomacy. They are a precursor to war and an embarrassment to a country that pays lip service to free trade. It is ironic that people who decry isolationism support actions like this.

Dr. Paul’s statement revealed his knowledge of 20th-century Iranian history as he continued:

We would not tolerate foreign covert operations fomenting regime change in our government. Yet our CIA has been meddling in Iran for decades. Of course Iranians resent this. In fact, many in Iran still resent the CIA’s involvement in overthrowing their democratically elected leader in 1953. The answer is not to cut off gasoline to the Iranian people. The answer is to stay out of their affairs and trade with them honestly. If our operatives were no longer in Iran, they would no longer be available as scapegoats for the regime to, rightly or wrongly, blame for every bad thing that happens. As bad as other regimes may be, it is up to their own people to deal with them so they can achieve true self-determination. When foreigners instigate regime change, the new government they institute is always perceived as serving the interest of the overthrowing country, not the people. Thus we take the blame for bad governance twice. Instead we should stay out of their affairs altogether.

The United States is at a crossroads in its foreign policy and can follow the internationalist approach favored by Brzezinski and his CFR predecessors — a policy that has led to war after war since 1950 — or the non-interventiionist policy advocated by Rep. Paul.

Zbigniew Brezezinski with Senate Foreign Relations Committee member Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) prior to testifying before the committee's hearing on U.S. strategy in Iran: AP Images






 

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (5)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Serenanocturna said:

John Birch Society publication sticks up for Iran.... It is shocking & unacceptable that JBS would get it wrong on such a clear-cut matter. Here is what I just read on Jihad Watch (which is much more informed on the matter of Islamic Jihad than the New American staff is, obviously): **************** John Birch Society publication sticks up for Iran ...and in doing so, invokes as an authority none other than Zbigniew Brzezinski, who has called for the United States to take military action against Israel if Israel moves against Iran. Here is the article from the JBS publication The New American (thanks to Maxwell). And this group was a sponsor at CPAC. This is in line with the one CPAC panel on the "war on terror," and shows once again how much needed was our FDI event, which told the truth about the jihad in all its manifestations. Posted by Robert on March 5, 2010 8:42 PM ****************** If Zbig is the kind of "expert" NA would consult with & quote, it's no wonder you're misinformed! At this point, I am canceling my membership & subscriptions to JBS. You are not to be relied upon as an informed source when you get in bed with such Clintonistas as the Zbig.

March 06, 2010

ponomo said:

... What have you been smoking, Serenanacturna? ZBIG and the Clintonistas are dumpster divers, but....such hate?

March 07, 2010

Brian C. Hoff said:

... Jihad Watch is than anti-islam hate site.I might not alway agree with John Birtcher at least they are think that may-be we needed to rethink our relateship with the muslim world at large and with the America-Muslim communtiy in the United State. First the Neocom in the Bush president didnot know what they where doing. They allow Irsael to Lebanon to get rid of the Party of God(english tranlate or arabic name of party) from Lebanon it fail as the Irsaeli bombing that killed and damage non-member of Party of God bussieneses increase the support that party got for fighting back against Irsael invasion of Lebanon.When Bush didnot protect the PLO leader that was later murber by Israel the Neocom where stock that Hammas won the demoncrate election in Gaza. Our illegality invasion of Iraq didnot help matter at all Iraq have no WND or anything to do with 9-11.

March 07, 2010

Cliff Adams said:

Article is unclear on Brzezinski's role As the comments indicate, the article is not clearly written in the matter of what it makes of Brzezinski's editorial. Knowing the JBS as I do, and reading what was written above, I'm very clear that TNA is not referring to Zbignew Brzezinski as an authority and an all-around "good guy" that we should listen to with rapt attention. The article unfortunately implied that Brzezinski's editorial was some sort of authority in spite of his apparent lifelong committment to the global super-state (he wrote the book that brought the Trilateral Commission into existence, and was a founding member of same) but that was obviously not the intention. Long-time readers of this magazine should be able to pick that up. Such readers would also be quite clear that neither TNA or the JBS has any idea that we should start shooting at Israeli jets, or be doing any shooting whatsoever that is not strictly in the defense of aggression against the United States within its borders or against its citizens. It would be useful if the article's author would comment and straighten out the confusion.

March 26, 2010 | url

Cliff Adams said:

The comments got it wrong On reading the whole article again, it is clear that Serenanocturna didn't read the whole article carefully. I sheepishly confess that I didn't either, until after I made the above comments. The comparison at the end between the internationalist outlook of Brzezinski and the non-interventionist outlook of Ron Paul makes it very clear that the author is NOT "invoking Brzezinski as an authority", and it is very clear (at the end, at least) where TNA and the author stand. Serenanocturna should probably hang on to his/her membership.

March 26, 2010 | url