26-09-2013, 09:55 AM
David
In 2004 the Council on Foreign Relations published "Iran: Time for a New Approach" co-chaired by Zbigniew Brzezinski and Robert Gates
Overview
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have positioned American troops along Iran's borders, making the United States and Iran wary competitors and neighbors who nonetheless possess overlapping interests. Meanwhile, questions continue to be raised about Iran's nuclear program and its involvement with terrorism. Clearly, contending with Iran will constitute one of the most complex and pressing challenges facing future U.S. administrations. This informative report, which sparked sharp debate in Washington and extensive coverage by U.S. and international media, offers a timely new approach.
Rejecting the conventional wisdom that Iran is on the verge of another revolution, the report calls for the United States to reassess its long-standing policy of non-engagement with the current Iranian government. The product of an independent Task Force chaired by Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter's national security adviser, and Robert M. Gates, director of central intelligence during the George H.W. Bush administration, the report highlights several areas in which U.S. interests would be better served by selective engagement with Tehran, and breaks with current U.S. policy by encouraging a new strategy.
This report focuses on developments inside Iran, tapping into the Task Force members' extensive expertise on Iranian politics and society. It includes a comprehensive chronology of important dates in U.S.-Iranian history, economic and demographic facts about Iran, and reference materials on Iranian state institutions and governance.
A pdf is available for free download at:
http://www.cfr.org/iran/iran-time-new-approach/p7194
The timing of this was on the heels of GWBush and his 2001 Axis of Evil sloganeering in the wake of the 9/11 incident
Obviously it supplanted that warmongering
It was cemented by the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate
This National Intelligence Estimate report on Iran's nuclear capabilities states "We judge with moderate confidence that the earliest possible date Iran would be technically capable of producing enough HEU for a weapon is late 2009, but that this is very unlikely. We judge with moderate confidence Iran probably would be technically capable of producing enough HEU for a weapon sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame. (INR judges Iran is unlikely to achieve this capability before 2013 because of foreseeable technical and programmatic problems.) All agencies recognize the possibility that this capability may not be attained until after 2015."
Wherein the CFR from whose site comes the above summary puts off the threat; the threat is distant, not imminent.
In March Kissinger foresaw a future ally in Iran.
Prior to election Obama said he would negotiate with leaders in Iran:
A questioner asked in a July 23, 2007, Democratic debate if the candidates would be "willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?"
"I would," Obama said. "And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them - which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration - is ridiculous."
He argued that "Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire."
I would stipulate that while Obama expressed high ideals, in fact, there are substantial differences between Rouhani and Khrushchev
Rouhani I insist is not the seat of power in Iran; that is occupied by Khamenei
Khrushchev expressed a desire to shift scarce resources to consumer goods from arms, hence JFK and Khrushchev were on the peace wavelength
In the case of Rouhani based on informed observations of the region he is likely staving off economic collapse hastened by mismanagement and economic sanctions
His superior will not have relinquished the stated right to nuclear weapons and the unequivocable opposition to the existence of the zionist entity
As for Obama he may see a Peace Prize II in it, a place in history, a cynical distraction from various flypapers, or in the extreme a way to facilitate Iran's emergence into full nuclear membership for some reason of the CFR
The CFR appears to be a form of art for the expression of the geostrategic desires of the cabal
The term grand cabal would be redundant
At last word Putin was planning a trip to Tehran to seal a deal for S-300s and another reactor project
Iran is an ally of Syria, and Russia is as well
We see Iran, Syria, Russia with at least limited common interests
Obama cannot identify a U.S. interest in Iran--
but then, he has not identified a U.S. interest in the Arab Spring operation another trade term of art for CIA running guns to Muslim Brotherhood for a Turkey Saudi Qatar triple entente
So Woodrow Wilson is setting up the bowling pins for WW III
Did I type that or only think it
What I forecast is a North Korea type I'll-be-good-dammit-now-hand-over-my-candy
And the parent will be weakened while the child is empowered
And the poor Menendez brothers are orphans
In 2004 the Council on Foreign Relations published "Iran: Time for a New Approach" co-chaired by Zbigniew Brzezinski and Robert Gates
Overview
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have positioned American troops along Iran's borders, making the United States and Iran wary competitors and neighbors who nonetheless possess overlapping interests. Meanwhile, questions continue to be raised about Iran's nuclear program and its involvement with terrorism. Clearly, contending with Iran will constitute one of the most complex and pressing challenges facing future U.S. administrations. This informative report, which sparked sharp debate in Washington and extensive coverage by U.S. and international media, offers a timely new approach.
Rejecting the conventional wisdom that Iran is on the verge of another revolution, the report calls for the United States to reassess its long-standing policy of non-engagement with the current Iranian government. The product of an independent Task Force chaired by Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter's national security adviser, and Robert M. Gates, director of central intelligence during the George H.W. Bush administration, the report highlights several areas in which U.S. interests would be better served by selective engagement with Tehran, and breaks with current U.S. policy by encouraging a new strategy.
This report focuses on developments inside Iran, tapping into the Task Force members' extensive expertise on Iranian politics and society. It includes a comprehensive chronology of important dates in U.S.-Iranian history, economic and demographic facts about Iran, and reference materials on Iranian state institutions and governance.
A pdf is available for free download at:
http://www.cfr.org/iran/iran-time-new-approach/p7194
The timing of this was on the heels of GWBush and his 2001 Axis of Evil sloganeering in the wake of the 9/11 incident
Obviously it supplanted that warmongering
It was cemented by the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate
This National Intelligence Estimate report on Iran's nuclear capabilities states "We judge with moderate confidence that the earliest possible date Iran would be technically capable of producing enough HEU for a weapon is late 2009, but that this is very unlikely. We judge with moderate confidence Iran probably would be technically capable of producing enough HEU for a weapon sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame. (INR judges Iran is unlikely to achieve this capability before 2013 because of foreseeable technical and programmatic problems.) All agencies recognize the possibility that this capability may not be attained until after 2015."
Wherein the CFR from whose site comes the above summary puts off the threat; the threat is distant, not imminent.
In March Kissinger foresaw a future ally in Iran.
Prior to election Obama said he would negotiate with leaders in Iran:
A questioner asked in a July 23, 2007, Democratic debate if the candidates would be "willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?"
"I would," Obama said. "And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them - which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration - is ridiculous."
He argued that "Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire."
I would stipulate that while Obama expressed high ideals, in fact, there are substantial differences between Rouhani and Khrushchev
Rouhani I insist is not the seat of power in Iran; that is occupied by Khamenei
Khrushchev expressed a desire to shift scarce resources to consumer goods from arms, hence JFK and Khrushchev were on the peace wavelength
In the case of Rouhani based on informed observations of the region he is likely staving off economic collapse hastened by mismanagement and economic sanctions
His superior will not have relinquished the stated right to nuclear weapons and the unequivocable opposition to the existence of the zionist entity
As for Obama he may see a Peace Prize II in it, a place in history, a cynical distraction from various flypapers, or in the extreme a way to facilitate Iran's emergence into full nuclear membership for some reason of the CFR
The CFR appears to be a form of art for the expression of the geostrategic desires of the cabal
The term grand cabal would be redundant
At last word Putin was planning a trip to Tehran to seal a deal for S-300s and another reactor project
Iran is an ally of Syria, and Russia is as well
We see Iran, Syria, Russia with at least limited common interests
Obama cannot identify a U.S. interest in Iran--
but then, he has not identified a U.S. interest in the Arab Spring operation another trade term of art for CIA running guns to Muslim Brotherhood for a Turkey Saudi Qatar triple entente
So Woodrow Wilson is setting up the bowling pins for WW III
Did I type that or only think it
What I forecast is a North Korea type I'll-be-good-dammit-now-hand-over-my-candy
And the parent will be weakened while the child is empowered
And the poor Menendez brothers are orphans