Episode CCCVIIX of The American Political Melodrama: Jennifer Rubin v. Zbigniew Brzezinski: A comment by Political Observer

Jennifer Rubin’s column for November 22, 2013 titled ‘Who will Defend the West’ is a faint echo of  Cold War rhetoric. This was written before the Iran accords were reached a few days later. Here is a telling paragraph:

Whether or not a deal is struck few expect Iran to give up its nuclear weapons ambitions. It may be the tiny Jewish state (albeit one with a first-rate military) in a sea of Arab lands that steps up to the plate to defend itself, its Sunni neighbors and the West. Winston Churchill, in his 1921 visit to what was then Palestine, may have been prophetic when he said, “I believe that the establishment of the a Jewish National Home in Palestine will be a blessing to the whole world, a blessing to the Jewish race scattered all over the world, and a blessing to Great Britain. . . . The hope of your race [the Jewish people] for so many centuries will be gradually realized here, not only for your own good but for the good of all the world.” Israel would quite literally be doing just that if forced to strike Iran. (The man who pointed this out to me and wrote a definitive work on Churchill and the Jewish state, Michael Makovsky, visitedthe current prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, who is himself a Churchill buff, this fall.) Let’s pray it doesn’t come to that.

In the Rubin scenario Israel is the defender of the West, provided America fails to act, against the provocative actions of the rogue state of Iran. Israel might act, given the proper circumstances, in the moral exercise of an act of war, without the permission of the USA. Ms.Rubin’s words and tone gives one pause.

Mr. Brzezinski has a different stance on the notion of ‘defending the West’ as advocated by Ms. Rubin and her allies:

In an interview with news Web site the Daily Beast, Brzezinski said that the U.S. forces were “not exactly impotent little babies,” saying that Israel forces have “to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch?”

When asked what should the United States do in case Israeli jets fly over Iraq anyway, the former national security advisor said the United States would “have to be serious about denying them that right.”

“That means a denial where you aren’t just saying it. If they fly over, you go up and confront them,” Brzezinski said, adding that Israeli fighters would then “have the choice of turning back or not.”

Brzezinski added that “No one wishes for this but it could be a Liberty in reverse,” referring to the IDF attack on the U.S.S. Liberty during the Six Day War, which Israel claims was a case of mistaken identity.

The bellicosity of Ms. Rubin remains an article of faith when it comes to Iran, she and her American Likudnik confreres are committed to a war with Iran. The response from Mr. Brzezinski is quite surprising, even a welcome retort to the Likudnik propaganda offensive.

Political Observer

About stephenkmacksd

Rootless cosmopolitan,down at heels intellectual;would be writer.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Episode CCCVIIX of The American Political Melodrama: Jennifer Rubin v. Zbigniew Brzezinski: A comment by Political Observer

  1. ‘CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: It’s really hard to watch the President and the Secretary of State and not think how they cannot be embarrassed by this deal. Think about this: half a dozen times, the Security Council has passed resolutions which said Iran has to stop all enrichment otherwise there’ll be no change in the sanctions, no relief. Which means six times China and Russia – not exactly hardliners on Iran – have signed on to this.

    And what is the result of this agreement? Iran retains the right to enrich. It continues to enrich during the six months. It is promised a final deal in which we’re going to work out the details of its enrichment. And remember, enrichment is the dam against all proliferation. Once a country anywhere can start to enrich there is no containing its nuclear capacity. So it undermines the entire idea of nonproliferation, and it grants Iran a right it’s been lusting for for a decade. That’s why there was so much jubilation in Tehran over this.

    Second, there’s a relaxation of sanctions which have really caused the Iranians to hurt, to worry about the stability of the regime, and to come and negotiate. What happens on sanctions? There’s going to be a huge infusion of cash which can reduce the inflation, can alleviate the shortages. Already the rial, the currency, jumped three percent instantly as a result of this agreement. This is a huge relief for the Iranians, and it can only increase over time.

    What do we get in return? I just heard the Secretary of State say we’re going to get a destruction of the 20 percent uranium. That is simply untrue. What’s going to happen is the 20 percent enriched uranium is going to be turned into an oxide so it’s inoperative. That process is completely chemically reversible, which means Iran holds on to its 20 percent uranium and can turn it into active stuff any time it wants.

    This is a sham from beginning to end. It’s the worst deal since Munich.’

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/11/25/krauthammer-iran-nuclear-agreement-its-worst-deal-munich#ixzz2llbTF0CJ

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s