Brzezinski on Israel/Iran

In this interview with the Real News Network, Zbigniew Brzezinski underlines that an Israeli attack on Iran would be neither in the interest of Israel nor of the US. An attack would drive out the US of the Middle East and leave Israel without its most powerful ally.

Far from being a "peacenik", Brezezinski admited in this interview with the French Le Nouvel Observateur that the US engaged the communist government in Afghanistan even before the Russians invaded in 1979. Although he denied this revelation in later interviews, he wholeheartedly supported the support of the Taliban against the Russians ("Qu'est-ce qui est le plus important au regard de l'histoire du monde ? Les talibans ou la chute de l'empire soviétique? Quelques excités islamistes ou la libération de l'Europe centrale et la fin de
la guerre froide?"). See a transcript of the interview in English here.

NB: Regarding missile defence, Brzezinski said in another interview that the "missile shield proposal was based on a nonexistent defense technology, designed against a nonexistent threat, and designed to protect West Europeans, who weren’t asking for the protection." Nothing to add.

In this <a href="http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=4715">interview</a> with the <span style="font-style: italic;">Real News Network</span>, Zbigniew Brzezinski underlines that an Israeli attack on Iran would be neither in the interest of Israel nor of the US. An attack would drive out the US of the Middle East and leave Israel without its most powerful ally.<br /><br />Far from being a "peacenik", Brezezinski admited in this <a href="http://hebdo.nouvelobs.com/hebdo/parution/p1732/articles/a19460-oui_la_cia_est_entree_en_afghanistan_avant_les_russes.html">interview</a> with the French <span style="font-style: italic;">Le Nouvel Observateur</span> that the US engaged the communist government in Afghanistan even before the Russians invaded in 1979. Although he denied this revelation in later interviews, he wholeheartedly supported the support of the Taliban against the Russians ("Qu'est-ce qui est le plus important au regard de l'histoire du monde ? Les talibans ou la chute de l'empire soviétique? Quelques excités islamistes ou la libération de l'Europe centrale et la fin de<br />la guerre froide?"). See a transcript of the interview in English <a href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html">here</a>.<br /><br />NB: Regarding missile defence, Brzezinski said in another <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-09-18/how-obama-flubbed-his-missile-message/">interview</a> that the "missile shield proposal was based on a nonexistent defense technology, designed against a nonexistent threat, and designed to protect West Europeans, who weren’t asking for the protection." Nothing to add.

Some remarks about NATO

A friend asked me to come up with some questions for a panel discussion that she was asked to moderate. The panel is about resetting NATO. I thought I'd post the result of my first brain storm:

NATO has difficulties in achieving its goals in AFG. Ten years into the war the country is still in shambles and no end in sight. More and more European allies are pulling out and sooner or later the US and the UK will find themselves alone. So general question: if NATO proved its inefficiency for overseas contingency operations, what is NATO good for at all?

Obviously, the US and UK wants NATO for expeditionary missions, whereas Eastern Europe wants it as defence against the Russians. Clearly a gap that is hard to bridge. Where else is common ground?

The US needs NATO as a self-financing foreign legion. Europe doesn't feel at ease with the US foreign policy. So whey does the EU not leave NATO? Or why does the US not leave NATO, since it operates with coalitions of the willing under US command anyway?

Why did NATO not consider the Russian proposal of an European Security Treaty? As a matter of fact, many senior NATO officials and officers are still in a mindset of the Cold War. Are we not missing a chance to team up with Russia against our common threats?

NATO works very well in the field of standardisation and organisation of the armies of Allies. It does clearly not work very well in overseas operations, perhaps with exception of the counter-piracy operation. So why not focus on what NATO is good at and drop the rest?

NATO and EU will never have a healthy relationship, because of the Turkey-Cyprus-Greece deadlock. Now, the EU considers to set up an operational headquarters, a clear duplication of capabilities. It's easy to imagine that this is only the first step in a process of more duplications to come. Hence, instead of fighting duplication, the US and UK should accept realities and support the increase of EU capabilities.

Missile defence will become a NATO asset. This decision has already been taken, rumours have it. But: why do we need it? On which threat analysis is this need based upon? Iran? North Korea? Why would either of those states bother launching a missile to Europe or the US? They are not many indications nor evidence for that! So, Russia and China, I suppose... Is that really the right way forward, to threaten the balance of power/balance of possible mutual destruction? It is very expensive, so far the tests were mostly unsuccessful, but instead it antagonises powers with which we should cooperate - so where is the added value? It only makes sense if you predict a military confrontation with Russia or China in the future. This scenario might be a threat for some in the alliance, but "Old Europe" does not see this scenario as very likely. So, nations that are interested should share the burden but NATO as a whole should not step in to share the bill.

A friend asked me to come up with some questions for a panel discussion that she was asked to moderate. The panel is about resetting NATO. I thought I'd post the result of my first brain storm:<br /><br />NATO has difficulties in achieving its goals in AFG. Ten years into the war the country is still in shambles and no end in sight. More and more European allies are pulling out and sooner or later the US and the UK will find themselves alone. So general question: if NATO proved its inefficiency for overseas contingency operations, what is NATO good for at all?<br /><br />Obviously, the US and UK wants NATO for expeditionary missions, whereas Eastern Europe wants it as defence against the Russians. Clearly a gap that is hard to bridge. Where else is common ground?<br /><br />The US needs NATO as a self-financing foreign legion. Europe doesn't feel at ease with the US foreign policy. So whey does the EU not leave NATO? Or why does the US not leave NATO, since it operates with coalitions of the willing under US command anyway?<br /><br />Why did NATO not consider the Russian proposal of an <a href="http://eng.kremlin.ru/text/docs/2009/11/223072.shtml">European Security Treaty</a>? As a matter of fact, many senior NATO officials and officers are still in a mindset of the Cold War. Are we not missing a chance to team up with Russia against our common threats?<br /><br />NATO works very well in the field of standardisation and organisation of the armies of Allies. It does clearly not work very well in overseas operations, perhaps with exception of the counter-piracy operation. So why not focus on what NATO is good at and drop the rest?<br /><br />NATO and EU will never have a healthy relationship, because of the Turkey-Cyprus-Greece deadlock. Now, the EU considers to set up an <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8559250.stm">operational headquarters</a>, a clear duplication of capabilities. It's easy to imagine that this is only the first step in a process of more duplications to come. Hence, instead of fighting duplication, the US and UK should accept realities and support the increase of EU capabilities.<br /><br />Missile defence will become a NATO asset. This decision has already been taken, rumours have it. But: why do we need it? On which threat analysis is this need based upon? Iran? North Korea? Why would either of those states bother launching a missile to Europe or the US? They are not many indications nor evidence for that! So, Russia and China, I suppose... Is that really the right way forward, to threaten the balance of power/balance of possible mutual destruction? It is very expensive, so far the tests were mostly unsuccessful, but instead it antagonises powers with which we should cooperate - so where is the added value? It only makes sense if you predict a military confrontation with Russia or China in the future. This scenario might be a threat for some in the alliance, but "Old Europe" does not see this scenario as very likely. So, nations that are interested should share the burden but NATO as a whole should not step in to share the bill.