Op-Ed: Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski is an Iran-Firster
In a recent TV interview on MSNBC, Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor and the "Father of al Qaeda," stated :
"I think our [Obama's recent anti-Assad] posture is baffling, there no strategic design, we're using slogans. It's a tragedy and it's a mess in the making. I do not see what the United States right now is trying to accomplish. It all seems to me rather sporadic, chaotic, unstructured, and undirected. I think we need a serious policy review with the top people involved, not just an announcement from the deputy head of the NSC that an important event has taken place and we will be reacted to it.
"We are running the risk of getting into another war in the region which may last for years and I don't see any real strategic guidance to what we are doing. I see a lot of rhetoric, a lot emotion, a lot of propaganda in fact."
But Brzezinski also stated the same "serious policy" in a Daily Beast (DB) 2009 interview (less than 3 years ago), that if Israel attacked Iran's nuclear weapons' sites, then the US should somehow stop the Israeli planes:
"DB: How aggressive can Obama be in insisting to the Israelis that a military strike might be in America's worst interest?
Brzezinski: We are not exactly impotent little babies. They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch?
DB: What if they fly over anyway?
Brzezinski: Well, we 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. They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it could be a Liberty in reverse."
Now, how exactly do these Brzezinski "policy" positions prove that he is an Iran-Firster? Or really, why has Brzezinski gone so hysterical over keeping Shiite Assad intact and protected from the anti-Assad Sunni rebels?
In fact, former President Clinton (no Bush Republican, he) just came out strongly for an anti-Assad US intervention. The answer is simple.
First, you have to remember that Brzezinski will strongly push any position that catastrophically harms Israel, even if it also catastrophically harms the United States.
Second, Brzezinski is an Iran-Firster who wants Iran to acquire a nuclear bomb. In short, Brzezinski wants nothing less than a nuclear-armed Iran which can annihilate Israel, and murder 6,000,000 Jews.
But how does one get from Brzezinski's protecting Assad to Iran's nuking Israel?? Brzezinski, the chess player, understands that Assad and Hizbullah are effectively Iran's first, and only, line of defense against an Israeli solo-attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. Why? Because on Brzezinski's chessboard, if Assad (Iran's rook) is toppled, Hizbullah and its arsenal of missiles become an isolated and useless Iranian pawn against Israel in the event of an Israeli pre-emptive attack on Iran's nuclear weapons' facilities (Iran's Queen).
Even better, in a post-Assad Syria, al Qaeda will likely exact infinite revenge on Iran's isolated South Lebanese Hizbullah pawn. With Israel's IDF on its south, al Qaeda to the east, the Mediterranean Sea to the west, and the Lebanese Sunnis to the north, Hizbullah is road-kill Sunni-style. And Iran, and especially Brzezinski, know it.
However, contra-wise, before an Israeli decision of whether or not to solo-attack Iran, without Hizbullah's 50,000 missiles neutralized and with Assad's weapons' life-line to Hizbullah still intact, Israel would be highly likely not to decide to attack Iran without full US agreement and participation. (Iran's pawn easily gets promoted to a devastating check-mating Queen.).
Brzezinski profoundly knows that Obama's United States will never attack Iran, or will never agree to attack Iran under any circumstances. (Only a delusional Israeli policy maker who wants to create a 'West Bank' Palestinian state would actually believe Obama's "bait and switch" that he will attack Iran, if Israel creates a PA State.)
So, working backwards, Brzezinski reasons, "If, ab initio, Iran has a viable 50,000 missile Hizbullah counter-attack on Israel, Israel won't attack Iran alone without the US." Hence, by protecting Assad, Brzezinski is protecting Iran's counter-attack on Israel in the event Israel executes a solo attack on Iran.
By knowing the United States under Obama will never attack Iran, Brzezinski then sees Israel as blocked into not attacking Iran at all. (Iran's pawn pins Israel's queen from attacking.) And, of course, Brzezinski, without an Israeli attack, then sees that Iran gets the nuclear bomb. Iran then checkmates Israel into a nuclear Holocaust.
But one will likely say, "Didn't Israel attack Iraq's nuclear reactor at Osirik all alone? Israel can do the same thing with Iran!" Sorry to burst the delusional bubble.. Iran's multiple nuclear sites are hundreds of additional miles due east from Iraq's Osirik.
And, unlike the Israeli-Iraq attack flight-path that was topographically flat as a pancake, to reach all the likely Iranian nukes sites, Israeli planes would have to climb over the Zagros mountains that run north-south, and form Iran's Western border's natural fortress-line.
The Zagros Mountains tower over 4,000 meters high, and are on par with the Alps and the American Rockies. Given the military scale and scope of such an Israeli operation, a dead-certain Hizbullah 50,000-strong rocket counterattack on Israel's home-front would likely be a political tipping-point against Israel deciding to launch such a daring solo-Israeli attack on Iran to begin with.
There's the nub of the problem. A Syria with Assad means an Iran with a nuclear bomb. No way around it.
But just to show you how intellectually dishonest and duplicitous Brzezinski's current pro-Assad analysis is, let's review a short "videotape" of Brzezinski's past, and more recent "policy" decisions. First, Brzezinski is the intellectual father and architect of the master Sunni terrorist al Qaeda's Osama bin Laden himself. Brzezinski was Jimmy Carter’s policy architect of arming the radical Sunni al Qaeda Islamists in Afghanistan to defeat the Soviet Union.
Did anyone hear Brzezinski recant his Carter years' al Qaeda Afghan policy? Why was Brzezinski's arming of the Sunni al Qaeda good to attack the Soviet Union with, but Obama's arming al Qaeda to attack Iran perceived as bad? (MAD worked for decades with the Russians, but will never work for a day with the Iranians.) Because Brzezinski understands that now al Qaeda's attack on Assad and Iran would be helping Israel defeat Iran.
Thus, Brzezinski takes the exact opposite policy today from the one he took 20 years ago, so as to harm Israel, and help Iran, the free world's greatest enemy.
That was in the early 1980's! What's Ziggy said for himself lately?? Well, how about Brzezinski's recent "analysis" about the United States arming the anti-Gaddafi rebels, and the US actually attacking Gaddafi? In a March 30, 2011 interview with Amar Bakshi(AB), Brzezinski stated"
"AB: Do you support the intervention in Libya?
Brzezinski: I support the intervention in Libya because I have the strong sense that if we did not [intervene], our credibility in the entire region - which is already very much at stake - would be shattered and Gaddafi would emerge as the leader and symbol of Arab radicalism."
Yikes!! That hurts. Brzezinski, the master geo-strategist, got it 100% wrong. The exact opposite happened. Libya became an absolute safe haven for even more extreme terrorists who then proceeded to murder our Ambassador Christopher Stevens.
But most importantly, according to Brzezinski’s "objective" reasoning, Gaddafi who had agreed to disarm himself of nuclear weapons, and had 'only' killed 1,000 Libyans was fair game for total United States destruction, but a Shiite-Iranian Puppet Assad who is on the United States list of terror states, and who has murdered 100,000 people and used chemical weapons on civilians should be completely protected by the United States.
Brzezinski issues such contradictory policies because he is a rabid, pathological Jew-hater. Remember, Brzezinski always opts for what's worst for Israel, and best for Iran, even if it is what's worst for America.
Yes, there are some pundits who, Polonius-like, fret over arming the anti-Assad rebels. And yes, the anti-Assad rebels aren't nice people. I admit they're nasty people, and I wouldn’t invite them to a Bar Mitzvah.
Nevertheless, Stalin murdered 20,000 Polish Military officer POWs in cold blood in 1940, but the US in 1941 still armed him to the hilt against Hitler.
The choice is clear: either arm al Qaeda today to defeat Assad and Iran, or prepare soon to have an Iranian nuclear bomb decimate Tel Aviv tomorrow, with Washington DC sure to follow in due course.
For more information, please visit www.marklangfan.com