Friday News Roundup - International
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-09-07/friday-news-roundup-international
ECB President Mario Draghi unveiled details of a new bond-buying plan aimed at easing the eurozone's debt crisis. The new U.N. and Arab League envoy for Syria, Lakhdar Brahimi, said searching for a solution in the country was like "standing in front of a brick wall." And Secretary Hillary Clinton continued a six-nation trip through the Asia-Pacific region where she faced harsh criticism from China's state media. James Kitfield of National Journal, Elise Labott of CNN and Tom Gjelten of NPR join Diane for analysis of the week's top international news stories.
Guests
James Kitfield
senior correspondent for National Journal.
Elise Labott
CNN foreign affairs reporter.
Tom Gjelten
NPR national security correspondent and author of "Bacardi and the Long Fight for Cuba: The Biography of a Cause."
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
When will the Diane Rehm show even whisper about the ongoing expansion of Israel's illegal settlements? Why have these international crimes become so normalized.
When will the Diane Rehm show mention Egyptian President Morsi's suggestion that a "contact group" made up of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Iran to negotiate with Syria. Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett have said that the U.S. stance saying Assad must go NOW was a non starter and actually undermined Kofi Anan's efforts with Syria
The problem with the European economies was not lack of austerity or jobs policies. What happened is that a number of European governments, Greece being the most notable example, got conned into buying credit default swaps by major banking institutions as a means of lowering their international debt. These are the same instruments along with CDOs (Credit Default Obligations) that precipitated the economic collapse in the United States.
With all the concern with Iran's nuclear capabilities how come we never hear about the fact that Israel possesses weapons of mass destruction and have had for quite some time?
The is no equivalence between between Israel possessing nuclear weapons and Iran. Israel is not threating Iran or any of its neighbors with extinction. Iran is calling for the destruction of Israel at this moment. The effect of Israel having nuclear weapons is to deter war and aggression from its neighbors. Iran having having a weapon could inspire another Arab attempt to destroy the Jewish state. Israel has had a nuclear capability for decades, they have used it to live in peace.
marcvs wrote,"Israel is not threating Iran or any of its neighbors with extinction". Sorry,yes they are. It`s what Mitt Romney is promising,to have Israel`s back,after Israel attacks Iran.While it is true a TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPON won`t exterminate Iran as a Nation,who can predict what the guaranteed result of a world war with Islam would create.
All this for a some settlements? For a few more scheckles for the greedy?
At one point years ago, the power of Iran was, at least partly, held in check by Iraq. Anybody remember the Iran-Iraq conflicts? In fact, there are documented notes and photos showing the likes of Sec. Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein and having provided war materiel to Iraq to oppose Iran at the time. Add to the mix the CIA meddling in the Iranian regime and US support for the Shah of Iran. Ham-handed policies over the years have created fear among the ayatollahs - fear of the US. And, of course, there has been an historical hatred from Iran and most middle eastern nations toward Israel.
Then the unnecessary, expensive, bloody (for US troops and Iraqi civilians alike) invasion of Iraq based on faulty and ginned-up "evidence" from VP Cheney and his new-con cronies created a huge power imbalance in the region. Iran has ascended in influence.
Comments from various hawks (e.g. McCain's "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran") have kept the level of fear at a fever pitch in the area. Mr. Romney's empty-sabre rattling toward Iran and toward Russia CANNOT be deemed as helpful. Fortunately, Romney has not recently jabbed at North Korea.
Then again, maybe Romney/Bain can afford to buy off Iran and Russia and North Korea.....oh, and maybe Pakistan too. It would be a nuclear leveraged buy-out.
A few points about Israel, Iran, and Iraq.
Israel: Yes, it’s reputed to have nuclear weapons. (No one has ever confirmed it, but belief they have them is as effective as actually having them. It provides some deterrence against conventional attacks.) But consider this fact: despite plenty of provocation over the years, specifically rocket attacks from Iraq during the first Gulf War, she has never used them! Can we say, with any certainty, a nuclear Iran will show the same restraint? I see no reason to risk it.
Iran: As the guests point out, the very existence of its nuclear program is a violation of treaties it signed. (Israel never signed such treaties.) So, even now, it’s in violation of International Law. That hardly gives confidence it can be trusted with nuclear bombs. (And that’s not even considering the “messianic” pretensions of its theocratic government.) I see no reason to risk it.
Furthermore, neither the callers nor the guests have mentioned the 800 pound gorilla (the real issue). Even if we assume Iran is not crazy enough to use nuclear weapons, as Israel hasn’t been, the mere belief it has them will be a deterrence against conventional attacks on Iran. What’s wrong with that, you ask? Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) worked during the Cold War, didn’t it? Except, it almost didn’t. Look at the Cuban missile crisis. All it did was force the U.S., Russia, and China to fight their battles through proxies (Korea, Vietnam, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Central and South America.) But the absence of nuclear war is not the same thing as peace, and there are no “proxies” in the Middle East for Iran and Israel to fight through.
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
What happens if a “messianic” Iran, believing itself safe behind its “nuclear shield”, launches or helps to launch another combined conventional attack on Israel? What happens if there is a fifth Arab-Israeli War, with the Arabs believing themselves “safe” because of Iran’s “shield”? Should Israel be winning, will Iran restrain itself? Should Israel be losing, will it continue to act with restraint? (Read the story of Masada for an unsettling answer.) Should MAD fail, should another conventional war begin, it will very likely “go nuclear”. I see no reason to risk it.
Iraq: Even during Bush the Second’s reign, there were clear signs this country was “leaning” towards Iran. Moreover, the government we helped install was clearly weak, corrupt, and (for domestic political reasons) wanted us gone (on their timetable, not ours). All of this, plus current events, simply prove that Bush’s unnecessary war there “wasn’t worth it” (to use the expression now in vogue). But, of course, the fashion is to imply it’s all Obama’s fault.
Conclusion:I don’t claim to know what the right answer to all these problems is, but I do recognize bad arguments when I hear them. Letting Iran have nuclear weapons is a bad idea, one that will haunt future Presidents and gravely affect the future of the Middle East, this country, and the World. Doubt me? Just look at the mess created when we interrupted our war in Afghanistan to fight a needless war in Iraq - a mistake generations to come will be paying for.
To kathleen, Jokr8790, and Clifford:
And thank you for your one-sided comments.
The settlements have nothing to do with any of this. Four Arab-Israeli Wars were fought before they even existed (or became an issue). The issue is Israel’s very existence, which nations such as Iran find anathema.
(That doesn’t justify the settlements, but neither do the settlements justify Iran “going nuclear”.)
And while attacking Iran to prevent its getting nuclear weapons may be a very bad idea (I don’t claim to know, but I don’t like it), it’s hardly the same as threatening its extinction. When has an Israeli President or Prime Minister (or even a major political figure of any real influence) even suggested Iran had no right to exist? Never! In contrast, Arab nations have done far more than “suggest” Israel shouldn’t - in four wars! (Ditto for Iran, minus the wars.)
Israel’s acting in self-defense to stop Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons is not the same as “threatening Iran or any of its neighbors with extinction".
I believe I heard the expression "whack job" last week on this show. A lot of people have recovered and stabilized after a mental illness to the point where they have more self control than the speaker who used it. I know these expressions are often used by comedians and in private conversations but I expect better during a serious news program
whoa did the Rehm team eliminate a bunch of comments sure looks like it. Have them copied.
Diane why did you allow CNN's Ms Labott to totally lie about Irans weapons? And why did you allow Mr. Kittfield to repeat a totally debunked statement "Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map" Why do you allow this to go on on your program.