Brzezinski Weighs in on Iran

Former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski has an article in Truthout (originally published in The Los Angeles Times) on Bush's possible attack on Iran; he doesn't have kind words for Bush's failed foreign policy or those making noise all too similar to the campaign that led to the fiasco in Iraq:

.... there are four compelling reasons against a preventive air attack on Iranian nuclear facilities:

First, in the absence of an imminent threat (and the Iranians are at least several years away from having a nuclear arsenal), the attack would be a unilateral act of war. If undertaken without a formal congressional declaration of war, an attack would be unconstitutional and merit the impeachment of the president. Similarly, if undertaken without the sanction of the United Nations Security Council, either alone by the United States or in complicity with Israel, it would stamp the perpetrator(s) as an international outlaw(s).

Second, likely Iranian reactions would significantly compound ongoing U.S. difficulties in Iraq and Afghanistan, perhaps precipitate new violence by Hezbollah in Lebanon and possibly elsewhere, and in all probability bog down the United States in regional violence for a decade or more. Iran is a country of about 70 million people, and a conflict with it would make the misadventure in Iraq look trivial.

Third, oil prices would climb steeply, especially if the Iranians were to cut their production or seek to disrupt the flow of oil from the nearby Saudi oil fields. The world economy would be severely affected, and the United States would be blamed for it. Note that oil prices have already shot above $70 per barrel, in part because of fears of a U.S.-Iran clash.

Finally, the United States, in the wake of the attack, would become an even more likely target of terrorism while reinforcing global suspicions that U.S. support for Israel is in itself a major cause of the rise of Islamic terrorism. The United States would become more isolated and thus more vulnerable while prospects for an eventual regional accommodation between Israel and its neighbors would be ever more remote.

In short, an attack on Iran would be an act of political folly, setting in motion a progressive upheaval in world affairs. With the U.S. increasingly the object of widespread hostility, the era of American preponderance could even come to a premature end....

...the era of American preponderance could even come to a premature end.... Those are strong words. Let me repeat something I have said before: it is a mistake for Bush and his Republican friends to assume the economic and military power of the United States is unlimited. In the last three years of the Bush Administration, we may find ourselves testing that limit.

It is indicative of the rot at the core of the current Republican Party that Bush dragged out former President Ford to defend Rumsfeld. Ford is a good man well past his prime but his Republican habits remain steadfast: loyalty to the party comes first and always. In the post-Nixon era, with the growing dominance of the conservatives and finally the right wingers, putting loyalty to the party above all else is the fatal flaw of the modern Republican Party and that flaw endangers us all.