Elliott Abrams - Elliott Abrams is the Senior Fellow on the Council on Foreign Relations. Abrams is also the Former Deputy National Security Advisor for Global Democracy Strategy (2005–09.
Amb. Martin S. Indyk - Ambassador Indyk is the Middle East expert and former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Martin S. Indyk joined the Brookings Institution on September 1, 2001 as a senior fellow in the Foreign Policy Studies Program.
Ambassador Indyk served two tours in Israel, the first during the Rabin years (1995-97), and
the second (2000-June 2001) during efforts to achieve a comprehensive peace and stem the violence of the intifadah. During these periods, he helped to strengthen U.S-Israeli relations, reinforce the U.S. commitment to advance the peace process, and substantially increase the level of mutually beneficial trade and investment.
Prior to his assignment to Israel, Dr. Indyk served as special assistant to President Clinton
and as senior director of Near East and South Asian Affairs at the National Security Council (NSC).
While at the NSC, he served as principal adviser to the president and the National Security Adviser
on Arab-Israeli issues, Iraq, Iran, and South Asia. He was a senior member of Secretary
Christopher's Middle East peace team and served as the White House representative on the U.S.-Israel Science and Technology Commission.
Joshua Muravchik - Joshua Muravchik is a visiting scholar at the John Hopkins University's Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies.
Karim Sadjadpour - Karim Sadjadpour is the International Crisis Group's Iran analyst, based in Tehran and Washington DC. Over the past three years he has conducted dozens of interviews with senior Iranian, American, and European officials, as well as hundreds of interviews with Iranian intellectuals, clerics, dissidents, paramilitaries, businessmen, students, activists, and youth, among others.
He is a regular contributor to BBC World, CNN, National Public Radio, and PBS NewsHour, and has also written in the Washington Post, New York Times, International Herald Tribune, and New Republic. Sadjadpour has testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, given lectures at Harvard, Princeton, and Stanford Universities, and spoken before the Council on Foreign Relations and Asia Society in New York.
He has degrees from the University of Michigan and the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, was a visiting fellow at the American University of Beirut, and has been the recipient of numerous academic awards, including a Fulbright scholarship. He has lived in Latin America, Europe, and the Middle East and speaks Persian, Spanish, Italian, and conversant Arabic.
There are no links available for this program
Save this program for later
Watch or listen to it later on your computer or mobile device.
Select your connection speed to see approximate download times:
I have very mixed feelings about the issue of Iran and nuclear weapons. I agree with Sadjadpour about Iran being insecure and in a perfect world I think making efforts to lessen that insecurity would work to prevent nuclear warfare. However, it is not a perfect world and I think that the other two men made some good points about how we have held back with Iran and nothing has changed. I think they did generalize the Iranian people a little bit but I think it is a tough issue and hopefully they will come up with a safe way to handle the situation because that is what really matters. I found an interesting article on this issue recently: http://armscontrolcenter.org/policy/...FQ9ZbQodXBwyDQ
Elliot Abrams must be crazy to doubt that public reaction will be negative if the US will bomb Iran. If there would be casualties, which are almost impossible to avoid, those Iranians who are fans of American culture will reconsider their position as result of their relatives dying under American bombs. Moreover, if military intervention will be once again unauthorized by UNSC it will trigger the reaction from international community. China and Russia once again will blame the US for its unilateralism and will not hesitate to reserve to similar actions when the times is right.
@bashful320 I too would like to thank you for posting the link...There many other very interesting articles as well. I am at a crossroads when it comes to my opinion on Iran in the aftermath of the elections...One side of me wants Obama to try his approach as planned but the that would be a slap in the face to all those who consider Ahmadinejad "illegitimate". The otherside of me wants Obama to ignore Ahmadinejad for a while and work with Russia, China and especially Europe to clamp down on this regime through sanctions like never before. The violent reaction to the protesters in Iran really upset me. I guess bc I had been talking to some Iranian online and now they are no longer around...The conflict with Iran now feels personal if that means anything.
@Vasil I agree with you 100%! We must move away from the NeoCon idea that America should move around the world as we wish when we wish! The past 8 yrs proves this causes more problems than it solves, if it even solved any? The US had the world behind us after 9/11 and Cheney/Bush destroyed that with their arrogance and carelessness! I feel President Obama will take a much more measured, pragmatic approach that we have simply never tried since 1979...It can't hurt!
@bashful320 I too would like to thank you for posting the link...There many other very interesting articles as well. I am at a crossroads when it comes to my opinion on Iran in the aftermath of the elections...One side of me wants Obama to try his approach as planned but the that would be a slap in the face to all those who consider Ahmadinejad "illegitimate". The otherside of me wants Obama to ignore Ahmadinejad for a while and work with Russia, China and especially Europe to clamp down on this regime through sanctions like never before. The violent reaction to the protesters in Iran really upset me. I guess bc I had been talking to some Iranian online and now they are no longer around...The conflict with Iran now feels personal if that means anything.
I've heard some people say that the US and other international countries have determined that even knowledge of how to build neuclear weapons is illegal. In this debate, people are arguing for a pre-emptive strike against Iran to prevent them from transitioning their development from low grade material production to weapons grade material production, which itself wouldn't be sufficient for producing a neaclear weapon.
Some of the debaters suggest that either the US or Israel bomb neuclear facilities. However, I think that bombing either neuclear processing facilities, or power plants would be counter productive. The current regime in Iran is allowing inspectors to observe their activities and supposedly are keeping their program above ground. What is illegal about that? Iranian leadership is probably praying for a foreign power to attack them. Wiping out power plants would only serve to delay their neuclear program, and turn Iranian and middle-eastern public opinion further against the US. Likewise, bombing processing facilities might create a public health crisis that would most certainly generate ill will against the US. Either way, a state of perpetual low intensity warfare would ensue which would only serve to polarize the muslim world against 'the west'. The only solution then would be all out warfare.
Finally, I found it incredibly ignorant of the anti-Iran debating team to refer to the Iranian rulership as having "messianic" intentions. Even in the best (worst?) case this doesn't even come close to describing what the Iranian rulership envisions. The term "messianic" is a purely Christian reference. They could have used the term "anti-Christ" to more accurately characterize their opinion of Iran's leadership. By their choice of terminology they seem to be implicitly suggesting that there is no room at all for religion in the public sphere.
I don't know what would be worse: that the forces of secular materialism currently at work in the US, or those of a muslim theocratic government, get their way. However, I don't really think that my opinion on the matter holds any bearing on the question. Iranians should be able to determine their own future so long as they refrain from beligerent activities. So far I'm not convinced that Iran's intent is to use neuclear weapons, and I can certainly understand their wish to develop them as a deterent, especially given the threat they must perceive (which is evident in this debate).
Talk of pre-emptive war certainly seems ridiculous.
USA, ISRAEL, UK, SAUDI ARABIA, EU, RUSSIA, CHINA, EGYPT, INDIA; NORWAY
- all New World Order fascist terrorists states and oil thieves.
"Disinformation is most effective in a very narrow context."
~ Franks Snepp for Christian Science Monitor, February 26, 1985
Snepp is a journalist and former chief analyst of North Vietnamese strategy for the CIA in Saigon during the Vietnam War. Five out of eight years in the CIA, he worked as interrogator, agent debriefer, and chief CIA strategy analyst in the Saigon embassy. He never changed to better man. He believed in Terrorism executed by the CIA as a form of Covert Operations.
Elliot Abrams in a PNAC neocon - 100% Nazi-Fascist terrorists
- well known criminal behind plans for IRAQ war and Pax Americana.
Never forget IRAN-Contra scandal too!!! And IRAN NEVER SAID it want
to wipe Israel from map - this is 100% disinformation by Western media.
USA has been world leading terorist states since AMERICANS - illeagl aliens stole MEXICO 1846 with lies. And Taleban is not terrorist group! http://news.antiwar.com/2009/09/04/i...ations http://original.antiwar.com/porter/2...docs-to-israel
USA, ISRAEL, UK, SAUDI ARABIA, EU, RUSSIA, CHINA, EGYPT, INDIA; NORWAY
- all New World Order fascist terrorists states and oil thieves
WHAT THE FUCK NORWAY NORWAY WHAT HAS NORWAY EVER DONE BESIDES MAKE NICE CROSS COUNTRY SKIIES!?
"Finally, I found it incredibly ignorant of the anti-Iran debating team to refer to the Iranian rulership as having "messianic" intentions. Even in the best (worst?) case this doesn't even come close to describing what the Iranian rulership envisions. The term "messianic" is a purely Christian reference. They could have used the term "anti-Christ" to more accurately characterize their opinion of Iran's leadership. By their choice of terminology they seem to be implicitly suggesting that there is no room at all for religion in the public sphere."
Shi'as believe that Imam al-Mahdi will reappear when the world has fallen into chaos and civil war emerges between the human race for no reason. At this time, it is believed, half of the true believers will ride from Yemen carrying white flags to Mecca, while the other half will ride from Karbala, in Iraq, carrying black flags to Mecca. At this time, Imam al-Mahdi will come wielding God's Sword, the Blade of Evil's Bane, Zulfiqar (Arabic: ذو الفقار, ðū l-fiqār), the Double-Bladed Sword.
Shi'as believe that Jesus will also come with the Imam Mahdi to destroy tyranny and falsehood, and to bring justice and peace to the world
If we don't want Iran to build nuclear weapons than we will need to first apologize to the Iranian people for eradicating democracy in their country in 1953. We will need to apologize to all of Iran for the Shah and his SAVAK we taught Nazi torture techniques to, according to Chief CIA Analyst Jesse Leaf. And we need to apologize for selling Sadam weapons, heavy artillery, training, technology and chemicals.
Then we immediately need to talk about the prevention of an arms race in outer space (PAROS) with the rest of the 160 countries of the UN.
With our aggressive military templates, such as USSPACECOM's "Vision for 2020" (the one that replaced it isn't any better) and our agendas for full-spectrum dominance and space superiority we legitimize Iran's efforts.
"However, it is hard to imagine other nations sitting idly by while the United States develops the tools to attack them "in, from and through space" as postulated by the U.S. Air Force. The United States already has near complete dominance in space capacity. The United States controls 95 percent of all military satellites and dominates two-thirds of the commercial space industry. The U.S. budget for military-related space activity was $18 billion in 2003 and is expected to rise to $25 billion by 2010. American space-technology industries combined in 2000 to generate $125 billion in profits, and total American investment in space technology is expected to be $600 billion by 2010. There is no rush to dramatically alter U.S. space policy because the status quo overwhelmingly favors the United States. And yet this is precisely what the Bush team is doing."
