Charlie Rose

Briorick  01/28/2012 04:24 PM Report

By the way, the contents of this internet interview has been manipulated to remove out some of its original aired content. I had watched the original airing and when I went back to show an excerpt of the interview questioning the China / American War, it had been edited out. WHY? Along with other questions that Mr. Donilon sidestepped around. Mr. Donilon's indirect comment regarding Charlie's question regarding the Chinese / American War was pretty loud and clear. Not as to when, but it will happen! I am sad to see this was removed form the interview. What is being covered up?

OBSERVER  01/28/2012 01:02 AM Report

Very Dear Mr. Tom Donilon,Charlie Rose

You keep mentioning Iranians Iranians Iran and express

Pride in hurting them via Sanctions after sanctions after

sanctions!!! IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT IRANIANS ADORE THE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AT LEAST UNTIL NOW!!

VERY DEAR MR. TOM DONILON,

YOU NEED TO REGISTER IN A COURSE AT J.H. UNIVERSITY?

OFFERED BY Dr. Brzezinski.

ALL THE VERY BEST, GOOD LUCK!

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/12103

Ellen_Dibble  01/27/2012 01:52 PM Report

I checked the clip "Israel's position on Iran" (thanks for the excerpt) because all I heard on the subject was that Ehud Barak had publicly said the red line was farther out than one might think. And I thought, sure, only an idiot would say otherwise. And Donilon was not going on the record with anything except that he had heard that, and that we are in touch with Israel on many security matters.

I'm thinking he won't come back unless he's sure he can keep Israel off the table.

But this clip did have the Iran issue squarely in focus. If Iran wants to negotiate for less pressure, they can call Lady Ashton, EU foreign minister, I take it, of the P5+1, and say that the nuclear issues are on the table -- Lady Ashton who from the Internet is more pro-Palestinian than many.

It does perplex me -- especially after hearing Brzezinski the night before saying we can live with a nuclear Iran but we cannot risk a military confrontation -- as to why the nuclear efforts of Iran are America's red line (I'd call it their desire to be a troublemaker -- why?).

From what Donilon said, the problem with Iran is that they are fomenting instability all over the region. I think he excepted Lebanon (maybe not; this show was very dense with information), but he listed out plenty of countries that have been, shall we say, alienated by Iran's behavior, and apparently within the last few years. He gave a poll, Zagby, I think, which showed Iran's approval (in a very "gross" survey, I think he said) at 70 percent in the region in 2007, and then in 2010, I think he said, the same poll showed Iran's approval in the region at 10 percent or single digits. What has Iran done to provoke that shift? He pointed to interference by Iran in Bahrain, I think in Saudi Arabia, I think Turkey.

So Iran is losing their credibility among Muslim nations. And besides that, their oil is no longer their ace to be played (could a better ace be a nuclear bomb?). Oh, the paradox, the irony; Iraqi and Libyan oil provision having been suppressed leads just where Donilon said, that China's oil might be available outside of Iran. And when the Chinese official had told Charlie at dinner one night that their stance on Iran reflected China's need for Iranian oil, well, Donilon points to various concerned nations (like Saudi Arabia with sizable excess capacity) that can make sure China has enough oil. Donilon said China more and more has a shared interest with us in keeping that area stable.

The problem of Israel and the various Arabs maintaining that every last Jew has to be out of the region -- however they phrase it -- that is a separate issue. It would not be, if Israel pushed us into war with Iran by -- by smoke and mirrors. (How could diplomacy compensate for THAT!)

But if Iran is fomenting unrest, maybe only a collapsing Syrian regime still supports that. If Iran is trying to take advantage of the vulnerabilities of nations in transition -- I guess Arabs notice. I think I heard even Iraq is getting sick of Iranian interference. "Even" Iraq.

I don't see why any country's nuclear weapon would be a big deal if they weren't fomenting instability. Even the USA has nuclear weapons, after all.

Why then is the Iranian regime fomenting instability, tending toward suppression and corruption, a military that can be, apparently, bribed or tortured into unpopular acts? What would the original ayatollah Khomeini have thought of all this. I fear those Persian people will be too poor and too beset (by international sanctions) to do anything but the usual ultranationalist and self-sacrificing pose of cornered peoples. Who is this Lady Ashton...