- Description
A conversation about Russia and Iran with Jim Hoagland of "The Washington Post" and Peter Baker of "The New York Times"
President Obama sent a secret letter to Russia’s president last month suggesting that he would back off deploying a new missile defense system in Eastern Europe if Moscow would help stop Iran from developing long-range weapons
- Keywords:
- Dmitri A. Medvedev
- Russia
- nuclear
- Iran
In order to download Charlie Rose podcasts to iTunes for transfer to an iPod, you must have iTunes installed. If you do, please click the following link to download the podcast for this interview:
itpc://www.charlierose.com/view/itunes/10124
Otherwise, close this window to continue viewing.
Close
Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1
Mirror 03/04/2009 11:52 PM Report
Everyone except President Obama seems to have assumed that the 'anti missile defense shield' is technically viable. This is simply not true. The technology now in place has failed all tests completely and comprehensively. Then, why would the US insist on building it or, at least as of recently, leave it open? One easy answer: several American corporations would make a killing. Another possibility: it is a bargaining tool to bring the Russians do the US bidding with Iran. Maybe both. Whatever the cynical truth is, one thing is clear - a military structure on Russia's border is just as agreeable to the Russians as a Russian equivalent would be in Tijuana to the Americans. Anyone interested in this issue has to know that the 'defense shield' is a failure as far as its explicit purpose is outlined. It is public information. Kremlin has to ask itself a question if the real task of the structure is offensive or could potentially turn out that way. Any country faced with that kind of a threat has to think it and has to object. Yet the issue is not simply academic or just 'realpolitik'. It is unimaginable that Russia, or any country for that matter, would agree to cooperate on any security issue if it were faced with a construction of a military structure on its border, especially if its explicit purpose is demonstratively unfulfilled and implicit potential is unknown. The results will be, in my view, dire. Like the Iraq war, the adventure's consequences will be directly opposite to the original intent. Americans and Russians need each other to cooperate on intelligence, demilitarization (especially of the Middle East), and, most importantly, on tracking down unaccounted nuclear weapons and technology. I understand that it is hard to let go of the old fantasies of the Cold War, but, gentlemen, try! It is very important.
hrc 03/04/2009 10:22 PM Report
This show is turning into an Iran bashing soapbox.
REMant 03/04/2009 04:39 PM Report
Turkey and other Near East countries, which have one foot in the West, I suspect will not carry much weight with the Shiites. The ex-Soviets in the Kremlin these days borrowed a page from the Arab book long ago and decided that they are going to use oil as a weapon and to stay in power. They are certainly not going to let it go below value. The only issue there is whether it is better or worse than if they didn't. I was disheartened yesterday to see Obama cozying up yesterday to the British, on the one hand, and the Secy of State, to the Israelis, on the other. I don't think this is very good diplomacy. We don't need these countries anymore than we need AIG. And there was Bernanke shedding croodile tears over that yesterday. Bailing out AIG is simply an extension of his policy of insuring the whole world. He may think he is thereby refinancing debts, or priming the pump, but his policy is either an attempt to spread the loss, or a refusal to recognize it, neither of which ppl are going to stand for, will speed recovery, or history approve. The credit mkts are freer nowadays and interest rates have dropped I suspect only because the demand for money has also dropped.