A conversation about the U.S. response to the crisis in Iran

with David Ignatius, David Brooks, David Sanger and Robert Kagan
in Current Affairs
on Friday, June 19, 2009 * * * * *

Sorry, this video isn’t available at the moment; please check back soon.

play

E-mail this video:

Distribute this video:

Share on:

Close
Description

A conversation about the U.S. response to the crisis in Iran with David Brooks, David Ignatius, Robert Kagan and David Sanger

Video Share Options
Share
Buy Amazon DVD
Keywords:
nuclear
Middle East
Mir-Hossein Mousavi
Ahmadinjehad
elections
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/10404

Otherwise, close this window to continue viewing.

Close
  • Comments 7
    Post new comment
    1. reneBenthien  06/24/2009 12:38 AM Report

      Who is this Robert Kagan and why is he on TV when he obviously has no understanding of foreign policy or the internal politics of Iran.

      In Iran everyone is aware of past US interferences and disastrous policies. They are constantly subject to propaganda about how the 'rich Jews' who control the US are seeking to destroy Islam to get at their wealth. They don't forget Mossedeigh, the Shah, the war against Iraq or the axis of evil.

      During Bush's time all the moderates were sidelined because of his rhetoric. He enabled the hardliners to crackdown on dissent. It was Obama's peaceful overtures which undermined the power or popularity of the hard line stance within Iran. This revolution would never have happened if Bush or McCain were still in power.

      Please please don't play politics with this. This is far too important for Iran and for the world.

    2. wjwilson  06/23/2009 09:07 PM Report

      Canadian born David Brooks is not an impartial reporter. Brooks still is insisting the Iraq war was not a mistake and U.S. got to do as much as possible, not for sake of America, similar to Joseph Lieberman. Thomas Friedman has changed his position and he is trying to make up for it. Listen to Brooks at the end, he wants Obama to fail, and tries very hard to sting till very last second. Charlie Rose, please try to invite impartial reporters, which are trying to get to the truth by not bending it.

    3. Christopher  06/23/2009 01:15 AM Report

      Kagan did not get the reason why Obama is not "getting involved". It is because the perception is the US has always been "too" involved in the Middle East. Obama's response has been fine. David Ignatius has it right, the US can harm the situation on the ground by clumsy (translation Bushy) statements. I still do not see how the US can get involved (apart from the CIA maybe spiking Iranian computers with viruses ;-). The "support the protesters, play the moral high ground" is the best strategy, period. David Brooks who is normally very sharp, and Kagan; how is the US gonna stop a Tianamem in Iran?

      Those two exemplify the right wing noise that is blurring an essentially sound Obama response. Brooks in general, was very weak in this interview, contributed nothing, really. The French revolution was as important as the Iranian revolution. Really? Come on David Brooks, a bit sharper next time please, you normally are.

      Kagan's analogy of the "evil empire" comments were valuable with Soviet dissidents; I don't think it is a valid analogy. It is generally held by most Arabs, especially Muslims that the US and its client Israel (their words, not mine) essentially run the Middle East (ie Palestine, Saudi government support, etc.)

      Sorry Kagan and Brooks, I like you guys a lot (especially Kagan who is the only pundit that underlines the political failure that is China) but you are so out of it on this one, it borders the irrelevant. Thank you David Ignatius for “saving” this segment of Charlie Rose.

      If this revolt “works”, it would be better for the region if it is perceived that it came from “within” Iran, not by the US getting “involved”.

    4. pjhawker  06/22/2009 06:14 PM Report

      I'm with NoPardon on this one. It's a disgrace that either Kagan is given any airtime at all. How many things do you have to get completely wrong to lose your credibility as an "expert"?

    5. ShalomFreedman  06/22/2009 04:01 PM Report

      This was a fine discussion. But no one had a sure sense of where this is going, and how exactly the U.S. can contribute to a favorable outcome. They all seem to agree however that the initial Obama strategy of speaking with the regime in order to change its positions, does not make sense now. Nor by the way did they have a clue as to what to do on the nuclear issue.

    6. charlizecourriers  06/22/2009 03:51 PM Report

      This is a panel of men with no military experience. Thus they dodge the real issue-freedom requires men and women who are willing to die-for freedom. Talk is cheap, but then there is this agenda-the Obama rapture as a substitute.

    7. NoPardonforMichaelMilken  06/22/2009 02:47 PM Report

      Bobby Kagan and his brother, Freddy, have been wrong so many times in the Middle East that one has to wonder, apart from the money that Neocon Sugar Daddys Shelly Adelson and Irv Moskowitz are kicking to Charlie from their gambling houses, how Bobby can even muster the courage to show himself in public, much less on public television.

      Oh, Bobby, meant to ask you: Why didn't the atrocities of Tiananmen Square stop your former boss, Mister Cheney, and his attack dog, Addington, from using all of that Chinese money to fund the Neocon Hell that is Iraq? You had no problem taking Chinese billions to fund your AIPAC-AEI-Heritage-WINEP-Council on Foreign Relations foolishness in Iraq, Bobby, so why are you busting the Chinese now?