Charlie Rose

DavLev  02/09/2010 11:23 PM Report

Back and forth typical conversation, the bottom line

would indicate neither the US, nor it's allies or Israel, will attack Iran's nuclear facilities, especially, when Iran's arsenal includes several bombs and Shihab Missiles. Joined by Syria, Hamas/Hez and Islamic Jihad (now surrounding Israel's borders, thousands of rockets would be fired in retaliation, or pre-emptive activity. Therefore will the world allow Iran to have a nuclear capability similar to No. Korea to use as leverage or to use?

Both Israel, the US Republican leadership and some European countries have said ynet. What therefore can be done and not made part of this discussion? In my opinion, Israel, with US approval, will take out the 9 major or 30 nuke sites..in a way they can never be reconstructed. Possibly coupled with pressure from the 6 countries.. aiding the protestors ( substantial ), the Ahmad regime can be overthrown, replaced by people who are not lunatics. The protestors will take over the government. They have experienced law makers, religious figures and sympathizers already in govt. What is needed, is the dismantling of the Revolutionary Guards, the key to their success.

REMant  01/25/2010 10:31 AM Report

I think the Iranian faction here have it more correct: tho the facilities can be knocked out, the question is what happens after that. Do the protesters just take over? I doubt it. And even if they do, will they just become US puppets? And I am not sure what containment means in this context except to threaten retaliation, which is obvious, and would be even if we were not sitting in Iraq and Afghanistan, and some other -Stans, while I think sanctions are counterproductive, strengthening the hand of the fundamentalists and increasing their paranoia. I would not assume that time is on the present regime's side, because even if they get nuclear weapons, what good would it really do them? And they have their own domestic problems. On the whole tho I think the gamesters might have been better employed simulating an attack on Fantasy Island.

ShalomFreedman  01/24/2010 10:39 PM Report

I would like to correct my earlier comment. It was too weak in regard to Nicholas Burns' comments essentially defending the current Administration's actions. According to one of the most well- known and insightful commentators on the Middle East, Barry Rubin, the Obama policy has been a total failure. Rubin says the Administration has set deadlines for Iranian response and when they were not met, done nothing. He claims the U.S. government failed to take advantage of the regime's international unpopularity instead assuring the regime it would do nothing. He claims the whole business of persuading the Chinese and Russians is a farce with the Administration knowing in advance that the Chinese and Russian will not support strong sanctions. He points to the change in Administration sanctions talk which now focuses on the 'Iranian Revolutionary Guards' and thus would leave the Iranian economy untouched, in effect doing nothing. He suggests the Administration has already conceded the Iranian nuclear option and is thinking only of a policy of containment. In other words the part played in this simulation by Nicholas Burns did not really reflect the Administration's inner understanding that it is conceding an Iranian nuclear option. Instead of manipulating and deceiving its enemies then the Administration is only deceiving and manipulating its friends. And this in accordance with what seems to be an overall policy of signaling to enemies that they may pursue their path without interference, while pressuring and inhibiting friends.

ShalomFreedman  01/24/2010 04:03 PM Report

This was a truly interesting and informative discussion. I think the bottom- line belongs to Graham Allison who indicated that allowing things to go on as they have been going on is in Iran's favor. Allison indicates that the proposed sanctions will not be different from the three other rounds of sanctions in making no dent on the Iranian's determination to attain a nuclear capability. The bottom line then is something no one here said, that the only real way to stop Iran is by military action.

Nick Burns was optimistic in his faith that the Obama Administration was acting wisely and was gaining capitol for real sanctions. Gary Sick indicated how the regime is more worried about its own internal opposition than in any sanctions. He did not however indicate how he estimates the chances for an overthrow of the current Iranian regime. I believe Ehud Eiran represented the Israeli position accurately.

What came out of this is 'uncertainty', no real sense of what will work to stop Iran.