Charlie Rose

DavLev  02/11/2010 09:01 PM Report

Just a few days after this interview, there have been revelations about the correspondents future with his employer. Looks like he, like so many others, has been typecast, no matter his views are not always complimentary

towards Israel. But more importantly, just observing todays antics by the Rev Guards, and other police in Tehran and throughout Iran, most especially their brutal treatment of

thousands of so-called protestors to the criminal regime, really says it all about Iran's direction. It's obvious that statements like, if Israel attacks Iran, Iran will destroy the country once and for all, (not mentioning that

Israel would pre-empt a nuclear attack with the enriched uranium Ahmad boasts the reason), is what this debate is all about. Unfortunately all three interviewees made myths reality..including an attack would unite all the Iranian population. This is not an absolute as history proves.

In fact, I believe taking out those 30 nuke sights would

consolidate more support for the protestors..and allow the final demise of, not Israel, but the current dicatorship.

brea  02/08/2010 04:57 PM Report

am so sick to death(no pun intended) w/ america's israel agenda. we are being led by the nose. mainstreammedia continues to stoke the fires of fear. the sooner iran has nuclear weapons the soon israel will back off the middle east. israel has perhaps OVER 200 NUCLEAR WEAPONS! nothing will satisfy israel until the middle east is decimated. has there ever been an inspection of israels nuclear capabilities? NO!! israel won't allow it! america needs to stop subsidizing the israeli agenda. there's a side of me that hopes israel attacks iran, that will result in the end of israel for eternity. perhaps then we'll just rename america israel as it actually is!

wake up people!

OBSERVER  02/05/2010 09:03 PM Report

Thanks Charlie for your superb presentations, as always.

I would like to add/emphasize that the BEST POLICY/SANCTIONS

SHOULD BE DIRECTED AT THE REGIME, NOT PEOPLE WHO ARE AGAINST THE REGIME. Unfortunately, there is none!! The elites! have green cards, they invest worldwide!,they travel freely abroad, their children are residents of foreign countries; the ruling party and regime has it all at the expense of ordinary people. CURTAIL THEM!

REMant  02/05/2010 05:43 PM Report

Netanyahu's is probably the only game in town, but his position is a lot like Musharraf's. I don't tho see us trying to undermine him, mostly because we have our own Jewish problem. The situation with respect to Iran is not so different, even regarding the last, if you consider we may have a desire not to provoke further extremism. I agree that the 2-state solution is in real trouble, not least because Iran provides another external enemy to focus on and strengthen the Zionists. I am not sure, however, that it is in our interest to support Israel if it starts a war with Iran, especially if it means an escalation against American soldiers directly. And, as was said as well, war will aid the Shiite fundamentalists. War is less for winning anything in a traditional society, unlike a liberal one, than it is for internal, political and defensive purposes. Liberal Americans may not like that, but there is a lot to be said for balance of power. Overall, IMHO, the Iranian situation should just be contained, and otherwise left alone.

BENEZRAA  02/05/2010 05:19 PM Report

IN SUPPORT OF GOLBERG'S CLOSING COMMENT in which he takes the positive attitude that President Obama means what he says in terms of a strong approach towards Iran, let us hope that President Obama is indeed resolved, that Iran's present Regime may not be permitted by the Free World to develop a military nuclear capability, and that the USA is long overdue to support the Iranian People on the ground to overthrow their present tyranny.

It is clear from the conversation that all parties are aware that Israel's time table for tolerance toward's Iran is far less than that of the world. Therefore, the world and the USA in particular must act in real time to do what must be done in advance of Israel's doing what it must do for it's own survival. What Israel is capable of doing for the necessary sake of it's own survival is far less than what the USA can do to march hand in hand on the ground with the people of Iran to overthrow the present tyranny. Israel would be limited to a few pointed air attacks on nuclear facilities. The USA is capable of taking out Iran's army, navy, and airforce and then landing troops, leaving Iran's tyrants little but it's Palace Guard. Of course the USA would have to protect it's own flanks from attack by Russia, North Korea, and China. One way or another a role has to be found for Europe and Britain as well. The alternative in failing to act sooner rather than later is that by acting sooner, we may keep the scale of Middle East conflagration to a much smaller scale that were we to wait for Israel to act or, God Forbid, for Iran to have nuclear weapons.

rajpatel  02/05/2010 01:29 PM Report

I am astonished with discussion of Israel actions and Iran’s nuclear bomb. Suppose Israel attacks Iran and Iran retaliates. America takes side and region blows up moderately throwing whole Middle East in turmoil. There will be impact on world economy and it will not be a picnic. There is not much support for Israel among ordinary people in most of the world except for USA and India. If Jews are to be cause to precipitate world crisis that will be detrimental to welfare of billions including in the west, what will be situation of Jews worldwide? Will people will stand up and applaud? And what will be day after tomorrow? Will Muslims go away?

With half the world’s Jewish population out of Israel, there is hardly a case to be made for necessity of exclusive Jewish Homeland and their biblical claim of confiscating land just on the whim that do not belong to them. It is almost like our taking land from Indians.

Why Iran should not have nuclear bomb? Should not Iranian children worry about Israel bomb since Israel has been blatantly aggressive in occupying Palestinian land and are capable of irrational action? What is wrong in mutual fear? May be that will make Israel to walk extra mile to bring settlement of Middle East Issue. If history to be viewed fairly Iran has a reason to be concerned about USA intentions. Even if Iran is to get pro western democracy, I doubt Iranian will bow down to Israeli and USA hegemony and let go their right to nuclear science or subject it to veto by USA or Israel. That is a miscalculation. I doubt very much that pro western Iran will agree with settlement activities and abuse. Then what will be our excuse?

Even on Charlie Rose, even kneeled discussion of issue is impossible. That shows clearly our rose color glasses.

RAJ@CHICAGOMAN.COM

DavLev  02/05/2010 01:06 PM Report

I knew beforehand that many of the comments about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, would be skewed against Israel's interests, and I was right. The discussion about Iran was more legitimate, without the bias.

First of all, we have to ask ourselves the big why, why is Israel concerned about Iran? It is well known by those of us who watch Mr. Rose's interviews, that he thinks of himself as a Secretary of State. His views are obviously (and he doesn't hide them) anti-Israel. Typically, he bemoans the Holocaust ( good PR ).

Why he didn't ask the simple question about Israel's fears, is beyond me? He has, in the past, make statements like, the Israelis are scared to death of Iran (almost paranoid).

To answer him, Iran has threatened since the downfall of the Shah, to eradicate little Israel. Since Ahmad came to power, more often than not. We all know Ahmad's views of the Holocaust and Israel. He has boasted that the racist state will not survive, wiped off the map.

That is why Israel is concerned Mr. Rose. The Palestinian issue is secondary. They, whether Hamas, Fatah, Islamic Jihad, or 10 other militant groups, cannot defeat Israel. Yes, they can capture soldiers and kill civilians, but are not a threat to Israel's being. Iran is.

A nuclear Iran, as was sold boldly by John McCain, and other Republicans, cannot be allowed. Israel has said the same.

Whether the regime falls in one month, or 40 years is not relevant. If Iran believes (as it does) having a nuclear capacity, will allow it to dominate the region and world politics, as well as eventually take out Israel, another regime will pursue the same goal. In fact, the mullahs in the reform movement have expressed their hatred towards the Jewish state.

One of the interviewees noted that Iran would attack US interests. This is absurd, as pointed out by the other guest. Would Iran take on both the USA AND Israel simultaneously? They have already indicated their fight is NOT with the US per se, but Israel and the Zionists (unlike Al Qaeda which blames both for the world's ills). This is a smart tactic by Iran.

In my opinion, Obama and his foreign policy staff, including Rahm, Hillary and Mitchell, are finally getting it, talking, engaging and diplomacy with Iran and in fact only giving them more time to load their Shihabs with nuclear/BC warheads.

It is true that a war between Iran and Israel is a horrible prospect, AND, every means available short of war must be

attempted.

I don't think however, that the worst scenario is for both to duke it out. Worse is for Iran to pre-empt Israel by nuking Tel Aviv.

According to a report to Congress, 30m Iranians will be killed in the first 3 weeks of an all our war.

Is that what anyone desires?

There is a remedy, not proposed by Mr. Rose or his guests.

A quick, surgical strike to take out those 31 nuke sites..

Any attack by Hamas/Hezbollah, will be insignificant, and be paled by an Iranian aggressive move against the US/Israel.

But perhaps Mr. Rose should simply ask questions, and get

the opinions of his guests, NOT continally load the questions with his viewpoints. This is an old failing of

the broadcast especially with respect to the M.E. and Persian Gulf, Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts.

ShalomFreedman  02/05/2010 02:49 AM Report

This discussion had two parts. The first much briefer part had to do with proposed Israeli- Palestinian negotiations. This was a phony discussion. The phony part and here both Ethan Bronner and Jeffrey Goldberg were at their pompous worst was in supposing that the

Fatah Palestinians and Abbas have any real interest in negotiating with Israel. They don't , and whenever they speak about their conditions for peace these always include features which would lead to Israel's demise.

But the phony discussion was incidental to the truly informative discussion on Iran. Here there was no foolish debating about the moderate character of the Iranian regime. Its extremism and anti- democratic character was recognized by all. The question of how to deal with it led to something of a division of opinion. Here it was interesting for me to hear Abbas Milani claim that an Israeli strike would prove counter- productive and lead to the strengthening of the regime. I don't think anyone can know that for certain but it does make a certain sense. Stephens view that Israel should strike sooner than later in one way makes sense, but in another doesn't. For Israel's interest is not in igniting a war between itself and all the Iranian surrogates including Syria. The dangers of a military strike to Israel both militarily and diplomatically are very great. I would even say the dangers to Israel of a U.S. strike are also great. I do believe that President Obama has failed in moral and political leadership in not openly encouraging and applauding the democratic movements in Iran. I do also believe it is a paramount American interest to not allow an Iranian nuclear weapon. I agree with Stephens that waiting for the regime to be overthrown may simply enable it to become a nuclear power unimpeded.

I do not know the right answer here but clearly the first interest of the democratic world is in preventing a nuclear Iran, and enabling a future democratic regime there.

This was on the whole a very informative discussion, graciously and skillfully moderated ( as usual) by Charlie Rose.