Brzezinski’s Lament - ‘Jewish Lobby Controls Obama’

[Whaler]

Brzezinski's Lament - 'Jewish Lobby Controls Obama'

By Brother Nathanael Kapner, Copyright 2010
http://www.realzionistnews.com/?p=483



SEEKING A GLOBAL SHOWDOWN  with Russia and China, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who is recognized and feared by Zionist Jews as Obama's foreign policy adviser, is intent on bringing Iran back into the Western orbit. In Brzezinski's world view, Iran could be a valuable US asset to be played against Russia and China.

Even with his protege at Defense, Robert Gates, and his reputation as a global strategist, Brzezinski has all but admitted that he simply does not possess the influence to override the power the Jewish lobby wields over Obama's decision-making in foreign affairs.

This has recently come to light in Brzezinski's latest article for the Council of Foreign Relations, "From Hope To Audacity."

Beginning his treatise with the premise that the US should not be at war with Islam, Brzezinski proceeds to take on the "Second Echelon" in Obama's administration which includes Zionist Jews Dennis Ross, Special Adviser on Iran, Rahm Emanuel, Chief of Staff, and Zionist shill Hilary Clinton at State. Ross, who enjoys close ties to Israel and a history of pushing hardline policies toward Iran, was recently promoted as a Senior Director of the National Security Council.

Opening himself in his article to further accusations of being an "Anti-Semite," (Alan Dershowitz initiated the lie), Brzezinski challenges the Zionist status quo and adds insult to injury to his already stated position that Obama should negotiate with Hamas:

"It is not fashionable to say this, but much of the current hostility toward the US in the Middle East has been generated by the bloodshed and suffering produced by the prolonged Israeli-Arab conflict. Israel's refusal to negotiate with the Palestinians in good faith compounds the problem." View Entire Story Here.

Moving on in his essay to the "stalemate" in Obama's policy regarding Iran's nuclear ambitions, Brzezinski goes toe to toe with the Jewish "insiders" at the White House:

"Obama's two special advisers, David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel, participate in significant decision-making. Both of them sat in on the president's critical September meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

As a result, Obama's redefinition of US foreign policy is vulnerable to dilution by these upper-level officials who tend to yield to pressures from domestic interest groups.

This fosters a reluctance to plan for a firm follow-through on bold presidential initiatives should they encounter a foreign rebuff reinforced by powerful domestic lobbies. Netanyahu's rejection of Obama's demand that Israel halt the construction of settlements is a case in point." View Entire Story Here.

In his concluding theme, "Domestic Impediments," Brzezinski exposes the Jewish Lobby and their total control of Obama's foreign policy decisions:

"Special interest lobbies have become overly influential in US politics. Thanks to their access to Congress, a variety of lobbies — some financially well endowed, some backed by foreign interests — have been promoting, to an unprecedented degree, legislative intervention in foreign-policy making.

Promoted by lobbies, Congress not only actively opposes foreign policy decisions but even imposes some on the president. The pending legislation on sanctions against Iran is but one example. Such congressional intervention makes it more difficult to ensure that US — not foreign — interests are the point of departure." View Entire Story Here.

Congress JOINS Jewish Lobby
In Anti-Iran Workshop

EVER SINCE CONGRESS CONDEMNED GOLDSTONE'S GAZA REPORT last winter, demanding by a 344-36 vote that Obama "refuse to endorse" Goldstone's findings of Israeli war crimes, Congress has joined with the Jewish Lobby in its efforts to crank up hysteria regarding Iran's nuclear energy program.

On January 17, 2009, The Israel Project and the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington (and more than twenty similar Jewish Lobby groups of which there is NO end), hosted an anti-Iran workshop billed as, Israel Advocacy Training Institute: Spotlight Iran.

The event, held at the Melvin J. Berman Hebrew Academy in DC, focused on the "Iran threat," emphasizing the "danger posed" by the country's "aggressive pursuit of nuclear arms." (Thus far, however, the world is only aware of Iran's nuclear energy ambitions, but NO EVIDENCE of Iran's "pursuit of nuclear arms" has emerged. So much for Jewish hysteria-hyping.)

Joining lead speaker Rabbi Jonah Layman, participants included not only the foreign government of Israel's embassy ambassador, Dan Arbell, Deputy Chief of the Embassy of Israel in Washington DC, but a group of "Congressional legislative assistants" as well.

These Congressional staffers, led by Sarah Farhadian, Legislative Assistant for Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, played a significant role in the workshop's Congressional and Legislative Advocacy Session.

Farhadian, who has been the recipient of "private" Jewish money on at least two occasions in 2009, is known for her "partnership" with Chabad House, an ultra-religious/pro-Israel Jewish group. View Invitation, Schedule, & Pics Here & Here.

BRZEZINSKI & GATES
CHALLENGE ZIONIST LINE ON IRAN

IN A RECENT ESSAY FOR CFR, entitled: "Iran: Time for a New Approach," Brzezinski and co-author Robert Gates argue against the tenor of the Jewish-induced hysteria toward Iran, now being vomited by the Zionist screech owl, Elie Wiesel.

Rejecting Wiesel's line that Iran is a threat to America's security, Brzezinski and Gates contend that US interests would be better served by "selective engagement" with Tehran. The following are excerpts from the essay and recent interviews with Brzezinski:

The use of military force against Iran would be extremely problematic given the dispersal of Iran's nuclear sites throughout the country and their proximity to urban centers. Since the US would be blamed for any Israeli strike, we should make it clear to Israel that American interests would be adversely affected by such a move.

Kremlin strategists would surely relish the thought of a US deeply bogged down in a war with Iran, which would trigger a dramatic spike in the price of oil, a commodity in plentiful supply in Russia.

Involving the Iranians in a military conflict would make our task in Afghanistan absolutely impossible. It would probably reignite the conflict in Iraq, would set the Persian Gulf ablaze, would increase the price of oil twofold, threefold, fourfold, and Americans will be paying five, six dollars a gallon at the gas stations. Europe will become even more dependent on Russia for energy. So what is the benefit to us?

It will be a disaster for America in the short run and a fundamental disaster for Israel in the long run. If we are forced out of the region due to some sort of dynamic hatred that develops—and have no illusions about it, the conflict spreads—we're going to be alone. The Russians are not going to be with us. They're not suckers. Europe is not going to be with us either.

If we are finally driven out, how much would you bet on the survival of Israel for more than five to ten years after all that has happened? Some criticize my straightforward stance calling me an 'anti-Semite.' Well, they're entitled to their demagogy. But it will all end up as a geopolitical disaster for both America and Israel.

Rather than pursuing the current policy of confrontation and threats, Washington should work with Tehran to capitalize on both Iran's potential economic influence due to its large endowment of energy resources and its unique position to advance the stability of its neighbors.

What is the alternative to negotiating? To go to war? – Is that a better solution? Those who are making these arguments, the neo-conservatives, are doing it for their foreign patrons. They are afraid that we might negotiate with Iran peacefully whereas they would prefer us to go to war. View Entire Story Here, Here, Here Here & Here.

BOTTOM LINE FOR BRZEZINSKI & ALL AMERICANS: Not only is the White House and Capitol Hill owned by the Jews but the nations' politicians have betrayed the will of their constituents by joining with and affirming the will of a tiny minority.

Who hijacked the democratic process in America? Zionist Jews—whose influence calculated in billions of dollars have penetrated the offices, suites, and checking accounts of their treasonous puppets in Washington DC...

[maz]

Ha'aretz and the Israeli media will report on a marginalized person like Farrakhan or David Duke saying that Jews control America as if it is something crazy to suggest.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1153097.html

U.S. President Barack Obama is targeted because of standing up to the Jews who control American politics as well as its economy, the Chicago Sun Times quoted the leader of Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan as saying on Monday.

Farrakhan, speaking to a crowd of 20,000 followers at Chicago's United Center on Sunday, said that Obama's political problems began when he, according to the Chicago Sun Times report, stood up to the Jewish lobby during a White House meeting.

When they left the White House, his problems began," Farrakhan said, adding that "the Zionists are in control of the Congress."

Minister Farrakhan also referred to the U.S. president's chief economical advisors, Timothy Geithner, Henry Paulson and Larry Summers, asking "Who does he have around him? The people from Goldman Sachs."

The leader of the Nation of Islam added that "bloodsuckers of the poor" were rewarded with a bailout.

Abraham Foxman, director of the Anti-Defamation League, said in response to Farrakhan's speech that "anybody who thought the old Farrakhan was gone: He never was."

"It's the same Farrakhan: ugly and anti-Semitic. With age, he doesn't get milder, he gets uglier."

Further on in his address, Farrakhan also reiterated his claims that the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 was "an inside thing."

Last year, the Anti-Defamation League lashed out at Farrakhan for remarks he made in which he accused "the Israeli lobby" of controlling the government.

"When the people of Gaza were being slaughtered, the pro-Israeli lobby sent messages to the House and the Senate of words that they wanted them to use, gave them the language, and now you have bipartisan support," Farrakhan told supporters in Rosemont, Illinois in a speech.

"You cannot deny the pro-Israeli lobby and get re-elected," Farrakhan said. "Ask Cynthia McKinney. Ask David Hilliard. Ask our mayor in Oakland, California. Ask [former Illinois Senator Charles] Percy. Ask Jimmy Carter. You can't criticize, you can't say nothing because if you do, you're branded as an anti-Semite."

"Why, U.S. Congress, will you not speak? It is because you fear a lobby that has money and influence that will turn you out of your seat? So you're terrorized. That's why you don't act for the American people that sent you to Congress. You are not their representative. You are the representative of the money and interests that have bought your soul."

At one point during his address, Farrakhan implied that the validity of Holocaust records should be open to debate.

"[You] can't even engage in constructive argument over the veracity of the figures of the Holocaust. We know something happened, sure, but you can't talk about [it]. In certain cities in Europe they arrest you and put you in prison for denying such."

"There's not a vote that the pro-Israeli lobby wants that doesn't get bipartisan support," Farrakhan said. "Why? Because the Israeli lobby controls the government of the United States of America."

The remarks were again met with strong condemnation by Abe Foxman.

"Louis Farrakhan is at it again," said Foxman. "After his near-silence on Jews over the last several years, we thought Minister Farrakhan had put his long history of anti-Semitism and racism behind him, or at least had held his views in check. Apparently, that was wishful thinking. Once again he is clearly comfortable with putting his bigotry on display, unfettered and unhidden for his supporters and the world to see."

[MikeWB]

Brzezinski seems to be on anti-zionist side!

Actual article:

From Hope to Audacity

Foreign Affairs

A publication of:
Council on Foreign Relations

Volume: 89, Issue: 1 (January/February 2010)

Zbigniew Brzezinski
Abstract

Barack Obama's foreign policy has generated more expectations than strategic breakthroughs. Three urgent issues -- the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Iran's nuclear ambitions, and the Afghan-Pakistani challenge -- will test his ability to significantly change U.S. policy.

Full Text

The foreign policy of U.S. President Barack Obama can be assessed most usefully in two parts: first, his goals and decision-making system and, second, his policies and their implementation. Although one can speak with some confidence about the former, the latter is still an unfolding process.

To his credit, Obama has undertaken a truly ambitious effort to redefine the United States' view of the world and to reconnect the United States with the emerging historical context of the twenty-first century. He has done this remarkably well. In less than a year, he has comprehensively reconceptualized U.S. foreign policy with respect to several centrally important geopolitical issues:
• Islam is not an enemy, and the "global war on terror" does not define the United States' current role in the world;
• the United States will be a fair-minded and assertive mediator when it comes to attaining lasting peace between Israel and Palestine;
• the United States ought to pursue serious negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program, as well as other issues;
• the counterinsurgency campaign in the Taliban-controlled parts of Afghanistan should be part of a larger political undertaking, rather than a predominantly military one;
• the United States should respect Latin America's cultural and historical sensitivities and expand its contacts with Cuba;
• the United States ought to energize its commitment to significantly reducing its nuclear arsenal and embrace the eventual goal of a world free of nuclear weapons;
• in coping with global problems, China should be treated not only as an economic partner but also as a geopolitical one;
• improving U.S.-Russian relations is in the obvious interest of both sides, although this must be done in a manner that accepts, rather than seeks to undo, post-Cold War geopolitical realities; and
• a truly collegial transatlantic partnership should be given deeper meaning, particularly in order to heal the rifts caused by the destructive controversies of the past few years.

For all that, he did deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. Overall, Obama has demonstrated a genuine sense of strategic direction, a solid grasp of what today's world is all about, and an understanding of what the United States ought to be doing in it. Whether these convictions are a byproduct of his personal history, his studies, or his intuitive sense of history, they represent a strategically and historically coherent worldview. The new president, it should be added, has also been addressing the glaring social and environmental dilemmas that confront humanity and about which the United States has been indifferent for too long. But this appraisal focuses on his responses to the most urgent geopolitical challenges.

CHALLENGES TO WHITE HOUSE LEADERSHIP

Obama's overall perspective sets the tone for his foreign-policy-making team, which is firmly centered in the White House. The president relies on Vice President Joe Biden's broad experience in foreign affairs to explore ideas and engage in informal strategizing. National Security Adviser James Jones coordinates the translation of the president's strategic outlook into policy, while also having to manage the largest National Security Council in history -- its over-200-person staff is almost four times as large as the NSC staffs of Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, and George H. W. Bush and almost ten times as large as John F. Kennedy's. The influence of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates on national security strategy has been growing steadily. Gates' immediate task is to successfully conclude two wars, but his influence is also felt on matters pertaining to Iran and Russia. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who has the president's ear as well as his confidence, is likewise a key participant in foreign policy decisions and is the country's top diplomat. Her own engagement is focused more on the increasingly urgent global issues of the new century, rather than on the geopolitical ones of the recent past.

Finally, Obama's two trusted political advisers, David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel, who closely monitor the sensitive relationship between foreign and domestic politics, also participate in decision-making. (For example, both sat in on the president's critical September meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.) When appropriate, policy discussions also include two experienced negotiators, George Mitchell, who conducts the Middle East peace negotiations, and Richard Holbrooke, who coordinates the regional response to the challenges in Afghanistan and Pakistan. In effect, they are an extension of the president's NSC-centered process.

On this team, Obama himself is the main source of the strategic direction, but, unavoidably, he is able to play this role on only a part-time basis. This is a weakness, because the conceptual initiator of a great power's foreign policy needs to be actively involved in supervising the design of the consequent strategic decisions, in overlooking their implementation, and in making timely adjustments. Yet Obama has had no choice but to spend much of his first year in office on domestic political affairs.

As a result, his grand redefinition of U.S. foreign policy is vulnerable to dilution or delay by upper-level officials who have the bureaucratic predisposition to favor caution over action and the familiar over the innovative. Some of them may even be unsympathetic to the president's priorities regarding the Middle East and Iran. It hardly needs to be added that officials who are not in sympathy with advocated policies rarely make good executors. Additionally, the president's domestic political advisers inevitably tend to be more sensitive to pressures from domestic interest groups. This usually fosters a reluctance to plan for a firm follow-through on bold presidential initiatives should they suddenly encounter a foreign rebuff reinforced by powerful domestic lobbies. Netanyahu's rejection of Obama's public demand that Israel halt the construction of settlements on the West Bank and in East Jerusalem is a case in point.

It is still too early to make a firm assessment of the president's determination to pursue his priorities, as most of the large issues that Obama has personally addressed involve long-range problems that call for long-term management. But three urgent issues do pose, even in the short run, an immediate and difficult test of his ability and his resolve to significantly change U.S. policy: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Iran's nuclear ambitions, and the Afghan-Pakistani challenge. Each of these also happens to be a sensitive issue at home.

THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONUNDRUM

The first urgent challenge is, of course, the Middle East peace process. Obama stated early on that he would take the initiative on this issue and aim for a settlement in the relative near term. That position is justified historically and is in keeping with the United States' national interest. Paralysis over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has lasted far too long, and leaving it unresolved has pernicious consequences for the Palestinians, for the region, and for the United States, and it will eventually harm Israel. It is not fashionable to say this, but it is demonstrably true that -- deservedly or not -- much of the current hostility toward the United States in the Middle East and the Islamic world as a whole has been generated by the bloodshed and suffering produced by this prolonged conflict. Osama bin Laden's self-serving justifications for 9/11 are a reminder that the United States itself is also a victim of the Israeli-Palestinian conundrum.

By now, after more than 40 years of Israeli occupation of the West Bank and 30 years of peace negotiations, it is quite evident that left to themselves, neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians will resolve the conflict on their own. There are many reasons for this, but the bottom line is that the Palestinians are too divided and too weak to make the critical decisions necessary to push the peace process forward, and the Israelis are too divided and too strong to do the same. As a result, a firm external initiative defining the basic parameters of a final settlement is needed to jump-start serious negotiations between the two parties. And that can only come from the United States.

But the necessary outside stimulus has not yet been forthcoming in a fashion consistent with U.S. interests and potential. In raising the issue of the settlements in the spring of 2009 but then later backing off when rebuffed by the Israeli government, the administration strengthened the hard-line elements in Israel and undercut the more moderate elements on the Palestinian side. Then, an opportunity provided by the annual UN General Assembly meeting in September to identify the United States with the overwhelming global consensus about the basic parameters of a peace settlement was squandered. Instead of seizing it, Obama merely urged the Israelis and the Palestinians to negotiate in good faith.

Yet the existing global consensus could serve as a launching pad for serious negotiations on four basic points. First, Palestinian refugees should not be granted the right of return to what is now Israel, because Israel cannot be expected to commit suicide for the sake of peace. The refugees will have to be resettled within the Palestinian state, with compensation and maybe some expression of regret for their suffering. This will be very difficult for the Palestinian national movement to swallow, but there is no alternative.

Second, Jerusalem has to be shared, and shared genuinely. The Israeli capital, of course, would be in West Jerusalem, but East Jerusalem should be the capital of a Palestinian state, with the Old City shared under some international arrangement. If a genuine compromise on Jerusalem is not part of a settlement, resentment will persist throughout the West Bank and the Palestinians will reject the peace process. Although such a compromise will understandably be difficult for the Israelis to accept, without it there cannot be a peace of reconciliation.

Third, a settlement must be based on the 1967 lines, but with territorial swaps that would allow the large settlements to be incorporated into Israel without any further reduction of the territory of the Palestinian state. That means some territorial compensation for Palestine from parts of northern and southern Israel that border the West Bank. It is important to remember that although the Israeli and Palestinian populations are almost equal in number, under the 1967 lines the Palestinian territories account for only 22 percent of the old British mandate, whereas the Israeli territories account for 78 percent.

Fourth, the United States or NATO must make a commitment to station troops along the Jordan River. Such a move would reinforce Israel's security with strategic depth. It would reduce Israel's fears that an independent Palestine could some day serve as a springboard for a major Arab attack on Israel.

Had Obama embraced this internationally favored blueprint for peace when he addressed the UN in September, he would have exerted enormous influence on both the Israelis and the Palestinians and instantaneously gained global support. Failing to endorse this plan was a missed opportunity, especially since the two-state solution is beginning to lose some of its credibility as a viable formula for reconciliation between the Israelis and the Palestinians and within the region. Moreover, there are indications that the United States is already losing the goodwill and renewed confidence of the Arab world that Obama won with his speech in Cairo in June.

The next few months will be critical, and the time for decisive action is running out. Perhaps as a consolation to the Palestinians (and in spite of some opposition within the White House) or perhaps as a reaffirmation of his determination to continue pressing the parties to focus on the key issues, in his UN speech Obama called for final-status negotiations to begin soon and included on the agenda four items similar to these. He also made it explicitly clear that the talks' ultimate goal ought to be "a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967." It can be hoped that the president seized the moment offered by the Oslo ceremony at which the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded (which at the time of this writing had not yet occurred) to give more substance to his Middle East peace initiative. But so far, the Obama team has shown neither the tactical skill nor the strategic firmness needed to move the peace process forward.

THE IRANIAN CHALLENGE

Another urgent and potentially very dangerous challenge, with similarly huge stakes, is confronting Obama in Iran. It involves the true character of the Iranian nuclear program and Iran's role in the region. Obama has been determined to explore the path of serious negotiations with Iran despite domestic (and some foreign) agitation and even some opposition within the second echelon of his team. Without quite saying so, he has basically downgraded the U.S. military option, although it is still fashionable to say that "all options remain on the table." But the prospects for a successful negotiation are still quite uncertain.

Two fundamental questions complicate the situation. First, are the Iranians willing to negotiate -- or even capable of doing so -- seriously? The United States has to be realistic when discussing this aspect, since the clock cannot be turned back: the Iranians have the capability to enrich uranium, and they are not going to give it up. But it is still possible, perhaps through a more intrusive inspection regime, to fashion a reasonably credible arrangement that prevents weaponization. Nonetheless, even if the United States and its partners approach the negotiations with a constructive mindset, the Iranians themselves may scuttle any serious prospects for a positive outcome. Already, at the outset of the negotiating process, Iran's credibility was undermined by the convoluted manner in which Tehran complicated a promising compromise for a cooperative Iranian-Russian-French arrangement for processing its enriched uranium.

Second, is Washington willing to engage in negotiations with some degree of patience and with sensitivity to the mentality of the other side? It would not be conducive to serious negotiations if the United States were to persist in publicly labeling Iran as a terrorist state, as a state that is not to be trusted, as a state against which sanctions or even a military option should be prepared. Doing that would simply play into the hands of the most hard-line elements in Iran. It would facilitate their appeal to Iranian nationalism, and it would narrow the cleavage that has recently emerged in Iran between those who desire a more liberal regime and those who seek to perpetuate a fanatical dictatorship.

These points must be borne in mind if and when additional sanctions become necessary. Care should be taken to make certain that the sanctions are politically intelligent and that they isolate the regime rather than unify all Iranians. Sanctions must punish those in power -- not the Iranian middle class, as an embargo on gasoline would do. The unintended result of imposing indiscriminately crippling sanctions would likely be to give the Iranians the impression that the United States' real objective is to prevent their country from acquiring even a peaceful nuclear program -- and that, in turn, would fuel nationalism and outrage.

Moreover, even the adoption of politically discriminating sanctions is likely to be complicated by international constraints. China, given its dependence on Middle Eastern (and particularly Iranian) oil, fears the consequences of a sharpened crisis. The position of Russia is ambiguous since as a major energy supplier to Europe, it stands to benefit financially from a prolonged crisis in the Persian Gulf that would prevent the entrance of Iranian oil into the European market. Indeed, from the Russian geopolitical perspective, a steep rise in the price of oil as a result of a conflict in the Persian Gulf would be most economically damaging to the United States and China -- countries whose global preeminence Russia tends to resent and even fear -- and would make Europe even more dependent on Russian energy.

Throughout this complicated process, firm presidential leadership will be required. That is particularly so because of the presence of influential voices in the United States, both inside and outside the administration, in favor of a negotiating process that minimizes the possibility of a reasonable compromise. Prior to joining the administration, some senior second-level officials seemed to favor policies designed to force an early confrontation with Iran and even advocated joint military consultations with Israel regarding the use of force. The somewhat sensationalized manner in which the administration revealed in late September that it had been aware for months of the secret Iranian nuclear facility near Qom suggests internal disagreements over tactics.

Ultimately, a larger strategic question is at stake: Should the United States' long-term goal be the evolution of Iran into a stabilizing power in the Middle East? To state the issue even more sharply and simply: Should its policy be designed to encourage Iran to eventually become a partner of the United States again -- and even, as it was for three decades, of Israel? The wider the agenda -- one that addressed regional security issues, potential economic cooperation, and so on -- the greater the possibility of finding acceptable quid pro quos. Or should Iran be treated as if it is fated to remain a hostile and destabilizing power in an already vulnerable region?

As of this writing, an acceptable outcome to the negotiations is obviously still very much in doubt. Assuming they are not aborted, by early 2010 it may be possible to make a calmly calculated judgment as to whether the talks are worth continuing or whether there in fact is no room for reciprocal compromises. At that point, politically intelligent sanctions may become timely. So far, Obama has shown that he is aware of the need to combine strategic firmness with tactical flexibility; he is patiently exploring whether diplomacy can lead to an accommodation. He has avoided any explicit commitment to a precise deadline (unlike France's grandstanding in favor of a December date), and he has not engaged in explicit threats of military action.

Those advocating a tougher stance should remember that the United States would bear the brunt of the painful consequences in the event of an attack on Iran, whether the United States or Israel launched it. Iran would likely target U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, possibly destabilizing both countries; the Strait of Hormuz could become a blazing war zone; and Americans would again pay steep prices at the gas pump. Iran is an issue regarding which, above all, Obama must trust himself to lead and not to be led. So far, he has done so.

THE AFPAK QUAGMIRE

The third urgent and politically sensitive foreign policy issue is posed by the Afghan-Pakistani predicament. Obama has moved toward abandoning some of the more ambitious, even ideological, objectives that defined the United States' initial engagement in Afghanistan -- the creation of a modern democracy, for example. But the United States must be very careful lest its engagement in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which still has primarily and most visibly a military dimension, comes to be viewed by the Afghans and the Pakistanis as yet another case of Western colonialism and elicits from them an increasingly militant response.

Some top U.S. generals have recently stated that the United States is not winning militarily, an appraisal that ominously suggests the conflict with the Taliban could become similar to the Soviet Union's earlier confrontation with Afghan resistance. A comprehensive strategic reassessment has thus become urgently needed. The proposal made in September by France, Germany, and the United Kingdom for an international conference on the subject was helpful and timely; the United States was wise to welcome it. But to be effective, any new strategy has to emphasize two key elements. First, the Afghan government and NATO should seek to engage locally in a limited process of accommodation with receptive elements of the Taliban. The Taliban are not a global revolutionary or terrorist movement, and although they are a broad alliance with a rather medieval vision of what Afghanistan ought to be, they do not directly threaten the West. Moreover, they are still very much a minority phenomenon that ultimately can be defeated only by other Afghans (helped economically and militarily by the United States and its NATO allies), a fact that demands a strategy that is more political than military.

Additionally, the United States needs to develop a policy for gaining the support of Pakistan, not just in denying the Taliban a sanctuary in Pakistan but also in pressuring the Taliban in Afghanistan to accommodate. Given that many Pakistanis may prefer a Taliban-controlled Afghanistan to a secular Afghanistan that leans toward Pakistan's archrival, India, the United States needs to assuage Pakistan's security concerns in order to gain its full cooperation in the campaign against the irreconcilable elements of the Taliban. In this regard, the support of China could be helpful, particularly considering its geopolitical stake in regional stability and its traditionally close ties with Islamabad.

It is likely that before this appraisal hits the newsstands, Obama will have announced a more comprehensive strategy for attaining a politically acceptable outcome to the ongoing conflict -- and one that U.S. allies are also prepared to support. His approach so far has been deliberate. He has been careful to assess both the military and the political dimensions of the challenge and also to take into account the views of U.S. allies. Nothing would be worse for NATO than if one part of the alliance (western Europe) left the other part of the alliance (the United States) alone in Afghanistan. Such a fissure over NATO's first campaign initially based on Article 5, the collective defense provision, would probably spell the end of the alliance.

How Obama handles these three urgent and interrelated issues -- the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, the Iranian dilemma, and the Afghan-Pakistani conflict -- will determine the United States' global role for the foreseeable future. The consequences of a failed peace process in the Middle East, a military collision with Iran, and an intensifying military engagement in Afghanistan and Pakistan all happening simultaneously could commit the United States for many years to a lonely and self-destructive conflict in a huge and volatile area. Eventually, that could spell the end of the United States' current global preeminence.

KEY STRATEGIC RELATIONSHIPS

The president, in addition to coping with these immediate challenges, has indicated his intent to improve three key geopolitical relationships of the United States: with Russia, with China, and with Europe. Each involves longer-term dilemmas but does not require crisis management now. Each has its own peculiarities: Russia is a former imperial power with revisionist ambitions but declining social capital; China is a rising world power that is modernizing itself at an astonishing pace but deliberately downplaying its ambitions; Europe is a global economic power devoid of either military clout or political will. Obama has rightly indicated that the United States needs to collaborate more closely with each of them.

Hence, the administration decided to "reset" the United States' relationship with Russia. But that slogan is confusing, and it is not yet clear that Washington's wishful thinking about Moscow's shared interests on such matters as Iran is fully justified. Nonetheless, the United States must think strategically about its long-term relationship with Russia and pursue a two-track policy: it has to cooperate with Russia whenever doing so is mutually beneficial, but in a way that is also responsive to historical reality. The age of closed empires is over, and Russia, for the sake of its own future, will eventually have to accept this.

Seeking to expand cooperation with Russia does not mean condoning Russia's subordination of Georgia (through which the vital Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline passes, providing Europe with access to Central Asian energy) or its intimidation of Ukraine (an industrial and agricultural heartland of the former Soviet Union). Either move would be a giant step backward. Each would intensify Russia's imperial nostalgia and central Europe's security fears, not to mention increase the possibility of armed conflicts. Yet so far, the Obama administration has been quite reluctant to provide even purely defensive arms to Georgia (in contrast to Russia's provision of offensive weaponry to Venezuela), nor has it been sufficiently active in encouraging the EU to be more responsive to Ukraine's European aspirations. Fortunately, Vice President Biden's fall 2009 visit to Poland, Romania, and the Czech Republic did reaffirm the United States' long-term interest in political pluralism within the former Soviet space and in a cooperative relationship with a truly postimperial Russia. And it should always be borne in mind that the survival of the former makes the latter more likely.

A longer-term effort to engage China in a more forthcoming approach to global problems is also needed. China is, as it has proclaimed, "rising peacefully," and unlike Russia, it is patiently self-confident. But one can also argue that China is rising somewhat selfishly and needs to be drawn more broadly into constructive cooperation on global economic, financial, and environmental decisions. It also has growing political influence over geopolitical issues that affect core U.S. interests: North Korea, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and even the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Thus, Obama's decision to develop a top-level bilateral U.S.-Chinese relationship has been timely. Cultivating at the presidential-summit level a de facto geopolitical G-2 (not to be confused with proposals for an economic G-2), highlighted by Obama's November visit to China, is helping develop an increasingly significant strategic dialogue. The leaders of the United States and China recognize that both countries have a major stake in an effectively functioning world system. And they appear to appreciate the historic potential and the respective national interests inherent in such a bilateral relationship.

Paradoxically, despite Obama's expressed desire, there seem to be fewer prospects in the near future for a strategically significant enhancement of the United States' relationship with its closest political, economic, and military partner: Europe. Obama's predecessor left a bitter legacy there, which Obama has greatly redressed in terms of public opinion. But genuine strategic cooperation on a global scale is not possible with a partner that not only has no defined and authoritative political leadership but also lacks an internal consensus regarding its world role.

Hence, Obama's intent to reignite the Atlantic partnership is necessarily limited to dialogues with the three key European states with genuine international clout: the United Kingdom, Germany, and France. But the utility of such dialogues is reduced by the personal and political differences among these countries' leaders -- not to mention the British prime minister's grim political prospects, the French president's preoccupation with personal celebrity, and the German chancellor's eastward gaze. The emergence of a unified and therefore influential European worldview, with which Obama could effectively engage, seems unlikely anytime soon.

DOMESTIC IMPEDIMENTS

What then, on balance, can be said of Obama's foreign policy? So far, it has generated more expectations than strategic breakthroughs. Nonetheless, Obama has significantly altered U.S. policies regarding the three most urgent challenges facing the country. But as a democracy, the United States has to base its foreign policy decisions on domestic political consent. And unfortunately for Obama, gaining that support is becoming more difficult because of three systemic weaknesses that impede the pursuit of an intelligent and decisive foreign policy in an increasingly complex global setting.

The first is that foreign policy lobbies have become more influential in U.S. politics. Thanks to their access to Congress, a variety of lobbies -- some financially well endowed, some backed by foreign interests -- have been promoting, to an unprecedented degree, legislative intervention in foreign-policy making. Now more than ever, Congress not only actively opposes foreign policy decisions but even imposes some on the president. (The pending legislation on sanctions against Iran is but one example.) Such congressional intervention, promoted by lobbies, is a serious handicap in shaping a foreign policy meant to be responsive to the ever-changing realities of global politics and makes it more difficult to ensure that U.S. -- not foreign -- interests are the point of departure.

The second, documented by a 2009 RAND study, pertains to the deepening ideological cleavage that is reducing the prospects for effective bipartisanship in foreign policy. The resulting polarization not only makes a bipartisan foreign policy less likely, but it also encourages the infusion of demagogy into policy conflicts. And it poisons the public discourse. Still worse, personal vilification and hateful, as well as potentially violent, rhetoric are becoming widespread in that realm of political debate that is subject to neither fact checking nor libel laws: the blogosphere.

Last but not least, of the large democratic countries, the United States has one of the least informed publics when it comes to global affairs. Many Americans, as various National Geographic surveys have shown, are not even familiar with basic global geography. Their knowledge of other countries' histories and cultures is not much better. How can a public unfamiliar with geography or foreign history have even an elementary grasp of, say, the geopolitical dilemmas that the United States faces in Afghanistan and Pakistan? With the accelerating decline in the circulation of newspapers and the trivialization of once genuinely informative television reporting, reliable and timely news about critical global issues is becoming less available to the general public. In that context, demagogically formulated solutions tend to become more appealing, especially in critical moments.

Together, these three systemic weaknesses are complicating efforts to gain public support for a rational foreign policy attuned to the complexity of the global dilemmas facing the United States. Obama's instinct is to lead by conciliation. That has been his political experience, and it has obviously been the key to his electoral success. Conciliation, backed by personal inspiration and the mass mobilization of populist hopes, is indeed the most important impetus for moving a policy agenda forward in a large democracy. In campaigning for the presidency, Obama proved that he was a master both of social conciliation and of political mobilization. But he has not yet made the transition from inspiring orator to compelling statesman. Advocating that something happen is not the same as making it happen.

In the tough realities of world affairs, leadership also requires an unrelenting firmness in overcoming foreign opposition, in winning the support of friends, in negotiating seriously when necessary with hostile states, and in gaining grudging respect even from those governments that the United States sometimes has an interest in intimidating. To these ends, the optimal moment for blending national aspirations with decisive leadership is when the personal authority of the president is at its highest -- usually during the first year in office. For President Obama, alas, that first year has been dominated by the economic crisis and the struggle over health-care reform. The next three years may thus be more difficult. For the United States' national interest, but also for humanity's sake, that makes it truly vital for Obama to pursue with tenacious audacity the soaring hopes he unleashed.

[Scotty]

Incredible... how Jews reinvent themselves as the "good guys" - Obama was Brzezinski's (mind-control) protégé.  You'll be telling me Kissinger is anti-war next!  :roll:

[stoker]

Incredible... how Jews reinvent themselves as the "good guys" - Obama was Brzezinski's (mind-control) protégé.  You'll be telling me Kissinger is anti-war next!  :roll:

Yep money well spent. What was old is new again. Thing I don't get is Brez. talking shit on one side and Rahm on the other. Or are they the same in one?

[MikeWB]

You guys need to study Brzezinski some more. He's a Rockefeller's protege but he always hated Kissinger. He advised Carter, whom the Jews have always hated for not going all the way for Israel, and they hated Brzezinski as well. This is why Jews managed to get Carter out after a single term and have supported Raegan. I don't think Brzezinski ever forgave them for that.

Obama was never his protege. Brzezinski advised Obama on few things and Brzezinski's name has been associated with Obama few times but that was mostly for PR so that the press can say "a heavy-weight geo-politician is guiding Obama and he's not inexperienced." Obama always had Axelrod as his handler and Axelrod has been his main adviser. Brzezinski's been in the White House only once since Obama took office and he came as a part of CFR team. Clearly, all this "close relationship" between Obama/Brzezinski that various "patriot" people are pushing is bullshit. That fucking liar Tarpley wrote a book about Obama and he portrayed Brzezinski as someone who's handling Obama. If that were true, why the heck isn't Brzezinski beside Obama and attending all the big meetings?   Why is Brzezinski getting info second-hand like this article clearly alludes to? Clearly, the fucking Zionist liar Tarpley needs a scapegoat that's not Jewish.

Brzezinski's also a heavy Catholic so I think Jews don't like him much either.

You can't be one dimensional when you talk about politics. You gotta look at things from multiple sides and understand that there are multiple shades of gray. It's not about: "He's good, he's bad"... it's about realizing that there's a lot of infighting among people at the top.

[Whaler]

You guys need to study Brzezinski some more. He's a Rockefeller's protege but he always hated Kissinger. He advised Carter, whom the Jews have always hated for not going all the way for Israel, and they hated Brzezinski as well. This is why Jews managed to get Carter out after a single term and have supported Raegan. I don't think Brzezinski ever forgave them for that.

Obama was never his protege. Brzezinski advised Obama on few things and Brzezinski's name has been associated with Obama few times but that was mostly for PR so that the press can say "a heavy-weight geo-politician is guiding Obama and he's not inexperienced." Obama always had Axelrod as his handler and Axelrod has been his main adviser. Brzezinski's been in the White House only once since Obama took office and he came as a part of CFR team. Clearly, all this "close relationship" between Obama/Brzezinski that various "patriot" people are pushing is bullshit. That fucking liar Tarpley wrote a book about Obama and he portrayed Brzezinski as someone who's handling Obama. If that were true, why the heck isn't Brzezinski beside Obama and attending all the big meetings?   Why is Brzezinski getting info second-hand like this article clearly alludes to? Clearly, the fucking Zionist liar Tarpley needs a scapegoat that's not Jewish.

Brzezinski's also a heavy Catholic so I think Jews don't like him much either.

You can't be one dimensional when you talk about politics. You gotta look at things from multiple sides and understand that there are multiple shades of gray. It's not about: "He's good, he's bad"... it's about realizing that there's a lot of infighting among people at the top.

 Excellent analysis.

It's interesting how Tarpley and Jones make Brzezinski out to be the top dog of NWO foreign policy. Tarpley's cock sure prediction that "Iran is off the table" has been proven WRONG. Is Tarpley intentionally putting out disinfo or does he believe the hogwash he spews??
Your right, not everything is black and white. Unfortunately the self appointed masters of the truther community make the Elite out to be united in all of aspects of global policy.

[maz]

You guys need to study Brzezinski some more. He's a Rockefeller's protege but he always hated Kissinger. He advised Carter, whom the Jews have always hated for not going all the way for Israel, and they hated Brzezinski as well. This is why Jews managed to get Carter out after a single term and have supported Raegan. I don't think Brzezinski ever forgave them for that.

You can't be one dimensional when you talk about politics. You gotta look at things from multiple sides and understand that there are multiple shades of gray. It's not about: "He's good, he's bad"... it's about realizing that there's a lot of infighting among people at the top.

Brzezinski is not one of the good guys, but he did expose neo-con false-flag terror a few years ago. And he is not a Jew.

[youtube:3riy7obf]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6Y1iPXRO5Y[/youtube]3riy7obf]

[Christopher Marlowe]

I still don't get Brzezinski.

First of all, he is missing a vowel. BRZ? WTF?

Secondly, he started the whole Af-Pak thing: That was his plan to draw the Soviet Union into a Vietnam-type quagmire that would ruin them economically.  Admittedly, he cannot be blamed for starting that US invasion under Bush. And it might be a stretch to say that Brz planned 30 years ago to fashion the CIA "Toilet Base" into a world-wide terror boogey-man.  But everyone must recognize that creating conflicts is going to have blow-back. I think he might start to rehabilitate himself by admitting his past mistakes and openly abandoning that type of foreign policy that fosters conflict.

IF Brz is not a false opposition, then he certainly is saying some of the right things now. In the video he hints at false-flag terror, which seems to be as far as many political types want to go. All the Ron Paul supporters say that it would be political suicide to talk openly of 9/11 being an inside/mossad job, but I still say that 9/11 is the lynch pin. It is the starting point and the obvious flaw in our national policy.

In Brz's recent article he talks about

Osama bin Laden's self-serving justifications for 9/11

but it's hard to say what OBL quote Brz is referring to. In the Pakistani newspaper Ummat, OBL denied responsibility for the attacks, but said,

All that is going on in Palestine for the last 11 months is sufficient to call the wrath of God upon the United States and Israel.

So Brz could be referring to that quote without actually putting the blame on OBL, while appearing to support the official bullshit story.

But really, the time has long past for starting to tell the TRUTH about 9/11. Politics be damned. If people don't want to hear it, then tough titty. Ron Paul had his chance to talk about 9/11 in the Presidential debate on national television. He could have been a hero. But he chickened out. "The Emperor's clothes are exquisite. Now can I answer the other question?" Chicken.

So if Brz has got it figured out but won't say it outloud, then who needs him? If he hasn't got it figured out and he's supposed to be an expert on foreign affairs, then...do I really need to say it?

Brz is saying that israshit-hole should share Jerusalem, and that they should give back land. Good.

The conventional wisdom is that a political figure can effect more change by not appearing too radical. CW might explain that Brz and RP are continuing to mouth the myths in order to effect change for the better. But lying is never justified. (Unless it involves matters of taste and a woman: Trust me, she is always beautiful.)  The reason why lying weaves a tangled web is because it imposes too great a burden on our memory.  The lies don't make sense so we invent new lies to explain. We can't remember all the lies, and so we have to invent new ones to explain why we were caught mis-remembering. A tangled web. The Truth makes sense and so it is easier to remember. It is streamlined.  

Our society has been so overwhelmed by the Jewish propaganda that telling the truth is hurtful to some people. Walt and Mearsheimer told the truth about the AIPAC stranglehold on our government and foreign policy. They were overly fair, but they were still called "anti-semites". Solzhenitsyn bent over backward to be fair in "200 Years Together":

But it is impossible to find the answer to the eternal question: who is to be blamed, who led us to our death? To explain the actions of the Kiev cheka [secret police] only by the fact that two thirds were Jews, is certainly incorrect.

That is a stand-alone fact that doesn't need to be explained. 2/3 of the secret police are from 2-4% of the population? That is not a coincidence. But still Solzhenitsyn tries to be fair, and still Solzhenitsyn is an "anti-semite". You can't win.

When I read the comments to articles posted online, I find an ever-increasing number of people are awake to 9/11 and israhell. There are people who will hear the truth and understand. The MSM will never understand because the zionists own the MSM. The polls won't show this for the same reason. But if you think about it, the people who Brz and RP are bending over backward to please might actually be in the minority. And if everyone was telling lies out of fear of offending some small minority, that would be really sad.

(Honestly, I think the reasons for lying are not that complicated. People lie to control. Reality is made to conform to their own plan. Other people sustain the lie because they fear losing something (that they falsely believe they possess): their TV/radio show, their political office, their position as a statesman... Lying is all ego/fear based.)

But the time for truth telling is here. Now. The truth will not hurt us, but rather it only brings us closer to God.

But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you.

Telling the truth is letting go of our false sense of control.

Instead of being at home with the truth, we find ourselves swiping away at this overgrown nest of webbing: Lies everywhere. Why? Because this spider's nest is controlled by the zionists who lie naturally.  

You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof.

We are all so desperate to hear the truth that when anyone says something even resembling the truth we get excited. But that's still not the TRUTH. IMHO, Brz knows the truth but won't say. That's not good enough.  If you haven't figured out that 9/11 is a load of crap, then you're an idiot and you shouldn't be an adviser or a congressman. If you have figured it out, and you're too chicken to say it, then I'm not interested in what comes out of your mealy mouth.