Being Zbigniew Brzezinski III

Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, former national security adviser for Jimmy Carter, is one of the most eminent foreign policy experts. There is a reason that I have written of him more than once here. I admire him greatly. He is a model for what we need today. He is a voice of reason, he is brilliant, he is well-informed, he is wise, and he is fair.

Dr. Brzezinski appeared on Morning Joe after President Obama gave his speech on Afghanistan. He agrees with President Obama and clearly outlines the assumed "ambiguities" in Afghanistan that wasn't addressed in the speech, partially because of the nature of the conflict and our position. As always, his appearance was brilliant. When asked by Arianna Huffington of the legitimization of the Karzai government as defined by many experts he responded that America should not throw stones:

Who are we to seriously be preaching [such] a crusade? We have a financial sector that is voraciously greedy and exploitative, to put it mildly. We have a Congress which is not immune to special interests. And we have an electoral system that is based largely on private donations which precipitate expectations of rewards. The notion of us going to the Afghans and preaching purity is comical... I think we should just quit that stuff.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Perhaps Dr. Brzezinski should be directly advising President Obama, if he isn't already. I would also hope that politicians in and around Washington, both old and young, sit down and take notice of this national treasure. In fact, we all have a lot to learn from him.

Being Mahmoud Ahmadinejad IV

President Obama, along with President Nicholas Sarkozy of France and Prime Minister Gordon Brown of England, announced today that Iran has a secret nuclear facility in Qom, that "happens" to be near a historic holy site by the way, and has been secretly developing nuclear capacities, perhaps for destruction and not energy, nor for medicinal purposes. In a recent Newsweek article President Ahmadinejad said that he wanted to buy enriched uranium for "humanitarian" reasons from the United States.

"We simply don't have the capacity to enrich at 20 percent for medicinal purposes, of the sort that we have in mind, at this stage," Ahmadinejad said. "It's only at 3.5 percent." Hmm? I don't think he knew that the United States have known for many years about its secret facility. But, hey, what nation would give such a secret away? After all, it's a secret. Yes, I know and agree that every nation has to abide by international law, although we thumbed our noses in the face of the United Nations for the past eight years with John Bolton, the Ambassador to the UN, making harrowing disrespectful comments about the community of nations with noble ambitions that's on the soil of the United States.

Chancellor Merkel of Germany was not present during the announcement this morning but sent a word of affirmation with the other leaders. It is also believed that President Medvedev of Russia is in agreement with these world leaders. The challenge now seems to get China aboard for UN sanctions. Such sanctions have worked for North Korea, although, of course, it continues with its nuclear development. But we wink and nod when necessary. America does so with civil rights issues with China in exchange for our debt society. England does so with its relationship with Libya as 400% of its oil deriving from that country. (Yeah, we know that the release of the Lockerbie bomber had nothing to do with oil, right?) Germany with its large trade agreements with Iran. Each country does things that benefits its own interest.

There seems to be broad support from our allies and others as well, including Russia and possibly China. It is believed that if Russia agrees China will follow suit. But as I listened to President Obama, President Sarkozy and Prime Minister Brown give their statements, I could not help but to wonder have they also insisted that other countries such as Israel not enriched uranium for destruction. Has Israel bought enriched uranium from us? Maybe this is simply what President Ahmadinejad wants. Silly man! I could not help but to wonder if such a stance has been taken with Israel and such scrutiny of facilities its facility investigated. Perhaps its President's Ahmadinejad's rhetoric or "serial deception" as Prime Minister Brown puts it that gets in the way.

It has been long believed that Israel has nuclear capacities for destruction. There are many justifiable reasons for this its allies might contend being in an area surrounded by enemies. But is this a secrecy not allowed by the community of nations? Is it the protection of America that allows a lesser stance and scrutiny? If so, how is this viewed in the world at large? The take of the west on this matter may be one thing, but the outlook on the world at large wholly another. Iran has a long rich proud history, which unfortunately includes the United States' invasion and installation of a leader, and it does not wish to be dictated to when it comes to their safety, especially if there is not a level playing field and one of the most powerful military nations is aligned with its enemy, real or assumed.

Does any of this make sense or am I just terribly naive on such matters?

Being Berated for a Handshake and a Smile

It is absolutely ludicrous, not to mention utterly hypocritical, that President Obama is being berated by the Right for shaking hands and smiling with Hugo Chavez at the Summit of the Americas in which both leaders were invited to participate. Should a recount of the many years of handshakes, kisses, smiles and other diplomatic measures be given in recent history from President Ronald Reagan to President G.W. Bush? More importantly, has the estrangement of certain leaders of the last 30 years worked? Has calling world leaders members of the "axis of evil" worked? Has getting up and walking out in international meetings worked? NO! NO! NO!

These hypocritical hard-line policies and often child-like behaviors have not worked. We take a stand against human rights violations in Cuba and embrace China. We go to international meetings with diverse world leaders and walk out when their words are contrary to our beliefs. (Maybe more women should be in attendance at these meetings. Who teaches their children that these methods of dealing with conflict are acceptable?) Power does not exhibit itself always in arms and standoffs. A great leader has an array of arsenals at his disposal to disarm and they are not all bombs and isolation policies.

A handshake and a smile may just go further than some policies of the past.

Being Mahmoud Ahmadinejad II

The Associated Foreign Press records this account after President-elect Obama indicated that while Iran "remained a threat" to America that we would be "willing to initiate diplomacy."

This was President Ahmadinejad's response in a press conference according to the AFP:

" 'If changes are fundamental, genuine and based on respect... we wait and see and do not make premature judgement,' Ahmadinejad said in a press conference, broadcast live on state television.

"He had been asked about Tehran's stance toward normalisation of ties with Washington.

"'The first change we expect is that the United States should limit its interference (to) within its borders,' he said. 'They have been oppressing our people for 58 years now... they must change their attitude toward us.

"The Iranian president also called the policy of carrot and stick an 'outdated' one. 'If it is the continuation of the wrong and arrogant policies, the result is predictable,' he added."

Are either responses unreasonable? Is this not a good start to diplomacy?

Being Outwitted by Think Tanks?

In a round table discussion, "Challenges for the Incoming Obama Administration" on C-Span, I listened to Richard Perle, a political advisor and lobbyist who worked for the Reagan administration as an assistant Secretary of Defense, make some pretty good points until a young man asked a question about diplomacy matters. Perle was dismissive, dogmatic, and curt in his response. Personally, I thought the young man had asked a rather astute question about acknowledging Iran and North Korea, even though we may not agree with their leaders and policies. They are nonetheless a part of the world community, even if we do not recognize them.

Mr. Perle, without acknowledging the legitimacy of the young man's question, dismissed it as ridiculous and spouted a series of negative adjectives including the "e" word that have been used for those, who may not be saints, but are world leaders themselves. (I was incredibly heartened by Lorin Maazel and the New York Philharmonic's goodwill trip to North Korea. In fact, I loved it!) There have been more than a few who have called our current president "evil" with regards to policies in Iraq. Does it make it so? Are there legitimate reasons for such words?

I am unequivocally in support of Israel's right to exist. But what concerns me is our rhetoric and policies may be such that create more enemies for Israel and America than our support for her will legitimize worldwide. How we say what we say still matters. Diplomacy is still needed and policies forever reviewed. The talking heads of think tanks (and institutes), who exercise a lot of control in Washington, are forever telling us what we think. But do we really think as they purport about a great many issues, Israel aside momentarily?

What is desired is an honest conversation uncontrolled by think tanks. Really, how much thinking is really going on and how much dogma is being exerted?

Being Zbigniew Brzezinski

Dr. Sbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor, responds brilliantly to the death and destruction in Gaza. He speaks of America's responsibility in the failed peace process, our bias, and the likelihood of a breakdown of support of Israel by nations who would otherwise be supportive.

America is in need of this kind of impartiality, compassion, and level-handedness again. "There has to be a sense of proportion. If there isn't one has to think of the consequence." Dr. Brzezinski's sense of diplomacy seems so far better than the policies of the last eight years. We call upon President-elect Obama and cabinet to follow this kind of foreign policy.

Being Mahmoud Ahamdinejad

Mahmoud Ahamdinejad delivered an "alternative" Christmas message on British TV yesterday where he praised the prophets of all faiths, including Jesus, for a message of peace. Some might say that such a message is indeed the antithesis of peace where there are accusations that Iranians who convert to Christianity are persecuted.

If one listened to the message with non-prejudiced ears, perhaps such is impossible when considering past rhetoric, one might find grains of truth upon which to find commonality. (What a great historical and cultural society Iran once was! Have religious factions hijacked a great country?) The message caused some backlash across the pond.

President Ahamdinejad has been labeled a tyrant. He has been criticized and labeled "evil" by many for his efforts to secure nuclear weapons and his rhetoric on Israel. (Would such rhetoric have been heard during the Cold War between Russia and the US in public and private?) Listening to his speech before the United Nations this year, I was not incredibly alarmed by President Ahamdinejad's words.

In fact, I must admit to being somewhat impressed with some of what was said. (Perhaps with all the hype and the absence of American officials during the speech I was expecting so much worse.) I must also admit to not being a foreign policy expert. My impression came simply from what appeared to be a message of peace and a rational humanistic belief in justice. (Maybe there was a bit too much emphasis on God as if his voice represented such to the exclusion of others. Dunno.) I had not heard President Ahamdinejad speak before then.

President Ahamdinejad has said that his rhetoric is in opposition to unjust policies. I am sure that he will see what happened today in Gaza as unjust. Today Israel responded to Hamas rockets and mortars with air strikes in Gaza killing some 364 Palestinians and wounding nearly 1,000. I am not a foreign policy expert but if a group is armed with fighter jets and weapons from the West and the others are fighting with rockets and mortars, would not others in the region seek to make the war even through both weapons and rhetoric? We can probably expect The People's Mujahideen and Hezbollah to react with support of Hamas.

"Hit every Zionist house in Israel" was Hamas' reply. Again, I am not a foreign expert, but maybe one need not be to understand basic human reactions. If Israel had not the military support of the West, would the fight be fair? Would suicide bombs lessen? If the West would withdrawal military support for Israel would the tension in the Middle East ease? Would tyranny and terrorism lessen?

Am I being terribly naive? Speak to me.