A war in the middle east with an 80million nation is going to make the expeditions to afghanistan and to iraq look like shortterm, only lasting a dozen years or so. It is a very painful choice, but an important choice. What i do regret in the context of the growing public discussion of what might happen, the total absence of recognition of the fact that the u. S. For 30 years managed to prevent a nuclear war by deterrence, by acting in a way that gave reassurance to countries which have no capacity of resisting the soviet union if push came to shove, but the u. S. Was able to convince both of those countries and the soviet union that our vital interests were engaged and we do not want a war. At some point we have to go to war. That preserves their independence. I fail to see why this cannot be seen as a relevant middle eastern problem is that if there is no solution with the iranians. The israelis have 200 bombs or more. They are not onesided vulnerable. If we reinforce that by saying that we would view any threat as a threat to the u. S. , which is what we have done with regards to japan and south korea and north korea, i am quite sure we could maintain a stable situation without even a subsequent treaty with iran. If the talks totally broke down and iran resumed full place its program, you think of going to a containment deterrent strategy would be preferable to military action . Yes. Deterrence works. There is no reason to believe it would not work if the u. S. Was credibly committed. The proportion of power between the u. S. And wouldbe Iranian Nuclear power would be enormous. We have again been swept into kind of simplistic formulations such as the quick dash to Nuclear Capability that people are talking about. The fact of the matter is if the iranians were to have even a nuclear test, that would be know to the world. Weaponizing a nuclear test is a difficult process. Then once you have completed your weaponization, you have one nuclear bomb. Are you going to use it against an enemy that has 200 . If you are not 150 sure that it will go off, you have to have further tests, you have delivery systems, and on top of it, you have to have more Nuclear Weapons so if you use one against israel and israel begins to retaliate against you, you can counterattack against israel. So were talking about the process, even in the absence of an agreement. Im not advocating the absence of agreement, that will take a lot of time before becomes a serious threat. The injection and commitment of the u. S. To react to any act of violence involving Nuclear Weaponry in the region as an action directed at the u. S. Would have the same credibility, validity, and effectiveness i believe as our policy of deterrence during the entire cold war. Interesting. Yes, right here, sir, and then i will get to you. I was going to give it to this gentleman in the back waving his hand. Thank you. The question is about the interview with the washington post, end of september, with the Russian Foreign minister. The question was which kind of syria do you want . The answer was a secular syria. Can you comment if this is the kind of idea for a common situation, a secular syria or what . Secular is a word that is really associated very much with the political systems of the west. We are dealing with the middle east in which there is an intermission between religious traditions and political power. I think what has been distinctive about syria in recent years, and syria is not a democracy by any means, and i make no such mistake, is that within syria, there was more accommodation and toleration of religious diversity than in some of their joining arab states, which were claimed themselves to be engaged in a policy of liberation, but which in effect means a policy of one sectarian nation over another in rejecting this complex internal
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.