Zigniew Brzezinski is a familiar name to Iranians. He was the National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter during the 1978-9 Islamic revolution. A respected veteran scholar, he has written several books on American foreign policy and is currently a scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank in <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Washington</st1:city>, <st1:state w:st="on">DC</st1:state></st1:place>. Rooz met him in his office for an exclusive interview. Here is the exchange.
Rooz: Dr. Brzezinski, you have lived through some turbulent times in diplomacy- the cold war, the fall of the Soviet Union, the events in Eastern Europe - and have been involved in major negotiations with world leaders including the Chinese, the Soviets, the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt and more. Which has been the most difficult one for you?
Brzezinski: It’s very hard to answer that question. I think the most challenging one was the contest with the <st1:place w:st="on">Soviet Union</st1:place> because the stakes were the greatest. The outcome, either defeat or victory, ultimately would have enormous consequences and I am happy in my feeling to have contributed in some fashion to shape the Western strategy that resulted in the peaceful dismantling of the <st1:place w:st="on">Soviet Union</st1:place>. The dismantling of the <st1:place w:st="on">Soviet Union</st1:place> obviously is a source of satisfaction to me, morally as well as historically. But I take almost equal satisfaction in the fact that it was relatively peaceful, because as a result we avoided what could have been massive, massive bloodshed. Perhaps the most frustrating of all my experiences was the crisis involving <st1:country-region w:st="on">America</st1:country-region> and <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Iran</st1:place></st1:country-region>, particularly at the time of the Khomeini revolution. It was frustrating in the sense that to me what happened was unfortunate in different ways for the <st1:country-region w:st="on">US</st1:country-region> and for <st1:country-region w:st="on">Iran</st1:country-region>, but at the same time I am aware of the fact that the stakes were not as great and potentially as threatening to human survival as the contest between the <st1:country-region w:st="on">US</st1:country-region> and the <st1:place w:st="on">Soviet Union</st1:place>. Nonetheless the Iranian crisis, it seems to me, was the combination of historical misfortunes and misunderstanding the cultural gap and inability of one side to understand the other side historically and as a result it was a crisis which proved to have been negative in its consequences both for America and for Iran.
Rooz: You were a staunch critic of the Bush administration on the war on terror and the invasion of Iraq. What are your thoughts on these matters? Do you think Iraq has turned into a failed state? Do you think the surge has made a real and lasting difference?
Brzezinski: We won’t know until the American troops are out of <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Iraq</st1:place></st1:country-region>. But I think there are grounds for concern that there may be another bloody phase in internal Iraqi policies. The fact of the matter is that in the age of what I call global political awakening and the desire of different peoples for recognition of their dignity, the notion of “liberation by occupation” of another country, particularly when it results in the death of a great many of that country’s citizens, strikes me as a contradiction in terms. Therefore I am worried about the future of Iraq even though I do not feel particularly sad that the Saddam Hussein regime is gone, but even that objective would have been achieved in a different way, in a different approach, less arrogant, less Manichean in its substance.
Rooz: What are your thoughts about the Israeli- Palestinian crisis? You have said in previous interviews that the US should engage in talks with Hamas. Yet the current government of Israel has no intention of dealing with Hamas. What should Obama do in this regard?
Brzezinski: Well my view is that we should talk to the Hamas because it represents a significant segment of the Palestinian public opinion. We are willing to talk to foreign minister Liebermann in the Israeli government who represents a significant portion of Israeli public opinion even though we do not approve of his views which have been described in Israeli newspapers as racist, as expansionist, as anti-peace and so forth. But if we want to have a settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians we have to be prepared to talk to as wide a potential coalition as politically desirable. Therefore, I do not believe that we should exclude some segments of the Palestinians as too radical but not apply the same standard in talking to the Israelis.
Rooz: Do you think that Iran is involved in this whole scenario, as the Israelis always blame the Islamic Republic?
Brzezinski: Well I am not sure if the Israelis blame the Islamic regime for preventing peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians because some of the people who are most concerned about <st1:country-region w:st="on">Iran</st1:country-region> in <st1:country-region w:st="on">Israel</st1:country-region> are the ones who are most inclined to advocate war against <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Iran</st1:place></st1:country-region>. They are the same people who do not want peace with the Palestinians.
Rooz: As a statesman, do you believe Bush was wrong when he considered Iran as part of “an axis of evil”? After witnessing the events of the last two weeks in Iran, do you believe that maybe he was right?
Brzezinski: I think that he was not only wrong but he reflected ignorance about the complexity of <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Iran</st1:place></st1:country-region>. There is not just one <st1:country-region w:st="on">Iran</st1:country-region> which in American public mind is represented by an ayatollah, by public floggings and by talk about <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">America</st1:place></st1:country-region> the Satan. There are at least two <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Irans</st1:place></st1:country-region>, probably more than two. There is also the Iran of the noble peace prize winner; Iran of more women in universities than men; Iran as a country with a real sense of its historical dignity and worth; Iran of a great civilization and 3000 years of impressive state craft; and Iran of intellectual sophistication very much focused on modernization through links with Europe and notably with Germany, with which it has more than a hundred year old relationship – many older Iranian scholars having degrees from German universities. That <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Iran</st1:place></st1:country-region> was not seen well by Americans because the mass media never presented it. While the President of the <st1:country-region w:st="on">US</st1:country-region> chose to include it in a slogan which I think distorted a complex multi-faceted reality of <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Iran</st1:place></st1:country-region> which is now actually made itself seen on television. For most Americans what was most surprising were the tens of thousands of young students, not very different from American students, the young women, attractive, maybe wearing a scarf but obviously part of the modern world, and of an Iran which in different historical circumstances would be at least as European as Turkey and in many respects even more so.
Rooz: Coming back to Iran: what are your thoughts on another crisis situation in the Middle East which is now brewing, i.e. the recent Iranian elections? Do you think this election was stolen?
Brzezinski: I don’t believe it was stolen because I don’t know if it was stolen. I don’t think that if I am to talk seriously and not propagandistically I can categorically say that it was stolen, but I cannot categorically say that it was not. I think there is enough evidence to suggest that there were major distortions in the reported outcomes. The votes were counted remarkably quickly. I guess all the poll counters, the men and women sitting at the poll stations, could not have calculated millions of votes so quickly and the fact that in some areas more voters voted than they were registered also clearly suggests that there were serious abuses. But that is not the issue. The issue is that a significant portion of the Iranian body politic questions the result and I think because it is a significant portion, it would be perfectly sensible to have a second round between the two leading candidates. It would be difficult to claim then that one or the other did not win. Then there would be some legitimacy for the result. Right now I think <st1:country-region w:st="on">Iran</st1:country-region> risks becoming a country in which a very large proportion of its population will view its government as illegitimate and based largely and predominately on force and that is neither good for <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Iran</st1:place></st1:country-region> nor for the American-Iranian relationship.
Rooz: But as you know the supreme leader, even as recently as a few days ago, said that there won’t be any kind of reelection, that Ahmadinejad is the elected President. What do you think President Obama should do? We know that many commentators and Republican lawmakers have criticized him for not taking a stronger position. Do you think that Obama should negotiate with Iran of Ahmadinejad or can he?
Brzezinski: If there is an inclination on behalf of whoever is in charge of <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Iran</st1:place></st1:country-region> to negotiate seriously, my answer is yes. We negotiated with Stalin, with Mao Zedong. If there is something to negotiate about – and there is, namely the nuclear program, regional security, and economic relations – and if <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Iran</st1:place></st1:country-region> is prepared to negotiate we should negotiate with it. We are dealing with a state that is sovereign. We may not like the content of its policies, we may not like the way it governs its people, but we still have a problem to address. And the best way to address a problem is by negotiating. What is the alternative to negotiating? To go to war – is that a better solution? So I think the Republicans who are making these arguments are doing it a little bit for domestic political reasons to embarrass Obama, and some of them who were the neo-conservatives, supporters of President Bush, are doing it because they are afraid that we might negotiate with Iran peacefully and resolve the problems, whereas they would prefer us to go to war with Iran.
Rooz: Do you believe Iran is seeking the nuclear bomb as many in the West suggest? Why has this become an issue if Iran had been working on its nuclear program for more than 20 years? Why has this only become a major foreign policy concern in the last few years?
Brzezinski: Because there is some uncertainty as to whether the nuclear program is in fact entirely committed to peaceful use of nuclear energy or has a military dimension focused on the capability to produce and eventually acquire nuclear weapons. That is a legitimate concern because <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Iran</st1:place></st1:country-region> is a member of the non-proliferation treaty. It declares that it is not seeking nuclear weapons and that is good, but there are some grounds, although not conclusive grounds, for being concerned that perhaps that it is not in fact the case, that the quest is not just to have nuclear program for peaceful purposes but also to acquire nuclear weapons. If that is the case in the region there would be more instability and more pressure for other countries also to have nuclear weapons, and thus it would help to undermine the regime of non-proliferation. I think however if <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Iran</st1:place></st1:country-region> is truly dedicated to peaceful use of nuclear program then there are ways of reaching an agreement whereby the rest of the international community can feel confident that this is so. For example <st1:country-region w:st="on">Japan</st1:country-region> has a very ambitious nuclear program including enrichment yet there are no questions being made about <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Japan</st1:place></st1:country-region>, because there is no basis for any suspicion.
Rooz: But Iran claims that it has been open about its program; do you think it has been?
Brzezinski: Well as you well know the IAEA has said that there are some indications that in different stages <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Iran</st1:place></st1:country-region> may have been seeking nuclear program because not everything is available to international inspections. I am not prejudging the case and I think the people who jump into the conclusion that they are seeking nuclear weapons are preparing themselves for an American- Iranian military collision. But I think it is in our interest and in the Iranian interest to reach an agreement with international community that gives everybody confidence that this is a perfectly legitimate program. And since the Iranian government categorically says that it is not seeking nuclear weapons there should be no obstacle to arranging an inspection system that gives everybody confirmation that this is indeed a peaceful program.
Rooz: During your tenure as President Carter’s national security advisor, one of the issues raised was the human rights issue. President Carter talked about it during the Shah’s regime. Don’t you think that this should be actually one of the main topics that Obama should raise especially since we all know that the human rights abuses during the last 30 years are far worse than during the shah’s time?
Brzezinski: I think President Obama has expressed a moral concern and a moral outrage over that and I think that is a legitimate thing for a government to do, but it doesn’t’ mean that because of that one simultaneously refuses to deal with that government if there are issues which are of mutual interest – and maybe in the long run in the interest of the international community – to address. So that is a distinction that has to be maintained. There are often people who are confused: “well I deal with a government therefore I will never criticize anything it does,” or alternatively “I will not deal with a government at all until it does things that we happen to think it should be doing.” There is a line of distinction here that has to be respected.
Rooz: How close do you think Iran is to Russia? Putin came to Iran and met with Khamenei and Ahmadinejad went to see the current President Medvedov a day after the first demonstrations. What do you think of this alliance?
Brzezinski: I think first of all it is not unusual for them to have a relationship because they are practically neighbors. Until recently they were direct neighbors but they are almost neighbors still. But I am doubtful about any genuine closeness between the two sides. Historically the relationship between <st1:country-region w:st="on">Russia</st1:country-region> and <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Persia</st1:place></st1:country-region> was mixed. And the Russians had significant ambitions vis-a-vis <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Iran</st1:place></st1:country-region> as recently as during the cold war.
Rooz: You don’t believe that they have similar ambitions now? Because we know that the Russians have been very much involved with the nuclear program.
Brzezinski: Well the Iranians wanted to buy nuclear material from the Russians and they were anxious and willing to sell it to them. I don’t think that necessarily creates real closeness. I think the fact is that historically the relationship has been mixed and mutually suspicious. The Russians are afraid of the Muslims in general. They have a large Muslim population, though not Shia. And the Iranians do know that the Russians at one point coveted territoriality parts of <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Persia</st1:place></st1:country-region>.
Rooz: What would you say as a citizen of America and as a person who has been involved in politics almost all your entire life to the people who came to the streets not just in Tehran but all over Iran in support of Mir-Hossein Mousavi? Do you believe that after 30 years, the Islamic Republic is in danger of crumbling?
Brzezinski: First of all, I certainly have an enormous admiration for them for their courage and sophistication, although that does not come as a surprise to me because contrary to most Americans I have always been aware of the fact these are very sophisticated people, much more so than most Americans. But there is also a primitive <st1:country-region w:st="on">Iran</st1:country-region> and a backward <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Iran</st1:place></st1:country-region> on the basis of which the present authority rests. I think <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Iran</st1:place></st1:country-region> is destined to be a modern, open society. But it may not come quickly. It’s very difficult for an outsider to judge the balance between the two <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Irans</st1:place></st1:country-region>. I am a little pessimistic in thinking that at least in the short run it is the most backward, the more primitive elements that are stronger but in the long run I think <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Iran</st1:place></st1:country-region> is destined to be a modern, open, Islamic, sophisticated society.
Rooz: Not secular?
Brzezinski: Secular- Islamic, the balance is a mixture just as <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Iran</st1:place></st1:country-region>’s history is a mixture. <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Iran</st1:place></st1:country-region> today is presented simplistically in my view as a fundamentalist Muslim society. Yes <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Iran</st1:place></st1:country-region> is Muslim. But only half of Iranian history is Muslim. There is another half which the great epic poets of <st1:country-region w:st="on">Iran</st1:country-region> register in terms of what <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Iran</st1:place></st1:country-region> represents today and that was also 1500 years ago. Just as Muslim Iran is 1500 years old, pre- Muslim Iran spanned 1500 years and that has a legacy which even subconsciously may still exist and which makes the Iranians different, just like the Japanese are different from the Saudis, just like the Saudis are different from Moroccans.
I think <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Iran</st1:place></st1:country-region> is unique in that combination of two great historical legacies, which in every Iranian in some mysterious fashion you can see that total personality. So we are dealing with one of the great historic nations of the world. I have this primitive notion based upon my own experience that there is a handful, maybe half a dozen and not more than a dozen, of truly historic nations in which the definition of today is derived from a much broader and deeper sensitivity to how the world has evolved and what is important. I have in one occasion in <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Egypt</st1:place></st1:country-region> given a speech on this subject in which I mentioned several of the countries involved and I said at the time that the Egyptians were in that category and the Iranians as well. <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Iran</st1:place></st1:country-region> is one of those nations.
Rooz: Do you think Israel will attack Iran, especially in light of the latest developments?
Brzezinski: I don’t think <st1:country-region w:st="on">Israel</st1:country-region> can attack <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Iran</st1:place></st1:country-region> without American acquiescing. It would be a stupid act which would first of all make <st1:country-region w:st="on">America</st1:country-region> suffer the consequences because the Iranians will retaliate against <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">America</st1:place></st1:country-region>. Secondly <st1:country-region w:st="on">Israel</st1:country-region> would suffer because there would be enormous anger against <st1:country-region w:st="on">Israel</st1:country-region> in <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">America</st1:place></st1:country-region> and eventually the Iranians would retaliate. So I think ultimately it would be very damaging and in some respects a suicidal act.
Rooz: This is a personal question for me, what do you think of Mosaddeq?
Brzezinski: I have mixed feelings. At the time, when I was relatively young and inexperienced, I thought that he was a source of destabilization and that he could open the door in <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Iran</st1:place></st1:country-region> to a radical left revolution which would be damaging in the larger sense to our side in the course of the cold war. Now I have a different view of it: I think we were a little too much inclined to follow the British interpretation of what was happening in Iran, and the British mostly wanted to have their ownership of the oil back. The paradox is that when we followed their advice and kind of contributed to what happened – although the real effort was not the CIA but General Zahedi, and the Iranians deserve credit themselves – ironically the British didn’t get the oil back – we took it. And then we got kicked out some 25 years later.
