Rouhani to NBC: “US Presence in Region Exacerbates Terrorism Crisis”

NBC News’ Ann Curry interviewed Iranian President Hassan Rouhani yesterday in her second extended interview with him. She had been the first Westerner to interview Rouhani after his election. Remarkably, the story put up by NBC on their website to accompany the video seen above did not mention the part of the interview that Mehr News chose to highlight in Iran. From Mehr News:

Iran’s president has denounced ISIL terrorist group for its savagery and said US presence in the region has exacerbates [sic] the terrorism crisis since 2001.

That comment about US presence in the region exacerbating the terrorism crisis appears nowhere in the NBC article. The article does, however carry Rouhani’s accusation that the US approach to fighting ISIS is cowardly:

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, in an exclusive interview with NBC News’ Ann Curry, denounced ISIS for its savagery but also branded the U.S.-led coalition against the terror group as “ridiculous.” Speaking from the presidential palace in Tehran ahead of his visit to the United Nations, Rouhani questioned President Obama’s decision to go after ISIS with airstrikes.

“Are Americans afraid of giving casualties on the ground in Iraq? Are they afraid of their soldiers being killed in the fight they claim is against terrorism?” Rouhani said.

“If they want to use planes and if they want to use unmanned planes so that nobody is injured from the Americans, is it really possible to fight terrorism without any hardship, without any sacrifice? Is it possible to reach a big goal without that? In all regional and international issues, the victorious one is the one who is ready to do sacrifice.

Rouhani’s accusation that the US wants to carry out this fight without sacrifices seems to be a very accurate description of the approach by the Obama Administration.

Further evidence for the “ridiculous” charge comes in this Huffington Post story about a Congressional briefing on US strategy:

One Democratic member of Congress said that the CIA has made it clear that it doubts the possibility that the administration’s strategy could succeed.

“I have heard it expressed, outside of classified contexts, that what you heard from your intelligence sources is correct, because the CIA regards the effort as doomed to failure,” the congressman said in an email. “Specifically (again without referring to classified information), the CIA thinks that it is impossible to train and equip a force of pro-Western Syrian nationals that can fight and defeat Assad, al-Nusra and ISIS, regardless of whatever air support that force may receive.”

He added that, as the CIA sees it, the ramped-up backing of rebels is an expansion of a strategy that is already not working. “The CIA also believes that its previous assignment to accomplish this was basically a fool’s errand, and they are well aware of the fact that many of the arms that they provided ended up in the wrong hands,” the congressman said, echoing intelligence sources.

Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, already in New York for the beginning of talks on the nuclear deal and the opening of the UN General Assembly, told NPR that he still favors a deal with the P5+1 group of nations:

On the subject of negotiations over Iran’s nuclear weapons program, Zarif said all the “wrong options” have already been tried and that “we are ready” for an agreement.

Zarif is fully cognizant of the forces allied against reaching a deal, though:

“The only problem is how this could be presented to some domestic constituencies, primarily in the United States but also in places in Europe,” because “some are not interested in any deal,” he said.

“If they think any deal with Iran is a bad idea, there is no amount of — I don’t want to call it concession — no amount of assurance that is inherent in any deal because they are not interested in a deal, period,” Zarif said.

In sharp contrast with what U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other political leaders have said about no deal being better than a bad one, Zarif said: “I think if you compare any deal with no deal, it’s clear that a deal is much preferable.”

Gosh, considering how the US is working closely with anti-Iran groups, even to the point of interfering in lawsuits to prevent disclosure of how the government shares state secrets with them, Zarif seems to have a very clear grasp of the problem a deal faces.

Despite his harsh comments about the US (and harsh comments about ISIS, as well), Rouhani also held out hope that the P5+1 final agreement can be reached.

image_print
13 replies
  1. orionATL says:

    headline:

    “cia throws president under the bus”

    “…One Democratic member of Congress said that the CIA has made it clear that it doubts the possibility that the administration’s strategy could succeed.
    “I have heard it expressed, outside of classified contexts, that what you heard from your intelligence sources is correct, because the CIA regards the effort as doomed to failure,” the congressman said in an email. “Specifically (again without referring to classified information), the CIA thinks that it is impossible to train and equip a force of pro-Western Syrian nationals that can fight and defeat Assad, al-Nusra and ISIS, regardless of whatever air support that force may receive.”
    He added that, as the CIA sees it, the ramped-up backing of rebels is an expansion of a strategy that is already not working. “The CIA also believes that its previous assignment to accomplish this was basically a fool’s errand, and they are well aware of the fact that many of the arms that they provided ended up in the wrong hands,” the congressman said, echoing intelligence sources…”

  2. Don Bacon says:

    Probably there will never been a US/Iran rapprochement. Enmity does so much for US ME policy, including foreign military sales, the stationing of 40,000 troops plus the Fifth Fleet in the Gulf, plus pleasing Israel.
    .
    Regime change has been US policy for a very long time, and remains so. The US has managed to weaken Iraq and Syria, two Iran allies, and real men go to Iran.
    .
    yahoo, Sep 16

    Iran’s current uranium enrichment not acceptable says US
    .
    Washington (AFP) – Iran cannot convince the world[sic] that its current ability to enrich uranium is acceptable, the top US negotiator said ahead of new nuclear talks with global powers.
    .
    After months of intense negotiations the two sides have “identified potential answers to some key questions,” Under Secretary of State Wendy Sherman said in a speech at an award-giving ceremony at Georgetown University.
    .
    But she warned “we remain far apart on other core issues, including the size and scope of Iran’s uranium enrichment capacity.”
    .
    As Iran and world powers prepare for new talks starting on Thursday in New York, Sherman said she expected the Islamic Republic “will try to convince the world that on this pivotal matter, the status quo … should be acceptable.”
    .
    “It is not,” Sherman stressed, as she was given a top award for distinction in the conduct of diplomacy. “If it were, we wouldn’t be involved in this difficult and very painstaking negotiation.”

    Iran knows all this. Ayatollah Khamanei:

    One of the blessings of the recent negotiations was that the enmity of the Americans and the officials of the government of the United States of America towards Iran and the Iranians, and towards Islam and Muslims became clear to everyone. Everyone realized this. Whenever they fail to take any action, they say, “We cannot”. They are right. They really cannot.

    Khamenei has said that Iran needs to significantly increase its uranium enrichment .

  3. TarheelDem says:

    Lots of interesting questions from your coverage here, Jim.

    “I have heard it expressed, outside of classified contexts, that what you heard from your intelligence sources is correct, because the CIA regards the effort as doomed to failure,” the congressman said in an email. “Specifically (again without referring to classified information), the CIA thinks that it is impossible to train and equip a force of pro-Western Syrian nationals that can fight and defeat Assad, al-Nusra and ISIS, regardless of whatever air support that force may receive.”

    Is this what the CIS is telling the President? Is this what the CIA is telling John McCain and Lindsey Graham?

    Rouhani is going to the UN opening session.

    Will this provide an opportunity for a symbolic shaking of hands with President Obama?

    Is the CIA onboard with somebody’s reported idea to let the Saudis and Qataris and their front groups, including the Nusra Front and ISIS, topple Assad while the US main action against ISIS in Syria waits for Iraq to become more secure?

    How fast will the President be spending the $500 million that the Congress is likely to authorize with a Senate vote shortly? With the drama of going through this vote shut up the GOP about Obama’s performance on Syria?

    The stated policy indeed is ridiculous. What are the actual activities on the ground?

    How coordinated are they among the US national security and intelligence agencies? Or are the agencies doing their own thing, each nation in the coalition of the wiling doing their own thing, and the existence of multiple coalitions and actors (like Iran) doing their own thing?

    And then of course there are the issues of double-dealing on the part of our “allies”?

    Is confusion an attempt at camouflage of strategy?

    • Don Bacon says:

      So many questions!
      All one needs to know is that the US strategy, whatever it may be, has never worked. It is always fatally flawed by hubris and by corrupt, unqualified people. The town bully always gets his comeuppance, eventually.
      Here’s one indicator: “Worldwide Caution”

      The Department of State has issued this Worldwide Caution to update information on the continuing threat of terrorist actions and violence against U.S. citizens and interests throughout the world.

      No other country can make that statement.

      • TarheelDem says:

        All one needs to know is that the US strategy, whatever it may be, has never worked.

        Well, then, with that realization those of us, unlike luckier folks, who are trapped in the steerage of the Titanic can just wondering it there might be some exit somewhere and prepare ourselves for the ice-cold surge of water that precedes the drowning that we’ve seen coming since 1969. We down here in the hold have done our best I guess.

        • Don Bacon says:

          These US foreign policy failures, and ones to come, won’t sink the ship of state. It will continue to sail aimlessly around the world, sort of like an expensive US aircraft carrier, while other countries, like their commercial ships (the US has few) maintain the life of the world, and while US citizens go about their daily business mostly oblivious to boring (to them) events in Iraq, Ukraine etc.
          .
          As for foreign policy wonks, we get our jollies by watching these clowns twist slowly in the wind. At least I do.
          .
          Meanwhile, the mandatory JW Petraeus moment:
          Gen. David Petraeus says ISIS should not be overestimated and has “nowhere near” the strength of al Qaeda in Iraq at the height of the war in that country.
          .
          Damn, he said something sensible. Grrrrr

        • TarheelDem says:

          You haven’t seen those US citizens going about their daily business recently, have you. The rot is showing up everywhere.

  4. Don Bacon says:

    The principal US response to the “ISIS threat” is to organize, train and equip an armed force to fight against the only real opposition that ISIS has in its Syrian sanctuary, President Assad’s Syrian Arab Army.

  5. Louisa says:

    On the subject of negotiations over Iran’s nuclear weapons program, Zarif said all the “wrong options” have already been tried and that “we are ready” for an agreement.

    I am so tired of hearing the Western press describe the situation this way. How long have they been scaremongering about these provably* non-existent nukes now? Twenty years?

    */ not a typo

Comments are closed.