NEW YORK, Oct. 9, 2007
Jimmy Carter: Don't Invade Iran
Says It'd Be "Completely Unnecessary And Counterproductive," And No One Would Join Us
-
-
Former President Carter on The Early Show Tuesday. (CBS/EARLY SHOW)
-
(Simon & Schuster)
-
-
Play CBS Video Video Jimmy Carter On Iran America's 39th president and global peace activist Jimmy Carter sits down with Harry Smith to talk about finding diplomatic peace with Iran and the ongoing war in Iraq.
-
Video 'Beyond The White House' Former President Jimmy Carter speaks with Harry Smith about his diplomatic, peace-keeping missions and his humanitarian work in Darfur, topics featured in his new book, "Beyond the White House."
ADVERTISEMENT
"Even after the Shah (of Iran) was deposed," Carter told co-anchor Harry Smith, "I quickly restored diplomatic relations with Iran. As a matter of fact, that's been proven by the fact I had about 60 diplomats in Iran, and they had an equal number in Washington, so we were continuing to try to communicate with them and work with them. And I think that, now, with increasing evidence that Iran is a dangerous and unpredictable country, the best thing to do is to have a maximum diplomatic relationship.
"They're potentially dangerous and they're certainly unpredictable. But I think that if we could find some way to communicate directly with them, to reassure their fears that we might attack them, which is constantly a drumbeat out of Washington, maybe deliberately from the administration or inadvertent -- Sy Hirsh has written three or four articles in the New Yorker, though I haven't read the latest one, but he's always maintaining that the United States is preparing to attack Iran. They read those articles and they see all the other news, and if they feel that they're going to be attacked, then I think that's one incentive for them to be more militant. So, I think, to assuage their fears, and to tell them the truth about our intentions, would be more helpful."
Still, Smith noted, "It seems to me we've done a pretty clear job of letting our intentions be known, yet they remain recalcitrant, at best. Is a military strike an option?"
"I don't think so," Carter said. "Not at this early stage, and I don't think that anybody in the administration has maintained openly that that is a present option. Every indication I've heard from Condoleezza Rice or President Bush has been, 'We want to resort to diplomatic means to -- as thoroughly as we possibly can before we would consider a military strike.'
"So, I think a military strike against Iran at this time would be completely unnecessary and counterproductive. Iran is a different proposition from what Iraq was when we attacked Iraq. It wouldn't be an easy thing to invade Iran. And where would we get the troops? We don't even have enough troops for Iraq. Where would we get them from? And I don't think we would have any other nation in the world that would join us in any sort of military adventure against Iran. So, diplomacy is the best approach."
Carter's latest book, "Beyond the White House: Waging Peace, Fighting Disease, Building Hope," covers the work he's done around the world since leaving office -- and continues to do.
He discussed it, and much more on The Early Show Tuesday, including his recent criticism of Sudan for the violence and humanitarian crisis in its Darfur region, his thoughts on the Clinton administration's handling of Sudan, and the big apartheid/Israel controversy he sparked.
A previous book of his, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," and subsequent remarks about the Israel-Palestinian conflict, prompted an uproar from Jewish groups and the resignation of 14 people from an advisory board of the Carter Center, the 25-year-old Atlanta-based humanitarian organization.
Asked Tuesday by Smith if he has any regrets over the book or the remarks, Carter replied, "No, not at all. The book is absolutely correct, and I think it was necessary and has played a good role and was overwhelmingly approved, although there were some that objected to it. The book was written about Palestine, not Israel. And the second word in the title, as you just mentioned, was 'peace,' not apartheid. And I think a lot of people adopted the word 'apartheid' as the No. 1 thrust of the book and it's not even mentioned in the book, as a matter of fact.
"But, I think the peace effort that's belatedly gonna be attempted in November is a very good development. As you know, for seven years, since Bill Clinton left office, we've had not a single day of good-faith negotiations between Israel and its neighbors, and it's highly overdue. And my hope is that we'll see some constructive efforts being made on the Palestinian side and the Israeli side when they convene in the United States in November."
To read an excerpt of, "Beyond the White House," click here.
To see the entire interview with Cater, click here and here.
"Beyond the White House" is published by Simon & Schuster, which is part of the CBS Corporation, as is CBSNews.com.
© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
More From Books
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 49 CommentsLast letter from doomed Al Qaida chief: "We are so desperate for your help"
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2007/ss_iraq_09_30.asp
Iraq insurgency: People rise against al-Qa''eda
Damien McElroy spent a week in the heart of the insurgency in Anbar province in Iraq. In the second of seven exclusive reports he describes how peace and prosperity have returned to a town formerly riven by sectarian killings.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/08/wanbar308.xml
Well, folks - and MoveOn.Org brain dead kiddies - he did.
This guy who claimed he was a "Born Again Christian" blatantly lied about that too. He''s "Born Again" all right - a "Born Again" Muslim who supported the Ayatollahs, Arafat, Assad and now supports Hamas, Hizbullah, Ahmedinejedad, and probably has nice words for Osama too.
But what do you expect from a guy who began his career as a shill and acolyte of the Ku Klux Klan and whose hero was none other than Tom "Jew Libertines Take Notice" Watson (see C. Vann Woodward''s "Agarian Rebel" or the first film featuring Lana Turner -"They Won''t Forget" - Claude Rains, a wonderful man, played a fictionized odious scum Watson in the movie).
they consider themselves to be at war with the USA, we are dar ul''harb to them, in the house of war...every immam in Iran will tell you that...lying to the enemy is of no consequence!! not a new context, shouldnt be an issue, except that they are developing a nuke...
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RS21592.pdf
A recurring issues has been the detection of highly enriched uranium (HEU) particles
at sites in Iran. Iranian officials asserted that HEU particles found at the Natanz pilot plant
in 2003 were contaminants from foreign centrifuge assemblies, a first clue revealing the
Pakistani A.Q. Khan network. Iran admitted to enriching uranium to just 1.2%, while the
particles sampled ranged from 36% to 70% U-235. In October 2003, Iranian officials
admitted they tested centrifuges at the Kalaye Electric Company using UF6 between 1998
and 2002. IAEA report GOV/2006/15 reveals that components also came from another
country besides Pakistan.
Neither can the US, web, we have broken every treaty we have ever made, including the constitution, whenever it pleased the power to do so. At best, we can have an Al Capone/Lucky Luciano type arrangement between "families", no need to vilify the other for being like us.
Posted by brianbwb at 03:30 AM : Oct 10, 2007,,,
I don''t agree, the U.S. may back out of or quit a Treaty but I don''t consider that breaking a Treaty. Even after the Soviet Union collapsed the U.S. still honored its agreement not to invade Cuba and technically did not have to since the Soviet Union no longer existed. If the U.S. breaks a Treaty the U.S. must have a good reason to do so, it would not just do it for no reason. The U.S. could break all Treaties with Mexico for example and be justified with the 12 million plus illegal Mexican invasion of the U.S.
bushit and his neocon idiots have driven us down a one-way street of military agression - using fear as their arguement. We have experienced the worst leadership since 1776.
Neither can the US, web, we have broken every treaty we have ever made, including the constitution, whenever it pleased the power to do so. At best, we can have an Al Capone/Lucky Luciano type arrangement between "families", no need to vilify the other for being like us.
Posted by Draftreid at 08:17 PM : Oct 09, 2007
Wow, the Christian right shore is wrong. Don''t you know the Bible tells you not to hate, Draftreid? Why you dissin'' on Jesus, now? That ain''t nice.
Every once in awhile we are in agreement, this is one of those times.
Well said.
Posted by realpatriot1 at 10:35 PM : Oct 09, 2007
realpatriot1 -- every once in a while, you make a complete arse of yourself -- this is one of those times. You and pwrslm are a couple of pathetic frightened souls, clinging to your totally irrational "fear-based" beliefs.
Posted by forparity at 10:56 PM : Oct 09, 2007
forparity -- You can disagree with Carter about a lot of things (I do), but a liar? You, my friend, are brain-dead.
CARTER: "In the case of Sudan, that''s the only complaint I''ve had against the Clinton Admin.
False - You made #%u2019s of complaints against Clinton. Because the media gave him a pass (unlike Bush) doesn%u2019t mean it did not happen. Does CBS not have research and ethics crew?
Did Carter ever have complaint with Clinton for his complacency in Rwandan genocide(800K killed);1998 DR Congo civil war/genocide(4 1/2 mil. dead/killed); the takeover of Afghanistan by the Taliban(60K killed); Sierra Leone(50K+ dead), etc.
But I''m sure about these two:
1. Carter %u2013 On Kosovo NYT May''99"[Our attack] has been counterproductive, and our destruction of civilian life has now become senseless and excessively brutal.. The American-led force has expanded targets to inhabited areas and resorted to the use of anti-personnel cluster bombs. The result has been damage to hospitals, offices and residences of a half-dozen ambassadors, and the killing of innocent civilians... [Our] insistence on the use of cluster bombs, designed to kill or maim humans, is condemned almost universally and brings discredit to our nation."
2."I don''t think there is any doubt that some of the factors in his pardon were attributable to his large gifts, In my opinion, that [Clinton''s Rich pardon] was disgraceful." Feb2001
There''s 2. There''s more. Can one imagine a former Rep. pres getting away with lying like that. H Smith would have jumped all over it.
Every once in awhile we are in agreement, this is one of those times.
Well said.
Posted by Spectrum108
you enjoy provin your stupid in front of the world like this?
I think its funny how a liberal is so liberaly stupid, honestly. You are totally ignorant of what you are talking about. Totally.
if your parents and your grandparents knew you posted this kind of trashtalk, they would probably slap you upside the head and disown ya!!
oh, sorry, they must a hit pretty hard, you are serious about those stupid lies, arent ya....
But does weeee Jimmeee have "regrets" for NOT dealing forcefully with the Ayatollah or for betraying our friend Reza Pahlevi. Nope, not at all.
If we ever get nuked God Forbid by Iran on a sunny morning just like 9/11, and weee Jimmeee is still alive - I hope that Americans will arrange a nice necktie party or a scimitar-burning for the little bigot and total disgrace.
Might be a good idea to drop dead before your friend Ahmedinejedad goes nuclear, little Peanut boy.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 49 Comments