tv Democracy Now LINKTV September 22, 2015 8:00am-9:01am PDT
09/22/15 09/22/15 [captioning made possible by democracy now!] amy: from pacifica, this is democracy now! >> what is called here a noble endure, courageous move to cuba's isolation, although in reality, it was u.s. isolation that was the motivating factor. amy: professor noam chomsky -- world-renowned political dissident and linguist on wars in the middle east, the iran nuclear deal.
>> i should say it is a raging debate in the united states are virtually alone, almost everywhere else, the dust greeted with relief and optimism and without even parliamentary review. this is one of the many striking examples of the famous concept of american exceptionalism. amy: noam chomsky weighs in on the 2016 presidential race and donald trump. >> i think we should recognize that the other candidates are not that different. today's democrats are what used to be called moderate republicans. the republicans are just drifted off the spectrum. they are so committed to extreme wealth and power, that they cannot get votes. amy: professor noam chomsky on
power and ideology. all that and more, coming up. welcome to democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman. pope francis arrives in washington, d.c., today for the start of his historic u.s. tour. the pope will meet with president obama on wednesday and address a joint session of congress on thursday. on friday, pope francis will address the united nations general assembly in new york city before departing for philadelphia on saturday. as pope francis arrives in washington a group of 100 women, , many of them undocumented, are also set to arrive in d.c. today -- after marching 100 miles from a detention center in york, pennsylvania, in order to greet the pope. domestic worker silvia gonzalez, who is walking with the group, said the march is intended to send a message that families belong together, and should not be separated by u.s. immigration policies. him is forge for
dignity, for love for all the families together. my mom lives in mexico. i have been here for 15 years in the usa, and i don't see my mom for long, long 15 years. i live here and my daughter and granddaughter live here also. mom, know i can go see my but i can't come back. amy: the pope had reportedly wanted to begin his u.s. trip by crossing the mexican border, but the plan had to be scrapped for logistical reasons. in january, pope francis said -- "to enter the united states from the border with mexico would be a beautiful gesture of brotherhood and support for immigrants." in news from the campaign trail, wisconsin governor scott walker has dropped out of the 2016 presidential campaign amid dwindling financial backing and plummeting support in the polls. in his announcement, he called on other republican candidates
to help "clear the field" in efforts to oust current frontrunner donald trump. >> i urge other candidates to do the same so the voters can focus on a limited number of candidates who can offer a positive, conservative alternative to the current frontrunner. amy: governors walker which raw -- withdrawal comes as a new cnn poll shows former hewlett-packard ceo carly fiorina rising to second place in a new cnn poll. trump remains the front-runner, with 24% support. in other campaign news, former florida governor jeb bush says he supports the passage of the dream act and comprehensive immigration reform, after dream activists disrupted his speech to the hispanic chamber of commerce in houston monday. >> no hope without our vote.
>> as i've said consistently, -- i have been consistently for it and i will continue to be consistently for it irrespective of what the political ramifications of that are. amy: chinese president xi jinping is kicking off his first state visit to the united states today in seattle, washington. president xi is expected to meet with technology executives and your boeings factory in washington. on thursday, he will leave for washington, d.c. were you will meet with president obama. u.s. officials say russia has begun flying surveillance drones over syria following reports russia is slated to deploy 2000 troops to its new air base near the port city of latakia. meanwhile, israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu has said israel and russia will coordinate military operations in syria. this comes as the united states has also opened military talks with russia over the two countries' involvement in the ongoing syrian war.
in guatemala, an indigenous leader who had fought against a palm oil factory that has been polluting a river with pesticides has been killed. 28-year-old rigoberto lima choc was fatally shot outside a local courthouse, one day after the court ordered the six-month closure of the factory. the united nations has described the factory's pollution as causing a "ecological disaster." at least 100 people have been killed in northern nigeria in four seemingly coordinated bombings on sunday evening. authorities have accused the militant group boko haram. this comes as unicef says the number of children forced to flee from boko haram's violence in nigeria and neighboring countries has topped 1.4 million. in burkina faso, the leader of an apparent military coup says he is released prisoner after tense negotiations led by the president of senegal. last week, the presidential guard, which is loyal to burkina faso's former longtime president blaise compaoré, detained interim president michel kafando and dissolved the transitional government. at least a dozen people have
been killed in the violence. a new compromise plan calls for president kafando to be returned to office, the leaders of the coup to receive immunity, and new elections to be held on november 22. in yemen, thousands of supporters of the houthi rebels celebrated the first anniversary of the group's takeover of the capital sana'a. the ongoing conflict between houthi rebels and saudi-backed forces loyal to yemen's ousted president has killed at least 4000 people and sparked a humanitarian crisis. in news from europe, hungary has passed legislation allowing the army to be deployed to the border as thousands of refugees fleeing violence in their home countries continue to attempt to cross the continent in efforts to reach northern europe. the new law allows hungarian troops to use rubber bullets, tear gas, smoke and flash grenades, and net guns against refugees. volkswagen says 11 million diesel cars worldwide have been equipped with the same software that was used to cheat on
emissions tests in the united states. the news comes as the justice department is reportedly conducting a criminal investigation into reports volkswagen illegally installed devices in certain disel cars in -- diesel cars in a deliberate bid to avoid epa emissions rules. congress confirmed it will also conduct hearings into the matter. a federal judge in georgia has sentenced the former executive of a peanut company to 28 years in prison for crimes related to a salmonella outbreak that killed 9 people and sickened hundreds more. stewart parnell, the former head of peanut corporation of america, was convicted of 71 criminal counts for knowingly shipping salmonella-tainted peanut butter from the georgia facility to companies like kellogg's. u.s. service members have come forward to describe how they were ordered to ignore child sexual abuse by allies in afghanistan, even when the abuse occurred on u.s. bases. "the new york times" reports superiors told service members to look the other way when
afghan colleagues abused boys because "it's their culture." in one case, dan quinn, a former special forces captain, was relieved of his command for beating up an afghan militia commander for keeping a boy chained to his bed as a sex slave. a former hedge fund manager is facing widespread outrage after the start up company hiked the price of a life-saving drug by more than 5000%. the drug daraprim is used to treat a disease caused by a common parasite, which can afflict patients with hiv. martin shkreli, the founder of the start up turing pharmaceuticals, attempted to justify the price hike in an interview with bloomberg news. >> at the end of the day, the price per course of treatment to save your life was only $1000 and we know these days modern pharmaceuticals, cancer drugs can cost $100,000, a written disease drugs can cost half $1 million. it is still underpriced relative to its gears my understanding to costce this bill only
one dollar. amy: democractic presidential candidate hillary clinton said in a tweet -- "price-gouging like this in the specialty drug market is outrageous." and monday marked the fourth anniversary of troy davis' execution. troy anthony davis was put to death by the state of georgia on september 21, 2011, despite major doubts about evidence used to convict him of killing police officer mark macphail. his death helped fuel a national movement to abolish the death penalty. you can go to our website at democracynow.org to see our coverage the night of his death outside the prison where he was killed. and those are some of the headlines. this is democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman. today in a democracy now! special, we spend the hour with noam chomsky, the world-renowned political dissident, linguist, author, and institute professor emeritus at massachusetts institute of technology, where he's taught for more than half a century. noam chomsky has penned more
than 100 books, including so" a collection of his columns. on saturday, chomsky spoke to a sold-out audience at the new school's auditorium here in new york city. he discussed the persistence of u.s. exceptionalism, republican efforts to torpedo the iran nuclear deal, and the normalizations of u.s.-cuba relations. professor chomsky also explained why he believes the u.s. and its closest allies, namely saudi arabia and israel, are undermining prospects for peace in the middle east. his speech was titled "on power and ideology." role of concentrated power in shaping the ideological that dominates perception, interpretation, discussion, choice of action -- all of that is to familiar to require much comment.
tonight i would like to discuss a critically important example, but first, a couple of words on one of the most perceptive analysts of this process, george orwell. orwell's famous for his searching and sardonic critique of the way thought is controlled by force under to tell a terry and dystopia -- totalitarian dystopia. much less known is his discussion of how similar outcomes are achieved in free societies. speaking, of course, of england. and he wrote although the country is quite free, nevertheless, unpopular ideas can be suppressed without the use of force. he gave a couple of examples. provided a few words of
explanation, which were to the point. one particularly pertinent comment was his observation on a quality education in the best schools where it is instilled into you that there are certain things that it simply wouldn't do to say, or we may add, even to think. one reason why not much attention is paid to this essay is that it wasn't published. it was found decades later in his unpublished papers. it was intended as the introduction to his famous animal farm, a satire of to tell an arianism -- totalitarianism. white wasn't published is unknown, but i think perhaps you can speculate. orwell's observations on thought control under freedom come to
mind in considering the raging debate today about the iran nuclear deal, which currently occupies center stage. i should say it is a raging debate in the united states, virtually alone in a most everywhere else, the deal has been greeted with relief and optimism and without even parliamentary review. this is one of the many striking concept of the famous of american exceptionalism. the fact that america is an exceptional nation is regularly intoned by virtually every and i thinkgure, more revealingly, the same is true of prominent academic and , to selectllectuals
at almost random, take for example, the professor of the science of government at harvard . distinguished, liberal scholar, government advisor. his writing in harvard's prestigious journal international security, and there he explains that unlike other countries, the national identity of the united states is defined by a set of universal, political, and economic values, namely liberty, democracy, equality, private property and markets, so the u.s. has solemn duties to maintain his international primacy for the benefit of the world. and since this is a matter of definition, we can dispense with the tedious work of empirical verification. [laughter]
so i won't spend any time on that. or let's turn to the leading left liberal intellectual journal, the new york review. there are a couple of months ago we read from the former chair of the carnegie endowment for international peace that american contributions to international security, global economic growth, freedom, and human well-being have been so self-evidently unique and have been so clearly directed to others benefit that americans have long believed that the united states amounts to a different kind of country, while others push the national interest, the united states tries to advance universal principles. itevidence is given because is a matter of definition. [laughter]
that is very easy to continue. it is only fair to add that there is at all exceptional about this american exceptionalism. it is standard for every great power. very familiar from other imperial states in their days in the sun, britain, france, others. and this is true, interestingly, even from very honorable figures from home one might have expected better -- jon stewart mill, for example, in england. which raises interesting questions about intellectual life and intellectual standards. well, in some respects, american exceptionalism is not in doubt. i just mentioned one example. the current iran nuclear deal. here the exceptionalism of the united states, its isolation, is
dramatic and stark. there are many other cases, but this is the one i would like to think about this evening. in fact, u.s. isolation might soon increase. the republican organization, i hesitate to say party, is dedicated to undermining the deal. in interesting ways. with the kind of unanimity one doesn't find in political parties, though it is familiar in such former organizations as the old communist party, democratic centralism. everyone has to say the same thing. that is one of many indications that the republicans are no longer a political party in the normal sense am a despite pretensions, commentary, and so on. amy: noam chomsky speaking
amy: "ye rooze khoob miad," iranian rap artist hichkas. this is democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman. over the weekend, he spoke to a packed audience at the new school here in new york city. quoting conservative political commentators, thomas mann and norman ornstein of the right-wing american enterprise institute. in --t, they may succeed increasing sanctions and even secondary sanctions on other
countries and carry out other actions that could lead iran to opt out of the deal with the united states, with the united states, that is, however, that need not mean the agreement is nullified. contrary to the way it is sometimes presented here, it is not a u.s.-iran agreement. it is an agreement between iran and what is called p5+1, the five veto holding members of the security council plus germany. and the other participants might agree to proceed iran as well. they would then join china and india, which have already been finding ways to evade the u.s. withraints on interactions
iran. and if they do, they will join the large majority of the worlds population of the nonaligned movement, which all along has figures lay supported iran's right to pursue its nuclear npt.ams as a member of the but remember, they are not part of the international community. so when we say the international community, it opposes iran's policy or the international community does some other thing, that means the united states and anybody else who happens to be gone along with it, so we can dismiss them. if others continued to honor the deal, which could happen, the united states will be isolated from the world -- which is not an unfamiliar position. that is also the background for the other element of obama's
what's called obama's legacy, his other main foreign-policy achievement -- the beginning of normalization of relations with cuba. on cuba, the united states has been always totally isolated for decades. if you look, say, at the annual votes in the un's general assembly on the u.s. embargo, really reported, but the u.s. essentially votes along. the last one israel joined. but of course, israel violates the embargo, they just have to join because they have to join with the master. occasionally, the marshall islands or someone else joins. and in the hemisphere, the united states has been totally isolated for years. conferencesisphere have foundered because the united states will something not
join the rest of the hemisphere in the major issues that are discussed. last month in colombia, the two major issues were admitting cuba into the hemisphere, the u.s. and canada refused and everyone else agreed and then the u.s. drug war, which is devastating latin america and they want to get out of it, but the u.s. and canada don't agree. that is actually the background for obama's acceptance of steps towards mobilization of relations with cuba. another conference is coming up in panama, and if the united states had not made that move, it probably would've been thrown out of the him it's for. therefore, obama made what is ,alled here a noble gesture courageous move to end cuba's isolation.
although in reality, it was u.s. isolation that was the motivating factor. so if the united states ins up being almost universally isolated in iran, that won't be anything particularly new and in fact, there are quite a few other cases. well, in the case of iran, the reasons for u.s. concerns are very clearly and repeatedly articulated. iran is the gravest threat to world peace. we hear that regularly from high places. government officials, commentators, and others. in the united states. there also happens to be a world out there and it has its own opinions. it is quite easy to find these out from standard stores is -- sources like the u.s. gallup
polls, takes regular polls on international opinion, and one of the questions you posed or is posed is, which country do you think is the gravest threat to world peace? the answer is unequivocal. the united states by a huge margin. way behind in second place is pakistan, inflated surely by the indian vote -- [laughter] and a couple of others. iran is mentioned, but along with israel and a few others way down. things thatof the it wouldn't do to say, in fact, the results that are found by the leading u.s. polling agency did not make it through the portals of what we call the free press, but it doesn't go away for that reason. well, given the reigning doctrine about the gravity of
the iranian threat, we can understand the virtually unanimous stand that the united states is entitled to react with military force, unilaterally, of course, if it claims to detect some iranian departure from the terms of the agreement. example, taking an virtually come at random from thenational press, consider lead editorial last sunday in "the washington post." it calls on congress to "make clear that mr. obama or his successor will have support for immediate u.s. military action if an iranian attempt to build a bomb is ejected." meaning by the united states. so the editors make it clear that the united states is exceptional.
it is a rogue state, indifferent to international law and conventions, entitled to resort to violence at will. but the editors can't be faulted for that stand because it is honest universal among the political class in this exceptional nation, though what it means is, again, one of those things it wouldn't do to say. sometimes the doctrine takes quite a remarkable form. and not just on the right, by any means. take for example, the clinton doctrine. namely, the united states is free to resort to unilateral use of military power, even for such purposes as to ensure uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies, and strategic resources. let alone security or alleged
humanitarian concerns. and adherence to this doctrine is very well confirmed and practiced as need hardly be discussed among people willing to look at the facts of current history. "the washington post" editors also make clear why the united states should be prepared to take such extreme steps in its role of international primacy. if the united states is not prepared to resort to military force, they explained, then iran "may escalate its attempt to establish hegemony over the middle east by force [captioning made possible by democracy now!] that is what president obama calls arends aggression. which we have to contain. for those who are unaware of how iran has been attempting to
establish hegemony over the middle east by force or might even dream of doing so, the editors do give examples -- two examples. it support for the assad regime and hezbollah. i won't insult your intelligence by discussing this demonstration that iran has been seeking to establish hegemony over the region by force, however, on a aggression, there is an example. i think one in the last several hundred years. namely, iranian conquest of two arab islands in the gulf under the u.s.-backed regime of the shaw in the 1970's. these shocking iranian efforts to establish regional hegemony by force can be contrasted with
.he actions of u.s. allies for example, nato ally turkey, which is actively supporting the jihadi forces in syria. the support is so strong, that it appears that turkey helped frontlies on the al-nusra to kill and capture the few dozen fighters that were introduced into syria by the pentagon a few weeks ago. it is a result of several years, and who knows how many billions to enters, training and were immediately captured or killed. apparently, with the aid of turkish intelligence. more important than that, the central role of the leading u.s. ally saudi arabia for the jihadi
rebels in syria and iraq. and more generally, for saudi arabia having been "a major source of financing" to rebel and terrorist organizations since the 1980's. that is from eight -- a recent study by the parliament repeating what is well known. and still more generally, the missionary zeal with which saudi arabia promulgates its radical extremist doctrines by ic schools,g koran mosques, sending radical clerics throughout the muslim world with enormous impact. one of the closest observers of the region, patrick cockburn, the mainstream sunni islam is one of the most dangerous developments of our
come always with strong u.s. support. these are all things that would not do dimension, along with the fact that these pernicious developments are a direct outgrowth of the long-term tendency of the united states, picking up from britain before its, to support radical islam in opposition to secular nationalism. long-standing commitments. there are others like the u.n. ambassador rice samantha power who condemned iran's destabilization of the region. destabilization is an interesting concept of political discourse. for example, when iran comes to the aid of the government of iraq and iraqi kurdistan in defense against the assault of isis, that is destabilization.
if not aggression, perhaps. in contrast, when the u.s. invades iraq and kills a couple hundred thousand people, generates millions of refugees, destroys the country, and sets off a sectarian conflict that is tearing iraq and, by now, the whole region to shreds, and on the side increases terrorism worldwide by a factor of 7 just in the first year, that is stabilization. [laughter] part of our mission that we must continue for the benefit of the world. u.s. the exceptionalism of doctrine institutions is quite wondrous to buy old -- to behold. "the washington post" editors join dennis ross, thomas
friedman, other notables in calling on washington to provide israel with a b-52 bomber and perhaps even the more advanced b-2 bombers and also huge, what are called massive ordnance penetrators, bunker busters and formally -- informally. there's a problem, they don't have airstrips for huge planes like that that they can use maybe turkey's airstrips. and none of this is for defense. these are not defensive weapons, remember. all of these weapons are offense of weapons -- offensive weapons for israel to use to bomb iran if it chooses to do so. client,rael is a u.s. it inherits from the master the freedom from international law.
so nothing surprising about supplies of offensive weapons to use when it chooses. well, the violation of international law goes well beyond threat. it goes to action, including acts of war, which are proudly proclaimed, presumably, because that is our right. as exceptional nation, gain. the one example is the successful sabotage of the iranian nuclear installations by cyber war. the pentagon has views about cyber war. the pentagon regards cyberwar as an act of war, which justifies a military response. a year ago, nato affirmed the same position, determined that aggression through cyberattacks can trigger the collective
the natobligations of alliance, meaning, if any country is attacked by cyber war, the whole alliance can respond by military attacks. that means cyberwar attacks against us, not by us against them. and the significance of these stands is, again, something that wouldn't do dimension. and you can check to see that condition is well observed. amy: noam chomsky speaking saturday at the new school in new york. when we come back, professor chomsky continues on the issue of the middle east, u.s.-israel relations, presidential politics, and donald trump. more in a minute. ♪ [music break]
world-renowned political dissident, linguist, author, and institute professor emeritus at massachusetts institute of technology, where he's taught for more than half a century. he is author of more than 100 books. as we bring you the end of his speech "on power and ideology," which he delivered over the weekend here in new york. >> perhaps they're justified in cowering in terror before iran because of its extraordinary military power. and it is possible to evaluate that concern, for example, you can turn to the authoritative analysis detailed analysis of the center for strategic and international studies, the main laste for such information april, which conducted and published along study of the regional military balance, and they find "conclusive case that the arab gulf states have an
overwhelming advantage over iran in both military spending and access to modern arms." with the gulf cooperation council states bahrain equates arabia, and markets, they outspend iran on arms by a factor of eight. it is an imbalance that goes back decades. in the report observes further the air gulf states have acquired and are acquiring some of the most advanced and effective weapons in the world while iran has been essentially forced to live in the past, often relying on systems originally delivered at the time shaw 40 years ago, which are essentially obsolete. and the imbalance is greater with israel, which along with the most advanced u.s. weaponry
and its role as a virtual offshore military base of the global superpower has a huge stock of nuclear weapons. there are, of course, other threats that justify serious concern and can't be brushed aside. a nuclear weapons state might leak nuclear weapons to jihadis. no joke. in the case of iran, the threat is minuscule. not only are the sunni-jihadis the mortal elements of a rant, but the ruling clerics, whatever one thinks of them, have shown ,o signs of clinical insanity and they know if there was even a hint that they were the source of a leaked weapon, they and all they possess would be instantly vaporized. that doesn't mean we can ignore
the threat, however. not from iran where doesn't exist, but from u.s. ally pakistan where the threat is in fact very real. discussed recently by two leading pakistani nuclear , britain's leading journal of international affairs, they write that increasing fears of militants seizing nuclear weapons or materials and unleashing nuclear terrorism have led to the creation of a dedicated force of over 20,000 troops to guard nuclear facilities. there is no reason to assume, however, that this force would be immune to the problems associated with the units guarding regular military facilities, which are for grilli suffered attacks with insider
help. in other words, the whole system is laced with jihadi elements, in large measure because of what patrick cockburn described about sunni islam from saudi arabia and with the strong support of the united states ever since the reagan administration. well, in short, the problem is fact,nough, very real, in not being seriously addressed, not even discussed. rather, what we're concerned about is fantasies concocted for other reasons about the current official enemy. opponents of the iran nuclear deal maintain that iran is intent on developing nuclear weapons. the u.s. intelligence can discern no evidence for this, but there is no doubt at all that in the past, they have in
fact intended to do so. and we know this because it was clearly stated by the highest authorities in iran. the highest authority of the iranian state informed foreign journalists that iran would develop nuclear weapons, certainly, and sooner than one thinks. the father of iran's nuclear energy program, former head of iran's atomic energy organization, expressed his confidence that the leadership's plan is to build a nuclear bomb. and the cia report also had their words, no doubt, that iran would develop nuclear weapons if neighboring countries do, as of course, they have. all of this was under the shaw, the highest authority. that is during the period when
high u.s. officials, cheney, rumsfeld, kissinger, were urging the shaw to proceed with nuclear programs, and there were also pressuring universities to accommodate these efforts. my own university was an example, m.i.t., under government pressure, it made a deal with the shaw to admit iranian students to the engineering department and return for grants from the shaw. this was done over the very strong objections of the student body. but with comparably strong faculty support. the distinction that raises a number of interesting questions about academic institutions and how they function. the faculty or the students of a couple of years ago would have a different institutional place. -- andts of the nuclear
fact, some of these m.i.t. students are now running the iranian nuclear programs. opponents of the nuclear deal argue that it didn't go far enough. you have heard a lot of that. and interestingly, some of the supporters of the deal agree. demanding that go beyond what has been achieved and that the whole middle east should rid itself of nuclear weapons, in fact, weapons of mass destruction generally. i am quoting iran's minister of foreign affairs. he is reiterating the call of the nonaligned movement and the arab states for many years to establish a weapons of mass destruction-free zone in the middle east. that would be a very straightforward way to address alleged threat iran is
opposed. a lot more than that is at stake. this is discussed recently in the leading u.s. world arms control journal, "arms control today," by two leading figures in the international anti-nuclear movement, two of yousts were veterans and agencies, observe the successful adoption in 1995 of the resolution on the establishment of the zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the middle east was the main element of a package that permitted the end -- the extension of the nonproliferation treaty. that's the most important arms control treaty there is, and its continuation is conditioned on
acceptance of moves towards establishing weapons of mass destruction-free zone, nuclear free zone in the middle east. repeatedly, implementation of this plan has been blocked by the united states at the annual five-year review meetings of the nonproliferation treaty. most recently by obama in 2010 and again in 2015. a couple of months ago. the same two anti-nuclear specialists comment that in 2015, this effort was again blocked by the united states on behalf of a state that is not party to the nonproliferation treaty, and is widely believed to be the only one in the region possessing nuclear weapons. that is a polite and understated reference to israel.
washington's sabotage of the possibility in defense of israeli nuclear weapons may well undermine the nonproliferation treaty as well as maintaining dangerous instability in the middle east, always, of course, in the name of stability. this is, incidentally, not the only case when opportunities to end the alleged iranian threat have been undermined by washington. some quite interesting cases. but all of this raises quite interesting questions, which we should be asking, about what actually is at stake? so turning to that, what actually is the threat posed by iran? plainly, it is not a military threat. it is obvious.
we can put aside the fevered pronouncements about iranian ,ggression, support for terror seeking hegemony over the region by force, or the still more outlandish notion that even if iran had a bomb, it might use it , therefore, suffering instant obliteration. the real threat has been clearly explained by u.s. intelligence in its reports to congress on the global security situation. of course, they deal with iran. and they point out, quoting us intelligence, rents nuclear program and its willingness to keep open the possibility of developing nuclear weapons is a central part of its deterrent strategy. part of iran's to turn strategy. no offense of policies. but they're trying to construct a deterrent. and that iran has a serious
interest in a deterrent strategy is not in doubt among serious analyst. it is recognized, for example, by u.s. intelligence. so the influential analysts, cia veteran bruce rigell who is by ,o means a dove, he writes that if i was an iranian national security planner, i would want nuclear weapons as a deterrent. and the reasons are pretty obvious. he also makes another crucial comment. he points out that israel's strategic room for maneuver in the region would be constrained by an iranian nuclear deterrent. of course, it is also true of the united states. room for maneuver means resort to aggression and violence. yes, it would be constrained by an iranian deterrent.
for the two rogue states that rampage freely in the region, the united states and israel, in a deterrent is, of course, unacceptable. and for those who are accustomed and take for granted their right to rule by force, that concern is easily escalated to what is called an existential threat. the threat of deterrence is very severe. if you expected succumbed to force unilaterally to achieve your goals as the u.s. and , commonly, and more recently, the second u.s. ally, saudi arabia, has been trying to get into the club pretty incompetently with its invasion mildhrain to prevent reformist measures. and more recently, his extensive bombing of yemen, which is
causing a huge humanitarian crisis. so for them, or determine -- a a deterrent is a problem. i think that is the heart of the matter. even if it wouldn't do to say or think, except for those who hope to fend off possible disaster and to move towards a more peaceful and just world, it is necessary to keep to these injunctions, and said it wouldn't do to say or think. you don't read about them, you don't hear about them, but they are, i think, the heart of the issue. [applause] emika: professor noam chomsky speaking at the new school this weekend. after his talk am a professor chomsky read and answered questions from the audience. this is one of those questions. >> what do think about the
antics of donald trump? in relation to your earlier idea of american exceptionalism? [applause] thatnk we should recognize the other candidates are not that different -- i mean, if you take -- [laughter] [applause] just take a look at their views. they will tell you their views. and they are astonishing. so just to keep to iran, a couple of weeks ago, the two front runners, are not the front runners any longer, were jeb bush and scott walker. and they differed on air ran. iranr said we have to bomb when he gets elected, they're going to bomb iran immediately. the day his elected. bush was a little does she is
more serious, he said, is going to wait until the first cabinet meeting. [laughter] of not just off spectrum only international opinion, but even relative sanity. think, ornstein is correct, it is a radical insurgency, not a political party. you can tell that even by the votes. any issue of any complexity is going to have some diversity of opinion. it when you get a unanimous vote to kill the iranian deal or the affordable care act or whatever the next thing may be, you know you're not dealing with a political party. it is an interesting question why that is true. i think what has happened is during the whole neoliberal period the last generation, both political parties have drifted to the right. what usedmocrats are to be called moderate republicans. the republicans have just
drifted off the spectrum. they are so committed to extreme wealth and power, that they cannot get votes. can't get votes by presenting those positions. so what has happened is they have mobilized sectors of the population that have been around for a long time. it is a pretty exceptional country in many ways. one is it is extremely religious. one of the most extreme fundamentalist countries in the world. and by now i suspect the majority of the base of the republican party is evangelical christians. extremists, they are a mixture, but these are the extremist ones. nativists who are afraid that they are taking our white anglo-saxon country away from us, people who have to have guns when they going to starbucks because, who knows, they might
be killed by an islamic terrorist and so on. i mean come all of that is part of the country, and it goes back to colonial days. but these have not been an organized political force in the past. they are now. that is the base of the republican party. and you see it in the primaries. yeah, trump is maybe comic not thatut it is different from the mainstream, which i think is more important. amy: noam chomsky speaking at the new school this week and here in new york city on "power and ideology." is institute professor emeritus at massachusetts institute of technology, where he's taught for more than half a century. a linguist, political dissident. chomsky has written more than 100 books. his latest, "because we say so." for the full transcript, video and audio, you can go to democracynow.org and we will also post the full q&a right there at democracynow.org with professor chomsky.
what did you find most interesting about this speech? tweet us or go to our facebook page. that does it for the show. democracy now! is looking for feedback from people who appreciate the closed captioning. e-mail your comments to email@example.com or mail them to democracy now! p.o. box 693 new york, new york 10013. [captioning made possible by democracy now!]
Uploaded by TV Archive on