09/27/13 – Joe Lauria – The Scott Horton Show

Hey everybody, Scott Horton here for the Future of Freedom, the journal of the Future of Freedom Foundation at fff.org slash subscribe.
Now you know they publish great articles at fff.org every day, but their best stuff goes in the Future of Freedom.
It's just $25 a year for the print edition, $15 to read it online, and I got a new one coming out in September in there, U.S. responsible for Somalia's misery.
Support FFF.
Sign up for the Future of Freedom at fff.org slash subscribe.
And tell them Scott sent you.
All right, you guys, welcome back to the show here.
I'm Scott Horton.
This is my show, The Scott Horton Show.
We're on No Agenda Radio and ScottHorton.org slash listen.
You can find all my interview archives at ScottHorton.org, ScottHorton.org, ScottHorton.org.
Almost 3,000 of them now, going back to 2003, ScottHorton.org, and also you can follow me on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube at slash Scott Horton Show.
Okay, so now introducing our friend Joe Lauria.
He is the Wall Street Journal's man at the United Nations.
Welcome back to the show.
Joe, how the hell are you?
Hi, I'm fine, Scott.
How are you doing?
I'm doing great.
I appreciate you joining us.
And now, am I correct, you just finished attending a press conference hosted by the president of Iran.
That's correct.
I'm sitting outside the room right now.
People are leaving the press conference, so a little bit of noise around us, but he didn't make much noise.
He got a little testy with Margaret Warner of PBS, who basically accused him of deceiving the world when he was head of the nuclear negotiations back in 2003.
She accused him of saying, behind the back of the negotiators, completing the Asran nuclear facility.
And he really denied that, said that it had all been declared before one brick was built in this facility.
The IAEA had been informed, and he got really angry and said that they would not do this again.
He promised that this time, you know, there's not going to be any deception on the part of Iran.
He said that the people and the three branches of power in Iran are behind him solidly in terms of these new nuclear negotiations.
He didn't say what those three were, except one of them was the people of Iran, who just elected him.
He thanked them numerous times.
He seemed to be still in campaign mode a lot at times, too, in the promises of improving the economy of Iran.
But the other two have to be the Revolutionary Guard and the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, obviously.
So he didn't say that by name, but he is saying he has the Revolutionary Guards and the Supreme Leader behind him to negotiate this nuclear deal with the Western powers that got kicked off yesterday when John Kerry met with the foreign minister of Iran and the foreign ministers of Germany, the U.K., France, China, and Russia, the P5-plus-1.
So there's a lot of excitement in the area of the U.N. in this general assembly, because there's actually diplomacy on Iran and on Syria.
Tonight, the Security Council most likely will pass a resolution to make legal and to make legally binding the U.S.-Russian deal on destroying chemical weapons in Syria.
So there's lots to talk about, but those are the two big issues at this GAA, Iran and Syria.
Okay, yeah, obviously.
Okay, so first of all, now, in this press conference, did he draw any lines or has he previously drawn any lines saying that, you know, whether he's actually open to negotiating the Natanz facility and the enrichment up to 3.6 percent?
Are they still sticking by, listen, we're not going to give it all up, but we might cease enriching at 20 percent and that kind of thing?
He did not go into any detail like that, though he was pressed a couple of times.
He's saying that those proposals that they're going to make in Geneva in three weeks when this starts in earnest, they're still being prepared by Iran, but he's sticking with every appearance he's made.
He's been all over the place, on every media, possibly.
This is his last big media appearance.
He's sticking by the fact that Iran has the right to enrich uranium, according to the non-nuclear, non-proliferation treaty of which they're a member, with IAEA supervision.
So they're not going to give up enrichment, but they're going to prove to the world that they're not making a bomb, that they don't believe in the bomb, that it's against Islam, etc.
So this is the task he set ahead of himself, to prove with the IAEA and with the powers that the Iranian government is not seeking a bomb, and they're going to prove it this time, that they're going to continue to enrich.
As far as levels of enrichment, etc., you just ask.
There's nothing being said about that at this point, but that will come out in Geneva in about three weeks.
Well, you know, in fact, I was speaking with Ali Gharid the other day and he was saying, I guess I was saying, I thought that, well, what they really want was, you know, a breakout capability so that it's sort of a pseudo-MAD deterrent, not really a full-fledged MAD deterrent.
And he said that he thought that they really created the nuclear program just as a bargaining chip to negotiate away at some point, if they had to anyway, and that, you know, maybe the whole thing would be up for negotiation.
I'm not saying that I care, but obviously that's the Israeli position and therefore Congress's position, and I just wonder whether, you know, maybe they would be willing to even go that far if they got a good enough security guarantee and the lifting of the sanctions, etc.
You mean go as far as what?
Stop enrichment altogether?
Yeah.
Shut down Natanz and just say, you know what, we'll just...
I don't know that.
I mean, look, they want the sanctions over.
The sanctions are hurting them.
There's no question about it.
On the...
Well, back in 03, they were willing to negotiate it all, right?
Back in 03, that was eight, that was ten years ago.
The sanctions did not have anywhere near the effect that they've had in those ten years, and right now, he was asked about the economy, and he said when he looked at the books, Becoming President, it was worse than he thought, even though he was the head of an economic research center before this, before Becoming President, so he had a finger on the economy.
It's much worse than he thought, and they expect optimism that he'll overcome it, but they cannot overcome it without the sanctions being lifted, and the sanctions won't be lifted until there's real progress in these talks, and whether they don't necessarily have to give up for enrichment at the end of the day, I mean, that is the Security Council demand now to suspend enrichment, but I think if he's really, if they really tell him the truth that they don't want the bomb and they only want nuclear power, something could be worked out.
They want those sanctions lifted, and I think this time, that might be for real, but, you know, time will tell.
Well, you know, it seems like...
It totally, certainly will change, yeah.
Other than the war party, it seems like all the honest analysis is that the Iranians really mean it, and the question is whether there's the will on the American side to see this thing through.
I mean, the outlines of the deal are pretty obvious to all.
My view is there is absolutely the will on the part of the Obama administration, but they're being ferociously lobbied by the two most powerful lobbying groups inside the United States, which are the Saudis and the Israelis.
Those countries want a deal at all.
They're terrified of a deal.
They do not want a lessening of tensions on the nuclear issue.
They want to remove the government of Iran, and they want to limit and roll back Iran's influence across the region, the Saudis in particular with Bahrain, in Lebanon, and most importantly in Syria.
And I think that the Saudis and the Iranians hold the key to the end of the conflict in Syria.
They are the two major outside players who control extremist groups, both of them, who are doing most of the really important fighting inside Syria, not the Russians and the Americans.
Some people are saying that because they have this chemical deal that could lead to Geneva.
But after Saudis and the Iranians coming together on Syria, on Bahrain, on Lebanon, Afghanistan, there's no real solutions to these issues.
And I don't think that this is going to happen, necessarily, because as far as the American position is, I do think Obama has really kicked off the Saudis and the Israelis, first on the chemical weapons deal.
Both of them wanted desperately the U.S. intervene in this war, only because they need American firepower.
Nobody else can do it.
So they have to try to control and maybe even trick Obama into getting involved in that civil war.
And that has failed, because this chemical weapons deal that the American intervention in Syria is off the table.
And now we've got a resolution passing tonight, probably at Security Council, in which Syria is giving up their chemical weapons over the next six months to a year.
And that has really taken off the Israelis and the Saudis.
And then you have the Iranian issue.
They don't want a deal.
They don't want a lessening of tensions.
They don't want Iran to give up their nuclear program and take off the table military action by the U.S. to destroy the Iranian government, to roll back Iranian influence across the region.
So I think as far as American sincerity goes, the way you read it, they're being very cautious.
But you know, President Obama is the president of the United States, and he has his own American interests to look after, look for, and not necessarily be pushed by the Saudis and the Israelis on this.
And I think that's where the pressure is.
Of course, as we know, Congress is much more pliable to the Israeli and Saudi influence than Obama seems to be.
Congress seems to be sold on this issue.
So Obama's got Congress, he's got the neocons who are, of course, Netanyahu's corner here in the U.S., and he's got the Israelis and the Saudis breathing down his neck not to go ahead with any kind of settlement in Iran on their nuclear program, and even on this chemical weapons deal.
I think they're hoping that it fails so that they can get American military intervention back on the table in both places.
Yeah.
Well, now, so from the talks that they've had so far, I guess yesterday they talked for what, an hour or two or something, Kerry, and the foreign minister of Iran did?
Well, there was one hour with all the foreign ministers of the five.
Oh, it was the whole P5 plus one, right?
But also, Kerry had a side meeting, he told us, as he came out of the briefing, with Yavaz Zarif, who is the new foreign minister of Iran, the former U.N. ambassador here, who most of the press corps here knows quite well.
So they had a side meeting, too.
I think that was just sort of, I don't know the substance of that, whether that's in the video, but it seemed like just a shaking hands.
And this handshake stuff's been such BS, I have to say, because the press has made so much of this that Ronnie didn't shake Obama's hand and show up at that thing.
You know, that's just all atmospheric, so this has some importance.
But the real issue is going forward in Geneva, whether there's going to be a real progress on this deal or not, whether people shake hands or not.
But there's certainly a new opening here.
Last night I called on a rapprochement and the British ambassador corrected me, he might be right that we have not necessarily have a rapprochement between Iran and the U.S., but there's a new opening that could lead to an absolute lessening of tensions between Iran and the U.S. as a possible resolution of the Iranian nuclear issue, and also Syria.
It could have a big impact on Syria, and again, I cannot overestimate, I think, how I've seen the Saudi and what I hear Saudi and Israelis really, and Israelis openly criticizing both of these deals.
They just don't want this to happen.
So Obama has to stand firm against them, pursue what's in the interest of the United States, not in the interest of Saudi Arabia, not in the interest of Israel.
Yeah, well, good luck to us.
And the people of the region, by the way.
Who wants a war with Iran?
I mean, how many people would be killed by that?
What kind of a devastating conflict that could be for the Gulf and for the entire region.
I think that Obama's in a way, even not directly, looking out for the people of the region by at least pursuing this diplomatic path.
And don't forget, the American intelligence community does not say that they're going to come up with a bomb tomorrow or even in six months or a year, no matter how many times Netanyahu draws that red line, which keeps moving.
I think they're supposed to already have the bomb right now, right?
What, did he give a speech last year at the UN?
So there's time to pursue this, even if it fails.
There's no reason not to pursue this diplomatic path with the Iranians and test it out.
And there's no reason not to try to get rid of Syria's chemical weapons, because that was supposed to be the purpose of the military intervention by the U.S. in Syria, which was to degrade their ability to use chemical weapons.
It was much better to get rid of the entire program altogether, which, of course, there's no guarantee this is going to happen.
But I asked Samantha Power last night at a press conference.
I told her that at that same podium a few weeks ago, she said that the Security Council doesn't work because the U.S. couldn't get Russian vote to authorize U.S. military strike against Syria.
I said, now here you're standing here tonight with a deal that can get rid of those chemical weapons better than a military strike would have done.
So how do you feel about the Security Council now?
Is it working tonight now?
And of course, she had a backtrack on that.
And this is a typical American so-called exceptionalism, which is really arrogance, for the U.S. to go to the United Nations and to say, if we get our way, it's great, and if we don't, the U.N. doesn't work.
I mean, this is exactly what she was saying.
And now it's working for them.
But she had to backtrack on that.
This is a much better deal if it works.
Now, this resolution that's going to pass tonight, I should point out, not only provides for a second resolution that could impose sanctions or even military action against either party that disrupts this.
The report you're going to see is all about the Syrian government being in noncompliance with this chemical deal, not being forthcoming about where all the chemicals are, blocking inspectors.
But the actual language of the resolution, which was negotiated with Russia, and they had to get Russia's agreement in order to pass it, also includes other parties and all parties within Syria, which means the opposition.
And if the opposition uses chemical weapons or transfers them, they could also be punished.
So Russia can go to the Security Council and ask for a resolution under Chapter 7 to punish rebels if they have any evidence that they've used or moved chemical weapons.
And, of course, the West can come forward if the Syrian government has done that.
And there's this belief that actually that Russia would definitely veto this resolution if it came, if the West tried to punish Syria for noncompliance with the chemical deal.
But that's not necessarily true, because Putin has a lot on the line on this.
Russian President Vladimir Putin does.
He's put his reputation here that the Syrian government will give up their chemicals.
So he's going to put a lot of pressure on the Syrians to do this.
And right now this thing's looking like it could actually happen.
If anybody disrupts this destruction, first collection and then destruction of Syria's chemical weapons under international supervision, it could be the rebels.
They don't want this deal.
They're on the same page with the Iranians, sorry, with the Syrians, back up, with the Saudis and the Israelis.
The opposition in Syria does not want this chemical deal to go forward.
They want American intervention.
So if they can disrupt it, that could put American intervention back on the table.
And they probably want to get their hands on some of this chemical stuff, too, if Assad was overthrown.
So they don't want the chemicals to leave.
Even though they were supposedly the big victims of this August 21 attack, they are the ones who don't want the chemical weapons deal on the people inside Syria, are the rebels.
You have to watch out for the rebels trying to disrupt this.
So this resolution that's going to pass tonight will get the ball rolling on that.
And yes, there's no immediate provision for enforcement.
But if there's a violation by either side, someone, either anybody on Security Council come forward and ask for enforcement mechanism, which will probably be sanctions against them or military action.
All right.
Now, as far as rapprochement, it seems like the nuclear deal to me is just a red herring.
As long as the IAEA continues to verify the non-diversion of nuclear material this whole time, the whole thing is just blowing smoke to me.
But it seems like it is the big sticking point, even more than the war in Syria is.
And that maybe if they could make a nuclear deal, then that could really be a big step toward just normalizing relations.
Do you think anybody in D.C. or in New York, for that matter, can actually visualize a whole new Middle East where we get along just fine with the Iranians?
Hell, we just fought a war for them in Iraq, you know?
Yeah, that's true.
Some people may be dreaming that.
I don't know.
Probably too early to visualize that.
But that certainly could be the end of this road.
I mean, that's what I want.
But does anybody with power want that at all?
Look, I think that the way the Obama administration, the way Kerry and Obama are behaving right now, after all of that sabre-routing, especially by Kerry, who was acting like president, if you remember.
He was making all the tough speeches that Bush made before the Iraq invasion.
He was pounding his chest.
He gave you the impression that Obama was kind of reluctant to do this.
Kerry was allowed to play president for a while.
And now, all of a sudden, they seem sincere about this chemical weapons deal and sincere about pursuing a nuclear deal with Iran.
Now, whether you say that this is all academic or not, certainly the American side does not believe the Iranians, nor do the British and the French and the Germans.
They really need to see what's going on, and the IAEA really has to go in there, and the Iranians have to come completely clean.
I leave no doubt that they're not pursuing a weapon, that they can't pursue a weapon, that there are safeguards put in, that they can only pursue enrichment for peaceful purposes, for medical research, for electricity.
And so that's the hurdle that has to be passed in these talks with the Iranians.
And while others may accept that Iran is telling the truth now, the principal Western powers don't, and that's what has to be proven.
And there's a real chance that that could happen, and there's a real chance that serious chemical weapons can be all destroyed.
And this is our extraordinary turn of events this week here at the UN General Assembly, which is normally just a talk fest, and nothing really concrete comes out of it.
We have two major diplomatic developments here in New York, and it could change in the short term and in the long term in the face of the Middle East, as you say.
But I do think that the Saudis and the Iranians have to come together, because Saudi Arabia and Israel do not want this diplomacy to succeed, and they both are very powerful in the region and could play spoiler.
So these are the ones to watch out for, how they respond.
And Netanyahu is going to speak next week, and you know he's already been denouncing Rouhani.
He's already denouncing these deals.
They're against it.
And people listen, unfortunately, in Congress and in the American media.
We have to listen to what he's saying, but we should disagree with him on this, at least, because he's trying to put a wrench here in the machinery of diplomacy.
And really, I think Obama's got to stand up to him.
That's the real question.
That's the real question.
Will he stand up to the Saudis and the Iranians on Syria?
Sorry, the Saudis and the Israelis.
Excuse me, it's very noisy on here.
Saudis and the Israelis on Syria and Iran.
Well, now on Netanyahu, maybe this is just wishful thinking, but it seemed to me with that cartoon bomb last time that he really just jumped the shark and nobody takes him seriously.
And then especially after Syria pushing so hard and having AIPAC push so hard to try to get us to attack Syria, and then failed at making that happen.
At this point, isn't he sort of just a self-parody?
I almost think it's better if he goes up there and gives a real right-wing hawkish speech so that then the whole place will just all roll their eyes at him, including the Americans, and just say, you know, thanks, Doug Fyfe, but we'll talk to you later on.
Well, you see it that way.
I might see it that way.
And a lot of people, maybe the majority, see it that way.
But does everybody in Congress see it that way?
Do all the editorial writers in the U.S. see it that way?
Do the neocon think tanks that are so influential see it that way?
But as you say, they failed on Syria.
They were in top gear, those think tanks, AIPAC.
And they failed there.
They are failing on Iran so far.
They may look like a parody of themselves, but they're not going to give up.
And we'll see what kind of leverage they really have.
It's quite an interesting moment.
It's being put to the test just how powerful these forces are that under the Bush administration have free reign because they're willing partners in the administration.
But here the, you know, and we can criticize Obama on a lot of issues, but out here it looks like there's a real distinction with the Bush administration in terms of standing up to those two forces to try to push through diplomacy and being attacked as weak.
And don't forget the Gulf Arabs, too, are saying that he was weak on Syria and that Rouhani is trying to take advantage of him now because of that.
So there's also the Saudis and the other Gulf countries.
I don't want to give them a task like the UAE and the Saudis and these groups.
But these are the really strong lines being drawn right now.
And, again, we'll see how it turns out.
Will Obama buckle to this?
The whole thing is if it fails, then they're going to scream.
The Yahoo!
, the Neocons, their choir in Congress will scream that, you know, we told you so, that this guy is a wolf in sheep's clothing, can't trust him, and we told you so all along.
You know what, even if that happens, even if it fails, there's always time to go to war, unfortunately.
I think that the fact that the Israelis and the Saudis are so upset about this means that there's a real chance it could work.
Because if they didn't think there was any chance of this deal happening, they probably wouldn't say very much.
They'd just let it collapse and then push their war agenda.
But I think they're really terrified.
Terrified that there could be a chemical weapons deal that works in Syria and a nuclear deal that works in Iran.
On the chemical weapons deal in Syria, are you reading it the same way as me that from the Russians' point of view that they have not only Putin's prestige that he said he's going to make this happen, but also the fact that if they can really get rid of the chemical weapons out of there quickly, then that takes away even the possibility of that red line being crossed anymore, which really takes all the wind out of the sail of the Assad must go crowd in Washington, D.C.
And then a minor point for you to address too is, to what degree do you think it's the case that with Russian resources available, they can really get rid of all those chemical weapons very efficiently and quickly and avoid the possibility of the rebels screwing it all up before they can get it done?
Well, on the first question, you're absolutely right.
If these things are eliminated, there's no red line.
The red line was only about chemical weapons.
It was only about degrading that.
It was never about regime change, at least not openly.
And I won't forget Obama said at the U.N. the other day, he doesn't want regime change in Iran either.
These are things that upset, really upset the Saudis and the Israelis.
So, yes, the red line was about chemicals that they removed.
There's no reason anymore for the U.S. to even threaten military action and intervention in Syria.
And I'll repeat the second question again.
Do you think that Putin will be able to just send in his version of the C-130s and get rid of that stuff on the double?
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
If you see, the Washington Post has a really interesting story today where they talk to a lot of chemical experts and their peers that the vast majority of this 1,000 tons of chemical weapons are precursor chemicals, unmixed, and that they could be neutralized much more easily than the sarin that's already been mixed, ready to use or already in warheads.
So they think that this could be a much quicker process.
It's true that the vast majority of what they have are the chemicals that are corrosive, they say, and not as dangerous, of course, as if sarin has already been mixed.
And also, and the other, and VX nerve gas, too.
And that the only thing they think is really weaponized and ready to go is the mustard gas.
That's already, they think, the majority of that.
But the other thing is also the equipment that they use to mix it.
If that could be destroyed or removed from the country, that they wouldn't be able to, because they already very quickly could neutralize Syria's ability to use chemical weapons, if not take all those precursor chemicals and the actual chemical weapons out of the country or destroy them within the country.
And yes, Russia has offered troops, by the way, to protect the inspectors.
But the primary responsibility of the resolution says it's with the Syrian government, the Syrian army to protect these inspectors.
And I think they can be protected from rebel attacks who are going to try to disrupt this process.
They want American intervention.
All right, that's it.
We're out of time.
Thanks very much, Joe.
I sure appreciate it.
Yes, again, I apologize again for all the noise going around and the distractions, but I appreciate being on your show again.
Yeah, no problem.
I sure appreciate you doing it.
All right, everybody, that's Joe Lauria.
He's the Wall Street Journal's man at the United Nations.
Why does the U.S. support the tortured dictatorship in Egypt?
Because that's what Israel wants.
Why can't America make peace with Iran?
Because that's not what Israel wants.
And why do we veto every attempt to shut down illegal settlements on the West Bank?
Because it's what Israel wants.
Seeing a pattern here?
Sick of it yet?
It's time to put America first.
Support the Council for the National Interest at councilforthenationalinterest.org and push back against the Israel lobby and their sock puppets in Washington, D.C.
That's councilforthenationalinterest.org.
Hey, y'all, Scott here.
The jobless rate in America keeps climbing.
Food stamps and other social welfare spending continue to increase at an alarming rate.
And the only thing that's kept this whole so-called recovery going at all is the Federal Reserve's inflationary printing press.
Sounds like 2008 might have just been a rehearsal for the financial crisis still to come.
So now let me talk to you about this great video by Dr. Martin Weiss from MoneyandMarkets.com.
The video spells out how this disaster will affect you and create enormous financial opportunities if you know how to recognize a true diamond in the rough.
Weiss shows when stocks have crashed and even gives the names of the biggest banks that are most likely to fail.
Before you invest $1, take the time to watch this new video.
Go to crisis16.com.
That's crisis16.com.
Learn from the experts how to evaluate these opportunities and start making better informed decisions that will lead to a better return on your investments.
That's Dr. Martin Weiss at crisis16.com.
Hey, everybody, Scott Horton here.
Ever think maybe your group should hire me to give a speech?
Well, maybe you should.
I've got a few good ones to choose from, including How to End the War on Terror, The Case Against War with Iran, Central Banking and War, Uncle Sam and the Arab Spring, the ongoing war on civil liberties, and, of course, Why Everything in the World is Woodrow Wilson's Fault.
But I'm happy to talk about just about anything else you've ever heard me cover on the show as well.
So check out youtube.com.com.com.com.com.com.for some examples, and email scott at scottwharton.org for more details.
See you there.
Hey y'all, Scott here, hawking stickers for the back of your truck.
They've got some great ones at libertystickers.com, Get Your Son Killed, Jeb Bush 2016, FDR, No Longer the Worst President in American History, the National Security Agency, blackmailing your congressman since 1952, and USA.
Sometimes we back Al-Qaeda, sometimes we don't.
And there's over a thousand other great ones on the wars, police, state, elections, the Federal Reserve, and more at libertystickers.com.
They'll take care of all your custom printing for your bandier business at the bumper sticker.com.
Libertystickers.com.
Everyone else's stickers suck.
Hey y'all, Scott Wharton here to talk to you about this great new book by Michael Swanson, The War State, The Cold War Origins of the Military-Industrial Complex and the Power Elite.
In the book, Swanson explains what the revolution was, the rise of empire, and the permanent military economy, and all from a free market libertarian perspective.
Jacob Hornberger, founder and president of the Future Freedom Foundation, says the book is absolutely awesome, and that Swanson's perspectives on the Cold War and the Cuban Missile Crisis are among the best I've read.
The poll numbers state that people agree on one thing.
It's that America is on the wrong track.
In The War State, Swanson gets to the bottom of what's ailing our society.
Empire.
The permanent national security bureaucracy that runs it, and the mountain of debt that has enabled our descent down this dark road.
The War State could well be the book that finally brings this reality to the level of mainstream consensus.
America can be saved from its government and its arms dealers.
First, get the facts.
Get The War State by Michael Swanson, available at your local bookseller and at Amazon.com.
Or just click on the book in the right margin at ScottHorton.org.