|
|
|
|
|
by bnralt
1535 days ago
|
|
You seem to be misunderstanding what Brzezinski said to and portray it as having the opposite meaning. The point of the "Arc of Crisis" speech was that the U.S. needed to help _stabilize_ the area, because a destabilized region could fall to the Soviets. This was in response to American concerns that instability in its ally Iran could spill over to other allies as well. Here's an article from the time[1]: > High‐ranking White House and Defense Department officials argue that other key nations in the region, such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey, are prone to the same domestic disorders that have struck Iran and that Moscow seems increasingly inclined to exploit these difficulties. > As a result, while some middle‐level specialists in the State Department caution against exaggerating the impact of the crisis in Iran and complain that the White House is in danger of creating a Vietnam‐type “domino theory,” ‘the Administration is said to be fashioning its policy toward Iran and its neighbors in regional terms, treating the area as “an arc of crisis,” a description used recently by Zbigniew Brzezinski, Mr. Carter's national security assistant. > In a speech to the Foreign Policy Association last week, Mr. Brzezinski said “the arc of crisis” stretched “along the shores of the Indian Ocean with fragile social and political structures in a region of vital importance to us threatened with fragmentation.” > “The resulting political chaos,” he added, “could well be filled by elements hostile to our values and sympathetic to our adversaries.” [1] https://www.nytimes.com/1979/01/01/archives/us-reappraises-p... |
|