Scott Horton Interviews Robert Dreyfuss

Scott Horton, December 11, 2008

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Robert Dreyfuss, author of Devil’s Game, discusses the coming pitfalls for the Iraq Status of Forces Agreement, the prospects for full withdrawal in the face of renewed “facts on the ground” decision-making rhetoric, the many possible meanings of “residual forces,” the political power struggles among the many Iraqi factions, the influence of foreign policy think tank agitators in the Obama administration, the tendency of U.S. diplomats to deliberately fail in “peace talks” to create a pretense for military action and the need to shift the centrality of Iran/U.S. relations away from the nuclear issue.

MP3 here. (34:35)

Based in Alexandria, Va., Dreyfuss been writing for Rolling Stone for at least a decade, and currently covers national security for Rolling Stone’s National Affairs section. He’s a contributing editor at The Nation, a contributing writer at Mother Jones, and a senior correspondent for The American Prospect. His articles have also appeared in The Washington Monthly, The New Republic, Newsday, Worth, California Lawyer, The Texas Observer, E, In These Times, The Detroit Metro Times, Public Citizen, Extra!, and, in Japan, in Esquire, Foresight and Nikkei Business. His blog, The Dreyfuss Report, is now at The Nation.

One Response to “Robert Dreyfuss”

  1. So now is the time that the idea of making the Middle East a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone is going to be taken seriously?

    That initiative was first put forward by the Arab states following the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, in which nuclear annihilation threats made by Tel Aviv and Washington played a major part, and it has been endorsed annually by the UN Assembly ever since. In fact, UN Security Council Resolution 687 of 1991 – which provided the basis for all the evils which befell Iraq in the 1990s and beyond – also endorsed the Nuclear Free Middle East initiative.

    Therefore I conclude that it was all right if a million Arabs died of deprivation caused by sanctions and no-fly zones, and it’s all right if another million Arabs died subsequent to the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq on the pretext of “existential” concerns about a non-existent threat posed by that country’s crippled government and military, but now that another non-Arab country in the region (in addition to Israel, of course) is supposedly posing a threat to the treasured “peace and stability” of the Middle East, it is time to get serious about making that part of the world nuclear free.

    Am I getting this right? Let me go throw up…

Leave a Reply