Scott Horton Interviews Michael Klare

Scott Horton, February 01, 2012

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.

Michael Klare, professor and author of Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet, discusses his article “No Exit in the Persian Gulf;” how closure of the Strait of Hormuz would impact the global oil market and the already-stressed European and American economies; the tough talk and military brinksmanship of the American and Iranian governments; why the Carter Doctrine of US Mideast dominance has outlived its usefulness; and the difference between nuclear “breakout” capability and actual weapon production (and why nobody talks about Japanese nukes).

MP3 here. (17:37)

Michael T. Klare is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College, a TomDispatch regular, and the author, most recently, of Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet. A documentary movie version of his previous book, Blood and Oil, is available from the Media Education Foundation. His newest book, The Race for What’s Left: The Global Scramble for the World’s Last Resources, is due out in March.

13 Responses to “Michael Klare”

  1. If the price of oil rises to $130 per barrel Iran will make more money without selling oil to europe than they make now selling oil to europe. The administration knows this. They know that if the oil price goes up the effect of the sanctions will actually have a very beneficial effect to the iranian economy. They will conserve oil and make just as much money. Iran knows this to.

  2. I don't think there's going to be a war against Iran. Iran is militaryly and economicly too big to chew off for them. And Obama has to think about his re-election.

  3. The real problem is that the Pentagon aims to achieve a disarming first strike capability as outlined by missile engineer Bob Aldridge -www.plrc.org. He wrote on the missiles in Bulgaria, Romania and Poland: "Whether they are on ships or land, they are still a necessary component for an unanswerable first strike." To take out the missiles not hit by Minuteman-3 and Trident-2. That was the reason the GPS was developed. Nobody knows if it´s for Blackmail or actual use hoping that the US will get only 1 % casualties-and to hell with Europe. From Der Spiegel 49/2011 it´s clear that it has nothing to do with Iran. Of course, it leads to Launch On Warning.

  4. Moral high ground — Can it save Iran?

    The above in bold back on white, is it not the real issue? For so long as Iran can stay one step ahead of the game by convincing the Western community, namely the “international community, that Iran is more in the right, more on the moral up and up then the oil guzzling nations of the West, out of harm’s way is Iran safe and sound.

    And as Iran is about to terminate immediately the sale of oil to some Western states, maybe all Western states, we shall see, what the moral consequence of this might be.

  5. Klare states that Iran wants to obtain the capability to create nuclear weapons in the future. And he knows the intentions of Iran just how? Iran´s leaders have consistently stated that creating nuclear weapons is forbidden by the Koran, so how can anybody in the west predict future intentions of Iran? I noticed that he didn´t predict the same future intentions when referring to Japan, who is already capable. To make such statements falls into the category of sneaky and sinister warmongering.

  6. DARKNESS — DARKNESS — DARKNESS

    Michael Klare
    “I think its pretty clear what’s going on in Iran.
    Its to say that the Iranian leadership wants a
    capacity to make nuclear weapons if at some
    point in the future they should decide to do so.”

    Whether by intent or deceit, the above statement is an illusion of good hiding misery. The illusion that Iran is lying to the world, that Iran cannot be trusted, that Iran has lost the moral high ground and that now we have no choice but to bomb Iran back to the stone age.

    So, exactly what is this “pretty clear” factual, actual and physical evidence? For surely all the facts that we have now makes it “pretty clear” that Iran has always told the truth, that Iran is now telling the truth and that you can bet your life on the physical fact that Iran shall always tell the truth.

    For it was the West that forced Iran into enriching its own uranium up to 20%. For three years ago Iran gave the West all the enriched uranium it had, the West was to enrich it to 20% and give it back, but to this day the West has never given it back.

  7. Aaad Enaya is still looking for ONE Lawyer/judge/court/bank to dump this U$KINGZMafia ccapitaliZZZim into Atlantiz.

  8. guess Carter had read the history about the Portuguese ships in Persian gulf, right?
    Is it really arabian sea or is it sea of oman??????

    Scott, why don’t you interview yourself? You seem to know more than all these experts, man! And some of them don’t get the queue when you hand it to them.

    And folks be gentle, poor Scott is struggling to find someone who actually can bring something to the table and he can’t call Pepe everyday now; can he?!

  9. Okay, it appears to me that all the focus is on the potential rise in the price of oil triggering a global economic crisis. That certainly would be disastrous. But frankly, I'm more concerned with the attack on Iran' presumably by missiles, drones and bombers and the number of Iranian casualties that will result, especially since there is even discussion of using nuclear bombs against Iran. The destruction of Iranian facilities and infrastructure in the cities would result in a Holocaust for the Iranian people. Not only that but there is talk of hitting them again in a few years because 'they might rebuild'. What we have here is an outline for nazism.

  10. A point sorely missed by most observers of the rising tension between the West and Iran is that even the most foolhardy and hawkish advocates of war with Iran know that for as long as the military conflict is confined to conventional weapons and a land invasion to affect a regime change is ruled out, Iran would be in the position to dictate the inevitable process of escalation or de-escalation which would follow.
    And this is not an outcome that the proponents of war with Iran have in mind. They hope that after the conflict gets started the pain of continuing the conventional war for the West will hopefully become so great that it becomes natural for the public opinions in America and Europe to accept the use of nuclear weapons against Iran in order to end the war.
    Even then – that is after America or Israel have dropped their first nuclear bombs on Iran – it is not at all given that Iran will stop fighting and surrender.

  11. a few questions to well-informed folks here,

    how many foreign heads of states have addressed
    congress except for netYahoo? a list would be swell!

    why did stalin,churchill,fdr met in malta and tehran in world war 2??? whats special about malta and tehran?

    who rules the world?

    will there be a USA after war with IRAN?

    did Portuguese asked these same questions in their heyday time?

  12. check out what henry thinks of israel
    http://www.henrymakow.com/fukushima_-_what_really

  13. The hype for war with Iran is made by the shareholders of Lockheed mostly. Most of them live in Tel Aviv I guess.

Leave a Reply