Scott Horton Interviews Barbara Slavin
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.
Barbara Slavin, author of Bitter Friends, Bosom Enemies: Iran, the U.S. and the Twisted Path to Confrontation, discusses her article “Subtle Signs Obama Diplomacy May Work on Iran;” who was really at fault for Iran’s failed uranium fuel-swap deal in 2009; growing concern with Iran’s 20% enrichment process that yields medical isotopes and a “breakout” capability; and why the Treasury Department’s investigation of MEK shills like Edward Rendell may be Obama’s way of reaching out to Iran.
MP3 here. (8:54)
Barbara Slavin is an expert on U.S. foreign policy and the author of a 2007 book on Iran entitled Bitter Friends, Bosom Enemies: Iran, the U.S. and the Twisted Path to Confrontation. A nonresident senior fellow at The Atlantic Council specializing on Iran, Ms. Slavin is also a contributor to AOLNews.com and Foreignpolicy.com among other media outlets.
Ms. Slavin was Assistant Managing Editor for World and National Security of The Washington Times in 2008-09. Prior to that, she served for 12 years as senior diplomatic reporter for USA TODAY where she covered such key issues as the U.S.-led war on terrorism and in Iraq, policy toward “rogue” states and the Arab-Israeli conflict. She accompanied three secretaries of State on their official travels and also reported solo from Iran, Libya, Israel, Egypt, North Korea, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia and Syria. Ms. Slavin, who has lived in Russia, China, Japan and Egypt, is a regular commentator on U.S. foreign policy on National Public Radio, the Public Broadcasting System and C-Span.
She wrote her book on Iran, which she has visited seven times, as a public policy scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in 2006 and spent October 2007-July 2008 as senior fellow at the U.S. Institute of Peace, where she researched and wrote a report on Iranian regional influence, entitled “Mullahs, Money and Militias: How Iran Exerts Its Influence in the Middle East.”
eCAHNomics
March 22nd, 2012 at 5:50 am
Um, no.
This has been another episode of simple As to simple Qs.
@JohnEllis02
March 22nd, 2012 at 7:03 am
Barbara Slavin — Queen of Empire USA
Barb
“Obama asked Iran to sent out its 3% enriched uranium
so it could be enriched to 20%. First the Iranians said yes,
then deal fell apart because Supreme Leader backed away.”
Classic Barb, for then she said not a word about France still holding Iran’s 3% uranium and refusing to return it enriched to 20%. Not a word about Obama’s letter promising to agree to a swap, and then refusing to honor the Turkey-Brazil-Iran agreed to swap.
eCAHNomics
March 22nd, 2012 at 7:53 am
Thanks. I was going to type that, but figured Slavin wasn't worth the effort.
U.S. can't take "yes" for an answer.
Anonymous
March 22nd, 2012 at 11:27 am
she’s so confident but STUP D. You would think it was MSNBC.
Roger Lafontaine
March 22nd, 2012 at 11:55 am
Apparently there are 21 other nations that have nuclear power. I'm wondering: How do these other nations get their uranium enriched? Is Iran trying to do something that all the others don't do or what?
@JohnEllis02
March 22nd, 2012 at 12:22 pm
Roger Lafontaine
"Is Iran trying to do something that all the other
21 nuclear nations don't do or what?"
Iran is guilty of having all that oil and natural gas without the deadly force needed to discourage the West from getting greedy.
Aarky
March 22nd, 2012 at 4:34 pm
Good, I saw that soemone else had spotted Slavin's BS and lies. She also ignores the fact that all the Israeli agents at State helped in sabotaging the deal. There was no demand for shipping all of Iran's low enriched Uranium out until the Turks and Brazil had reached a tentative deal to trade 20% Iranian fuel and get the finished fuel rods in return. Brazil and Turkey were furious at the treachery from State and the WH.
hammersmith46
March 22nd, 2012 at 5:12 pm
Wouldn't this all be so much easier if the U.S. was pursuing U.S. interests?
@JohnEllis02
March 22nd, 2012 at 6:51 pm
“U.S. interests” — Reverse of what is in our best interest
Take for example the law that makes a divorce court judge the god-father supreme over the family,
“The court shall have all power necessary to
do what is in the best interest of the family.”
Virtually all divorce court judges being politicians who may or may not have legal training, to give them the Sheriff Deputy’s gun to point at the fathers emotional guts, surely this is not in the family’s best interest.
@JohnEllis02
March 22nd, 2012 at 7:01 pm
Barb was sent here to demoralize us, which just shows how effective we are at using facts to force all their fiction to give way.
James
March 23rd, 2012 at 2:26 am
Could not have thought of it better myself than putting it in words.
A great sentence John, can I use it sometimes?
John Ellis
March 23rd, 2012 at 3:47 am
Planet earth — “a wasteland of meaningless fiction”
James
“John, can I use it sometimes?”
Anytime, but keep in mind that I express things in absolutes, axioms that leave no room for exceptions or contradictions, things if said around work could cause you to have no friends at work.