Matthews looks clueless.. this guy really did take him to school.

I like that Matthews didn't YELL OVER ASLAN'S STATMENTS as would certain other members of the press. Aslan (King of Narnia) is very straight and to the point here. It's nice to see a bit of competence in the news.

This is excellent.

*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Sunday, June 14th, 2009 1:35pm PDT - promote requested by RedSky.

Close your eyes, and he sounds a bit like Tom Green.

Pretty good guest

Uh oh, we've got a reader.

Great comment, chilaxe. I feel like I just walked into a Klan gathering in a Boy George costume!

I love how Chris Matthews almost develops apoplexy when Reza mentioned Mentalyahoo's (I can't spell that bastards name) threats about a preemptive nuclear strike...

What's the more likely scenario, the people with a bunch of bombs bombing someone or the people without Chris?

Holy shit, I thought Obama was cool because of his baddass name and not being Bush, but he seems kind of awesome at Diplomacy! Dunno about that domestic/economic stuff though...

>> ^gwiz665:
I like that Matthews didn't YELL OVER ASLAN'S STATMENTS as would certain other members of the press.

just proves how standards on what is good, objective journalism have fallen or rather, sank right to the bottom of the ocean of mediocracy. we should like matthews because most of his colleagues are even worse and because he let his guest finish his thought? give this man the Edward R. Murrow award! *sad

I sometimes disagree with Reza Aslan (usually on other topics I've seen him debate; I can't disagree with anything he says here) but he's no dummy. You better know your shit if you plan to argue with him.

>> ^gwiz665:
I like that Matthews didn't YELL OVER ASLAN'S STATMENTS as would certain other members of the press.

Funny, Chris Matthews is near the top of the list when I think about press members who do that. I think the only reason he didn't do it here is because he's outclassed by Reza, at least on this topic.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'chris mathews, hardball, reza aslan, Iranian elections, Obama policy' to 'chris matthews, hardball, reza aslan, Iranian elections, Obama policy' - edited by xxovercastxx

Brilliant!

Matthews was owned.

M'eh. The Iranian election was as predictable as the sunrise. The extremists who are in charge wanted "The Shrimp" re-elected and that's exactly what happened. Aslan can talk about diplomacy all he wants, but it is meaningless. Diplomacy with Iran has very little to do with whichever bozo gets the gig after their so-called 'elections'.

Proof positive in the pudding... Isreal. Netenyahu pretty much spiked any chance of a treaty with just ONE simple, reasonable little phrase... "Recognize Isreal as a Jewish state..." The hubub in the circles of 'diplomacy' is that such a pre-condition makes any hope of an agreement absolutely and unequivocally impossible. The only solution that will be accepted by the political world of the Middle East is the annihilation of Isreal as a state and the expulsion of all Jews from the region.

Now – how do you engage in ‘diplomacy’ with a position that is so extreme? Obama can make all the pointless speeches he wants, and a few eggheads like this guy might think he’s brilliant. They are all missing the point completely, which is sadly not atypical when this topic comes up. The point is that militant Islamists are the ones in charge and there is no possible way to successfully negotiate with a pack of half-insane, religious extremists whose only desired outcome is annihilation.

you dont read much do you mr pennypacker?
or if you do,its pretty biased material judging by your comment above.

The proof is not in the pudding. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Aslan means "Lion".

>> ^gwiz665:
Aslan (King of Narnia)

What gets me is at 7:08, Matthews talks about Israeli families "taking it to heart" about an Iranian threat that does not now exist, but somehow he has no empathy for Iranian families that may "take to heart" real Israeli nukes pointed at their country right now. Unbelieveable.

Was good until around 4:20 but after that Reza is full of shit on many counts.

- It is complete speculation on his part that there is no nuclear weapon ambition or program in Iran. He mentions the IAEA in 2003 but in 2003 the IAEA said the following:

"it is clear that Iran has failed in a number of instances over an extended period of time to meet its obligations under its Safeguards Agreement with respect to the reporting of nuclear material and its processing and use, as well as the declaration of facilities where such material has been processed and stored." (PDF)

Meaning the nuclear material could be stored anywhere and processed for anything. They don't know.

- Saying that the U.S. has taken all military options off the table regarding Iran is complete bullshit. Never happened.

- The C.I.A. has never said that Iran is "many many many years away" from having a nuclear weapon. Regardless, how did the CIA discover that India had nukes? Anyone? They caught them when they were just a year away right? No, the CIA and the rest of Earth found out because India detonated one. Making the argument that Iran isn't pursuing nukes based on the fact that they say so is foolish.

-Israel has nukes. They have had them for decades. To say they are threatening Iran with them is ridiculous. Israel has made no demands from Iran other than to recognize that it is a sovereign nation. The weapons are a deterrent against Iran and the other nations in the region which have said in no uncertain terms that Israel, as a nation state, should not exist.

- Just because some person ("Benny Morris" who is a hero of the Palestinians) wrote an article for the NY Times, does not make it the policy that Israel will launch a nuclear first strike against Iran. That person does not speak for the government of Israel. He doesn't determine the foreign policy of any nation. He does not control or affect in any way Israel's nuclear launch capability. In other words, it's bullshit.

-It has never been the policy of Israel to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike upon anyone unless they were themselves threatened by nukes. That is U.S. policy also. That doesn't mean you can't have a scenario where you strike first. Some people just refuse to understand this. They can not have an enemy on their doorstep that has vowed their destruction to obtain the weapons and strategy needed to carry that threat out. It's just that simple. We didn't allow the missiles in Cuba for the very same reason. Iran needs to dial back it's rhetoric and hate speech and get more in line with the international cooperation and dialog that it's people wants. The type of dialog we all need. Open handed Vs. clenched fist. But that isn't happening and now we see that elections there to make it happen have no meaning.

The hard line psychos in charge of Iran, not the people in general, view Israel as an abomination. They "should be wiped off the face of the map". I've seen this translated as "vanish from time" and several other iterations but however you want to play out the semantics of the translation of that quote from Ahmadinejad the end result is the same. He is echoing and fomenting the sentiment of his supporters .. Israel as a state should not exist. These are the same people who say the Holocaust never happened. Now I've seen some bad comments here, including someone wishing all Christians would die, but I hope most rational people can see this isn't just a religious point of view, it's a wish for genocide. They teach their children that Israeli's are less than human. They are pigs and it is good to slaughter them.

With that ugliness behind me, I will say, it is fun to watch Chris when he has a guest who isn't intimidated, but I don't see where he was "schooled" here. Reza is being naive at best. Iran knows what it's doing. It can't let itself be perceived as the weaker nation. Acquiescing to mandates and sanctions. They want to be a super power. They want to be at the table like India and Pakistan. They know they are close and have decades of work behind them (not in front of them) and will never give up until they have the same strength that is possessed by their perceived aggressors.

There won't be any dialog to stem the tide of a nuclear Iran with the current regime in power.

Does anyone honestly think a nuclear armed Iran is a viable option for world stability and peace?

you dont read much do you mr pennypacker? or if you do,its pretty biased material judging by your comment above.

I read quite a lot. I read so much that I have the ability to determine when it is appropriate to use the grammatical conventions of both capitalization and punctuation. A skill that you sadly have not yet mastered, leading me to the conclusion that if anyone's reading, writing, and comprehension skills are in doubt - they are yours.

Regardless, I said nothing controversial or biased. I stated plain, simple facts. Nentanyahu’s speech was Sunday. In it he said that he wanted Isreal recognized as a Jewish state. The reaction from the Arab world has been plain and clear. The precondition of an acknowledged Isreali Jewish state is unacceptable.

Now – you tell me – is that a ‘diplomatic’ response from the Palestinian/Arab community? Sounds pretty extremist to me. Isreal said, “We’ll accept a Palestinian state if you accept a Jewish state”. THAT sounds diplomatic and fair to me. For the response to such a simple, reasonable, basic request to be, “NO @#$%ING WAY!” from the Arab community pretty much spells out what we’re dealing with here.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Nentanyahu’s speech was Sunday. In it he said that he wanted Isreal recognized as a Jewish state.

You deal in half truths.

The recognition of Israel as a Jewish state means that there is no chance for any resettlement of Palestinians in those areas that Israel pushed them out of them. It means no right of return.

It means Israeli Arabs within Israel become second class citizens.

It means no land returns to those areas settled illegally by Israelis in Palestinian areas. Because de facto these are Jewish holy sites. Those should belong to Israel.

The conditions also required Palestine that has no military force. Nor has any control of it's own airspace.

It means Palestine as a state would simply exist as it does today, an open air prison ringed by military walls and incurred on by illegal settlements. It offers no compromise beyond making sure that the peace process continues to exist in a dead zombie state giving false hope to Palestinians while allowing Israel to further capture areas in the West bank through encroaching settlements.

No - I deal in full truths. You simply don't like them. The reality is that acknowledging Isreal as a Jewish state does have implications and inherent problems for Palestinians. But the creation of a Palestinain state causes tons of problems for Isreal too so it isn't all one-sided. That's diplomacy. You give up something to get something.

The Palestinians want a state. That's reasonable. Isreal wants the Arab world to acknowledge it's right to exist. That's also reasonable. Both sides agreeing to this basic right of existence would be a great beginning. Initially it's going to be tough on both sides. They're both going to need to compromise. Isreal is at least starting the process and saying, "Here's what we want..." Now the Palenstinians need to step up and say, "OK you can exist, but we need these territories..." or make some sort of counter offer. That's how diplomacy works.

Quite frankly, the fact that the simple "we want to exist" request is the one that is being so flatly rejected is a real head-shaker to me. If Arab's can't even do that, then this is all pointless. There’s no reason they can’t just say, “We will acknowledge Israel as an official Jewish state, but we need “X, Y, Z” concessions in order to function as a Palestinian state.” What’s so hard about that?

There was a very clear propaganda movement in this country (the US) during the last administration to push americans into believing all kinds of crazy ideas. News stations (and not just fox) played only the 'crazy' buts of the Iranian presidents speeches, and would purposefully edit away any positive talk of peace. Every year a new 'study' would come out indicating that Iran was only a year away from getting nukes and that, as Mathews said, 'the president would have his finger on the button to hit Israel.'

It seemed all a part of the last administration bending over backwards to support Israel in every thing they did.

Thankfully Obama's speech in Cairo was a 180 on that policy and practically undid the propaganda of the past 8 years. Unfortunately many Americans, like Mathews, still believe every word released in the past 8 years.

well said farhad.
@mr pennypacker< so you dismiss anything i say due to poor punctuation and my ability as a run-on-sentence king?
thats WEAK..
all i was stating is you seem biased,and then you prove my point by posting not one,but TWO biased opinions.did i hurt your feelings or something?because by your logic the better someones grammar is,the better the argument.
i will give you kudos on clarifying your position in those last two posts.
clear and concise..biased...but concise,and that is the pennypacker i would like to deal with.
this situation is 100 yrs in the making with no end in sight.
the amount of political BS we all have to sift through to get a modecum of truth is staggering.the isreali/palestinian conflict has given birth to much of the ills we see today in the arab world.
we will never find a solution as long as those with influence and power seek to tip the scales in their favor,and all the while..the common man suffers.
no easy answers,but the truth would be a good start...and that is hard to find in the mountain of shite we are being fed.
my apologies mr pennypacker if i offended your tender sensibilities,but i do thank you for your most excellent responses,though i disagree with them.

I think the worry is not so much about Iran using a nuke but Iran selling a nuke to one of the terrorist groups it's been friendly with (like Hamas or Hezbollah). I wonder what Reza thinks about that.

so you dismiss anything i say due to poor punctuation and my ability as a run-on-sentence king?

I see it as being no less of a violation of logic than your assumption that 'everything I read is biased' simply because you disagree with my perspective. If you do not desire to be treated with hasty assumptions, then I respectfully suggest that you do not make hasty assumptions about others. Rope-a-dope no jutsu... Sieko...

this situation is 100 yrs in the making with no end in sight. the amount of political BS we all have to sift through to get a modecum of truth is staggering.

I like my solution personally. First, relocate all the Jews and Palestinians on opposite sides of the planet. Second, declare all of Israel/Palestine an international museum and never let anyone live there again except for curators and archeologists. It’ll never happen, but that’s the only solution.  No one gets anything they want.

fair enough mr pennypacker..fair enough.
how about just go back to 1967 consensions?
and stop all settlements.
that would be a decent start.

Seems to me that Matthews gave him a pretty fair shake. It was a very good dialogue.



>> ^gwiz665:
I like that Matthews didn't YELL OVER ASLAN'S STATMENTS as would certain other members of the press. Aslan (King of Narnia) is very straight and to the point here. It's nice to see a bit of competence in the news.

>> ^burdturgler:
It is complete speculation on his part that there is no nuclear weapon ambition or program in Iran.

The 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran (pdf), the consensus opinion of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies:

"We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program."


The C.I.A. and the rest of Earth found out because India detonated one.

India announced the pursuit of atomics in 1946, in 1968 it did not sign the NPT, in 1974 it conducted its first tests. This doesn't sound like lack of knowledge to me. The information was kept from the general public to avoid a preemptive atomic confrontation between India and Pakistan. That issue as a whole is entirely different then the one in the Middle East.


Iran needs to dial back it's rhetoric and hate speech and get more in line with the international cooperation and dialog that it's people wants.

Shouldn't Israel then as well. Instead of telling the Palestinians what form of existence they should enjoy? I mean honestly you talking about a nation whose power structure was assassinated by the CIA for oil rights brought in a corrupt Shah. Eventually lead to the Islamic revolution. No US dialog has been maintained since. It's like me kicking over someones sand castle and then becoming shocked at their attempt to punch me in the face.


Does anyone honestly think a nuclear armed Iran is a viable option for world stability and peace?


Is a nuclear armed North Korea? Russia? US? Seems to be alot of tolerance for that there. A state a believe far more willing to put its entire population at nuclear apocalypse.

No nation attains nuclear weapons for the purpose of using them anymore. It just doesn't make sense politically, ever since the US detonated the Hiroshima bomb and the nuclear arms race of the Cold War that nuclear weapons simply exist as means of deterrence. First strike policy is not pursued by any state because its admission and allowance to be attacked first preemptively. Thus everyone claims base deterrence use.

I don't find it acceptable that Israel has UNDECLARED nuclear weapons still and somehow that is okay. The threat of them striking Iran is just as great in my eyes. Shit they bombed Syria and Iraq just for the smallest whiff of nuclear capability. But what kind of action is that? How is that acceptable.

Further more your entire line about Iranians being made into anti-Israel haters flies in face of the protests taking place now trying to depose a president who was clearly illegally placed into power and has spent the last 4 years doing nothing but talking garbage. I don't know why people are so willing to think Bush was retarded in his foreign policy assessments and somehow take Iran's president seriously.

The 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran (pdf), the consensus opinion of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies:
"We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program."

That may be (I don't believe it) but I'm responding to this video where Reza cites the IAEA in 2003.

Citing "U.S. intelligence agencies" doesn't give me a lot of confidence considering they did not in fact know India had nukes (yes they knew they were pursuing them. Germans were pursuing them in WW2. I mean "had nukes" as in they actually had them. Ready to use. It was 1973 when India detonated one to the shock of intelligence communities around the world) .. But of course this is the intelligence apparatus that determined there were WMD's in Iraq.

Shouldn't Israel then as well. Instead of telling the Palestinians what form of existence they should enjoy? I mean honestly you talking about a nation whose power structure was assassinated by the CIA for oil rights brought in a corrupt Shah. Eventually lead to the Islamic revolution. No US dialog has been maintained since. It's like me kicking over someones sand castle and then becoming shocked at their attempt to punch me in the face.

You're changing the whole argument here to something that has nothing to do with this video. Now it's about Israel and Palestine. I know it's America's fault somehow because you mentioned oil and the Shaw. Not sure what is your point though? Does Iran resent and hate us because of the Shaw yet the people in the street now want to engage us and move past that? Bonus points if you can actually make it relate to this video.

Should Israel dial back it's rhetoric of what? That it will defend itself? They are faced with an enemy that is bent on their destruction. Iran. A sovereign state has made it a mandate that they will seek the extinction of this people. That's kind of rude huh? One of the main stumbling blocks for US foreign policy is Israel. Is that because Israel is so fucked up or because there are so many Islamic run regimes that are committed heart and soul to seeing Israel annihilated? Personally, it doesn't matter how you look at it .. they are our allies, and like Britain, Australia, Japan or any of America's trusted friends .. we are bound to defend and support them. It would be a lot easier to turn our back on our allies, but that isn't going to happen.

Is a nuclear armed North Korea? Russia? US? Seems to be alot of tolerance for that there. A state a believe far more willing to put its entire population at nuclear apocalypse.

I actually don't know what that last sentence means. Sorry.
Would the world be better if no one had nukes? Maybe. Will it be better if everyone has nukes? Of course not.

First strike policy is not pursued by any state. Actually, I think that's bullshit. Every nuclear state is trying to develop a first strike plan. We already know such plans exist with "acceptable losses" and such. The good news is M.A.D. has been affective and no one has really figured out an acceptable first strike strategy, yet. The problem is people like money, and what one state uses as a deterrent another emerging state uses as ransom. Iran and other "rogue" states could not actually assure destruction of the US the way the Soviets could during the cold war. So M.A.D. doesn't apply. It's just a threat .. like the Somali pirates. Fear our power. Pay the ransom. Iran (like N. Korea) see nukes as an an extortion tool. A bargaining chip. A chance to wield power and control a spot at the table of world affairs. Some of this is "give in to us or we sell it to others".

We know there are groups out there though that don't fear any retaliation. They don't have a state, don't give a shit if their people live or die because they are on a "mission from God" (sorry Blue's Brothers) .. and those groups buy these technologies from rouge states. So any state emerging with that technology deserves international scrutiny. Obviously.

We can't let every nation on Earth become nuclear states. If you want to argue about the US, Russia, China, etc and other nations that already have them then the only way to solve the problem is to build a time machine. Those nations already have them now and the only way to deal with it is to draw down the numbers of weapons in the stockpiles. Not increase the threat to the entire world by adding new members to the club.

Lastly, I specifically said it was not the Iranian people in general that are the problem, but the hard line psychos in charge. Yet, don't forget there are demonstrations in the streets for Ahmadinejad too. So they say.