On February 1, 2007, Brzezinski spoke to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the war in Iraq, and warned of coming war with Iran.
In his statement, he made a terrifying prediction of false-flag terror in the U.S., blamed on Iran as an excuse for a "defensive" war against Iran:
A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a “defensive” U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
How else would you interpret a "terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran"? He did not say "a terrorist act by Iran."
"Defensive " in quotes also implies the fraud of false-flag terror.
The Associated Press in reporting on this left out "in the U.S.," and took the quotes off of "defensive."
A full comparison of Brzezinski's statement to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with the incomplete Associated Press report on this statement is here:
Brzezinski was asked specifically if he was saying that the U.S. government might be the source of a provocation. Judge for yourself, but I read between the lines and say that he specifically answered "yes" when he said that "all sorts of calculations can produce a circumstance that would be very difficult to trace."
Following the hearing, this reporter asked Brzezinski directly if he was suggesting that the source of a possible provocation might be the US government itself. The former national security adviser was evasive.
The following exchange took place:
Q: Dr. Brzezinski, who do you think would be carrying out this possible provocation?
A: I have no idea. As I said, these things can never be predicted. It can be spontaneous.
Q: Are you suggesting there is a possibility it could originate within the US government itself?
A: I’m saying the whole situation can get out of hand and all sorts of calculations can produce a circumstance that would be very difficult to trace.The Seattle Times ignored Brzezinski's statement to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, even though it has often recently quoted Brzezinski several times:
I guess I should not blame the Seattle Times - they generally run foreign policy articles by the Washington Post, New York Times, or Los Angeles Times, who did not report on Brzezinski's statement.
According to this article, none of the major newspapers covered Brzezinki's statement, even though the Washington Post gave extensive coverage to war-supporter Henry Kissinger's statement to the same committee the day before.
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer also ignored the Brzezinski statement. This is ironic, because in 2004 the editorial board published an editorial citing the views of Brzezinski and calling for detente with Iran.
Ironically, the editorial board parroted without question the allegations of President Bush that Iran may have played a role in the 9/11 attacks.
Later, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer published a letter by a citizens group arguing for government complicity in the 9/11 attacks. This letter cited Brzezinski's 1997 statement that the key to global dominance in the 21st century lies in control of Central Asian oil and gas reserves, and that establishing a U.S. presence there would require the kind of military deployment that only "a direct external threat" could justify.
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer has published other articles or columns mentioning Brzezinski:
Why do these papers ignore this latest warning by Brzezinski? They parrot unsubstantiated allegations of 9/11 complicity against the enemy de jure, then ignore a warning by an Establishment mandarin that a terrorist act could occur in the United States and be blamed on Iran as an excuse for a "defensive" war.
It's outrageous, if you think about it.