Israel supporters using Wikileaks to promote attack on Iran are ignoring Arab public opinion

Sever Plocker, a columnist for Yediot Aharonot, recently wrote with pride and some sadness that, “At least on the Iranian issue — and apparently on more than a few other matters — the leaders of the world, including the Arab world, think as we do [the Israelis], but are ashamed to admit it”.

Benjamin Netanyahu has praised the Wikileaks cable dump as vindication of his government’s bellicose pronouncements over Tehran. The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg has written likewise.

Even Wikileaks founder and Australian citizen Julian Assange, in a strange comment to Time magazine, stated that the Iran-related documents would aid Middle East peace. Assange approvingly quoted Netanyahu when making this allegation.

Such news brings comfort to the Zionist world. The long-standing rule of the Middle East is my enemy’s enemy is my friend. Perhaps, but these are the kinds of friends the Zionist state is keen on making (via the UK Guardian):

Saudi Arabia is the world’s largest source of funds for Islamist militant groups such as the Afghan Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba – but the Saudi government is reluctant to stem the flow of money, according to Hillary Clinton.

“More needs to be done since Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaida, the Taliban, LeT and other terrorist groups,” says a secret December 2009 paper signed by the US secretary of state. Her memo urged US diplomats to redouble their efforts to stop Gulf money reaching extremists in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

“Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide,” she said. 

Just to clarify. Arab autocrats allegedly fear Iranian hegemony in the region. This has almost nothing to do with nuclear power but rather a serious challenge to the decades-old dominance of the American and Israeli umbrella that insulate dictatorships from popular opinion. The Iraq war, privately backed by many Arab states, allowed Tehran to assume a powerful position in the Middle East and Israel was more than happy to go along for the ride. True democracy is messy and unpredictable. It’s far easier to ensure continuity by backing reliable brutes that won’t argue with billions of dollars in annual aid.

These are Israel and Washington’s best mates.

The screwed geo-political “logic”  is almost comical. Israel and its followers claim Islamist terrorists are the greatest threat to the world (aside from Shia fundamentalists in Iran). But the biggest funders of these groups are the regimes that allegedly share Israel’s fear over the suspected Iranian nuclear bomb.

It’s tragic though unsurprising that most mainstream Zionists in the US remained either silent over the Wikileaks cable dump or were publicly pleased that other states in the Middle East wanted to incapacitate Iran. New York’s Forward editorialised disapprovingly of the release and was joined by the Australian Jewish News. Nothing was said about the kinds of friends Israel is keeping. Nothing about the support for the countries backing individuals who would like to kill Jews. And no comment about so closely aligning Israel with some of the most brutal regimes on the planet.

What was missed in so much of the Zionist cheering was the Arab people themselves. They don’t exist; their wishes and desires seemingly irrelevant. Unelected leaders are allowed to speak for them. Arab bloggers wrote copiously about the story but Arab public opinion is most instructive over the Iranian “threat”.

Shibley Telhami explained in The National Interest:

the biggest gap in the recent coverage of the story has been understanding Arab public opinion toward Iran and how this affects government calculations. In fact, Iran has the ability to play the Arab-public-opinion card and reach out to groups that threaten the control of Arab governments. And there is evidence that they have succeeded in doing just that, even beyond the rising power of their allies, particularly Hezbollah in Lebanon. In large part, Tehran benefits from Arab public anger toward Israel and the United States, and from the perceived paralysis of their own leaders: consistently, in the past several years, all the polls I’ve conducted at the University of Maryland with cooperation from Zogby International show that in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Morocco and Lebanon, the Arab public expressed views about Iran that highlighted just how different the public feels when compared to the elites.

Last August, I released the 2010 Arab public opinion poll results [4], which indicated that Arabs polled were more open to Iran’s nuclear program, including the possibility of nuclear-weapons production, than ever before. In an open question about the world leader Arabs admired most, Ahmadinejad was chosen by 12 percent of those questioned—landing him in third place, behind only Turkish leader Recep Erdoğan and Venezuelan demagogue Hugo Chavez. My own analysis of the results suggested that Iran is benefiting from the sentiment that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” This was particularly visible when those polled were asked to identify the two states that posed the biggest threat to them: 88 percent identified Israel, 77 percent identified the United States and 10 percent identified Iran. While the results on this latter issue varied somewhat from country to country, the trend held across countries polled.

Moreover, Shibley analysed the Al-Jazeera online readers comments when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visited Lebanon this year. The results were hardly shocking; most people backed a leader who they thought stood up for Palestine and against Washington and Tel Aviv’s designs on the region. It’s unfortunate that Ahmadinejad rules over an increasingly despotic regime.

Israel has long sided with reliably compliant Arab states to further its aims. Egypt’s collusion in the Gaza siege is just the latest example. But something has changed in the last years. I’m reminded of something Robert Fisk told me soon after the 2006 Lebanon war; many in the Arab world no longer fears Israel and its major benefactor.

In fact the Wikileaks cables, despite Chas Freeman claiming otherwise in the New York Times last weekend, confirm that Israel and the US have constructed unsustainable coalitions in the Middle East that are ultimately leading to the rise of Islamist parties with mass popular appeal.

That’s quite an achievement by the US State Department, the Zionist lobby and Israel itself.

Antony Loewenstein (http://antonyloewenstein.com/) is a Sydney journalist and author of My Israel Question and The Blogging Revolution

About Antony Loewenstein

Antony Loewenstein is an independent journalist and the co-editor with Ahmed Moor of After Zionism (Saqi Books, 2012)
Posted in Israel/Palestine

{ 39 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. seafoid says:

    My Arab friends are appalled by what Israel does to Gaza and Lebanon and see Iran as standing up to Israel.

    Israel is only 5 million Jews and has no control over what Arabs see of Israeli state violence on TV. I don’t believe that Israel understands Arabs very well.

    Where did it all go wrong?

    • The Israel Project held a round-table discussion just before the Annapolis Conference in 2007. The core of David Wurmser’s rather lugubrious complaint about Iran was that Iran exuded confidence and resistance to western pressures, and by its confidence taunted the other Islamic, Arab states in the region. Wurmser said that Iran with nukes was not the problem, Iran’s self-assurance was the problem, and it was a problem because it might incite its neighboring states to similarly stand up for themselves against the US and Israel.

  2. hophmi says:

    Loewenstein:
    “I’m reminded of something Robert Fisk told me soon after the 2006 Lebanon war; many in the Arab world no longer fears Israel and its major benefactor.”

    Telhami:
    “My own analysis of the results suggested that Iran is benefiting from the sentiment that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” This was particularly visible when those polled were asked to identify the two states that posed the biggest threat to them: 88 percent identified Israel, 77 percent identified the United States”

    Sounds like they’re still pretty fearful.

    • Sumud says:

      Seeing something as a threat and being afraid of something aren’t the same.

      IDF dad, Ethan Bronner, explaining why it was necessary for Israel to attack a defenceless population in Gaza in Dec. 2008 [my emphasis]:

      Such a concrete goal, however, should not obscure the fact that Israel has a larger concern — it worries that its enemies are less afraid of it than they once were, or should be. Israeli leaders are calculating that a display of power in Gaza could fix that.

      “There has been a nagging sense of uncertainty in the last couple years of whether anyone is really afraid of Israel anymore,” he said. “The concern is that in the past — perhaps a mythical past — people didn’t mess with Israel because they were afraid of the consequences. Now the region is filled with provocative rhetoric about Israel the paper tiger. This operation is an attempt to re-establish the perception that if you provoke or attack you are going to pay a disproportionate price.”

    • Shingo says:

      “I’m reminded of something Robert Fisk told me soon after the 2006 Lebanon war; many in the Arab world no longer fears Israel and its major benefactor.”

      That was becasue Israel was made to look vulnerable and the US was bogged down in Iraq.

  3. Seham says:

    “Israel supporters using Wikileaks to promote attack on Iran are ignoring Arab public opinion”

    Oh yeah and that’s such a shock?

  4. Michael W. says:

    “Israel umbrella”?

    Who in the region other than Israel is under the Israeli umbrella?

    I understand many commentators on this blog believe that the Israel Lobby has extraordinary powers, but I think you should differentiate more clearly between policies the lobby advocates for, and US foreign policy regardless of Israel’s existence. The US (and the British before them) have supported the Arab autocrats before Israel even existed. I think the rise of Islamist movements is due to the Arab autocrats failure in domestic policy. It is the Arab’s version of Russia’s communism – to get rid of the czar. I’m referring to the rest of the Middle East, outside of Palestine.

    • “I think the rise of Islamist movements is due to the Arab autocrats failure in domestic policy.”

      Off the top of my head, Iran and Egypt stand in glaring testament to this fact. If you can find it, try reading McJihad. It’s amazing, the problems America creates for itself.

  5. Kathleen says:

    As Phillip Weiss pointed out the other day Robert Siegel NPR’s host of All Things Considered choice of guest to discuss the Wikeleaks release, Iran, Israel etc was Jeffrey Goldberg. Guy Ras did some interviewing about the topic also. Could we say that both Siegel and Ras have all ready demonstrated their complete inability to be even close to fair and balanced when it comes to covering the I/P issue or Iran.

    Listen to the interviews last Monday. Just a tiny bit lop sided. There are about five of them that day having to do with the dump
    Leaks Reveal Arab World’s Concerns About Iran

    link to npr.org
    ROBERT SIEGEL, host:

    There are quotations about Iran in these WikiLeaks cables that can make a reporter salivate. Middle Eastern monarchs and ministers speak of Iran as an octopus or a snake. A Mid-Easterner says of Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, he is Hitler, and it’s not an Israeli talking. It’s the crown prince of Abu Dhabi. Reporters can only wish to hear such frank talk on the record from such powerful sources. But does the vivid language add any substance to our understanding of Iran as her neighbors see and fear her?

    Well, we’ve invited a journalist who’s written extensively about Iran’s nuclear program, Israel and the U.S. Jeffrey Goldberg is national correspondent for The Atlantic. He wrote a lengthy article, “Point of No Return,” about this earlier this year. We talked about it here. Welcome back again.

    Mr. JEFFREY GOLDBERG (National Correspondent, The Atlantic): Thank you.

    SIEGEL: Have you seen anything in the WikiLeaks cables that surprise you or that change your view of this?

    Mr. GOLDBERG: The ferocity of these quotations, the ferocity and insistence on the part of these Arab leaders, it’s quite something to behold. You know, the Israelis have been, obviously, very blunt in private and in public about the Iranian threat. If anything, these quotations are more ferocious than what you hear out of the Israelis. Ahmadinejad is Hitler coming from an Arab leader is pretty extraordinary.

    SIEGEL: The king of Saudi Arabia, a very consequential figure in the region, saying we should cut the head of the snake off here.

    Mr. GOLDBERG: Right. No. This is a very interesting moment because the issue has been framed by many people as a kind of a binary: Israel and Iran. One wants nuclear weapons; one wants to prevent the other one from getting nuclear weapons. But now we see really, fully, the masks are off.

    The Arab world, and really most moderate Arab regimes, live in the same sort of existential fear that Israel does of this Iranian program. And it reminds us that the Jewish-Arab – the Jewish-Arab dispute has been going on for 100 years, but the Shiite-Sunni split and the Persian-Arab split, they’ve been going on for 1,000.

    I mean, this is a deep, deep, deep issue that’s just now really surfaced because of these leaks.

    SIEGEL: There’s an irony here, which is the State Department is furious that their confidential cable, that is cables based on confidential conversations, have been made public. And yet we read in one of the cables the anxiety at State that Arab leaders won’t say publicly what it is that they’re saying privately about Iran.

    Mr. GOLDBERG: Right, well, that’s not a new aspect of life in the Middle East. Everything is a double game, as you know. And this is the problem, and American policymakers know that this is a problem. The Arab leaders have been lobbying pretty insistently for the last couple years, or even before a couple of years, in the Bush administration, too, for America to take some sort of dramatic action against Iran.

    The Americans, and certainly the Israelis, see that and say, well, that’s great, but when it comes time to vote to condemn this action in the U.N., where are you going to be?

    So the Arab countries would like America, or even Israel at this point, to deal with their mess. But there’s no guarantee that the Arab states would do anything to help America.

    • occupyresist says:

      ‘moderate Arab regimes’

      What a DISGUSTING, SICKENING, REVOLTING phrase used to legitimize these undemocratic entities. Whoever coined this phrase should seriously be tried for aiding war crimes.

      MODERATE.

      If you call the Egyptian or Saudi dictators MODERATE, you must have not lived under these regimes.

      • Citizen says:

        “Moderate” as used by the US government (or any imperial entity) does not refer to a state’s domestic situation. Look at the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Iran was characterized as a moderate state once upon a time–especially when the Shah ruled there (before Iran’s oil was owned by the state in behalf the Iranian people).

      • Shingo says:

        “‘If you call the Egyptian or Saudi dictators MODERATE, you must have not lived under these regimes.”

        Amazing statement given that the US has just declared Saudi Arabia is the world’s biggest financer of terrorism.

  6. Kathleen says:

    Walt’s response to Goldberg’s insane claims
    link to walt.foreignpolicy.com
    “I never cease to be amazed at how virtually any criticism of Israel can cause Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic to go bananas and make all sorts of wild charges. This tendency is especially evident when someone writes about the Israel lobby. It is usually best to ignore him, because he seems incapable of getting the simplest facts right. But occasionally I feel the need to set the record straight.

    Goldberg’s forte is character assassination, and his main weapons are name-calling and misrepresenting his opponents’ arguments. Instead of calling me a “Jew-baiter” (a despicable accusation for which he has no grounds), as he has in the past, his latest sally calls me a “neo-Lindberghian,” again implying that I am an anti-Semite. This is a serious charge — the political equivalent of calling someone a racist or child molester — and you’d think a respectable journalist would go to some effort to document the label before using it. You’d think he’d supply a lengthy array of quotations from my writings and speeches to prove his point. Goldberg cannot do this, however, because no such evidence exists. “

    • it’s all very well to tar and feather the Israeli-centric journalists and pundits who have latched on to the (relative) few wikileaks that provide ammunition against Iran (while ignoring some damning material about Israel, but that’s business as usual, too).

      What is even more troubling than the way the media manipulates the public to join them in their Iran-hatred is that Hillary Clinton uses the same tactics: she said (paraphrase), “The leaks are deplorable and dangerous, but they also reveal that Arabs hate Iran.” (so it’s not a complete disaster.)

      Further, US legislators conducted a hate-fest on Iran: Howard Berman, with back-up from Ros Lehtinen, Gary Ackerman, Ed Royce, interviewing Stuart Levey. It’s unknown if anyone in the room represented American interests.

    • RoHa says:

      “his latest sally calls me a “neo-Lindberghian,” again implying that I am an anti-Semite.:

      Actually, to me it sounds as though he is calling you a piece of not-yet-sufficiently-smelly cheese, but that is no more complimentary to you than “anti-Semite”.

  7. Kathleen says:

    Former Bush administration official and former CIA middle east analyst Flynt Leverett over at Race for Iran and Prof Cole over at Informed Comment have done some focusing on how many Israel first folks are using the Wikileaks release to support a strike on Iran.

    link to raceforiran.com

    Over at Race for Iran
    Washington’s Manic Obsession with Iran

    Whoa read Prof Cole’s latest
    link to juancole.com
    ← Older posts
    Is AIPAC a Wikileaks Operation?
    Posted on December 6, 2010 by Juan
    37Share

    One of the supreme pieces of hypocrisy in Washington right now is all the politicians crying treason and death penalty on Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, when many of them are up to their gills in money arranged for them from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

    In 2003 Larry Franklin, the ‘go-to man on Iran’ at the Pentagon under undersecretary of defense for planning Douglas Feith, carried a draft confidential finding on Iran out of the building and gave it to Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman of AIPAC’s Middle East Bureau. They not only were happy to receive the classified document, but they ran with it right over to the Israeli Embassy and delivered it to Naor Gilon, the embassy official with the Iran portfolio.

    Rosen and Weissman, and probably AIPAC in general, were under FBI surveillance on suspicion of espionage, and that is how they were caught. The FBI field officers were astonished when Franklin came into the picture unexpectedly. Less astonished, I suspect, when Naor Gilon did.
    ———————————————————————-

    link to informationclearinghouse.info

    One of the most common threads running through the Wikileaks papers is Washington’s manic obsession with Iran. In country after country the United States exerts unceasing pressure on the government to tighten the noose around Iran’s neck, to make the American sanctions as extensive and as painful as can be, to inflate the alleged Iranian nuclear threat, to discourage normal contact as if Iran were a leper.

    Embassy cables reveal how US relentlessly cajoles and bullies governments not to give succour to Tehran

  8. Kathleen says:

    This is another post about Israel supporters using Wikileaks to beat up Iran and keep the focus off the I/P issue
    link to juancole.com

    • seafoid says:

      Israel can’t attack Iran. All Hezbollah have to do in reply is fire a load of rockets in the general direction of Haifa bay.

      link to haaretz.com

      The settlements and the drain on cashflow they represent have done enormous damage to the concept of Israeli deterrence. I wouldn’t be surprised if Egypt’s airforce pilots were the equal of Israel’s.

      Check out the ads with this article.
      link to haaretz.com

      “Max Brenner chocolate. The world’s best from Israel”. Says it all. Israel is not world class, nowhere near it . WTF is Max Brenner?
      Would you buy Israeli chocolate? Or Lindt?

      • Hu Bris says:

        “Israel can’t attack Iran. All Hezbollah have to do in reply is fire a load of rockets in the general direction of Haifa bay.”

        this Zionist notion that Hezbollah exists solely as a proxy of Iran is not just false, it is dangerously false.

        As far as I am aware Hezbollah have never got involved in anyone’s struggle but their own.

        And as far as I know, certainly in the last decade, Hezbollah has never attacked the Israel or Israelis on Israeli soil, unless Israel first attacked Hezbollah or Lebanon .

        The capturing/killing of some Israeli soldiers prior to the 2006 attack by Israel on Lebanon was as a result of the Israelis sending those soldiers into Lebanese territory. They sent them not into some hazily defined no-mans land, as the Zionists working in the media and elsewhere have repeatedly claimed, but definitely into Lebanon-proper. So Hezbollah had a right to seek to neutralise that particular threat.

        So this nonsense of Hezbollah being a threat to the State of Israel is just that: nonsense. It is nonsense spread by Zionists both in the media and elsewhere in order to demonise a group who were formed purely in response to Israeli attack on, and invasions of, Lebanon.

        So I think it’s more than fair to conclude, which a high degree of certainty, that if the Zionists refrain from launching anymore unwarranted attacks on Hezbollah/Lebanon then Hezbollah will not attack the Zionist state.

        (none of the above is meant as an attack on the person from which I lifted the opening quote )

    • Are Bibi’s fingerprints on file? Have they been found on Wikileaks?

      David Makovsky and Robert Satloff of WINEP led a delegation of 40+ NYC bankers and venture capitalists — also WINEP trustees — on a trip to Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Ramallah. In their report on the trip, Makovsky said that Bibi may emerge as the Arab’s best lobbyist. Makovsky said Bibi met with Eric Cantor in NYC on the day after the election, and told Cantor to resist attempts to cut foreign aid to Saudi Arabia. Netanyahu is running US foreign policy, and it’s filthy from top to bottom.

      Kristol’s suggestion that Assange be assassinated echoes comments by Dennis Prager on the essential morality of the assassination of two Iranian scientists.
      An Haaretz report on the Iranian assassinations observed that assassinations are contrary to US policy — and the values I thought represented the US.
      Have we heard our political leaders pointing out that assassination is contrary to American values? That we Americans do not slobber all over allies who act against American values? Anyone??

  9. Citizen says:

    Pretty amazing. Iran looks really powerful in the wikileaks dumps, much more powerful than it actually is. And the USA’s giant blunder attacking and occupying Iraq has helped the Shias outside Iran immensely. But so far, there is no former Iraq divided up into three weak states. The Arab masses across the region know the score. Iranian TV shows it too them daily. The Americans, the Israelis, and the tyrannical sheiks versus the Arab masses across the whole region, including the Palestinians–the in-your-face symbol of it all. If this is not a snap pic of contemporary colonialism, complete with the usual native enablers, what is? Man is it ever oily, both literally and figuratively.

  10. occupyresist says:

    Well, it’s only befitting Anthony that an atrocious countryseems to enjoy aligning itself with atrocious dictators.

    The Wahhabist project, along with the Zionist project, need to be swept away as soon as possible, or this tinderbox called the middle east will be the quagmire that engulfs the world.

    • Kathleen says:

      |Core reasons for terrorism:

      U.S. military bases on foreign lands to protect our access to their oil
      Unbridled U.S. support for Israel no matter what they do
      U.S. support for tyrannical regimes

      • Citizen says:

        Aw, I heard it was because they hate us for our freedom. Simple jealousy.
        My government told me so. And also that it’s because they want to take away from us the baby Jesus. And make women wear masks.

        • Kathleen says:

          And our choices of dish washing soap and ice cream. Or that women are displayed across the front of magazines butt ass naked. That is the freedom they are jealous of.
          They put women in burkas we put them naked on the front of magazines. Oh but it is a choice. Freedom!

  11. MarkF says:

    So now that the documents are being spun as “neocon-pro-bomb-Iran”, will we see an about face, a la Turkey, on calls to assinate Assange?

  12. Sumud says:

    PDF link to the Zogby/Saban arab opinion poll from 2010 (the link in the article is for a Powerpoint version):

    link to bit.ly

  13. RE: “It’s unfortunate that Ahmadinejad rules over an increasingly despotic regime.” – Lowenstein
    YES, BUT CONSIDER THIS ARGUMENT: Is This Really the End for Ahmadinejad? – By Jamsheed K. Choksy, Foreign Policy, 11/24/10

    Casual Iran observers portray the country’s political division as between fundamentalist hard-liners and secular moderates. In reality the struggle for Iran’s future is a three-way fight waged by the different branches of conservatives that control the parliament, the presidency, and the theocracy…
    …Ordinary Iranians have been the inadvertent beneficiaries of all this political gridlock. Ahmadinejad has used social liberalization as a way to shore up his support over the past year — by encouraging women’s involvement in politics, demanding that youth be free to date and wear clothing of their choice, and similar actions, much to the chagrin of theocrats and parliamentarians. The public has enjoyed greater personal freedoms as a result. Of course, that may only be a temporary reprieve. Domestic unrest over the economy is growing. Whatever their differences, it’s easy to imagine Iran’s warring factions agreeing to put them aside and focus on the real long-term threat to their power: the Iranian people themselves.

    ENTIRE COMMENTARY – link to foreignpolicy.com

  14. Citizen says:

    Mmmm. Looks like the American people themselves are no threat to that country’s bipartisan oligarchy.

    • Walid says:

      The various Arab leaders are saying one thing about Iran and Israel and the Arab general public is saying another. Most leaders with exception to Syria are solidly and openly in the US-Israeli camp but not the people.

  15. Hu Bris says:

    make of this what you will

    “This is directly from the Wikipedia November 2007, since erased: “There have been many allegations that Wikileaks is a CIA front (f.e. by cryptome[17]), although there is no direct evidence; arguments have centered around the location of Wikileaks-related matters and the source of its funding.

    A Wikileaks spokesperson has denied allegations but added “If we were CIA, we couldn’t tell you.”[18]

    The contact number on Wikileaks.org, has a D.C. area code and is a Verizon cell phone number registered in Adelphi, Maryland. Intellus.com, a Web tracking service, connected the number to a “Va Reston.” Twenty miles down the road from Adelphi is Reston, Virginia, home to iDefense labs, whose Web site says it is “a comprehensive provider of security intelligence to governments.”[19]

    The DC telephone number is also on the same telephone exchange as the newly created (2006) Iraq Study Group[20] and the Afghanistan embassy of Washington[21″

  16. Les says:

    Arab dictators tell US diplomats what the dictators think the Americans want to hear. Americans who savor such ass kissing “free speech” from dictators call this diplomacy.

    • RoHa says:

      “Arab dictators tell US diplomats what the dictators think the Americans want to hear.”

      The depressing thing is that the Americans seem to fall for it every time.

  17. Pixel says:

    Worth watching …and listening very closely… to ZB.

    Judy Woodruff”s (PBS) interview of Zbigniew Brzezinski and Stephen Hadley, former national security advisers for Presidents Carter and Bush.

    The subject of the interview : Wikileaks.

    link to pbs.org