Del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
TwitThisSerendipity
RD: What does the President mean when he says we won't tolerate nuclear weapons in Iran?Rice: Well, no one should be willing to tolerate nuclear weapons in Iran. This is a problem for the international system, not just for the United States. It has taken us a while to convince people that Iran's programs were a threat, but now people see that Iran is a problem.
Through the International Atomic Energy Agency, we are condemning what the Iranians are doing, and giving them a strong warning that, if they violate the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, they're not going to have anybody cooperating with them. There are many approaches to a problem like this, and the military option is one, but it ought to be close to your last resort.
RD: Given that the Administration felt military intervention in Iraq was appropriate, how do you respond to those who might say, "If Iraq, why not Iran?" Where does the logic of preemption begin and end?
Rice: It's foolhardy to use the same method everywhere. You have to look at circumstances, at what kind of support you can mobilize in the international community and at what kind of leverage you have on states.
Oddly enough, Iran, as closed and repressive as it is, with an unelected few thwarting the will of the people, does have some openness to the outside world. It was an Iranian opposition group that exposed the Natanz [nuclear] facility in Iran.
So you have some things to work with in Iran that you didn't have in Iraq. And when people talk about preemptive war, well, we were at war with Iraq for 12 years. Somebody had to eventually deal with the problem of Saddam Hussein. There are many other methods available to us with other countries.
RD: You've said a number of times that we can't afford to be the world's "911" emergency line. Are we at risk of becoming overextended across the globe, militarily and financially?
Rice: We are currently more than capable of handling the responsibilities that we have. And, as the only superpower, we've come to see those responsibilities differently after 9/11.
Before then, a lot of issues and conflicts around the world seemed unconnected. There was a problem here, a problem there. What 9/11 exposed was that there is a great battle going on between chaos and order. And on the side of order, we have a number of instruments at our disposal. Obviously, the military instrument, which we've used in Afghanistan and Iraq. We have the law enforcement instrument, which we're using worldwide. We have the intelligence instrument, financial instruments, diplomatic tools.
But what we really have is a unifying idea on the side of order, which is that to defeat these terrorists you have to eliminate their leadership and their networks. You also have to have an alternative. And that alternative is the march of democratic values, the march of open societies, the march of tolerance, all of the things that they hate most. While this unifying idea doesn't draw us to overextension, it does draw us to places and struggles that we might not have seen as central to our national security interests prior to 9/11.
RD: Do you think people who would do us harm might take advantage of this period when we're deeply engaged in Iraq?
Rice: I think it's having just the opposite effect. Countries that might be trouble, or terrorists who might be trouble, recognize strength. And they fear it. They feed on weakness.
Now in the '90s, when it looked like we couldn't take a casualty, there's no doubt it emboldened them. We know that they were emboldened by Somalia. I think they're testing us. And the American people understand that we have to sacrifice now for freedom and security because we didn't pick this fight on 9/11. It came to us.
There are those who say, "Well, if you just hadn't gone into Iraq, there wouldn't be terrorists there." They weren't someplace drinking tea and playing Scrabble. These are hardened jihadists who will fight us someplace. And if they want to fight us in Iraq, where we are 140,000 strong, better there than in New York City again.
RD: You had firsthand experience with terrorism, growing up in Birmingham, Alabama, during the violent resistance to the civil rights movement. In light of that experience, what advice would you give to American families who are frightened of terrorism?
Rice: One thing that helped me get through it was that, even though I was a child, my parents were not afraid to talk about what was happening. It was a time when bombs went off in neighborhoods, when a bomb killed four little girls in the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church, one of whom was a friend of mine. And my parents explained that it was a terrible thing happening, but it wasn't directed personally at me.
One of the saddest things about terrorism is that it really intends to stop the conversation, particularly when it targets children and other innocents. It intends to take the future away from people. And my parents were very good at not letting that happen.
As Americans and as the American government, there are things we can do to try to prepare. But we also have to go on with our lives.
RD: What can you see yourself doing once you've left the Bush Administration. Will you run for office?
Rice: There is nothing I am worse at than long-term planning. I have never run my life that way. I believe that serendipity or fate or divine intervention has led me to a series of wholly implausible steps in my life. And I've been open to those twists and turns because I didn't have a long-term plan.
When my students would say, "How do I do what you do?" I'd answer: "You start as a failed piano major and go from there." So we'll see what comes next. There's only one job I covet, which is the NFL Commissioner. But Paul Tagliabue is doing a great job, so I'll wait till he retires.
Advertisement 
