Here's a hint of the "Good" that comes later in this post:
Wes Clark quoted while talking to Sean "Gaston" Hannity,
"If we could change people’s mind without using the military, we’ll all be a lot more secure"
Now for the Bad and the Ugly......
The way that the news would tell it, Iran is currently Public Enemy #1 --in front of Al Qeada and certainly before Osama Bin Waldo.
The Presidential '08 hopefuls, by a margin of too many, appear eager to play cowboy a la George Bush! We are hearing lotsa bravado, slogan filled "Bushisms" formulated while on the campaign trail or in smoky conference rooms filled with Neocons luminaries.
"Bring them on" has been replaced with "We will not tolerate under any circumstances", and "Make our Day" by "all options are on the table", more often said twice in succession for added emphasis and effect.
Unfortunately, none of these 2008 wannabes learned the hard lessons of Vietnam (nearly none went, and so I see why) and all naively supported the Iraq invasion (of course some said sorry 3 year late(r), so it's not surprising when some of the "usual" suspects are back talking the same Bushit, but being careful to replace Iraq with Iran. Some of these candidates are quite expected, while others are quite clueless.
As Iran is a "work in progress" as far as our foreign policy is concerned, it is a fluid issue sorta, kinda. Iran admittedly is a more serious matter than Iraq could have ever hoped to be, but then we've been sticking a stick to Iran's sides for the past 5 years. Being named part of the Axis of Evil doesn't exactly bring out the best in one's behavior, I'm afraid.
So how do we handle Iran? Do we threaten, cajole, bluster, or do sanctions a la Iraq? What exactly are the steps to be taken in order to keep Iran in a place acceptable to the United States and most of the world?
In otherwords, what's the Iran plan?
Sure, the candidates will tell you all that is wrong with Iran; they are evil and Ahmedinejad, untrustworthy. The candidates will firmly insist that the military options and all other possibilities remain on the table, while slamming a hand to the table. But what does that really mean? Tell us something that we don't know! How is the table set? Which china pattern will we be using? Will any other country help us decide? Is there both a steak and butter knife laid out, and is the tablespoon included?
The truth is that hard questions must be asked by Americans in reference to any action regarding Iran. Where should we place the emphasis? Will it be diplomacy, punitive sanctions, or will it be "Shock and Awe" all the way baby?
What are plans A, B, C, D, etc...?
What if the worse should happen, and we end up in a military confrontation with Iran; What would it look like, and what would it achieve? Would it solve anything? And what about the rest of the world; how would they react? Russia, China, Europe, Moderate ME countries?
Now, please don't ask the cowboy candidates any of these questions, because it clearly appears that they haven't really thought it out quite that far! The photo op calendar is packed, and it's hard for a Politician out there on the trail!
Well rest assured, the "Good" General is on his j-o-b once again--The man's worth a million and not paid a cent! Not only has Wes Clark thought through this issue of Iran more deeply than all of the candidates combined, he's made reasoned comments in public venues consistently and constantly. Gen. Clark always understood that Iran could be a threat, and knew too well that the U.S. going into Iraq wasn't gonna help us win a popularity contest as far as Iran was concerned.
The difference between a real Foreign Policy statesman and diplomat and an Attack Hawk politician is that one, if armed, is extremely dangerous.
If you want to sleep well at night, then thus far and unfortunately, General Clark in charge is the only one that will allow it.
**THIS POST WILL BE KEPT UPDATED AS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS GATHERED**
Below are some of Wes Clark's words on Iran via interviews and such:
"Last September at a conference I helped organize, General Wesley Clark began the drumbeat calling for direct contact with Iran. "--Steve Clemons.
http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/29624
February 5, 2006
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well that's the problem with the military option. It's that once we take action, Ahmedinejad probably becomes stronger domestically. There's no assurance that you can get regime change and the historical record of countries that have been bombed suggests that when you bomb a country, normally people rally around the leader. In this case, it would be most unfortunate, but it could happen.
And after we had set back their nuclear program by taking out a number of sites, there's no reason to think that AQ Khan in Pakistan and his cohort couldn't provide them the additional information, that some other nation might not have an incentive to smuggle in highly enriched uranium.
They could be back where we started much sooner than if they rebuilt the program entirely on their own. So that's the risk of the military option - leaving an embittered, angered Iran which is determined to seek revenge and get it.
March 5, 2006
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well I think the first thing that needs to be done, really, is the United States needs to talk directly to the leadership in Iran. That's the essential first step. The United States leadership hasn't done this We've got a lot of different things we can do. There's still a military option - I don't know how effective it's going to be in the long-term but it's there. There are sanctions. There's the embarrassment of going forward. But, when we push Iran, they're going to push back on us and Iran has positioned itself to be the sort of leader of the Islamic world. It's an historic opportunity for Shia Islam to lead the whole Islamic world in standing up for their right to have nuclear energy and maybe a nuclear weapon. So this is a huge, difficult, political issue for us to face. It's a political issue first; it needs to start with dialogue.
Page Hopkins: How do we talk, though, with a president who is alm…crazy? This is a guy who says 'Israel should be wiped off the planet.' How do you reason or talk to somebody like that?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Maybe you don't have to talk to him directly, maybe you talk to other people in the government first.Maybe you build this thing up over a period of time but this has been an opportunity that we've passed by for years. We spoke strongly about the need to put the right government in place in Iran. We basically, our government, tried to interfere in their election. We probably are responsible to giving Ahmedinejad some measure of support because voters don't like it, in whatever country they are, when foreigners try to interfere in their election. We may not think they had a real election. We may not approve of their democracy but people in Iran believe that they voted for Ahmedinejad so what we have to do is we have to decide what we as Americans want to do to pursue what we believe is in our interests. If we only use the stick on Iran, then it's going to be difficult to move the issue, in a constructive way, in the near term. So we need a combination of dialogue and pressure.
-----------
On "This Week" with George Stephanopoulos on 3/5/06
George Stephanopoulos: Let me turn to Iran. You told the Council on Foreign Relations earlier this month, that before we take Iran to the UN Security Council over their proposed nuclear weapons program, we should try talking to them directly and doing business with Iranian businesses. That's a very different approach from what other Democrats, like Senator Evan Bayh and Senator Clinton, are calling for. They say we need tough sanctions now. Why are you convinced that your approach is better?GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, maybe we will need tough sanctions later on. But before any of that happens…years ago we should have talked to Iran, and it's not too late right now.
George Stephanopoulos: Directly.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Directly to Iran. The Iranian state is not unified. There are differences of opinion in Iran, but rather that passing a $75 million Iranian Liberation Act funding proposal, why don't we just talk to the Iranian leadership and see if there's not a way
George Stephanopoulos: But don't you believe that if they're this intent on developing a nuclear weapon…
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think they are intent and the more we press against them, the more difficult it would be for them to change their direction. Iran represents an historic opportunity for the Shias to have leadership in the Islamic world and this nuclear issue is being crystallized in such a way that it's going to make it extremely difficult for them to back off.
George Stephanopoulos: But don't they know that the message is 'if you don't give up your nuclear program then you're not going to be able to join this modern world'? Isn't that what the United States is saying; isn't that what the European community is saying?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, it's a very mixed message going to the Iranians, frankly. We're not saying we're not going to buy their oil. China's not telling the Iranians 'we won't help you build subways'. The Russians aren't telling the Iranians 'you're not going to get our billion dollars worth of weapons that you've ordered'. It's a very mixed message and really it's the United States which hasn't taken its leadership responsibilities seriously enough to go and talk to the Iranians first before this crisis comes to a head.
"I would encourage the United States leadership right now, this week, before March, before it goes to the United Nations Security Council, immediately to talk to the Iranian government. Iran has been a -- it's a great nation. It's 60, 70 million people with a tremendous heritage, and we've got a wonderful Iranian-American community. And the policy that we've pursued toward Iran for the last five to 10 years, no matter what the historical antecedents were or our anger at 1979 and the hostages, still, it's a policy that hasn't served American interests.
We should be doing business -- we should have been a long time ago doing business with the Iranian business community. We should have worked with them. We worked with East Europe when it was under communist domination, and it was one of the key factors that helped East Europe throw off an outmoded set of ideas. We need to be working in the Middle East to help their business communities move past old ideas.
So right now what we need to be doing is talking to Iran -- right now, this week."
http://securingamerica.com/node/692
-----------------
Neil Cavuto: When you say it's over-stretched, too over-stretched to do something about Iran right now?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think that's less of a problem. I think the, the greater problem is figuring out what's the end state. Let's say you, you run eight to fourteen days of bombing against Iran. You take out thirty sites, maybe fifteen of them were the nuclear sites. You've taken out some command and control, his missiles, his air bases, some of the stuff that would threaten us along the literal of the Persian Gulf. Okay, and then what? What happens? Does he then say, 'Oh, I give up. I surrender. I'll be your friend."? No, he's not going to say that.
Neil Cavuto: But who cares, if he's less of a threat?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Because what he's going to do is he's going to be a magnet-
Neil Cavuto: I see.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: - pulling in all kinds of anti-American resistance. How do we know A.-
Neil Cavuto: So, it'll actually galvanize Arab-
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: How do we know A.Q. Kahn's not going to replenish that nuclear stock right away.
Neil Cavuto: Yeah.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: So, it's a danger. We've got to think through the thing, not just from the initial strikes, not 'Can we hit the target? Can we penetrate Iranian airspace?' Of course we can do that. It's 'What's the end state- strategically, geopolitically? How do we handle the conflict in this part of the world?'
--------------
1/23/07 after the SOTUS
Alan Colmes: He had some really strong rhetoric tonight about Iran, about the threat from Iran, about terrorists working with Iran. Do you think he is preparing the country for a possible military action toward that country?GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Yes, I do. I think that the…the…the statements about Iran continue to ratchet up the pressure and uh, lay the groundwork for taking action.
Sean Hannity: General Clark
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK:: And I think it’s very dangerous.
snipSean Hannity: You want to talk to Iran and here’s a guy…
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I do. Absolutely.
Sean Hannity: Hang on, let me, let me finish my question. He wants to…he’s the guy that’s denied the Holocaust, um he’s pursuing nuclear weapons, has repeatedly talked about annihilating Israel, wiping it off the face of the map, “down with the USA” is a chant that he often makes in public. What would the first words out of your mouth be to the Holocaust denier? Would you try and talk him into the truth?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well Sean, you know when I was the NATO Commander, I went down to Slobodan Milosevic and told him that if he didn’t comply with the UN Security Council resolutions that I would be told to bomb him and I would bomb him good. And so I do believe
Sean Hannity: But do you really believe there’s hope in talking to him?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I do believe that the United States, as the most powerful country in the world, should always talk to adversaries. I’m not saying take the military option off the table – it’s an option, but it’s a lot better for everybody in the region if we don’t have to use the military option.
All Interviews text sourced here
