Anyone who hasn't been paying close attention want to know what Wes Clark’s been saying regarding Iran over the last couple of years? I went hunting for something and sort of got lost in the WesPAC archives and ended up with a whole lot of stuff.
Considering how scary this whole Iran thing is and how Bush and some others seem to be ramping up the rhetoric regarding the “threat of Iran” more and more all the time, I just thought I’d throw a lot of these quotes together in one place….
So, here are just some of the things Wes has said about Iran. Contrast with what some of the other 2008 candidates have been saying or not saying, if you wish.
You’ll notice that he doesn’t take the military option off the table but he deals with it a heck of a lot differently than some others do. He always takes the opportunity to try to get the rhetoric toned down (often when facing belligerent and fear-mongering Fox hosts), he takes the time to consider what an attack on Iran would really mean should it happen, and he’s not afraid to say that the Iranian threat may not be as scary as some are trying to make it out and that we may have to consider living with a nuclear Iran. He reminds us that Iran is a great nation with a tremendous heritage and that we share some responsibility for the power that Ahmedinejad now has...And he believes that we, the ‘little people’, so to speak, can make a difference if only we care enough to make a fuss before it's too late.
This is long so I hope you'll bear with me and read at least some of it....Lots here to digest.
Here he is in Feb ’05, telling Blitzer that there is no crisis with Iran….
"CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports"
February 14, 2005
BLITZER: Let's talk briefly about Iran. The nuclear possibility of some sort of standoff with Iran over nuclear weapons, if in fact they ever get that far. Do you think this is a crisis yet, what's happening in Iran?
CLARK:
No, I don't think it's a crisis, Wolf. But all of us who knew the situation in the Middle East would have told you that the Iranian threat was a much more real threat than the Iraqi threat was, but we invaded Iraq. Iran took the message from it and realized if it's going to achieve safety, it needs to do as North Korea has done which is go ahead and accelerate its nuclear development program. So if the Bush administration or our allies in the region feel that this is moving to a crisis, it will become a crisis quickly.
BLITZER: What would you do right now as far as Iran is concerned?
CLARK: What I would have done years ago is work with our European allies directly in the discussions with Iran.
BLITZER: But isn't that what they're doing? The Europeans are taking the initiative, they're leading the diplomacy with the Iranians.
CLARK: They are. But the Europeans would be the first to tell you that without U.S. participation, neither the carrots nor the sticks make sense.
http://securingamerica.com/node/56From Oct 15, 2005, where he sparred with Steve Forbes on Forbes on Fox regarding the wisdom of attempting to speak to Iran (Notice the snarky "let's bring them a cake". The stuff our General puts up with trying to save America!):
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: We've got to find the right way to handle the Iraqi situation, and what I've been saying is we've got to get Iraq's neighbors involved in a constructive way. They're already involved under the table. We gotta get it out in the open.
Forbes: General, let me respectfully disagree. There's no way you're going to get Iran to cooperate…. (snip)
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Yeah, I think that, you know, we don't know whether Iran will cooperate, because we've not tried. But Iran has common interests, and I don't think you can contemplate moving ahead in the Middle East and staying in Iraq if you continue the policy of isolating Iran as they move toward a nuclear weapon. We're going to have a challenge with Iran. Let's face it, but let's talk before we use force on Iran.
(overlapping)
Forbes: Yes, General. The fact of the matter is Iran is under a theocracy. It is under a dictator, Islamic dictatorship. They're not going to change. Maybe the Iranians can change the government, but it's not going to change.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Steve, I don't know how you can say that with such certainty. I've had a lot of Iranians coming up to me. I don't know how you can say that. You're giving a theory. We've got our troops on the ground.
(overlapping)
Forbes: That's fact general, since the late 1970's. Look at the situation there.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: No, it's not a fact. Listen, we can talk to Iran. We've got to try to talk to Iran, because the alternative is to use force.
(overlapping)
Forbes: We've tried to talk to Iran a number of times, General.
unidentified person: Let's bring them a cake.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, this administration hasn't, and we haven't tried since we've got 150,000 troops, and I'll tell you when you put 150,000 troops in a region, it changes the diplomacy. So, let's use a little diplomacy and help those troops over there.
http://securingamerica.com/node/284From an August ’05 Washington Post Op-Ed by the General:
Adding a diplomatic track to the strategy is a must. The US should form a standing conference of Iraq's neighbors, complete with committees dealing with all the regional economic and political issues, including trade, travel, cross-border infrastructure projects, and, of course, cutting off the infiltration of jihadists. Iraq's neighbors should be asked to assist. This will also provide a better opportunity for meaningful back-door discussions of Iran's nuclear program, Syria's interests in Lebanon, and Turkish interaction with the Kurds in Iraq.
The US should tone down its raw rhetoric for US-style democracy as an answer to all problems and instead listen more carefully to the many voices within the region. A public US declaration forswearing permanent bases in Iraq would also be helpful in engaging both regional and Iraqi support at this point.http://securingamerica.com/articles/wapo/2005-08-26I like this answer he gave to a questioner when he spoke at the Council on Foreign Relations on Feb 14, 2006….
QUESTIONER: Reuben Brigety from George Mason University. Senator McCain has said that the only thing worse than a military strike on Iran is a nuclear-armed Iran. I wonder if you agree with that statement, and if you could offer your thoughts on viable options to prevent Iran from being nuclear armed.
CLARK: Well, the official policy of the United States for a long time has been that Iran can't have a nuclear weapon. And if you just connect the dots and you say, well, they have an implacable determination to get an nuclear weapon, and you say but under no circumstances can they have one, then there's only one possible outcome -- (chuckles) -- and it's a very unpleasant outcome.
I think that, first of all, we've had a lot of mistakes in dealing with Iran. What the administration's grand strategy actually resulted in was that if you believed in late 2001 that there was a significant proliferation problem -- risk -- and that your three greatest risks for proliferation were Iraq, Iran and North Korea, then the administration put all of its effort into the least significant problem, which has then caused us to defer and be distracted from necessary attention to the two greater problems of North Korea and Iran.
When I testified in front of Congress in 2002 and wrote articles -- I kept talking about Iran being a greater long-term threat because they clearly were embarked on a program then. And in 2001-2002, we were saying five to eight years for their nuclear weapons to come to -- now we -- I don't know what the intelligence says. And they're probably -- if we're honest, there's probably a lot of disputes in the intelligence community, whether it's now another five to eight years or till 2010 or maybe it's only a year. We don't know. But we've lost critical time in dealing with Iran.
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/607Here, in March of ’06, he argues against Fox News’ Page Hopkins’ rhetoric and protestations that we can, indeed, talk to Iran if we only try:
Page Hopkins: Iran taking on the rest of the world, threatening to resume large-scale uranium enrichment - that's the stuff that can be used to make nuclear warheads. Tehran's warning comes one day before the UN nuclear watchdog is set to discuss Iran's nuclear ambitions…..The IAEA meeting tomorrow morning, Iran's already being defiant saying that if it were referred to the Security Council, that's it - all bets are off we're going to resume enriching uranium on a large scale. What can be done to diffuse this?
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 you have that dialogue, though, since 1979 Iran's been responsible for more killing more Americans in terror attacks than any other country; it's a theocracy; how in the heck do we neutralize or deal with these people?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, the first thing to do is you've got to find someone to talk with. There are low-level conversations going on. They're not sanctioned or they're not supported by the US Government. They could be - the United States government could deal with the low level and raise the level of discussions. It could get to the critical issues that are on the table but <crosstalk>
Page Hopkins: But sir ...
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: There are going to be disagreements between the United States and Iran. That can't be papered over <crosstalk>
Page Hopkins: But General Clark...
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: but before we use force, shouldn't we at least talk to them?
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.
http://securingamerica.com/node/694Here he is in April ’06 with another Fox host itching for a confrontation with Iran:
Julie Banderas: In a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll, 47% of Americans - that is you - believe the US will eventually have to take military action against Iran. …..(snip)
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: ….this is the time when the United States does need to get very serious and, I believe, talk with the Iranians. There are military options. There are economic options, but the most important thing right now is for the United States and Iran to talk and to try to work this out so that Iran can have a full understanding of how determined the United States is to resist their effort and so that Iran can understand that this will not really advance their interests.
(snip)
Julie Banderas: Just last week, remember that yellowcake party? I mean they were celebrating the fact that they had the ability to enrich uranium for energy purposes so how are we to trust any deal with Iran? How in the world is diplomacy really ever going to work?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: …..So this is a step-by-step process. We lay our demands out, they lay their demands out and we reach some accommodation that serves the interests of both parties. I've just come back from two trips inside the region. People are very concerned in the region, in the Middle East, about Iran's nuclear activities. They don't want a war. They want the United States to talk with the Iranians and head this thing off and they don't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon. So, everybody's attention is focused on this issue and it's really…it's up to the United States still to lead. That's what the world expects the United States to do and that's what we should do.
http://securingamerica.com/node/887And, again on Fox, about a week later...
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: And I think it's important to go as far as you can with the diplomacy. I would say one thing, though.
It's important for the United States to tone down the rhetoric, tone down the threats, and it would be much better if the United States would talk to Iran directly, right now.(snip)
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: ….and we should be going behind the scenes. We should be talking to the people in Iran. We should be looking at talking, not only to Ahmadinejad, but to the Religious Council behind him. There've been efforts in the past by Iran to turn this thing around and turn it off. What we don't want is, we don't want the public rhetoric. Let him keep up the public rhetoric. But what we have to do is, we have to work for a solution.
Brigitte Quinn: Right. Now what do you think that solution ultimately will be, General? I, I know it's hard to, to look into a crystal ball, but I mean, do you see diplomacy truly going somewhere this time?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think that it's possible to construct a regional security framework in which US leadership could provide Iran the kinds of assurances it needs to withhold pursuing it's nuclear weapons activities. That, coupled with the change in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, with an effort to multi-nationalize the nuclear fuel cycle, might work. But if it- if we don't talk directly to the Iranians, we're not going to move this forward.
And it's not just a matter of dialog, it's then a matter of concrete proposals which address Iran's isolation, Iran's security concerns, Iran's nuclear power concerns and then take away any remaining excuse for them to pursue a nuclear weapons option.
http://securingamerica.com/node/936Here, from a Boston Globe article, May 10, 2006:
Clark wants words with Iran, not war
May 10, 2006
AP via Boston Globe
NASHUA, N.H. -- Former Democratic presidential hopeful Wesley Clark says President Bush should be pushing for words, not war, with Iran.
Clark told a firefighters' convention Wednesday that it looks like the president is lurching toward a conflict with Iran over the country's nuclear plans. He said he favors direct talks instead.
"Right now we're being led down a path to nowhere," Clark told the Professional Fire Fighters of New Hampshire, who had gathered for the final day of their biennial convention.
(snip)
Clark emphasized the importance of improving U.S. foreign relations, including dialogue between the United States and Iran. "We need a dialogue with Iran. I'm told we had opportunities to have that dialogue," he said. "It's been rebuffed three times.”
http://securingamerica.com/node/954In May, another Fox host tries to ratchet it up, while Wes tries to tone it down:
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: But, you know, one of the things that we did in Kosovo is we really made a concerted effort through diplomacy to head off the use of force. And here, the United States hasn't yet talked with Iran.
What's happening is that Ahmedinejad and the hard liners in Iran, they're getting benefit from the escalating rhetoric. It helps them strengthen their hand domestically, at home, in cracking down against the so-called reformers that are in Iran. So they like the pressure coming from the United States. They haven't had anything ...they haven't had to give anything up for it and they also — the United States - hasn't given any positive incentives to come off their position.
So, I think what's going to have to happen here is we're going to have to talk directly to the Iranians, we're going to have to work with the European allies, there's going to be a package put together of not only threats but some positive incentives. We have to figure out what it is Iran really wants, other than a crisis. And move them away from this.
Eric Shawn: It seems to me Iran wants a nuclear bomb. It's plain and simple and what if we were to start talking to them? Wouldn't that just delay everything because they have proudly boasted that they, you know ...diddled around with the Europeans for three years and that time period let them enrich uranium in defiance of every international treaty?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well I think that the path to get us anywhere is to talk with Iran directly so I've, for a long time, been advising the administration — indirectly and saying publicly, that what we've got to do is talk directly to Iran. If they've stalled the Europeans for three years, that's partly a function of the fact that we weren't in there pushing the acceleration of these talks. So we need to get in there and work this right now. Yes, it may take time but we may also find that the Iranians would rather have a different form of security than a nuclear weapon.
http://securingamerica.com/node/1037In July ’06, Wes informs Hannity of the problems with striking Iran:
Sean Hannity: What's the next step for the United States as they actively seek nuclear weapons? Should we put on the table a strike on their nuclear facilities so that we don't face a day where Iran is arming a group like Hezbollah with nuclear weapons?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well I wouldn't want to take the military option off the table Sean, but it has to be the absolutely last, last, last option. I'll tell you why: because first of all, there's no assurance that we know where all those installations are and we can be effective. Secondly, once we've initiated the program of strikes on Iran, we've opened warfare against a government that represents 70 million people. I don't see an end-state to the strategy. I don't see the United States and our allies having the wherewithal to occupy Iran or deal with it. And, there's nothing to prevent other powers from coming in behind these strikes and re-arming the Iranians so…<crosstalk>
Alan Colmes: Hey General, we…
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: So, I think the strikes are problematic.
http://securingamerica.com/node/1249Wes made some wonderful appearances on Fox’ Dayside in August ’06. Here, he discusses Iran with some hyped up hosts and audience members on August 1st:
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Look, you cannot solve these problems with military force alone, and you cannot limit talking to people that you already know you're going to agree with. You can't say, 'If I don't agree with you, I'm not going to talk to you.' This administration has not talked to Iran on repeated occasions since they- since the Iranians tried in 2002 to really deepen the relationship. We had an opening with Ha Kazaz, with, with Basher Assad in Syria back in 2004, 2005. We didn't take it. We shut him down. We pulled our ambassador back. That leaves us without the diplomatic wherewithal to go in and work the problem.
(snip)
Audience member: Yes, General Clark, in all due respect, we're dealing with a fanatical ideology, who are pursuing it fanatically. You cannot sit at a table that wants to blow you and the table up. These people want to convert the world, the world to Islam. I, speaking for myself, I'm out of that. Okay, how do you handle that type of mentality? What do you do?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, first of all, you know, I have some experience in handling diplomacy, because back in the 1990's when I was in NATO and before that when I was in the Pentagon, I did the negotiations in the Balkans that with Ambassador Holbrooke and others, we helped end that war there. So, no matter how fanatical people are, they still have interests and objectives. Now, I don't recommend we talk to Hizbullah, but there's nothing whatsoever wrong with the United States talking to Syria and Iran, and we should be very clear about talking, talking with these countries. What are your interests, and we should tell them what our interests are. And then we should see if there's anything that is there in common. Maybe there isn't. Maybe there's nothing to do but go to total war. But remember, war is the last resort, because once it starts, and you start killing people, the feelings harden, and it's so difficult at that point to back off.
And the United States, we're not going to conquer the world. We can't occupy Syria and Iran and Iraq and change those people and they're their countries. What we want to do is help people advance the cause of freedom and find ways to live together.Mike Jerrick: So, but over the last ten years, it seems like we've met with the Syrians 50, 60 times. I think President Clinton even met face to face. At what point do you say w- we, we just can't accept, in many cases, lies from them?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK:
Well look, nations don't always tell the truth, but you can't educate nations like they're third graders, and you can't treat them like they're third graders. We got very close in the 1990s to a peace agreement that would've ended fighting between the Palestinians, the Syrians and the Israelis, very close. So, there's no reason why we can't keep talking. You don't draw a line and say, 'Okay, that's it. I'm not going to talk to you. We'll see you on the battlefield,' unless there's a direct threat to the United States.
Neither Syria nor Iran is directly threatening the United States right now.(snip)
Audience member: Nonetheless, the fact is, it seems obvious to me that this is really a beginning, a proxy of Israel representing the United States and the entire free world, and therefore this is not just a skirmish between these two groups of people, but something that represents the vanguard of something that is going to be extended to the rest of all of us.
Mike Jerrick: So, what you say, may be down to the U.S. versus Iran. So, maybe why isn't that a direct threat to the United States that we need to take action against.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I think that you have to, you have to work through these problems. You know, in most of human history people don't agree, and it's a question of how you resolve the disagreements. We've got long-standing disagreements with Iran. I've been one of those who advocated talking to Iran, and I've said it publicly for the last four years. The administration hasn't. As a result, now when it comes into the fight, it's very difficult to go to Iran. But yes, Israel represents a standard of freedom, a standard of literacy, a standard of Democracy which is unique in the region. But what the United States can do to advance our ideals - and I'm speaking as an American now, because that's who I am.
What we can do is, we have to stand for what we believe in and our values. We don't believe in reckless bombing. We believe in humanitarian assistance. We believe in ending quarrels by the peaceful settlements of disputes, and we believe in the use of war only as a last resort. So, we have to follow our own principles, and in the process we should help Israel, but we should also be helping the government of Lebanon and the innocent civilians all through the area.http://securingamerica.com/node/1281Here he is, back on Dayside, August 14th, 2006:
Juliet Huddy: You've heard about the interview with CBS and the Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad. He doesn't think the U.S. and Iran will ever have normal relations or they'll have them soon, any time soon. He says, "America will have to change its behavior." He says the Bush administration, quote, "Talks down to Iran." General Clark, you've been a supporter of diplomacy with countries like Iran and Syria - we've had a little back and forth-
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: We have.
Juliet Huddy: -the two of us on this, on this show - not isolationism. Can you deal diplomatically with Iran's President? He seemed, I mean, when you watched the interview, he seemed to be a rational guy, but then you also-
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well-
Juliet Huddy: -here he's the same guy who wants to wipe-
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: True.
Juliet Huddy: -Israel of the map.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: But he's playing to his domestic opposition, to his domestic support base, which is the tougher we talk to him and the more we talk down at him and threaten him, the stronger his support base becomes. So, what we have to do if we're going to work against their interests and in favor of our interests is have an engagement with them. We've got to dialog. We've got to talk. We may not agree, but we need to talk and sound them out and undercut his ability to mobilize the most radical elements in the Shiite world against the United States.
http://securingamerica.com/node/1354September 30, 2006, he keynotes the Warren Co, Iowa Democratic Dinner and warns of the dangers ahead if we don’t elect a Democratic Congress (which, luckily, we succeeded in doing):
This threat briefing that the President gave on Islamo-fascist-salafist trying to create a caliphate? It was sophomoric.
Every lieutenant in the army, captain and sergeant first class could have given the same threat briefing. They could have given it in 1928, '38, '48, '58, '68, '78. These are old ideas. There's about 50,000 people out there aligned with Osama bin Laden. Not one government supports Osama bin Laden. It's NOT World War III. Unless we make it that way. Unless we make it that way.
And that's my greatest concern. If we don't get our Democrats in office, around America and in the Congress in Washington, this administration is going to take us to war with Iran, and try to start a war with a billion people. People of the Islamic faith. There's no reason to do it. In my view. There's a solution to the problem we face.I say, let's talk with people we don't agree with. We should right now, be talking with the government of Iran, the government of Syria, and I'm talking about face-to-face talks at senior levels of government. Not outsourcing it.
I'd like to tell you this administration was too cowardly to talk with people it doesn't agree with. But of course, that's not true. It's not cowardice. What they still harbor is the intent to attack the governments of Syria and Iran and therefore they block any diplomatic dialog.
http://securingamerica.com/node/1602Here, in Oct. ’06, he tells O’Lielly that you don’t refrain from talking to someone just because they might ‘lie’ to you:
Bill O'Reilly: See, I don't have any confidence that a conversation with Iran…but Iran wants to cause trouble for the USA. It wants to weaken us; it's part of the worldwide jihad. It wants to kill every jew on the planet. Um, I don't have any confidence they're going to do anything. I think they like this. They think they're winning. So when you have a hand like that, um…it's almost impos…it's like the North Korean guy - he's a nut. You can talk all day long and he's going to say 'sure' and then do what he wants.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Maybe, but Bill I think the Iranians know that they can lose in this situation too because if Iran takes strong action and is seen active in Iraq, the only thing that happens is they draw Sunni money in against them and the war will expand. I don't think Iran wants to re-fight the Iraq-Iran war. <crosstalk>
Bill O'Reilly: Okay, you may be right. Saudi Arabia…
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: …shifted 40 miles. We need to be talking about this. We need to be talking with them. We need to work with people. We're the most powerful country in the world. We've got to be able to talk to people. Of course they lie to you, but they also give away their game plan and you build relationships and you might get something out of it. <crosstalk>
http://securingamerica.com/node/1766Here General Wesley Clark joins the Bax and O'Brien Morning Show on WAQY, October 6, 2006:
Host: General, I want to ask you about Iran here for a minute. You know we had the President of Iran come to New York, talk to the UN. There seems to be a lot of people very scared about what Iran is capable of doing, what they want to do with nuclear weapons or nuclear technology but they don't seem to want to be…it almost seems like no one wants to get too deep involved in this because I think they're just afraid of what this guy is capable of doing. Do you think that we are at the point where diplomacy is probably out the window and some sort of action in Iran is inevitable?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well I think this administration, or there are elements of this administration that want to bomb Iran. And you know what, they've wanted to bomb Iran for a long time. They've sought regime change for a long time. No, I don't think diplomacy's out the window. I don't think it should be. We haven't even started diplomacy. This administration hasn't even talked to Iran and until it talks to Iran, we as Americans - the greatest power in the world, the most powerful economy, the greatest military, the greatest values, in my view. We don't know what the Iranians really want. We don't know whether it's possible to dissuade them from proceeding toward nuclear weapons.
Now the Iranians have had a bad demonstration - they saw that a country that didn't have nukes got invaded, they saw another country halfway around the world that did have nukes did not get invaded and has been handled with kid gloves. So, that's a pretty simple lesson. If you were in Iran's place, you might think the best way to protect myself from the United States is go get them nukes right away.Host: And that country you're talking about obviously would be North Korea who now says they're going to test a nuclear weapon. Who do you think we should be more afraid of in the next two years - the Iranians or North Korea? I think it's George Bush, but do you think it should be the Iranians or the North Koreans?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I think that if we'll talk to people around the world and set a steady course that emphasizes dialogue, works for American interests, that there's every reason to believe that we can smooth out what's going on. But, what you have to understand about the Bush administration is they have actually sought to destabilize the Middle East - to de-stabilize it. They've promoted democracy at all costs and what they have gotten is the election of Hamas in the Palestinian areas, they've gotten chaos in Iraq. They will not talk to the government of Syria or Iran and they didn't act properly with respect to Lebanon. When Lebanon was
by Israel, we should have gone over to the Prime Minister of Lebanon, said 'we want to help you, you just have to get rid of Hezbollah'. Instead we became the cheerleading squad for Israel. We forced Lebanon to bond with Hezbollah so we actually made it worse for the Lebanese as well as the Israelis. Bad leadership. Incompetence and an administration that simply doesn't do its job.
http://securingamerica.com/node/1664
Here, on C-Span’s Washington Journal on November 30, 2006, Wes considers the Iranian point of view….novel idea:
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I think the, the White House is really torn on the Issue of Iran and Syria. You know, from the beginning, there've been factions in the White House that, that saw the invasion of Iraq as just the first step, and then they'd move on to Syria, and then get Lebanon under control, and then eventually sweep back and get regime change in Tehran.
But I think what people in the White House may not have fully appreciated is that these countries have enduring interests. It's not a matter of regime change in Iran. It's the fact that Iran is a major power - 70 million people. They've got enormous wealth in their petrochemical industry. They've got a culture. They, they have sought regional dominance there for years and years and years, even before Ahmadinejad became the power. They want to be consulted and we've frozen them out now since the late 1970s. It, it's time to open a dialog with Iran. We may not agree with them, but even during the Cold War, we talked to nations we didn't agree with, like the Soviet Union, when we had missiles aimed at each other.
http://securingamerica.com/node/1998December 14, 2006, he talks to NPR’s Diane Rehm:
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I think one of the major efforts that the opponents of the Iraq Study Group have, have worked on is to discredit the idea of dialog in the region. I think this is really unfortunate. It's the United States strategy posture before we went in there that created a lot of resistance on the ground to us in Iraq, and whether we agree with the Iranians or the Syrians or not, we ought to be talking to them, and we ought to be talking to them without preconditions. We may not be asking them for help, and I wouldn't ask them for help, and they're not going to offer help, but what I do think is important is to set Iraq inside the regional context.
There's no advantage to anybody in moving toward a war with Iran. We're not going to occupy Iran. It's too large. We're not going to change its culture. It's too diverse. We're not going to democratize it. It is not going to be, after a war, converted to a Western-style Democracy. So, therefore why are we moving in this direction? We need a dialog first, and bring all of the other instruments of U.S. power to bear though that dialog.
Diane Rehm: So, you would take Iran's proposed or purported development of nuclear weapons off the table?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Oh, I'd say that's one of the things we're going to talk about directly.
Diane Rehm: But would you talk about that first?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK:: No, I'd talk first about-
Diane Rehm: Would that be a precondition?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: No, I'd go in with a set of principles that we agree, in the region, that we want for the region that borders should be respected, security needs should be respected, that the Iraqi people should have a right to determine their own future, and have that dialog with Iraqi and Syrian and Turkish leaders - all the people who are effected by it-
Diane Rehm: Gen-
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: -and see what comes from it.
http://securingamerica.com/node/2030Here he is on Washington Post radio, Jan 9, 2007:
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: But if you look ahead to Iran and you ask yourself, 'Well, what about Iran?' Here I, I see a chorus of voices beginning to sound the trumpet that Iran is a, a grave threat that has to be dealt with by force-
Anchorman:: Well, this, this almost-
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: -that there's no way for diplomacy to deal with the Iranian's aspirations for nuclear capabilities and regional hegemony.
Ms. Anchorwoman: But although the, today the, the Treasury Department named Iran's state-owned bank as a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction, which basically means they can't do any business with the U.S. and their assets are frozen. Is that a good move?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: This is all part of a campaign of pressure against Iran, and in my experience, you have to have sticks and carrots, but you also have to have direct dialog. This administration has repeatedly refused to have that direct dialog with Iran. We've outsourced the diplomacy to the Europeans. We've gone to the United Nations. We talk on the margins, maybe of the UN Security Council, although that's not clear. But what we don't do is send a high level team directly to into Iran to change their mind.
http://securingamerica.com/node/2101Wrangling with O’Lielly again, Jan. 10, 2007:
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: So, what's wrong with this as a scenario? You talk with Iran. You hold them at bay. One way or another, somehow western influence seeps into Iran and the people of Iran decide that there's a better way of living…
Bill O'Reilly: I'm not opposed to that
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: …than being under the Ayatollahs. Isn't that a better approach than saying that we're going to have to go to war with them definitely?
Bill O'Reilly: But if Iran continues to kill American soldiers and we don't do anything about it, as the scenario's been the last 3 years
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Where is Iran killing American soldiers?
Bill O'Reilly: Did you just miss…did you just miss?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Inside Iraq?
Bill O'Reilly: Did you just miss the guys that were captured there?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I did not.
Bill O'Reilly: Okay.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: That's precisely why I say we have to talk directly to Iran and why I'm less optimistic about the 20,000 troop surge because until we establish some dialogue, directly, then our troops are vulnerable.
http://securingamerica.com/node/2108With Rachel Maddow 1/11/07:
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: And I know that this administration believes that U.S. interests require regime change in Syria and Iran.
Rachel Maddow: Mm.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: That's what they've said, and if that's the case, then we're moving toward a showdown with Iran. So, I, I don't know if that's the case. Isn't it possible that if we had looked at, lets say, Eastern Europe and Russia, Soviet Union in the 1970's and early 80's, we'd have said, 'Look, our interests are incompatible, and there's no choice but to have a showdown with them'? There were people who pushed for that.
Rachel Maddow: Mm.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: And there were people who pushed for that back in the 1950's. In the 1950's, President Eisenhower rejected preventive war with The Soviet Union. People actually told Ike, 'We've got the h-bomb. They don't have it yet. Let's attack now before they can get an h-bomb.' He refused. In the 1980's, President Reagan sat down at Reykjavik with Soviet Premier Gorbachev - actually sat down and talked with him, and Reagan was exposed to a lot of criticism after that. But you know what? It was the beginning of the end of The Soviet Union.
Rachel Maddow: Speaking of Eisenhower, we've got the aircraft carrier, the Eisenhower there now. The Stennis is on their way over to kind of glower over at Iran. Do you feel like the increase in, the, the increase in, in, in firepower that we've got physically moving closer to Iran right now is meant to be a real threat? Do you, do you see a showdown happening?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I see this administration preparing for that, yeah.
Rachel Maddow: Mm.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: And I think there has to be a military option in dealing with Iran, but I don't think that should be the first option, and it should not be the only option at this point. There's still time for dialog, and if you look at how we handled Eastern Europe in the Cold War, I think it's a model for what could be done here. We didn't attack Eastern Europe. What we did is we opened them up with a can opener. We put in Western-style loans. We pushed media in there, and we basically caused the people to lose sup- their faith in their own governments, and the governments fell.
I think human nature is pretty constant across the globe. People are concerned about their families, their children. They want a better life. They want security. They don't want war, but if they're threatened, they'll fight.http://securingamerica.com/node/2118With Mark Green on AAR’s “Politically Direct” 1/11/07:
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: : But that's not what diplomacy's about. Diplomacy's about trying to create a different vision for the region. Do people in this region always have to fight? Does every issue have to be settled by force? Do people have to hate each other all their lives and pass that hatred on to their children? Do they have to live in fear? Can there be a better way? That, that, that sounds idealistic, but it can be implemented step by step. If we had approached Eastern Europe the way this administration has approached the Middle East, if we'd approached Eastern Europe that way during the 1980's, we might have had a war.
(snip)
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I think, I, I don't know. I don't want to speculate on President Bush. I don't, I don't know the man personally, and i-it's just not the right thing. He's making a mistake. Not that you can ask Iran for help, but you can help Iran. They have, we have things they want. They want to be admitted into the world community. They'd like to have their assets unfrozen. They'd like to be able to get new technology for their oil fields.
http://securingamerica.com/node/2121With Stephanie Miller 1/12/07:
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well in my experience, if you want a war, you can have one. Because people will fight you. And so if we…if we as America believe that conflict with Iran is inevitable, that there’s an attitude of sort of ‘bring it on, let’s get it over with,’ we’ll have that conflict. We won’t like that conflict because it won’t be easily resolved. It’s unlikely that the Iranian government will…would ever sign a formal surrender document to us. We don’t have enough troops to occupy Iran. If we did, we would find out that it’s a polyglot country just like many of the countries in the region with many minority groups and ethnic pulls and tugs and it would be a pain in the neck to try to occupy a nation of 75 million people who were browbeaten into submission. We don’t need that. And um…so
Stephanie Miller: Well General, what is your take on what Democrats can
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: We’ve got to back away from…we’ve got…we’ve got to take another look at the broad thrust of where we’re headed. Somehow we’ve got to go into the region and change people’s minds and say ‘look, we have choice…we have free will, we’re human beings. We don’t have to have war.’
Stephanie Miller: Right
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: So why are we having war?
http://securingamerica.com/node/2123Here again with Hannity Jan 23, 2007:
Sean 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?
(snip)
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.
Sean Hannity: But do you…I agree with that, but do you really believe there’s even a smidgen of hope that the Holocaust denier, that the guy that threatens the US and Israel, do you really believe this madman is somebody that ultimately can be persuaded?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK:: Well I don’t think he’s the only…Sean, he’s not the only guy in Iran. I mean there are a lot of people in Iran who are…who really want to see a change in the situation in the region. We’ve got to reach around Ahmedinejad one way or another. We’ve got to show a different vision for the region. We’ve got to help those in Iran who want a different vision in the region come forward. That’s our obligation as the most powerful country in the world.
Sean Hannity: I think the single best security we will have against Iran is to have the biggest, strongest, toughest military and the means to back it up. Let me ask you this, sir. You said, you said…
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well you know the military is the last resort.
Sean Hannity: I agree. You said
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK:
If we could change people’s mind without using the military, we’ll all be a lot more secure.Sean Hannity: I don’t believe you can change the mind of a madman like Ahmedinejad. I think that’s false hope.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I don’t think he’s the only guy in charge, Sean.
Sean Hannity: Well I think it’s false hope and naïve.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think you’re making the same mistake we made with Saddam. I think you’re trying to personalize a country around a single person.
Sean Hannity: I’m not. I’m not, but he’s their leader.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: and that was the mistake in Iraq.
Sean Hannity: He’s their voice.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: He is one voice in Iran. That’s all.
Sean Hannity: If we could do anything, we ought to be working very hard with alternative voices in Iran and hope that the emerging, shifting, changing demographics and the desire…the…the inclination of the human soul takes over
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Sure.
Sean Hannity: and foster the freedom movement there. I think it would be a far better plan than
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: but to do that, you have to talk to Iran.
Sean Hannity: than any hope in Ahmedinejad. But you said talk to Iran.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: We’re going to have an embassy. We’re going to have to have relationships with them.
Sean Hannity: That’s right.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: That’s what this administration won’t do and that’s what it needs to do.
http://securingamerica.com/node/2163A couple of recent newspaper stories:
Clark says U.S. must talk with Iranians
January 15, 2007
By SHELBY G. SPIRES | Times Military Writer | Huntsville Times
"Why should we be afraid of talking with the Iranians? During the Vietnam War, we had channels of communication with the North Vietnamese and during the Cold War we had an embassy in Moscow," Clark said. "We have always been willing to discuss differences with our enemies.
"We might not like what they have to say. It might not lead to anything, but we should sit down and meet with Iranian delegates. Why should more Americans die while we refuse to discuss the situation with Iran?"
http://securingamerica.com/node/2132By BRENDAN RILEY
Associated Press writer Monday, January 29, 2007
MINDEN, Nev - Clark said in an interview that he opposes the Bush administration's proposed escalation of troops in Iraq, and also is concerned about a possible military foray into Iran.
"It's amazing to me that the president doesn't think he has enough leverage yet to deal with the Iranians," Clark said, adding that he fears "a buildup to a strike on Iran -- and I don't believe we should ever go to war with a country unless it's the absolutely, absolutely, absolutely last resort."
"When you want to initiate combat operations, when you won't deign to speak to the country, what in the world is the matter with this leadership?"
http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2007/01/29/news/regional/94f83a6f18c556c78725727100268b9b.txtHere’s what Steve Clemons of The Washington Note had to say about Wes in a column about Iran back in Jan ‘06:
The only presidential candidate who has been talking semi-sensibly about the "realities" in the Middle East as they are and not in some fictionalized sketch is Wesley Clark.
While Clark believes that we need a great deal more diplomatic effort to redirect Iran from its current nuclear course, he also knows that one can't deal with either Iran or Iraq in a bubble unto themselves. General Clark has stated publicly that America needs to do a deal with Iran. He believes we cannot manage Iraq and potential explosive realities in the region without buy-in from Iran. In that, there may be opportunities to appeal to Iran's desire to be less isolated on the international stage and dealt with in a more dignified way given its size and importance in the region.
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001200.phpAnd now, some personal accounts...
This one from a CCNer who attended his recent lecture at UCLA, Jan 23:
IRAN-- 1000 FEET OF LEVERAGE
The soldiers and the Dean were completely mesmerized when Wes talked about Iran. So was the rest of the room for that matter.
WES:
“We need to keep the threat of Iran in perspective. And in dealing with them we have to realize that we are the most powerful country in the world. We have incredible economic strength. We hold the key to the G-8, the World Trade Organization, International Monetary Fund...the key to advanced technology, energy development—We have that. So when I hear rumors that the President is unable to talk to Iran right now because we don’t have “leverage”...
--- If you have 1000 feet of leverage – do you need another half inch?”
We have 1000 feet of leverage over Iran. We’re completely dominant over the country. Cant the most powerful nation in the world deign to speak to an aspiring regional power?
(whoops and tons of applause burst from the room at this common sense proclamation)
"The saber rattling has begun. We're refusing to talk to our potential opponents. We have to understand that there are limits to what pure force – or the threat of pure force- can accomplish."
"It is not about the killing. It’s about changing minds. In the struggle against Iran, we’ve got to have legality and we’ve got to have legitimacy. The military option remains on the table, but this is the time to strengthen US legitimacy as we move forward. Not the time to threaten and saber rattle."
Our greatest weapons in the war on terror, per Wes--
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/10663And these from me....
This from his talk at the WesPAC fundraiser which George Soros hosted in April of ‘06:
Iran...He talked quite a bit about Iran.
He said we’ve got three choices...
1) We can negotiate with them
2) We can bomb them and try to take out their nuclear facilities
3) We can live with them having a nuclear weapon
He said right now, they are, at some level, negotiating, although the US refuses to negotiate directly. He doesn’t think that bombing them would solve anything and help the situation at all. He said he sees no end game if we choose to bomb....no way out once we start it.
Someone brought up the possibility of the US using nuclear weapons on Iran and both Wes and George seemed to think that was highly unlikely. George interjected to point out the absurdity of the US using nuclear weapons to take out the Iranian nuclear capabilities....He said we certainly couldn’t do that with much conviction.....And Wes said that if the US uses nuclear weapons, the world will never be the same and the US’ place in the world will never be the same. If was a very dire moment in the conversation....scary to think about.
Wes also said that if it was any other president in the White House, he would think that we wouldn’t attack Iran but, with Bush in there, you never know. He said that spokesmen have said that Bush will take care of the Iranian situation before he leaves office...You can just imagine how he will “take care” of it.
The whole Iranian thing just sounds really scary.
Wes said (as I’ve heard him say before) that extremism begets extremism. Our tough talk and threats against Iran just strengthen their position in the Middle East and the Muslim world as a country that will stand up to the US. The tougher we talk, the stronger we make the extremists in Iran’s position.Both Wes and George said they were worried about the situation and they looked it...Scary stuff.....
Lewis Cohen asked Wes about Bush politicizing the Iranian situation and Wes said of course they would. He said he knew they would when at the beginning of the year...he might have said January 1st...he was out on the golf course when he got this urgent call from Fox News to get to the Little Rock studios to do a piece on the Iranian threat....He said they’ve been given the memo at Fox to ramp up the Iran talk....He also said, with a bit of a laugh, that one of the things he likes about working for Fox is that once a week he’s given the White House talking points...and he likes to know what the enemy is saying.....
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/5785And this from his talk at his endorsement of Joe Sestak in Sept ‘06:
....and earlier in the presentation, he spoke of how there are elements in this Administration that really want to strike Iran and he said it was our job to stop it…to talk it up, this plan they have to strike Iran and to work to get people like Joe elected.
As he was leaving, I did hear him tell someone to go to his website and make sure they read Col. Gardiner's report ("The End of the "Summer of Diplomacy": Assessing U.S. Military Options on Iran" which had been featured on the WesPAC site and can be found here…
http://securingamerica.com/node/1584)
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/8734Whew! That’s a lot of stuff and I'd pretty much heard Wes say these things at the time he said them but it was quite illuminating to see them all back to back like that. I really hope this guy runs and that we are wise enough to elect him.
Thanks to anyone who's read it all...or even some of it.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
