Clark has a diary up today on KOS: "Is War with Iran Inevitable?"

by Wes Clark

Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 09:24:57 AM PST

As the President fights for public support of his troop surge in Iraq, he is also ratcheting up the pressure on Iran. A second aircraft carrier battle group (with Newsweek reporting a third group likely to follow), Patriot missiles to protect our allies, arresting Iranian personnel in Iraq, releasing additional information about Iranian involvement, appointing a Navy Admiral to command forces in the region, even seeking diplomatic support from Sunni Arab friends in the region - Yes, the Iranians are interfering inside Iraq and seeking nuclear capabilities. Yet the President's recent actions give the US little additional leverage to engage and dissuade Iran, and, more than likely, simply accelerate a dangerous slide into war. The United States can do better than this.

Wes Clark's diary :: ::
Since 9/11 the Iranians have tried on several occasions to open a dialogue with the United States. They, of course, had their own interests at heart, not ours. Yet, from dialogue some common interests might have emerged. The Bush Administration would have none of it, and branded Iran a member of the Axis of Evil.

<snip>

I believe some in the Administration have seen this confrontation as inevitable - or have sought it - since late 2001. At that time a Pentagon general held up to me a Defense memorandum which he described as a five year road map to the conflict. But surely we have learned by now that, particularly in this region, force and the threats of force should be the last, last, last resort.

<snip>

The American troop surge is not likely to impact Iran's on-the-ground influence in Iraq. Their presence serves the interests of some in Iraq; and they are deeply embedded and widely active. Only their perception of new interests and opportunities is likely to do this. They would need to see their situation through a different lens. It is asking a lot. But, cannot the world's most powerful nation deign speak to the resentful and scheming regional power that is Iran? Can we not speak of the interests of others, work to establish a sustained dialogue, and seek to benefit the people of Iran and the region? Could not such a dialogue, properly conducted, begin a process that could, over time, help realign hardened attitudes and polarizing views within the region? And isn't it easier to undertake such a dialogue now, before more die, and more martyrs are created to feed extremist passions? And, finally, if every effort should fail, before we take military action, don't we at least want the moral, legal and political "high ground" of knowing we did everything possible to avert it?

Whatever the pace of Iran's nuclear efforts, in the give and take of the Administrations rhetoric and accusations and Iran's under-the-table actions in Iraq, we are approaching the last moments to head off looming conflict. Surely, it is past time to ask our elected officials in the White House and Congress to exercise leadership: recognize the real strategic challenge we face, and start to work now to avoid an escalation and widening of conflict in the Mideast.

Thank you for reading my thoughts on Iran. This is a critical issue for our nation, and I look forward to discussing it further with you in the comments below

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/12/122254/478

You can read the questions/answers on KOS or here:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/11032

For those looking for a quicker read, here are Clark's responses (with questions edited out)

CLARK: In entering discussions with Iran, we shouldn't be bargaining...we should be trying to establish a new way of looking at the region.. we should be discussing problems, trying to create agreement on principles, and looking for next steps to widen the dialog.

Bargaining never works well in diplomacy...it's about relationships...

As for weakness now, well, yes and no. It is certainly true that our Army and Marines can't fix Iraq, please understand that our major leverage has always been organizational and economic. We strongly influence all the organizations which affect Iran - everything from WTO and G-8 down to and including OPEC...so we actually have plenty of leverage....we jsut need to commence an "unconditional" dialog.

CLARK: I wouldn't want to be branding people as enemies too soon. That was one of Bush's many mistakes. Iran is a nation we have many disagreements with...and that's why we should be discussing, not sabre rattling.

CLARK: Everyone is vulnerable, and not just us...That's why we need to talk. But perhaps I am not as quick as some to say that nothing can be done. Sometimes the use of force is necessary, and sometimes it can work. It's just that i see no reason to resort to that or the threats yet....We have to try to see this from their side, too. They wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of what we could do, either. So that's why I believe there is plenty of "leverage" for us to commence discussions.

CLARK: I do believe that the Administration is laying a lot of groundwork to convince people that Iran is a threat...And once the Administration starts talking about how close the Iranians are to completing their nuclear capacity, it will be difficult even for Democrats in Congress to stand up to them. That's why right now is the time that Congress must speak about the strategy!

CLARK: Congressional leaders should absolutely be pressing the White House to defend its strategy of not speaking with and isolating Iran. The strategy has been totally counterproductive. I would like to see a series of Resolutions expressing the displeasure of the Congress with the strategy...followed by hearings, and a lot of behind the scenes pressure on the Administration.

CLARK: Read his book and I recommend it...but before we take up anybody on their threat, i would like us to engage in an unconditional dialog in the region....we don't have much time left to do this...before other decisions will be forced on us...

CLARK: I haven't read the book. But there is a general clamor out there in some quarters that would support climactic action in the region...I don't believe the policy-makers are influenced by that - but it may impact some of the Congressional support.

CLARK: You're right - the military doesn't want another conflict to handle. On the other hand, they have to do as they're told, and there is no doubt in my mind that the Iranians have sought and gained influence inside Iraq and that they have used that influence to our disadvantage. My sense that the conflict is coming stems from my reading of the President and Vice-President. Go back and look at their language. They have stated flatly that Iran cannot have nuclear capabilities. So, if diplomacy and UN sanctions don't work, the President will have to choose between leaving office with the Iranians getting a nuclear capability or not...I would hope the Iranians understand how serious the President is about stopping them...I think he's very serious...and unfortunately, he's going about it all wrong.

CLARK: Find a way to use the powers of the purse, confirmation, and investigation - and apply it directly to the President and Vice-President.

CLARK: I don't doubt that they're providing assistance to the militias and maybe even, indirectly, to Shia insurgents. It's simply the way things are done. And the sniper rifles and IED devices would be the exact items that would likely be supplied - they are small, hard to trace, and directly assist the Iraqi factions to inflict casualties. Plus I hear things from people whose opinions I trust.

Clark: I didn't discuss the legality and morality because these factors are worthy of whole articles themselves. But, briefly, the legality of a strike could be arranged...either from the UN or from the US Congress, or both...whether it would be moral would have to be discussed at the time in light of the threats and counter-threats....SO I've been suggesting that the direction we are headed isn't WISE...it's foolish. To me, this is the place to start.

I only hope people are listening this time.

To busy deciding between the three senators; Clinton, Obama and Edwards.

Anna Nichole Smith's baby?

Now that's really important to the MSN.

and what size diapers Ms. Astronaut was wearing. Now, that's something to ponder.... :rofl:

But Iran.....ain't no biggie! :shrug:

:shrug:

take a few minutes out of their hectic campaign wars and take his advice:

CLARK: Find a way to use the powers of the purse, confirmation, and investigation - and apply it directly to the President and Vice-President.

Now, do it now damnit.

since I was there this afternoon. I'm glad for Wes that a lot of kossacks participated. :)

Some people really are interested in discussing matters of war and peace.

:kick:

With Edwards saber rattling against Iran, HRC and Obama aping the White House talking points - someone needs to show us that this war is as unnecessary as the other 2 and can be avoided.

It will be if * stays in the WH and politicians lose their backbones, Dems or repugs.