Clark: "I don't think you can deter Tehran just by sanctions and pressures."

[calteacherguy]

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I don't think you can deter Tehran just by sanctions and pressures. I think you have to create a new vision in the region. People have to see in Iran, in Tehran, in the government, they have to see that there are better alternatives. They'll be safer, more prosperous, more accepted, more welcomed, greater leadership in the region - IF they don't have nuclear weapons.

Host: Yeah.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: They have to create a new vision in the region.

http://securingamerica.com/node/2441

This is not "new news," but I wish our candidates would tone done their exclusively punitive rhetoric re: Iran. I'm concerned some of our candidates in their rhetoric are, in the long run, merely enabling the war enablers.

[Kagemusha]

1. ...Pardon but, is Clark running for president here in 2007?

I think not, that's why I'm asking.

[calteacherguy]

2. Nope. nt

[Tom Rinaldo]

16. According to Clark he is still considering it.

When Clark is asked a question, he gives an honest answer. If he doesn't feel free to reveal certain details he says so. If he has a clear position he states it. Clark says "I haven't said that I'm not running" and "I think about it every single day". These are quotes from this month. Clark also has stated that whether or not he runs depends on certain preconditions being reached that he is not at liberty to discuss.

[theredpen]

3. Is this punitive rhetoric?

Are you putting this up as an example of punitive rhetoric or as an example of what other candidates should be saying?

I'm confused because I'm not sure I see it as punitive rhetoric. It reads to me as if Clark is saying we have to use a carrot as well as a stick to motive Iran. That's a move away from militarism. Is that what you were trying to point out?

[calteacherguy]

4. No, this is not exclusively punitive rhetoric. Yes, that is what am trying to point out.

I trust the sound reasoning ability of DU'ers to figure that out. :-)

[ArkySue]

7. Go read the entire interview

The link is posted. Gen. Clark makes a helluva lot of sense.

[theredpen]

8. Clark usually does make sense. I supported him for 2004 Dem Candidate n/t

[earthlover]

5. Clark is working to prevent a war in Iran

He sees regional dialogue as being a positive thing.

[wtmusic]

6. They'll have better alternatives without nukes?

Based on what? What are the better alternatives? Sounds like empty platitudes.

[ArkySue]

9. Sounds like you want Iran to have nukes

Explain to us your geo-political strategy concerning the Middle East.

[wtmusic]

15. Just like Clark I don't have one

I'm also not presenting wishful thinking as though it were a solution

[nealmhughes]

10. From several perspectives: the region's stabilty w/o nukes, plus the cost.

Having nuclear weapons is useless unless one has a delivery system to get them to where they would be useful. Obviously Arabia is out of the question, as is Jerusalem, being holy sites. Who is left? Either the region or a foreign site, i.e., Russia, the UK, US and Nato.

India and Pakistan make a bit more sense, as they have a status quo and they are neighbors. India knows that China could cross the Himalayas again and that prevents that.

Sometimes the cost -- both moral and fiscal -- outweighs any perceived benefits from an adventure.

If Iran is doing what they purport to do, and enrich U for nuclear reactors for power production, then they should do it openly and with Franco-Russian cooperation as has been invited.

Keeping their cards below the table makes only for sabre wagging from the US. Not that a bit of a sore tooth still remains for our unfettered support for the Pahlavi tyrant and his SAVAK for so long. . .

[wtmusic]

14. Iranian nukes will have a very effective delivery system: Iranians

The next nuke to go off in the world will more likely be delivered by a Toyota Land Cruiser than an ICBM or B52.

Not only will Iranians view it as a moral victory, the source of the detonation will not be positively identifiable--so retaliation will be out of the question.

[Tom Rinaldo]

17. I beg to differ

The only thing in my opinion that would likely make Iranians deliver a nuclear weapon by Land Cruiser or any other means would be retaliation for a military attack on their own homeland.

And it is absolute nonsense to think that Iranians would feel confident that their nation would be spared retaliatory attacks after a nuclear weapon exploded on the soil of one of their current adversaries because hard proof linking Iran to that explosion would be hard to establish. Retaliation against Iran would be certain, and they know it. Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 and that did nothing to stop Iraq from being invaded using 9/11 as a pretence. Iran is now the designated enemy in both the U.S. and in Israel. If it ever became time to "round up the usual suspects" Iran will be first on that list.

Al Qaeda has it's roots in Saudi Arabia but the U.S. will never nuke Saudi Arabia. We won't nuke Pakistan either where Al Qaeda now has a sanctuary, because Pakistan has nukes already and more than enough fanatics available to seize and use them against us in the wake of an American attack on Pakistan's soil. Nope, if a time comes when America or Israel screams for blood after a nuclear attack on the soil of either nation, it will automatically be Iranian blood that is screamed for. The fix is already in on that one and Iran already knows it.

[wtmusic]

18. There might be limited retaliatory attacks

but not a nuclear one. Even Junior would not kill 12 million Iranians by nuking Tehran without absolute proof that Iran was behind it.

There are many other possiblites. A smuggled Pakistani, Indian, or Russian weapon are all conceivable given the incentive and the money behind it. A.Q. Khan spread blueprints for a Chinese weapon far and wide across the Muslim world, and apparently Libya is back in the nuclear game.

[Tom Rinaldo]

19. If we truly are interested in America's security

It is important to focus on something you touched on. The capacity for more and more nations to manufacture nuclear weapons increasingly becomes more widespread in the world, as techonolgy communications and the ability to travel increases, that capacity will not shrink and the threshold to reach it increasingly becomes less of a challenge. In the long run, heck even in the short run if one considers 5 or 6 years the short run, we can not bomb Iran out of a nuclear program, we can only set it back. Meanwhile the ability for free agent radicals, who are the wild card extremist mavericks most likely to actually carry out a nuclear attack, to gain access to nukes steadily increases.

It is not "state sponsered terrorism" that poses the greatest threat of nuclear attack to America or Israel. It is stateless extrmist jihaadist movement terrorists who pose the most serious threat. It is from those ranks that one is most likely to find true nihlists emerge. Saddam Hussein's Iraq, officially labled a State sponsor of terrorism, did not pose the threat to America that forces coalescing now inside of Iraq do. We have created a recruiting incentive and a training ground for stateless terrorists to build and solidify their networks via cooperation fighting the American occupation of Iraq.

An American attack on Iran would wildly inflame anti-American sentiments in the Islamic world. The real threat to America in the wake of that escalation of anti-American rage will be ten fold the threat that today's Iran poses us.

[wtmusic]

20. Good points all

and it may be irrelevant whether a state is actually sponsoring terrorism or not. All it would take is a small number of sympathizers with access to a weapon to complete the equation.

IMO we agree that our current topical approach to national defense -- strategic whack-a-mole, if you will -- is doomed. Like a cancer, the anti-American jihad must be fought systemically if we want half a chance of winning.

[Hideboh]

11. The only reason

Bush has not yet ordered a full scale attack upon Iran is the China-Russia factor.

[Exultant Democracy]

12. I hope Obama gets this message.

I love the guy, but he is getting some fucking bad advice on Iran.

[Douglas Carpenter]

13. nice to read something from someone who know what they are talking about

The Sunni Arabs in the region are also scared to death of developments with Iran. But they don't want war. For the simple reason that they could be in the middle of it all. And it could likely devastate the entire region and along with it the global economy.

The Sunni Arabs and anyone who knows anything at all about the region knows perfectly well that Iran is a fiercely nationalistic society that simply is not going give into threats and pressures. That is NOT going to happen. But Iran could be wooed by positive offers for more openness which they desperately need for their own self-interest. The Iranians don't want war either. They know that that would bring almost total devastation on themselves.

I hope General Clark's message and the message from those who actually understand a little bit about the region gets through to the politicos and pass the insane demagoguery that at times comes from both major political parties.

General Clark is speaking the hard nosed politics of realism.

--------

As Zbigniew Brzezinski said about attacking Iran

"I think of war with Iran as the ending of America's present role in the world. Iraq may have been a preview of that, but it's still redeemable if we get out fast. In a war with Iran, we'll get dragged down for 20 or 30 years. The world will condemn us. We will lose our position in the world."

Zbigniew Brzezinski, Vanity Fair, 2006.
_____________

[Cameron27]

21. K&R