Richard Clarke: There is no chance for a military solution in Iran.

[BurtWorm]

:patriot:

From Patrick Doherty at Tompaine.com:

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20060119/richard_clarke_on_iran.php

...<I>t was sweet vindication to hear Richard Clarke, who I believe was in the room at the time of the mutiny, declare that in today's real-world escalation with Iran, there is no military solution to Iran 's efforts to acquire nuclear weapons.

Clarke's comments on Iran were prompted by an alarmist question by an unidentified member of the audience who wanted to know what Clarke thought we should do about Iran 's presumed nuclear weapons program. Clarke's first response was to chastise the questioner for mischaracterizing the strategic situation in the Persian Gulf. Whereas the questioner tried to paint a picture of a crazy Ahmadinejad leading a rogue Iran and threatening the rest of the Middle East, Clarke insisted that such a portrayal is extremely dangerous.

Rather, Iran must be understood as a state with many centers of intern al power, not only populist Ahmadinejad but the elitist Ayatollah Khameini and the more moderate former President Rafsanjani. Power and decisionmaking is distributed between these three centers and that must be used to create an opportunity for de-escalation.

The rationale for diplomatic de-escalation and not unilateral military action was Clarke's other point. In a nutshell, Iran has the ability already to make America pay for such a move. Iran, in Clarke's view, has thoroughly infiltrated southern Iraq with intelligence and military personnel. Should the U.S. or Israel drop one bomb on the Bushehr nuclear facility, says Clarke, these forces in Iraq have the capability to make the current insurgency look like child's play, implying that Iran can trigger the Iraqi civil war we've been fearing. Not only that, Iran has the capability to virtually shut down the flow of energy (oil and gas) from the Persian Gulf. Finally, Iran could quite quickly turn up the heat in Afghanistan, where it holds considerable influence with warlords Washington needs to maintain stability. Any of these moves would be an extremely effective check on American military action....

[Greeby]

1. Well, that settles it

If Richard Clarke says its stupid, expect Bush to do it

[mmonk]

4. yep!

:rofl:

[stillcool]

2. Shame on Richard Clarke...

using all that logic:sarcasm: GOPTweety etal, ain't gonna buy it...they'd rather keep the focus on Osama, or the coming :nuke: ...sane rhetoric has no place in the debate.

[Chimichurri]

3. But but diplomacy doesn't put money in their pockets like bombing does.

Clarke is being unamerican :sarcasm:

[DoYouEverWonder]

5. Unfortanately, this is exactly what certain members of BushCo want

They don't play by the same rules has anyone else. We need to understand that.

[donco6]

6. Oh that's just Clarke, makin' things all complicated.

Don't you know that if yer not fer us, yer agin' us? That's all you need to know. All this "Iran is a state with many centers of power" stuff - pshaw. They all look the same to me. Like that Ayatollah fella - he looks like the old one! Even has a name that's the same! Er close enuf anyway. shucks.

Stoopid libruls.

-George.

[welshTerrier2]

7. "acquire nuclear weapons"?? no evidence of that !!

let's not merely accept, even from Clarke, the statement that Iran is making efforts to "acquire nuclear weapons" ... there is NO evidence to support this claim ...

[BurtWorm]

8. Agreed,

I would even go further and ask what is wrong with other nations looking to acquire nuclear weapons anyway? Never mind how rogue we think they are (or how rogue they actually are). Where do we get off telling other countries they can't seek to acquire what we have in abundance?