for the public to shift to disaproving of the war by a two to one margin? I'm guessing it would happen a lot faster. Put me down at 10 months after the first bombs fall, if anyone starts a DU pool on it.
Far far better would be for a few more Democratic leaders to began talking about the dangers of going to war against Iran before a war, not after one goes wrong like with Iraq.
Clark has repeatedly been calling for direct diplomacy with Iran. And he has been warning about the consequences of military action even while he describes likely possible military options available to Bush. Here are a few of his comments on Iran, taken from various speechs and commentary appearances.
On FOX:
General Wesley Clark on Big Story Weekend Edition
January 1, 2006
Jamie Colby: Let me ask you, General Clark, about public sentiment. Uh, the Iraq war, the American public has at times supported it and felt that it was the right thing to do, that we needed to stay until we left democracy in place. What about gaining public support for the potential for an invasion in Iran? How difficult a challenge is that, politically, for the president?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, a couple of points. First, there's going to be a lot of skepticism about the exact nature of the Iranian program because the record of our intelligence agencies on the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction program wasn't very good. Secondly, of course, when the president calls for strikes, he's going to strengthen his hand at home once these strikes are underway because his critics are going to be faced with the dilemma of going against a threat to the United States and our allies abroad if they challenge the president. So he's going to pick up support. At least that's the way I believe the White House will read this. So I would guess there would be a program of consultation with allies. There would probably be the appearance of some last minute diplomatic measures and then there would be, um, the buildup here at home, politically, and then the strikes. And…<crosstalk> I think the administration would calculate that this would be the end of it.
General Wesley Clark on Fox News Live
January 2, 2006
You know, the United States still hasn't talked to Iran and, on the other hand, I mean, we don't like the Iranian president, but on the other hand, before we bomb him, we could at least try to have a dialogue. We've gone through the Europeans, why can't we talk to him before we bomb him?
General Wesley Clark on Fox News
January 16, 2006
"GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think it's possible to construct a military option that could be, could approach adding five to eight years to the development cycle of the Iranian nuclear weapon. In other words, you could set them back.
Brigitte Quinn. Mmm Hmm.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I don't think that you can totally eliminate the possibility, and remember after such a strike, it's very possible that A.Q. Kahn and Pakistan or some other country would come rushing to the aid of Iran."
General Wesley Clark on Your World with Neil Cavuto
January 25, 2006
Neil Cavuto: When you say it's over-stretched, too over-stretched to do something about Iran right now?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Depends on what you're going to do about Iran. Now, you can certainly run bombing strikes and Special Forces activities and you can go after those nuclear sites. You could-
Neil Cavuto: You have to know where those nuclear sites are.
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?'
General Wesley Clark on Fox News Live
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.
General Wesley Clark on Fox News Sunday
March 5, 2006
Page Hopkins: 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.
Clark on Main Stream Media:
General Wesley Clark on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos"
March 5, 2006
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 <crosstalk>
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.
LINKS FOR ALL OF THE ABOVE INTERVIEWS ARE FOUND HERE:
http://securingamerica.com/taxonomy/term/23 From Clark's Real State Of The Union Address January 30th 2006
THE NEW AMERICA FOUNDATION on Capitol Hill: "The Real State of the Union 2006"
We should join now — right now - in opening new talks with Iran, in which we ourselves participate, before pressing for UN action or moving toward the military option. No one should be mistaken: there is a military option.
We can strike hard enough to set back Iran's nuclear quest by many years, and take out much of their military capacity in the process. And we can at the same time protect most of the oil flow from Iran and deny their capacity to block transit through the Straits of Hormuz. But we also must recognize the possible consequences of this action: an embittered, vengeful Iran, seeking further destabilization of the region. Far better to pursue dialogue now, whatever the precedents, and save the military option for truly last resort. Understand: unlike others you may hear, I know when and how to determine our course with Iran.
http://securingamerica.com/node/560 Iraq: The Way Forward—A Conversation with General Wesley Clark
Council on Foreign Relations
Washington, DC
February 14, 2006
QUESTIONER: Reuben Brigety from George Mason University. General, thank you for coming.
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.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
