Submitted by James Craven on October 30, 2007 - 5:44pm

“I look forward to continuing our dialogue in the comments.” (General Clark on dkos today, ‘Engage Iran by Wes Clark‘)

So I want to know:

1) General Clark says: There is no doubt that Iran poses a threat to stability in the Gulf, to US allies in the region, and to our efforts in Iraq. But all of this was perfectly predictable: after all, we knocked out Iran’s greatest enemy, Saddam Hussein, and left them the largest force in the region. And now they are, by every indication, seeking to acquire nuclear weapons.

Response: Yes there is plenty of doubt all over the world and also even inside the USG as to Iran’s capabilities as well as intentions. Indeed all over the world, probably more people regard the U.S. Government as far more dangerous to Middle East stability and the survival of the planet than Iran. And what indications are there to suggest Iran is not truthful with respect to future intentions to build nuclear weapons? We have only the assertions of our own proven liars that Iran is lying. And why not one word about Israel and their 200 nukes? And what about Iran’s assistance to the U.S. against the Taliban in Afghanistan? And again, why would Iran want more instability on their own border and why would they want to give the U.S. the excuses they are looking for to go to war?

General Clark writes: But the right response now is to engage Iran diplomatically. Use sanctions against their terrorist elements as a way of underscoring our purpose, but talk, and talk without pre-conditions to explore their interests, understand their motives, and seek some common interests.

Response: Sanctions, outside of international covenants, organizations and mandates, that are preemptive and unilateral, no matter the pretexts real or contrived, are acts of war with real consequences on real innocents. How do you engage diplomatically on the one hand while summarily declaring part of their Government and military to be terrorists? And again, how can any really honest person not see the present USG as a terrorist organization far more dangerous than anything Iran has yet produced? And what about the fact that many in the present Government of Iran were themselves victims of U.S. terrorism in the form of support of the Shah and SAVAAK in whose jails they were tortured?

General Clark writes: Right now the angry rhetoric and saber-rattling is a boon to the most hard-line, anti-American elements in their government. It strengthens their grip, intimidates moderates, and confuses our allies around the world, who want to see Iran’s hegemonic aspirations contained without the use of force.

Response: Here General Clark’s own rhetoric appears hard line and jingoistic and appears that he is also sabre-rattling repeating uncritically assertions that Iran is not being truthful about future nuclear intentions and the assertions he is repeating come from our own provable liars calling the Iranians liars. The Iranians claim they are not supporting terrorists inside Iran, because, they say, it is not in their interests nor their morality, while we have supported and do support the MEK that Iranians regard as terrorists from which they have suffered. The point is just making bald and bold assertions does not make them true; but what we do know for a fact, is that those presently calling Iranians liars are themselves provable liars who lied us into a horrible and illegal war in eactly the same ways with the same lies as now are being uttered about Iran.

General Clark writes: We should send a top level mission into the region, just as Bill Clinton did in the Balkans, and talk to all parties, both inside and outside Iraq. Armed with a statement of principles, some inducements, and a sharp explanation of the consequences of failure, we might well craft some understandings that could help pave a successful US exit from Iraq, check Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons, and reassure anxious neighbors.

Response: What do you say when the Iranians not only deny intentions to build nuclear weapons, but ask who the hell we think we are talking to anyone about nuclear weapons when we have our own and also say nothing about Israel having their own? More and more nations are just telling the U.S. and some of its arrogant, toadying and jingoistic public to go to hell with respect to dictating terms and ignoring the sovereignty and equality of status under international law of other nations.

General Clark writes: I reject the use of force at this time. While all agree that Iran should not be permitted to acquire nuclear weaponry, the intelligence that has been shared with me suggests there is still time for a diplomatic initiative, not only to head off their nuclear plans but also to persuade Iran to end its military assistance to militia inside Iraq. Surely the United States will have the wisdom and courage to try diplomacy first, and save the use of force for a last, last, last resort.

Response: No, all over the world, not all Peoples (yes non-Americans and other nations do matter) agree that the USG can or should dictate who may or may not have nuclear weapons. They are tired of superpower hubris; they are tired of U.S. hypocrisy; they are tired of U.S. bullying; and they are tired of hearing about how moral, democratic, superior, efficient and whatever our system is and what we summarily assert without proof about what we uncritically think of or brag about ourselves.

General Clark writes: I look forward to continuing our dialogue in the comments.

Response: OK, These are honest and legitimate questions. And one more time, because I have yet to get even an attempt at an answer, Why does any nation have the right to have nuclear weapons when their use has the potential to wipe out many innocents not even a party to any engagements between nations using them? And, if any nation has nuclear weapons, why does that not give precedent and authority for any other nation to have the same?

What is a patriot? According to Mark Twain a patriot is someone who thinks a given nation is superior and not accountable to laws other nations are accountable to simply because HE or She was born there.

That is NOT my kind of patriotism.

Posted by BrianR in Analysis