GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, they're not actually obeying the rules. They are, there are some serious unresolved issues with the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency. If they would obey the rules and open up their books and so forth, then maybe we could believe that they don't have a covert nuclear weapons program, but right now the evidence all points in that direction. So, they're not obeying the rules, but what I would say to Iran is we, I would be happy to entertain the security dialog Iran, with Iran. 'What makes you unhappy? What are you afraid of? What, is it unresolved border issue? Is it- what is it exactly?' And if it's, 'Ah well, we just want our port on the Mediterranean. We want to protect Hizbullah,' you'd have to ask why. If they say, 'We have an issue with Israel, you'd say, 'Well, why don't you back off and let's let the Palestinians and the Israelis settle this issue?' If they say, 'We just can't live unless we destroy Israel,' we'd say, 'Well, that's not an option that you can have,' and we'd tell them and put them on straight notice that that's off the table. That's not for discussion, and furthermore, you know, we can double and triple and quadruple the pressure against you if you keep that as your policy. But we have to do this through dialog. We cannot do it indirectly, and we cannot do it by signaling weird things like moving aircraft carrier battle groups around. They either think we're going to use them or they don't.

James Boyce: Do you think the Patriot Missile Defense Systems that have been moved into Iraq are, are in anticipation of conflict with Iran?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think if you were preparing for conflict with Iran that you would want to make sure you had some Patriot Air Defense Systems in place. Whether they actually are put in there for that reason or for diplomatic bluff really doesn't matter. It's what you'd call, it, it's just called, it'd be called a flexible option. You would just put it in and it would increase the pressure on Iran to let them know you're thinking about it and what you might do to inhibit their response (-drop out-) diplomatic move probably.

Nate Wilcox: Cool. I've got a question for John. John, what, what precipitated starting the Stop Iran War movement?

John Soltz: Well, I, I mean, I think this is the future battlefield. You know, when I was in Iraq in 2003, we, we had already had Iranian influence inside of Iraq. Of, of course they're going to be interested in, in the state itself. It's, it's very similar to what Iran does in Hezbullah, with Hezbullah in Lebanon. So, the Iranian influence has just drastically increased over the years inside, inside the country, and I think any attempt to sort of downplay that is probably inaccurate. Once we got up-armored equipment inside the country in 2005, force penetrators - which are shape charges that they, they can actually penetrate our armor and, and are extremely lethal to our troops - had begun showing up in, in mostly Shia predominately, or predominantly Shia communities. So, the, the influence with Iran has, has begun, and I think when you look at the faces of the war, you know, first you have the sort of toppling of, of the regime inside Baghdad. And then you have the establishment of the Iraqi government, and then you have the protection of the Iraqi government. But I think there's a larger question of is there a proxy war that's begun with Iran already in Iraq, and I think there's a larger question that General Clark sort of touched on was why now are, are they, you know, sort of putting out the evidence that's long been known that Iran's playing a large influence in Iraq, that in actuality the war in Iraq's emboldened Iran, that it's strengthened them inside, inside the region and that they, they now have their ability to have another Shia ally in the, in the heart of the Shia-Sunni fault line. So that the, you know, in, in reality this is actual complete backfire for the President where, where Bin Laden's still on the loose, and now Iran is more dominant in the region, and it, it, it's got a stronger Hezbullah. But yet, at the same time, this President's sort of trying to twist it as a way to, to you know, force a political leverage or, or whether that's for force or dialog is, is to be seen. So, this is sort of where the future debate in the Middle East and in our security debate's headed in, in my regards. And I think, you know, that's why we have the stopiranwar.com website, you know, is to sign this petition and explain that, you know, striking Iran would only further complicate and undermine our troops in Iraq. It would mean more force penetrators that, that, that, you know, can, can kill our troops. It'll mean a stronger Mehdi Army, better trained militias. So, I, I think that's the argument we're trying to make.

Transcription and audio on Securing America