We are already totally dominant in air and naval power over Iran. Even with Iran's new Russian antiaircraft equipment, no one should doubt that US forces could penetrate these defenses and strike with precision with minimal losses. Iran's naval countermeasures in the Gulf can be largely preempted. The Iranians no doubt recognize this.

But the Iranians perceive American weaknesses on the ground, with an American Army too small to invade and occupy Iran, and too engaged inside Iraq even to threaten it. They see our soldiers through sniper sights, and from behind the triggers of improvised explosive devices, while they see themselves as a nation that gained considerable strength from a war with Iraq that cost a million casualties, took eight years, and involved withstanding missile strikes on cities and the use of chemical weapons. They no doubt believe that, whatever the current alignments of Sunni states, a US strike against Iran would bring outpourings of sympathy, public support, and waves of impassioned volunteers from throughout the Islamic world. They would see themselves as the heroic martyrs uniting Islam. The Iranians may believe this reaction would enforce on the United States a rapid, humiliating withdrawal from the Persian Gulf, leaving them military savaged but strategically victorious.

In this they might very likely be proven wrong. US power is far more sustainable in the region than Iran would like to believe, and the military humiliation Iran would suffer at the outset could well deter any outside assistance. The US does have a military option. But this is a struggle that will be costly for all involved, will further isolate the region, and whose ultimate outcome is likely to be decided by future incumbencies. Leaders on both sides should recognize that war is the most unpredictable of human endeavors, and that unanticipated consequences almost always follow.

I believe some in the Administration have seen this confrontation as inevitable - or have sought it - since late 2001. At that time a Pentagon general held up to me a Defense memorandum which he described as a five year road map to the conflict. But surely we have learned by now that, particularly in this region, force and the threats of force should be the last, last, last resort.

Military power aside, the US has enormous economic leverage over the Iranians through our influence on world financial institutions, international commerce and capital flows. While the latest actions against Iran's banking system show the sharp stick of US power, the potential carrots are enormous, too. Islamic pride cannot be purchased, but neither can a proud nation ignore a more hopeful vision of its future.

The American troop surge is not likely to impact Iran's on-the-ground influence in Iraq. Their presence serves the interests of some in Iraq; and they are deeply embedded and widely active. Only their perception of new interests and opportunities is likely to do this. They would need to see their situation through a different lens. It is asking a lot. But, cannot the world's most powerful nation deign speak to the resentful and scheming regional power that is Iran? Can we not speak of the interests of others, work to establish a sustained dialogue, and seek to benefit the people of Iran and the region? Could not such a dialogue, properly conducted, begin a process that could, over time, help realign hardened attitudes and polarizing views within the region? And isn't it easier to undertake such a dialogue now, before more die, and more martyrs are created to feed extremist passions? And, finally, if every effort should fail, before we take military action, don't we at least want the moral, legal and political "high ground" of knowing we did everything possible to avert it?

Whatever the pace of Iran's nuclear efforts, in the give and take of the Administrations rhetoric and accusations and Iran's under-the-table actions in Iraq, we are approaching the last moments to head off looming conflict. Surely, it is past time to ask our elected officials in the White House and Congress to exercise leadership: recognize the real strategic challenge we face, and start to work now to avoid an escalation and widening of conflict in the Mideast.

Thank you for reading my thoughts on Iran. This is a critical issue for our nation, and I look forward to discussing it further with you in the comments below.

Wes Clark

Wes Clark's blog on Daily Kos

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Optimum Resolution

The real problem isn't the troop strength - it is and has been all along the strategy the Administration has pursued for the region. The purpose of any Resolution is to demonstrate strength of resistance to the President's strategy- so a non binding resolution is ok as a first step if it gets a broad measure of support. But in order to affect the president's strategy, the Democrats have to threaten something the President wants. This is what our Congressional leadership should be working on...is it confirmation of judges, approval of budget requests, supplementals, or whatever...the power of the purse, as well as the power to investigate, are essential powers of the Congress. I would like to see our top Congressional leaders go to the White House - after they've shown they have the leverage - and force the President to modify his strategy. I've pretty much explained what the strategy should be...but the key question now is, do we have the Congressional leverage?

Bargaining

In entering discussions with Iran, we shouldn't be bargaining...we should be trying to establish a new way of looking at the region.. we should be discussing problems, trying to create agreement on principles, and looking for next steps to widen the dialog.

Bargaining never works well in diplomacy...it's about relationships...

As for weakness now, well, yes and no. It is certainly true that our Army and Marines can't fix Iraq, please understand that our major leverage has always been organizational and economic. We strongly influence all the organizations which affect Iran - everything from WTO and G-8 down to and including OPEC...so we actually have plenty of leverage....we jsut need to commence an "unconditional" dialog.

An enemy?

I wouldn't want to be branding people as enemies too soon. That was one of Bush's many mistakes. Iran is a nation we have many disagreements with...and that's why we should be discussing, not sabre rattling.

Vulnerable

Everyone is vulnerable, and not just us...That's why we need to talk. But perhaps I am not as quick as some to say that nothing can be done. Sometimes the use of force is necessary, and sometimes it can work. It's just that i see no reason to resort to that or the threats yet....We have to try to see this from their side, too. They wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of what we could do, either. So that's why I believe there is plenty of "leverage" for us to commence discusssions.

Threat

I do believe that the Administration is laying a lot of groundwork to convince people that Iran is a threat...And once the Administration starts talking about how close the Iranians are to completing their nuclear capacity, it will be difficult even for Democrats in Congress to stand up to them. That's why right now is the time that Congress must speak about the strategy!

Congressional Leaders

should absolutely be pressing the White House to defend its strategy of not speaking with and isolating Iran. The strategy has been totally counterproductive. I would like to see a series of Resolutions expressing the displeasure of the Congress with the strategy...followed by hearings, and a lot of behind the scenes pressure on the Administration.

Vali Nasr: "Shia Revival"

Read his book and i recommend it...but before we take up anybody on their threat, i would like us to engage in an unconditional dialog in the region....we don't have much time left to do this...before other decisions will be forced on us...

Chris Hedges: "American Fascists : The Christian Right and the War on America"

I havent read the book. But there is a general clamor out there in some quarters that would support climactic action in the region...I don't believe the policy-makers are influenced by that - but it may impact some of the Congressional support.

Confrontation

You're right - the military doesn't want another conflict to handle. On the other hand, they have to do as they're told, and there is no doubt in my mind that the Iranians have sought and gained influence inside Iraq and that they have used that influence to our disadvantage. My sense that the conflict is coming stems from my reading of the President and Vice-President. Go back and look at their language. They have stated flatly that Iran cannot have nuclear capabilities. So, if diplomacy and UN sanctions don't work, the President will have to choose between leaving office with the Iranians getting a nuclear capability or not...I would hope the Iranians understand how serious the President is about stopping them...I think he's very serious...and unfortunately, he's going about it all wrong.

Leverage

Find a way to use the powers of the purse, confirmation, and investigation - and apply it directly to the President and Vice-President.

Inevitable

I explained in my second book that I made a visit to the Pentagon in November 2001 and was shown a memo by a senior officer that he said was a memo outlining a 5 year campaign - first, Iraq, then Syria and Lebanon, then Libya, then Somalia and Sudan - ending up with action to change the regime or otherwise impact Iran. The memo was classified, and I didnt read it. It was simply a concept for moving forward written by someone authoritative from the Office of the Secretary of Defense. That was their thinking at the time. And although the effort in Iraq hasn't succeeded the way they wanted, I believe their intent endures.

Sniper Sights

I don't doubt that they're providing assistance to the militias and maybe even, indirectly, to Shia insurgents. It's simply the way things are done. And the sniper rifles and IED devices would be the exact items that would likely be supplied - they are small, hard to trace, and directly assist the Iraqi factions to inflict casualties. Plus I hear things from people whose opinions I trust.

Legality and Morality

I didn't discuss the legality and morality beceause these factors are worthy of whole articles themselves. But, briefly, the legality of a strike could be arranged...either from the UN or from the US Congress, or both...whether it would be moral would have to be discussed at the time in light of the threats and counter-threats....SO I've been suggesting that the direction we are headed isn't WISE...it's foolish. To me, this is the place to start.