StopIranWar.com: Bush's Iran Policy Hurts Israel

I recently had the honor of being asked to join Jon Soltz, Iraq War veteran and Chairman of VoteVets.org, and General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, in the new installment of their ongoing video blog series for www.stopIranWar.com.  

In this installment, they discuss with me how a possible attack on Iran would hurt the security of the State of Israel and negate efforts to bring peace to the region.  Jon Soltz says, "(T)o preemptively strike Iran without dialog, to me, would only cause a problem much like in Iraq with the Mahdi Army and the Shia militias or with Hezbullah."

In light of recent events like the capture of British sailors and Marines by the Iranian military, Gen. Clark's call for regional diplomacy is even more poignant.  Now, more than ever, we need to bring Iran out of 30 years of diplomatic isolation and into dialog with the United States and the rest of the world.

As General Clark says, "We need to be shaping a new vision for the region, and people in the region have to feel differently about each other.  And the United States really is the power that can help bridge the gaps of mistrust if we ourselves have new vision."

So, please visit www.stopIranWar.com.  Watch the video, sign the petition, write to your Senators and members of Congress, contact the media, and tell your friends.  There's still time to head off another terrible war.

Read the transcript.

http://securingamerica.com/...

•  Don't forget your tip jar!

  Just post a comment called "Tip Jar".

  by ArmyMom08 on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 08:20:26 AM PDT

  •  what's the difference between getting a tip

    and a recommend?

    by Pivot on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 11:32:32 AM PDT

    •  Ah, a "tip Jar" is just a comment

      A "Tip Jar" is just a comment from the diary author set up so that those who like the diary can 'recommend' something that counts towards becoming a 'trusted user' at Kos.

      Since Diary 'recommends' don't count in an individual poster's "karma', the only way to personally reward a diarist is by providing recommendations to a poster's comment.

      It's become standard practice at dKos to call the comment set up to receive those 'recommends' a "Tip Jar".

      Recommending a diary is another thing altogether.  It places it on the 'recommend' list (on the front page) but doesn't do anything to reward the diarist.

      by kathygo on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 11:45:03 AM PDT

      •  I always wondered about that...

        now I can continue to keep my heretofore snarky assumptions to myself regarding a TipJar's purpose.

        ;-)

        by deadmessengers on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 12:07:40 PM PDT

    •  I don't know

      by Reg NYC on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 11:46:30 AM PDT

•  Okay, okay. Tip jar.

  If I must beg.

  by Reg NYC on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 08:23:09 AM PDT

  •  Not begging ... deserving!

    What a terrific opportunity!  

    I'd seen your previous vBlog with General Clark.  I have to say you are terrific at it!

    by kathygo on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 08:27:15 AM PDT

•  Interesting

  I don't have time to watch the video so its too bad you did not provide more of a sneak peak about what I would find.  I don't see any scenario where war with Iran could be good for the region.  Was is hell, and war in the Middle East tends to be de-stabalizing rather than stabalizing.  That said, I have long believed that Iran is the single-most destabalizing force in the Middle East.  Their support for international terrorism and alleged attempts to build nuclear weapons are significant threats.  For me, diplomacy has to be the first, second and third options.  However, if diplomacy does not work, and I have my doubts, I don't know what comes next.  I don't think that war would solve anything, but the status quo is unacceptable.  So where does that leave us?  What do those of us who oppose both Iranian policy and war with Iran fall back on?

  by dmsarad on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 08:30:55 AM PDT

  •  Link to transcript

    There's a link to the transcript in the diary.

    by mariawells on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 08:33:22 AM PDT

  •  Diplomacy

    The Iranian government is made up of rational people.  They're not madman.  They have things that they want and we have things to give them.  If Ahmadinejad doesn't want to cooperate, he has rivals who will.  

    by Reg NYC on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 08:37:15 AM PDT

    •  Indeed. Diplomacy works only if we think of it as

      the ONLY option, and not merely as a formality before our favorite option (lots and lots of bombs). There are plenty of rational forces in the Iranian government. But the only way to reach them is to talk to them. Military aggression doesn't solve anything - unless the problem is peace, and the solution is war.

      by Diaries on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 08:44:59 AM PDT

    •  Quibble

      "They have things they want and we have things to give them"

      Go negotiate in an arab bazaar with a mentality like that.  You might want to leave spare clothes with a friend for after you've given yours away.

      by unfounded on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 09:46:14 AM PDT

      •  what's your point? nt

        by sunshineonthebay on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 09:47:15 AM PDT

        •  Don't sing kumbaya when dealing with hard-liners

          I don't want a war with Iran any more than anyone else but we can't give them anything for free - then they'll just up the demands without giving anything back until we reach a point where we're out of things to give them but haven't resolved anything.

          by unfounded on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 09:48:35 AM PDT

          •  hard-liners like Bush/Cheney?

            Who said anything about giving things for "free"?  That's not the point of negotiations.  The goal would be to COOPERATE, not bribe.

            by sunshineonthebay on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 09:55:38 AM PDT

            •  Who said anything about bush/cheney?

              Or, sorry, I spelled it wrong, bushitlercheneyco - try thinking for yourself.

              by unfounded on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 10:06:06 AM PDT

              •  try thinking for myself?

                Oh thank you for that helpful comment.  I never use my brain, had no idea I could.  But now that you mention it I realized I can think for myself.

                You're rude.

                by sunshineonthebay on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 10:11:26 AM PDT

            •  And Ahmadenijad can't cooperate

              He's not strong enough at home right now to do that, he'd be crucified the rest of the way if he started giving away concessions from a place of weakness.

              So we're in a holding pattern until they get rid of him - sooner rather  than later, I'd be willing to bet, and we're building up better terms for ourselves in the process.

              by unfounded on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 10:07:05 AM PDT

              •  he's not the decision maker

                Ahmadinejad is not important, although I maintain that even he will cooperate.  He has also reached out.
                Basing foreign policy on an individual is a grave mistake, once that this administration has made over and over again.

                by sunshineonthebay on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 10:10:23 AM PDT

                •  You've based your entire line of argument on 2

                  individuals, Bush and Cheney

                  The mullahs need a frontman to do any kind of negotiations.  Ahmadenijad won't do.  Next.

                  by unfounded on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 10:11:50 AM PDT

              •  take your pendantic tone somewhere else

                by Pivot on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 11:34:46 AM PDT

                •  i don't think that word means what you think

                  And you spelled it wrong to boot.

                  by unfounded on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 11:49:35 AM PDT

                  •  I know what it means, and I know it's actually

                    spelled "pedantic"

                    by Pivot on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 08:18:43 PM PDT

                    •  Well for what it's worth, me correcting your

                      spelling put me within the definiton, so I proved you right I guess :)

                      by unfounded on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 12:40:47 PM PDT

          •  This is the problem

            There is not an accurate dialog about the issue.  It's either bomb them off the face of the earth or sing Kumbaya.  That's not accurate, and hyperbolic rhetoric is not helping.

            We need to have diplomacy.  Nobody sang Kumbaya at Dayton.  They had a hard diplomatic negotiation that included offers of trade as well as threats of force.  (Force works very well as a threat, not so well in practice.)  

            There needs to be a Dayton-style diplomatic strategy in the Middle East that involves the whole region.

            by Reg NYC on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 10:00:34 AM PDT

            •  I agree, and there is

              It's just more subtle.  Check out the repeated arab summits over the past few months.  Saudi Arabia first took a hard line against Iran, now they're de-escalating with Iran and isolating Syria.  We're trying to peel off Syria from Iran.

              It's not like the Dayton Accords, it's more like the Balkans pre WWI.  Goal being to avoid WWIII, which it looks like we're doing pretty well at, actually, chaos in Iraq notwithstanding.  All the neighbors are staying out of it and the extremist governments are getting weaker with every incident they provoke (Look at Syria compared to 5 years ago, look at Iran compared to a year ago).  This is a long term game, people nurse grudges for 1,000 years in that part of the world, they are patient and wily.

              We're doing OK.  As long as you don't presuppose that mcchimpyhitlerbushcheneyco are just setting everything up for a war (seriously, this is so different from 2003 in so many ways).

              by unfounded on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 10:05:20 AM PDT

          •  Study the history of Iran and learn how we

            really fucked them throughout the last century before you post the kind of comments that appears on LFG.

            by Asinus Asinum Fricat on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 10:06:29 AM PDT

            •  "We"? The last century?

              Ok we supported the Shah at one point who tortured some people in between the torturers before and after him.  So?  It was actual Persians who did all the actual torturing..

              Iran has fucked themselves, they could loosen up and join the international community anyday.  Hell, they're about 5x as modern as the Saudis but the saudis understand the "go along to get along" principle.  They haven't, yet, although I'm an optimist.  My opinion is after they find a way to dispose of Ahmadenijad (he's been quiet recently, huh?), they're going to put up a conciliatory frontman and try to get along with us.  

              by unfounded on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 10:09:41 AM PDT

              •  Operation Ajax

                Read it and weep

                by sunshineonthebay on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 10:12:47 AM PDT

              •  Loosen up

                They actually were moving toward a more open and liberal government before we invaded Iraq.  Then they took a sharp right turn.  There are other people besides Ahmadinejad that we can talk to.

                by Reg NYC on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 10:18:29 AM PDT

                •  Yeah, I didn't say invading Iraq helped on that

                  front.  We'll be fine, Ahmed'll be gone in a couple, few years.  People deal with blood feuds and grudges on the scale of millenia there, we can't keep expecting everything to move like an American microwave dinner.

                  by unfounded on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 10:21:33 AM PDT

                  •  This has nothing to do with "blood feuds

                    and grudges on the scale of millenia". It's simply about cause and effect. Irrational rhetoric on our side produced irrational heads of state on their end. If we want peaceful leaders there, we'll need peaceful leaders here.

                    by Diaries on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 10:23:22 AM PDT

                    •  We're not the only cause in the world

                      Pendulums exist there too, they had Khatami, a moderate who was blocked at every turn and the disillusioned moderates sat out the next farcical election as a form of protest.  Then they got Ahmadenijad, who promptly went around making a total fool of himself and then got his clock cleaned in municipal elections last fall, and rebuked very publicly by Khomeini himself.  We'll have a moderate again fairly soon, and this time, hopefully, the Mullahs will be on board after seeing how well Ahmed worked out.

                      "The US is so so so bad" is not a foreign policy

                      by unfounded on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 10:27:50 AM PDT

                      •  Not if Bush attacks Iran we won't

                        Attacking Iran will only cause the hard-liners to increase in influence. Bush makes the excuse that he doesn't have enough 'leverage' to be effective.

                        From WKC's Lecture at UCLA: Legitimacy, Legality and 1000 Feet of Leverage

                        “We need to keep the threat of Iran in perspective. And in dealing with them we have to realize that we are the most powerful country in the world. We have incredible economic strength. We hold the key to the G-8, the World Trade Organization, International Monetary Fund...the key to advanced technology, energy development—We have that. So when I hear rumors that the President is unable to talk to Iran right now because we don’t have “leverage”...

                        --- If you have 1000 feet of leverage – do you need another half inch?”

                        We have 1000 feet of leverage over Iran. We’re completely dominant over the country. Can't the most powerful nation in the world deign to speak to an aspiring regional power?

                        (whoops and tons of applause burst from the room at this common sense proclamation)

                        "The saber rattling has begun. We're refusing to talk to our potential opponents. We have to understand that there are limits to what pure force – or the threat of pure force- can accomplish."

                        by kathygo on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 11:04:21 AM PDT

                        •  that's fine, he won't nt

                          by unfounded on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 11:07:27 AM PDT

                          •  You must be 'special'

                            I gave up believing I knew what madness King George and his idiots will and won't do.  

                            Unless you have access to Bush's Brain, I'd caution you to leave off the authoritarian statements.  You can hold the 'opinion' that he might not, but then, so many believed he'd use reason and logic before attacking Iraq.

                            The fools -- they're all 'sorry' now.

                            by kathygo on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 11:11:27 AM PDT

                            •  No, I was pretty sure Iraq was gonna happen from

                              Spring 02 on - I was right then and am right now.  If you'll pardon the arrogance.

                              What the hell are we gonna invade Iran with?

                              by unfounded on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 11:12:49 AM PDT

                              •  Who said "invade"

                                All the scenarios point to bombing runs...... not 'invasion'.

                                Hadn't you heard?

                                by kathygo on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 11:13:41 AM PDT

                              •  Invasion

                                I don't think Bush is dumb enough to believe that we could pull off a full scale invasion, but there are people in the administration who are dumb enough to believe that we could have air strikes against their nuclear sites and get away with it.

                                by Reg NYC on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 11:17:10 AM PDT

                                •  Maybe, but I really doubt it

                                  Iranian nukes are at least 10 years off - maybe I'm just an optimist but I'm pretty sure I'm right.  There was a whole school of thought for positive outcomes out of Iraq, there's really zero potential for positive outcomes out of bombing Iran.

                                  by unfounded on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 11:25:59 AM PDT

                                  •  finally something we can agree on nt

                                    by sunshineonthebay on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 11:35:37 AM PDT

                                  •  Maybe

                                    There's a lot of contradictory intelligence about Iran's nuclear program.  The IAEA recovered a computer hard drive that has information that contradicts the previous physical evidence.  

                                    The truth is, we don't know how far away they are, and we won't know unless we open a dialog.

                                    by Reg NYC on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 11:36:31 AM PDT

                  •  Millenia

                    Islam itself is only 1500 years old.  So, it's not millenia.  They haven't been fighting for hundreds of years either.  They fought hundreds of years ago, a few times in between, and they're fighting now.  They weren't fighting five years ago.  Sure, they hated each other.  They can go ahead and hate each other all they want as long as they don't kill each other.

                    Ahmadinejad will be gone in a couple of years, but a lot can happen in a couple of years.

                    by Reg NYC on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 10:37:12 AM PDT

              •  We supported the Shah? We put him there!

                We also supported Saddam and encouraged him to engage in a war with them and supplied the "tyrant" with arms, money, intelligence and even mustard gas. Again, learn your history before you post misguided pronouncements.

                by Asinus Asinum Fricat on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 10:22:44 AM PDT

                •  No, we helped him put himself there

                  We didn't create him and we didn't invade the country and put him in charge.  We supported him.

                  And I fail to see what any of this has to do with what the proper and moral course is to take now, aside from how it's shaped people's attitudes towards us which of course we must take into account.  Americans owning slaves hundreds of years ago doesn't morally invalidate actions we take in Africa in the present day, why does America donating some missiles 2 decades ago dictate what we must do now?  

                  What's your dog anyways?  What are you suggesting we change?  I've made some long, reasonable and fairly knowledgeable posts and all you do is come back like OH we're so AWFUL you must CLEARLY not know your history!  What's your point?

                  by unfounded on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 10:25:51 AM PDT

                  •  we did create him

                    Ok, no, we didn't give birth to him, or create him in a frankenstein lab, but we made him king.

                    "we didn't invade the country and put him in charge"

                    Ah, yeah, we pretty much did.  It was called Operation Ajax.

                    by sunshineonthebay on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 10:28:51 AM PDT

                  •  My beef is that your history is lousy.

                    Reasonable & knowledgeable post? Perhaps they are, in your mind. You are not offering any tangible solutions, just adding to the neo-con memes. I don't have any answers myself but this I know: war with Iran won't happen, not this decade or the next.

                    Unless chimpee wants his rapture.

                    by Asinus Asinum Fricat on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 10:45:05 AM PDT

                    •  I agree war won't happen

                      So what's your agenda again?

                      by unfounded on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 11:05:09 AM PDT

                      •  No agenda. I just don't like distortion of the

                        truth, particularly when it comes to history, which, as you know, is checkable.

                        by Asinus Asinum Fricat on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 11:22:58 AM PDT

                        •  Well I only minimized it

                          Because it doesn't have any moral bearing on how we should act now.  Us genociding the native americans back in the day doesn't jeopardize our moral standing WRT opposing genocide now - not that that's a great analogy, but I hope you get my drift.

                          by unfounded on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 11:27:43 AM PDT

                          •  All right! Peace. n/t

                            by Asinus Asinum Fricat on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 11:40:39 AM PDT

                  •  You should read

                    Confessions of an Economic Hit Man and then get back to us about Iran went down bring the Shah to power.

                    by ljm on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 02:28:16 PM PDT

          •  You don't play chess

            do you? We took 5 of their pawns.  They took 15 of ours.  There are moves between singing Kumbaya and blowing up the chessboard.

            by ljm on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 02:03:17 PM PDT

      •  No

        First of all, they're Persian, not Arab.

        Secondly,  They may or may not be close to having a bomb.  We do have bombs, lots of them.  We are the biggest player in the UN and NATO, as well as the WTO and the World Bank.  We also have them surrounded on three sides.  This is nothing like an Arab (or Persian) Bazaar.  We have everything.  

        They want alternative sources of energy so that they can sell their oil on the open market, and they want to open their economy to the rest of the world. We have the power to give them that if they do what we want.  

        by Reg NYC on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 09:53:11 AM PDT

        •  selling their oil on open market

          Bingo, that's exactly what BushCo are fighting.  They don't want anyone to sell their oil on an entirely open market.  They want to control the market.

          by sunshineonthebay on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 09:56:48 AM PDT

        •  Thanks and I agree

          Good thing I didn't use the word "sook" - don't know the Farsi word for market.

          Yeah, we should try to integrate with them.  We pretty much can't do that with Ahmed as prez over there because he, like Bush, holds onto his little remaining authority at home by focusing the 30% idiots on external threats.  

          So we should just let him hang himself and make himself look unreasonable, then negotiate with the next frontman.  Persians and Arabs can be very patient and extremely unyielding when it comes to bargaining.  We've gotta get better behavior from them in exchange for any concessions at all.

          PS I totally disagree wtih your appraisal of their nuclear program, it is obviously, blatantly and clearly aimed at weapons.  But there's nothing we can really do to stop them so I don't think it's worth war over.  If we're lucky, we can slow them down through defections like the recent general and boycotts against specific technologies.  This is one of those hope for the best situations WRT those weapons.  Likely, they'll have nukes in 10 years and everything will be fine.

          by unfounded on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 09:57:22 AM PDT

          •  Nuclear program "blatantly"?

            unfounded wrote: PS I totally disagree wtih your appraisal of their nuclear program, it is obviously, blatantly and clearly aimed at weapons.  

            Got a citation to back up your claim? Perhaps your name says it all.

            My counter to your unsupported claim is Scott Ritter here, here, and
            here.

            For a few other sources try this and this.

            by NeoLotus on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 09:13:41 PM PDT

  •  General Clark has said negotiation is key

    and that negotiation is not "bargaining".  Most of the 'declared' candidates in 08 don't seem to know the difference.

    I found it curious that you don't have time to watch a 4 1/2 minute video, but maybe you'll find the time later.

    by kathygo on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 08:40:54 AM PDT

    •  Some can't watch videos at work

      Which is why it's great that the transcript is available too!

      by mariawells on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 08:57:08 AM PDT

  •  War with Iran is a bad idea - but

    our present policy is working pretty well.  They're so ashamed of their own president they don't even let him out of his cage when an international crisis like this happens?  Looking good for us.

    Iran is just increasing their own isolation and we can bring the whole world's soft power to bear on them.  We're doing great with them the way things are going now.

    by unfounded on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 09:45:15 AM PDT

    •  our present policy is working well?

      Either this is a snark, or you're a neocon.

      by sunshineonthebay on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 09:48:14 AM PDT

      •  With Iran specifically

        It actually is - you have any better ideas?  We've brought europe on board and let them take the lead in the confrontational side of things so it's not "US vs Islam" framing, good move.  We've let the pressure slowly build, played rope-a-dope with ahmed while avoiding openly provoking them ourselves.  And the couple operatives we picked up in Iraq were apparently so dirty that Iran was apparently afraid to even call for their release publicly for fear of us responding as to what those people were doing in Iraq.

        And no, I'm not a neo-con, pretty firm democrat, probably done more for dems than you, statistically speaking - Glad to see you're open minded though

        by unfounded on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 09:50:50 AM PDT

        •  yes i have better ideas

          Talking to them would be a good start.  They have reached out to us on numerous occassions.
          Our present policy is only "working well" if your definition of working is being on the brink of war.

          by sunshineonthebay on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 09:54:04 AM PDT

          •  Ahmadenijad is just like Bush

            He needs inflammatory rhetoric to stay alive.  Talking to them about what?  Returning those sailors that they kidnapped like a bunch of retards would be a start.

            by unfounded on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 09:58:10 AM PDT

            •  They're afraid

              We named three countries in an Axis of Evil, then invaded one of them.  It only follows that Iran thinks we're going to invade them next.  Now, we've got them surrounded on three sides.  

              They're scared, and they're doing the stupid things you do when you're backed into a corner.  

              We need to tone down the rhetoric and calm everybody down.  

              You're right, Ahmadinejad is just like Bush.  The overheated rhetoric plays to his base.  Every time he says something that sounds crazy, he gets a spike in the polls.

              We need to show him that acting crazy is not in his best interest.  We need to show that we don't want to go to war with him.

              by Reg NYC on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 10:13:06 AM PDT

              •  They're not children

                They can see our capabilities as far as invading another country as well as anyone else.

                And we've done a pretty good job of de-escalating.  Ok, we warned them off of screwing around in Iraq too much but that's not escalation, that's de-escalation.  God help what would happen if it got out in public that one of their agents shot a soldier.

                Every escalation between Iran and the West in the past 2 years has been a case of Iran escalating things.  Which is fine by me, they're isolating themselves, Europe is now solidly on our side, Russia wavering our direction and China slightly supportive of them but very neutral and silent, they're not willing to sacrifice one dollar of trade with us for Iran's sake.

                So we're doing ok - we just need to keep being the "reasonable" ones which we've actually been doing.  1,000 moonbats yelling that Bush will invade Iran or whatever doesn't make it so.

                by unfounded on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 10:17:36 AM PDT

                •  Screwing around in Iraq

                  The truth is they are screwing around in Iraq.  If we want to get the hell out of there, we have to convice them that it's in their best interest to stop.  Just because it's mostly their fault doesn't mean that it's not our responsibility to do something about it.

                  Invading Iraq also changed the balance of power in the entire region.  We need diplomacy with all of the countries in the region to restore the balance.  I don't think you disagree with me that there a lot of issues in the Middle East that need to be addressed.

                  That's why there needs to be a regional dialog.

                  by Reg NYC on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 10:30:14 AM PDT

                  •  You're an honest guy, I gotta get back to work

                    Peace

                    by unfounded on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 10:39:31 AM PDT

                    •  Guy?

                      You didn't even watch the video.

                      by Reg NYC on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 10:44:38 AM PDT

                      •  Haha, nope

                        I was here to combat bad assertions of our evilness regarding Iran, not the fact that invading Iran is a really stupid idea.

                        by unfounded on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 11:04:37 AM PDT

                        •  You were here to combat your own asertions?

                          The only poster who asserted that we might be evil was you - in some weird strawman mis-characterization of what others here were posting.

                          And you seem to still be missing the point that the stopiranwar.com effort is not about preventing a US invasion of Iran (which we agree is impossible, given current troop levels), but rather is about preventing an air strike on Iran (which is feasible).

                          Bush won't do the former, because he can't.  However, he might well do the latter if we don't take every effort to stop him from doing so.

                          by what if on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 01:09:37 PM PDT

            •  kidnap?

              It's not kidnapping if you capture someone who unlawfully entered your territory.
              And speaking of "bunch of retards", we should return the Iranian diplomats we "kidnapped" in Kurdistan first.

              by sunshineonthebay on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 10:15:17 AM PDT

              •  I'll believe the British Navy's paperwork, thanks

                And the Iranian "diplomats" we kidnapped - why haven't the Iranians yelled that we want them back?

                Maybe we have dirt as to what those "diplomats" were doing in Iraq?  Not that it's anything different from what lots of our "diplomats" are doing there but I think it's likely that these "diplomats" were caught and evidence given to Iran to convince them not to make a stink.

                by unfounded on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 10:19:52 AM PDT

                •  haven't yelled? that's funny

                  They complained, but considering we're the big bullies there wasn't much they could do besides complain.  What are they going to do if we don't listen?  Declare war on us?
                  And I for one don't believe the UK.  They have more of a reason to lie than Iran does in this situation.

                  by sunshineonthebay on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 10:25:46 AM PDT

                  •  How on earth

                    does the UK have more to gain?

                    So far, your take on everything just boils down to "the west is bad" third-worldist crap.  If Iran could just play ball like Jordan, SA and the UAE they'd be rolling in the dough and enjoying it right now.

                    They've gotta find a way to play ball, provoking wars in Lebanon and attempting to do so in the gulf doesn't really do that.  Even IF the UK was in Iranian waters by 500 meters as they say, in rubber boats, kidnapping the soldiers and refusing to release them isn't the appropriate response at all.  They're clearly trying to provoke an incident and it will very clearly blow up in their face like everything else.

                    by unfounded on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 10:31:25 AM PDT

                    •  ah, i see your mentality

                      If everyone just "played ball" according to our rules we let them live the good life.  If they want a fair and balanced relationship we'll f*** them over.
                      Well Iran doesn't want to be our biotches.  They were during the Shah and they didn't like us raping their natural resources.

                      by sunshineonthebay on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 10:34:54 AM PDT

                      •  You deliberately avoided my point

                        Iran is the one who chose to create an incident by kidnapping and refusing to release sailors who, at the absolute worst (and I don't believe this), had strayed a quarter mile into their territory in RUBBER BOATS.

                        Iran has to take some responsibility for their own problems.  Declining to kidnap British Sailors would be an example of "playing ball" that about 90% of the world's nations are ok with.  It's not like the UAE or Saudis are our bitches - or that they are any more than we're there bitches.  Play by the same rules as everyone else.

                        by unfounded on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 10:38:56 AM PDT

                        •  your argument is not based on facts

                          You're assuming Blair is telling the truth, even though he has lied before, and Iran "created" the situation.  Iran wouldn't arrest these sailors unless they were in Iranian waters, knowing very well that would be an act of war.  Your assumption that everything is the fault of "Persian and Arabs" reeks of racism.

                          by sunshineonthebay on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 10:42:54 AM PDT

                          •  Deliberate avoidance, part II

                            Re-read that post and try again

                            by unfounded on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 10:52:58 AM PDT

•  FANTASTIC!

  Thank you so much for posting the video and providing the transcript.  This is wonderful stuff.  :)

  by reggiesmom on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 08:34:34 AM PDT

•  Great video Reg!

  It's nice to see Jon and Wes (and you) talking about this in a down-to-earth manner.  It's a stark contrast to the rhetoric we hear from the "decider."  Isn't it odd how a really smart guy like Wes Clark talks to us as if we're as smart as he is and yet the idio-in-chief talks down to us?

  by mariawells on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 08:35:02 AM PDT

•  Thanks for keeping this important subject

  in front of the Kos community.  Its so important to address Israel's relationship with a possible Iran War, as you, General Clark and Jon Soltz have done here.

  Very helpful!  Thanks

  by betsyinelvistown on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 08:39:54 AM PDT

•  Reg, you hit it out of the park again.

  Now, more than ever, we have to force some sense into the national discourse on Iran.

  The capture of the Brits and the posturing of our Navy take us one step closer to the unthinkable......and frankly, it scares the sh*t out of me.

  Thank God for people like Wes Clark and Jon Sotlz.

  Sign the petition!!

  by pelican on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 08:42:49 AM PDT

•  General Clark has outlined a plan to avoid war

  General Clark has outlined a plan to avoid war with Iran in his recent article in Washington Monthly.

  Averting the Next Gulf War

  He's been warning about what NOT to do, and then lays out a coherent strategy to follow.

  That's the kind of leadership we'll need.

  by kathygo on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 08:45:52 AM PDT

  •  Must read, kathygo, and thanks for posting it!

    Madeleine Albright was on Larry King last night, and I'm sorry I didn't catch the program earlier, but she said she was very concerned that Bush had put such show of force of power by sending in two more ships which weren't necessary, before trying to dialogue with Iran.  Christiane Amanpour agreed and said that Ahmadinejad is being pushed by Bush into a very defensive mode.  Surely Bush in the last three years could have had diplomatic talks, but instead he sends a symbol of attack and no sign of negotiation.

    Iran is not our enemy but Bush is provoking Iran into a fight, and we all must try to stop him.

    This is a wonderful video.  Wes speaking to the people about how to speak TO PEOPLE in a far-off land that deserve a chance to negotiate.

    Anyway, thanks for post the article!

    by KayCeSF on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 09:49:08 AM PDT

•  Thank you for

  your video Reg - great work!

  by pollwatch on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 08:59:39 AM PDT

•  Excellent.....

  Jon Soltz and General Wes explaining WHY it is not in ours or our friend and ally Israel's best interest to attack Iran.  That yes, we must protect Israel too...but this is not the way.

  Thank heavens someone is talking about this before we wake up one morning and the disasterous deed is done.

  It's up to us to help them stop this crew.

  Very well done, Reg...thanks for posting this.

  by northWESterly on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 09:14:15 AM PDT

  •  aye, there's the rub...

    waking up each morning under this administration with a feeling of fear and trepidation:'good-gawd, it's morning - what sheer luncacy has gripped our "decider" while we were sleeping?'

    by Sybil Liberty on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 09:30:09 AM PDT

    •  I'll say.....

      It takes some mighty courage to turn on that remote in the morning.  Ah...to be one of the clueless....

      by northWESterly on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 10:33:33 AM PDT

•  Have I mentioned lately?

  Free buttons:

  http://www.stopIranWarButtons.com

  by mariawells on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 09:21:58 AM PDT

  •  Maybe, but thanks for reminding us, anyway.

    I finally ordered some just the other day.  Thanks for doing this.

    by what if on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 01:12:54 PM PDT

•  our Iran policy is bad for Israel?

  Our Iran policy is also bad for US, not to mention Iran.  Israel's Iran policy is also bad for Israel.  This is what happens when leader lead from ideology not reason.

  by sunshineonthebay on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 09:29:15 AM PDT

  •  Of course...

    Of course it's bad for us.  I think the point of this video was to point out that it's also bad for Israel, as in, "Even though it's bad for us, you might say that we have to protect Israel.  But, guess what, it's bad for them too."

    by mariawells on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 09:31:49 AM PDT

    •  Why should US policy be determined by...

      Israel's interests? It's foolish to attack a country on the belief that it serves Israel's interests. It would also be foolish to refrain from attacking a country because it would run contrary to Israel's interests.

      Obviously I think attacking Iran would run contrary to America's interests. But I'm sick and tired of Americans who use the interests of Isreal as a touchstone for US policy.

      The point to make is: Let Isreal look after its own interests, we'll look after ours. Those who subordinate US policy to the interests of Israel ought to be ashamed of themselves.

      by smintheus on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 11:17:17 AM PDT

      •  No on is saying that.

        This blog is one in a series.  This particular installment is aimed at addressing those who are specifically worried about Israel.  No one here is saying that our policy should be dictated by Israel.  

        by Reg NYC on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 11:22:08 AM PDT

        •  ok, but my point is...

          why should people be factoring Israel's interests into the question of what US policy toward Iran should be? It's an illegitimate issue, period, and our leaders should say so in no uncertain terms. Do we worry about how our Iranian policy affects the interests of Hungary, New Zealand, or Brazil?

          by smintheus on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 11:28:56 AM PDT

          •  But reality is that they don't

            Just research the parade of candidates who have auditioned for AIPAC.

            If they are cyncially pandering to AIPAC for cash, I suppose it's understandable, but if they really MEAN some of the things that have been reported these 08 candidates have said, it's absolutely scary.

            by kathygo on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 11:31:57 AM PDT

          •  Why argue that point?

            When you can just say it's not in their best interest either?  

            We do care more about Israel.  We always have.  There's a lot of shame in this country because we didn't do more to stop Hitler earlier--and we turned away Jews.  I believe that's why people care so much about Israel more than other countries.

            But the point here is that we don't even have to enter into that argument.  We don't even have to proclaim that our interests are more important to us than their interests are because in this case, our interests are aligned--it doesn't make sense for them or for us.

            by mariawells on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 11:38:09 AM PDT

            •  but we do have to take that argument

              at some stage we need to make clear as a nation that our foreign policy cannot be directed toward achieving Israel's (perceived) interests. Why not now, when the neocons slavish worship of the agenda promoted by right-wing Israelis has thoroughly discredited that approach to foreign policy?

              In other words, why try to distract from the real issue by playing along with those who believe that Israel's interest ought to determine US policy? It's counterproductive in the long term, and might well fail in the short term anyway (you get bogged down in a debate over whether an attack on Iran will advance Israel's objectives, a debate you could well lose among those who care about the matter).

              by smintheus on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 12:15:03 PM PDT

              •  Show me someone who believes "...that Israel's

                interest ought to determine US policy."

                The people behind stopiranwar.com don't believe that, and are not "playing along" with anyone who does.

                Israel is a nuclear power and a US Ally visited frequently by many Americans.  As such, it is appropriate for us to consider the impact on them of US policy towards Iran.  

                by what if on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 01:28:38 PM PDT

                •  you're kidding, right?

                  You've heard of AIPAC? Noticed the politicians who parade before it talking about the "need" to assure Israel's interests? Anybody who advocates US policy based upon the perceived interest of Israel is playing along with AIPAC's game.

                  The US has plenty of other allies, some of which are visited by Americans (as if that should figure in US policy). So what?

                  You're playing with semantics. Nobody's advocating that planners should not "consider the impact" of proposed foreign policy, whether on Israel or any other country. My point, clearly, is that US policy should advance US interests. If it happens to advance the interests of another country, so be it. But that should not be a basis for making policy.

                  Therefore the argument that the US should not attack Iran because that runs counter to Israel's interest, is a distraction at best. It's not in France's interest either.

                  by smintheus on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 02:20:43 PM PDT

                  •  No. You're playing with semantics, not I.

                    Yes, of course, I've heard of AIPAC.  Do they actually believe "...that Israel's interest ought to determine US policy"?  Have they actually said that, or is it just your way of conveying what you think they believe?

                    If we want to communicate, it's best to be accurate - even about what our political opponents advocate.

                    AIPAC certainly does appear to wish to have the American government support a hawkish stance against Israel's many enemies - but is that really the same as believing "...that Israel's interest ought to determine US policy"?  I don't think so.  In fact, I don't think it is in Israel's interest for the US government to behave the way AIPAC wants it to.  That's not a distraction.  It's a political judgement - that, if ever shared by enough government officials, could offset AIPAC's political pressure.

                    by what if on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 07:38:41 PM PDT

              •  The truth is

                The fact that there is a debate about it is exactly why we should address it.  The fact is that there are a lot of Americans who are concerned about Israel.  They have family there.  They may even have homes there.  They have a right to be concerned and they vote accordingly.

                There are people spreading misinformation to the American Jewish community, and they need to be refuted.

                We always consider the effects that our foreign policies have on our allies.  Why should we treat Israel's security any different than we treat the security of France or Great Britain or Kuwait or any of our other allies?  We don't put their security above ours, but of course we should consider it.

                by Reg NYC on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 02:16:26 PM PDT

                •  see above

                  It's not a question of ignoring the worldwide consequences of US policy. It's a matter of attending to US interests, not the interests of foreign countries.

                  And it's disingenuous to suggest that US foreign policy is being shaped to advance the interests of Britain or France, much less our many other allies. Anybody in DC who cried out "But what about France?" every time foreign policy came under discussion, would be laughed out of town.

                  Very much by contrast, as this diary demonstrates, it's considered legitimate and even "necessary" to interject Israel's interests into virtually every debate about US policy in the ME.

                  Well, it's not legitimate. Americans who take it as their mission in life to promote the interests of Israel should be reminded of which country they're voting in. They should not be encouraged in putting a foreign state's interests before their own country's.

                  I don't understand why that is not self-evident.

                  by smintheus on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 02:29:32 PM PDT

                  •  You're wrong

                    If France was under the kind of attack that Israel is under, we'd go to war for them in a heartbeat, and we have.  We have troops in the Korean DMZ for the SOLE purpose of protecting South Korea.

                    If we're considering going to war with Iran, we absolutely should consider the effect that that would have on Israel, as well as Kuwait, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, our European allies and the entire rest of the world.

                    We should consider the effects of the entire world of every decision we make.  If you think we don't, you're naive.

                    by Reg NYC on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 02:40:22 PM PDT

                    •  uhhmmm....

                      France was invaded twice in the 20th century by Germany. Neither time did we spring to their aide, exactly. The first time, we waited 3 years and the nation was dragged kicking and screaming into WWI in 1917.

                      The second time, we looked on until Germany declared war upon us.

                      Israel is under attack? By whom?

                      As for the Iranian question, the interests of other ME countries receive virtually no play in the American political debate. The interests of Israel, however, get top billing.

                      I think it's disingenuous to pretend that the pandering to Israel's interest is no different from the concern shown for other country's interests. There's no equivalency.

                      by smintheus on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 03:04:21 PM PDT

                      •  By whom?

                        We delayed getting into the World Wars because of public opinion, not because policy makers didn't want to.  

                        I agree that we should consider the effects that our actions have on other Middle Eastern countries.  If we had in the past, we wouldn't be in half of the messes we're in.  

                        Most of the times we get ourselves into trouble, it's because we haven't considered the effects of our policies on the rest of the world.  That's not pandering.  It's smart policy.

                        by Reg NYC on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 03:16:29 PM PDT

                      •  We were wrong to wait so long in WWII

                        And it was isolationist Republicans that held back FDR from doing what he knew was right.  So instead he implemented Lend/Lease to Britain and Russia, and waited until there was no choice.

                        The world is too small for isolationism any more.  Israel is our ally, and we have an obligation to her.  Not an obligation that would outweigh our own interests, but that is seldom the case, and conceivably should never need be if we had a rational and competent foreign policy, instead of one driven solely by ideology.

                        Fwiw, if there were an existential threat to Hungary, New Zealand or Brazil (to use your examples), we would probably do what we could to protect those nations as well, because they are allies too.  If we are willing to take more risk or pay a higher cost to protect Israel, it is because of the close social and cultural ties most Americans feel toward her.  But it's really not a fair comparison.  No one wants to destroy Hungary, New Zealand or Brazil.  Think more along the lines of Taiwan.  How far would be willing to go to protect Taiwan if the Chinese really looked like they were going to attack?  So far, we've always stood by her.

                        Your analogy to the oil companies is nonsense.  Corporations are not governments.  They do not represent a society or culture of people, and they have no inherent right to exist.  Generally speaking, other governments do not threaten to wage war upon them and no one dies just because they go out of business.  Of course, to the extent that that last not be true, such as when the corporation's  officers and workers are attacked with force and/or killed, then their "interests" can become a legitimate factor in foreign policy.

                        by hfjai on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 04:09:00 PM PDT

                        •  we sold France out in 1940

                          just as we sold Hungary out in the 1950s. It's not a question of isolationism, nor of the advisability of maintaining alliances. It's a question of whether the interests of a foreign country should become central to American foreign policy. That has never been the case with any other country than Israel, and it strikes me as silly to pretend otherwise...especially when there are examples of countries we've watched being over-run. With Israel, there is no neighboring country threatening to over-run it; if anything, Israel is prepared to over-run its neighbors.

                          The only country that has had remotely similiar influence, Taiwan, had its own powerful lobby for years in DC. Not so much any more, and it was not a healthy influence while it lasted.

                          by smintheus on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 04:42:29 PM PDT

                          •  However

                            What General Clark is calling for here is a regional diplomacy that includes and addresses the concerns of ALL of the countries in the region - Iran, Syria, the various factions in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, etc... AS WELL as Israel.

                            by Reg NYC on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 05:05:19 PM PDT

                          •  No, I think you're wrong

                            The welfare of many other countries have at one time or another played a part in shaping US policy.  South Korea and South Vietnam, for example, and pretty much all of the NATO countries during the Cold War.  Kuwait and Saudi Arabia in the early 90s.  Liberia has had a small role from time to time.  Same for a number of Latin American countries, what with the Monrow Doctrine and all.

                            In the period between WWI and WWII, it was isolationism -- Americans embittered by what WWI cost vs what we got for it -- that kept us from rushing to help others.  But conversely, after the Soviet Union went nuclear, almost every single country became important.  If we sold out Hungary, it was because she already fell within the Soviet sphere of influence.  Sucks to be them.

                            What most people don't realize is how much we get from Israel, both geo-strategically and in the way of science and technology.  There are very good reasons we maintain that alliance.

                            'Course, I think it's rather nonsense to say Israel is a threat to its neighbors and not the other way around.

                            by hfjai on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 07:10:15 PM PDT

              •  We're hitting it from all angles

                Wes Clark has been saying that we shouldn't necessarily do what's in Israel's best interest all along.  But if we also demonstrate that this isn't in Israel's best interest, then we have yet another reason not to do it.  It's not distracting.  It's covering all bases.  

                If I take a defensive driving course, does that mean I should drop my car insurance because paying c