Iran and Beyond: An Interview with Gen. Wesley Clark

RealClearWorld recently interviewed Wesley Clark, retired general of the US Army, about the current situation in Iran. General Clark is a fomer Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO (SACEUR) and, in 2004, was a Democratic presidential candidate.

snippets.....

RCW: Let's transition into how the Iranian situation relates to the region, starting with a September 2007 Washington Post Op/Ed in which you wrote, "The most likely next conflict will be with Iran, a radical state that America has tried to isolate for almost 30 years and that now threatens to further destabilize the Middle East through its expansionist aims, backing of terrorist proxies such as the Lebanese group Hezbollah and Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank, and far-reaching support for radical Shiite militias in Iraq. As Iran seems to draw closer to acquiring nuclear weapons, almost every U.S. leader -- and would-be president -- has said that it simply won't be permitted to reach that goal."

Since writing that Op/Ed, how has your own your perception of the Middle East situation evolved?

Gen. Clark: Iran essentially decided it needed to pause in the destabilization of Iraq. Step by step it's cut back on its material support for the militias who were destabilizing and targeting the Sunni populations inside Iraq.

On the other hand, it's continued to move forward with its nuclear programs, installing thousands of centrifuges to enrich uranium. It's approaching the time when it will have enough highly enriched uranium to create a nuclear device. Whether their engineering has been adequate enough to turn that nuclear device into a weapon is unknown. Probably not, but we don't know fully what information they may have gleamed from North Korean or Pakistani efforts to share nuclear technology. So it remains uncertain. The situation remains deeply troubling.

We're approaching the point at which absent either some diplomatic breakthrough that curbs their nuclear programs or some other meaningful non-military intervention; that serious, serious study of military options will be taken.

[]

RCW: Last couple of questions - geopolitical questions. To its west, Iran borders Iraq. Is there any relationship between the gradual stabilization of Iraq and the civil unrest occurring Iran?

Gen. Clark: I think that's a very important question, and the truth is what happens in Iran will have enormous consequences in Iraq. If the hard liners consolidate power and further repress the opposition inside Iran, and then that gives them the capacity at their time of choosing move to increase their power in the region and their power vis-à-vis an Arab government in Iraq.

On the other hand, if the opposition were to succeed in taking power that would probably encourage greater compromise among the contending factions inside Iraq. That's speculation. It really remains to be seen what the makeup of a future government it would emerge, and what would it objectives be, and how would it view it securities situation to the West and Iraq? I mean Iraq is a terrorist neighbor. Iraq has invaded. Iraq is going to be a permanent bone of contention in Iranian politics for security reasons, for religious cultural reasons, for the conflict for leadership of the Shi'ism between Najaf and Qom.

So these are important questions but all we can do right now is ask them. There aren't answers.

RCW: To its east, Iran borders both Afghanistan and Pakistan. If there is any progress made in Iran - even if it's slow progress - how will that affect the situations in those countries?

Gen. Clark: It probably helps us work more effectively with the government of Iran, and it probably promotes greater effectiveness in working with Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Read the rest at RealClearWorld