Gen. Wesley Clark: Clinton's approach deters a rush to war

By GEN. WESLEY CLARK | Manchester Union Leader | October 14, 2007

In the back and forth on Iran, one critical issue is being missed: which candidate will create the strategic shift necessary to deal with the challenge of Iran and help end the fighting in the Middle East? I believe that candidate is Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Last month, Senator Clinton voted for a non-binding resolution that urges the administration to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization in order to strengthen our diplomatic hand. And earlier this month, she joined Sen. Jim Webb in co-sponsoring a bill that would prohibit the use of funds for military action in Iran without specific authorization by Congress. Her strong support for congressional leverage and a strong national posture is what is needed to engage Iran.

I have supported Senator Clinton in both these votes. She is committed to ending the unilateralism of the Bush-Cheney administration. She is a strong supporter of direct nuclear talks with Iran because she believes that direct dialogue with our adversaries is a sign of strength and confidence, and a prerequisite to achieving America's goals and objectives.

That is why I am so dismayed and disappointed about political attacks that misrepresent the senator's positions and betray a fundamental misunderstanding about how to conduct effective diplomacy in the 21st century.

In supporting legislation that seeks to exert diplomatic pressure on Iran, Senator Clinton is standing up to the Bush administration, which has recklessly refused to talk to Iran about its clandestine nuclear program. In voting for a non-binding resolution that urges the administration to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, she is forcing the Bush administration to apply diplomatic pressure. This is the best way to cal attention to the problem, empower US diplomacy, and warn Iran that it must cooperate.

There is nothing in the non-binding Kyl-Lieberman bill that would give President Bush any authority whatsoever to go to war. Sen. Richard Durbin joined Senator Clinton in supporting this legislation and said, "if I thought there was any way it could be used as a pretense to launch an invasion of Iran I would have voted no." Sen. Carl Levin, who, like Senator Durbin, did not vote for the 2002 Iraq resolution, also joined Senator Clinton in supporting this bill.

In fact, Senator Clinton has spoken out early and forcefully, warning in February that President Bush does not have the authority to take military action against Iran without congressional authorization.

The issues we confront in the Mideast today are serious. Iran must not be allowed to build or acquire nuclear weapons. Neither must Iran be permitted to intervene with force, arms or terrorism inside Iraq. Actions like putting pressure and sanctions on the Revolutionary Guard are necessary and appropriate. And, as Senator Clinton has said, these actions must be combined with a far-reaching diplomatic initiative in the region that includes a dialogue with Iran.

This is not the time to rush to war, nor is it the time to do nothing. Rather, this is the time to work resolutely to avert the need to use force at some point in the future.

Senator Clinton's approach represents the consistent strength combined with the kind of diplomacy that has been missing from this administration. As President she will reject the Bush administration's ideologically blinkered flights of fantasy. But she will be a strong leader.

I am convinced that she sees the world in realistic terms, and that she -- of all the candidates -- is best prepared to pursue our nation's interests using all the tools and means available -- diplomatic, legal, economic, financial, and, as a last resort, military -- in a way that is true to America's enduring values and principles.