Gen. Wesley Clark: This is the moment for American leadership in Middle East. We can't miss it.
After 12 days of Israeli air strikes, Iran's air defenses were largely disabled, above-ground nuclear facilities destroyed, and much of its ballistic missile production and launch capacity wrecked. Nevertheless, Iranian retaliation caused destruction and loss of life in Israel. Then the U.S. entered the fight on the evening of June 21.
Iran's three principal, known nuclear enrichment sites, were pounded and penetrated with 14 of the 30,000 Massive Ordnance Penetrators and more than two dozen sea-launched cruise missiles. By the early morning of June 24, Iran and Israel had agreed a ceasefire in the destructive campaign each was waging against the other. It was a triumphant moment for President Donald J. Trump, under whose direction the U.S. armed forces had launched the largest, most complex stealth bomber and TLAM strikes ever undertaken.
Iran's long-standing quest for nuclear weapons was at least set back for many months, and probably several years.
Many parties had much to gain from the ceasefire:
Crown prince of Iran: Israel weakened Iran regime. World must help finish the job | Opinion
What happens now for Iran and the rest of the world?
But now what?
Israel has been highly successful in the use of military force over many decades in the region – from the 1948 war of independence, through the 1956 war in Sinai, the 1967 preemptive war against Egypt, Jordan and Syria, the 1973 war, the 1982 invasion of Lebanon, strikes against the PLO in Tunisia in 1985, and later operations in Lebanon and Gaza.
U.S. military action in the Gulf War in 1991 and the invasion of Iraq in 2003 were also highly successful. At this time, Israel, with U.S. help, has stripped Iran of its protective shields of Hezbollah and Hamas, and Iran, without effective air defenses, is laid bare.
But outstanding military operations are not sufficient – they must be followed by successful work to end the roots of the conflict. Not once has this happened in the Middle East. Hatred, resentment, anger, terrorism and war have become endemic to the region.
This is the moment to end the pattern of continuing conflict. But that requires new appreciation among the leaders in the region of the realities underscored by this latest bout of conflict.
Iran, you're not going to have a nuclear bomb, no matter what. And if you continue to seek it, your regime will be defeated along with the destruction of your country. Israel, you cannot continue to use force with impunity – even with the best technology, your own people are vulnerable.
To others in the region: Israel and the Palestinians are both permanently in the region; and with all due respect to the different religion, sects, and ethnicities at play, and the pain of history, both must be accommodated, accepted, and, ultimately, embraced as part of a thriving and prosperous Middle East.
If there was ever a moment for fundamental change within the region, this is it. The world has come face to face with the potential of a spiraling conflict. Many of the Gulf States have achieved unprecedented wealth and are on the path to world-leading economic, social and technical advances. The region is still and will likely remain the center of global energy production, distribution and investment. There is everything to gain from seizing this moment.
Gen. Wesley Clark: Trump needs to push Putin hard to end war in Ukraine – now | Opinion
This is the moment for American leadership
But how to proceed?
Based on the model followed by President Clinton in dealing with the Balkans in the 1990's, it is best to start with a set of principles agreed upon objectively, by those outside the conflict but with the influence and will to deal with the respective parties. The principles must be fair and practicable. It required many weeks of shuttle diplomacy for the much simpler issues in the Balkans, and then, ultimately a 78-day air campaign by NATO in parallel with Presidential-level mediation by outside parties. In all, it entailed more than five years of continuous effort by the United States.
In this region, the issues are deeper and more complex, but certainly among the principles, Iran must renounce its efforts, overt and covert, to destroy the state of Israel, and Israel must respect the rights of the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza to govern and develop their own self-governing state.
Terrorism against Israel must be halted. Countries in the region must participate in rebuilding the Palestinian homeland in the West Bank and Gaza. Sanctions against Iran will be lifted, and Iran will be provided the materials it needs for peaceful nuclear energy. Progress must be phased and accompanied by confidence-building measures. Perhaps the Abraham Accords will be fully implemented, and the U.S. will provide a security umbrella for all in the region. International organizations will no doubt remain part of the solution. Perhaps Russia and China, and other interested parties will be invited as observers.
Iran today is a wounded tiger. Maybe 400 kilograms of highly enriched uranium is still available, maybe some other country will provide nuclear weapons or materials. Revenge will be sought. We cannot permit the next conflict – it could well go 'nuclear.' So neglect or failure are not options.
This is the moment for American leadership. It is the moment for President Trump to exercise his broader vision for strategic realignment of the region, and in so doing, to end the Middle East as a cockpit for continuing conflict.
Wesley K. Clark is a retired four-star general who served as commander of U.S. Southern Command and then as commander of U.S. European Command/Supreme Allied Commander, Europe.
You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
33 minutes ago
- Fox News
Illegal alien accused of causing fatal semi truck crash that killed 3 people: 'Shocking and criminal'
An illegal immigrant truck driver has been arrested and faces deportation after allegedly attempting to make an unauthorized U-turn in Florida — resulting in a crash that killed three people. Harjinder Singh, who entered the country illegally and obtained a commercial driver's license in California, has been charged with three counts of vehicular homicide in connection with Tuesday's fatal crash, according to a news release from the Florida Dept. of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (FLHSMV). "This is a devastating tragedy made even worse by the fact that it was totally preventable," White House Spokeswoman Abigail Jackson told Fox News Digital in an email. "Illegal aliens that have no legal right to be in our country certainly should not be granted commercial drivers' licenses." While operating a commercial semi-truck with a trailer on the Florida Turnpike in Fort Pierce, Singh allegedly attempted a U-turn in an unauthorized area. This resulted in the trailer jackknifing and colliding with a minivan — leaving all three of the minivan's passengers dead, according to officials. "Gavin Newscum's pro-illegal alien policies have deadly consequences," Jackson added. "Yet he continues to double down and put illegals over American citizens." Singh, who officials believe crossed the US-Mexico border in 2018, remains in custody on both state vehicular homicide charges as well as immigration violations. An Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainer has been issued, according to an X post from the Official White House Rapid Response account. "The actions taken by the defendant while operating a commercial tractor-trailer are both shocking and criminal," FLHSMV Executive Director Dave Kerner said in a statement. "Three people lost their lives as a result of his recklessness, and countless friends and family members will experience the pain of their loss forever." A law passed in 2013 allows California residents to obtain a driver's license, regardless of their immigration status. ICE did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Why in the world is Trump punishing Moldova with tariffs?
President Trump's tariff blasts continue. The White House released its latest list on July 31 and it is clear that no nation is safe — not allies, enemies, neighbors or distant lands. No menacing power escapes the vigilance of the president's team, ever alert to those 'ripping off' the United States of America. Case in point: Moldova. Dominating both sides of the Dniester River — well, one side actually — this Eastern European colossus of 2.3 million people (about the size of Houston) could inflict mortal damage on the American economy. In 2024 alone, the U.S. bought nearly $136 million (with an 'm') worth of goods from the Moldovans, whereas they bought only $51 million from us. With the U.S. economy valued at more than $30 trillion (with a 'T') we could probably only bear such abuse for … well, forever. In a July 9 letter to Moldovan President Maia Sandu, Trump made clear that America will not be bullied by Moldova any longer. He imposed a tariff of 25 percent on every bottle of wine or fruit juice the Moldovans force us to buy. Calling the deficit with Moldova a 'major threat to our Economy and, indeed, our National Security!' the president warned of even higher tariffs if Moldova retaliates or tries to send goods into the U.S. through transshipment. The letter accuses Moldova of taking advantage of us for 'many years.' Tariff rates are one of Trump's favorite weapons, employed under the dubious premise that the U.S. faces a trade deficit 'emergency.' The legality of such action aside — the Supreme Court has yet to rule — the president uses this weapon for a variety of non-economic goals. He has threatened Canada for indicating it might recognize a Palestinian state, and Brazil to try to save former President Jair Bolsonaro from prosecution. Moldova has committed no such offenses — at least none charged — but Trump wants trade with Moldova and a host of other countries to be based on 'reciprocity.' Whatever the precipitating dynamics, punishing Moldova for its involvement in international trade serves no reasonable Western security or broader policy interests. It undermines them. Sandwiched between Ukraine and Romania, Moldova has a long history of not being a country. The people of this region, who were unwillingly traded between Romania and Russia for nearly a century, gained independence from a collapsing Soviet Union in 1991. With a population that is 75 percent Moldovan-Romanian, some within the Russian and Ukrainian minorities feared the country's absorption into neighboring Romania. During a brief internal war in 1992, Moscow positioned a 'peacekeeping force' on the eastern side of Dniester River to guard the self-proclaimed state of Transnistria — which is still there, not recognized even by Russia. This force is small, locally recruited and considered less than formidable. But it is part of a sustained campaign by Moscow to prevent Moldova from embracing the West. This same motive drove Vladimir Putin to unleash a brutal invasion and occupation of much larger Ukraine. If victorious there, he is unlikely to be more accommodating toward Moldova. Moldova is the poorest country in Europe, and its elected leaders and population have been seeking stability. After Russia invaded Ukraine, Moldova applied to join the EU. It was quickly granted candidate status, and negotiations for membership began. In 2024, the country reelected pro-EU President Sandu and in a referendum enshrined the country's 'European course' in its constitution — despite massive Russian interference and disinformation. The EU has not been cowed by Moscow and developed a generous aid and development package. Most Moldovan goods enter the world's largest trading bloc duty-free, a policy that was further extended to agricultural products last month. Under President Biden, the U.S. had been similarly supportive, providing more than $400 million in military and humanitarian aid in part to help reduce the country's dependence on Russian gas. Trump sees no need for aid to Moldova, or indeed for most foreign assistance. Other moves supporting Trump's 'America First' orientation also penalize Moldova. Eliminating the U.S. Agency for International Development meant the loss of virtually all projects in Moldova — including for democracy promotion and economic and energy development. At the same time, cutting resources for election monitoring and an independent press leaves the field open for Russian interference. Such indifference, along with Trump's shifting attitude toward Ukraine and transactional foreign policy, leaves Moldova exposed. A study by the Stimson Center concluded, 'With a White House that seems increasingly eager to align its perspectives with Moscow at the expense of traditional allies, its willingness to support Moldova's democratic transformation in the face of Russian opposition is now uncertain.' Neighboring Romania, a member of both the EU and NATO, has a huge stake in the fate of Moldova. An intimidated or occupied satellite country — a second Belarus — on the Alliance's more than 400-mile border would dramatically change the strategic equation. This should get Washington's attention — at least of those willing to honor the American commitment to NATO. Preserving an independent and economically healthy Moldova thus serves European and American interests. Increasing the cost of doing business with the U.S. and damaging democratic efforts there does not. Supporting Moldova costs the U.S. very little. Excusing a tiny trade deficit to a strategically important democracy does not make Americans suckers. Helping Moldova does not require a military commitment. The country has been cooperating with NATO but is constitutionally neutral. Rather than punishing the country, the U.S. could and should offer support. This could be based on a view of the geopolitical map — or, even better, from an appreciation of a resilient people's desire for democratic choice. Ronald H. Linden is professor emeritus of political science at the University of Pittsburgh, where he directed the Center for European Studies and the Center for Russian and East European Studies. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Are we getting a $5000 DOGE dividend or $600 rebate? Fourth stimulus check eligibility
If you're wondering about a fourth stimulus check in 2025 from President Donald Trump or the IRS, here's what to know about eligibility and the reality of it happening. On July 25, Trump floated the idea of a tariff rebate check for American taxpayers in response to questions about all the new tariff revenue being generated, "We have so much money coming in, we're thinking about a little rebate. But the big thing we want to do is pay down debt. But we're thinking about a rebate." A few days after the president's tariff rebate comments, Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley announced the American Worker Rebate Act of 2025 aimed at sending checks to Americans. Note that a few months back, in February, Trump also said he would consider a plan to pay out a portion of the savings identified by the Department of Government Efficiency in the form of a $5000 dividend check as payback to taxpayers. The DOGE dividend proposal, authored by Azoria investment firm CEO James Fishback, was meant to give back or refund taxpayers a savings from Elon Musk's DOGE related cuts and reductions in government spending. Here's what to know about Trump's two proposals this year, what the amounts would be, qualifications and status. Are we getting a fourth stimulus check in 2025? While speculation about a of $2,000 has surfaced on social media and unverified websites, there has been no official confirmation of any additional economic relief package in 2025 from Congress or the IRS to support this claim. Any such news should be taken with caution as it could be misinformation or attempted fraud. Either of Trump's ideas for a tariff rebate or DOGE dividend this year would be similar to a fourth stimulus check, if approved. Albeit, there are differences between a stimulus check versus a dividend, refund or rebate. By definition, a dividend is a distribution of profits by a corporation to its shareholders and refund is a payment made back to a user that previously paid for something. While a rebate is a partial refund of the purchase price that a consumer paid, often upon meeting certain conditions — more like a discount that is refunded after the purchase versus a discount that is applied at the point of sale. A stimulus check on the other hand, is a direct payment to encourage spending and stimulate the economy by putting money directly into the consumers' hand. Also similar to the stimulus checks sent during the pandemic, these proposals would require congressional approval. What is the American Worker Rebate Act of 2025? Hawley's bill, called the American Worker Rebate Act of 2025, would provide a minimum of $600 per adult and dependent child, or $2,400 for a family of four, according to news officials. The benefit would be reduced by 5% for joint filers with an adusted gross income above $150,000 or single filers earning more than $75,000 individually. According to an analysis from the Budget Lab at Yale released July 28, Trump's tariffs could cost U.S. households an average of $2,400 in 2025 through higher prices passed on from companies paying higher tariff taxes. The Treasury Department said on July 25 that the U.S. government posted a $27 billion surplus in June, following a $316 billion deficit in May. Customs duties totaled approximately $27 billion for the month, up from $23 billion in May and 301% higher than in June 2024. On an annual basis, tariff collections have totaled $113 billion, or 86% more than a year ago. The bill would allow for a larger rebate if the tariff revenue exceeds projections. What is the status of the DOGE dividend check proposal? Fishback announced that he was stepping away from the DOGE dividend check movement after Musk lashed out at the president in June, although he also said he would continue working with the administration "to return savings to taxpayers." The latest update on DOGE dividend came from Fishbacks tweet on June 6, "I believed in Elon Musk's vision to shrink government and make it work better for Americans. I'm proud of the DOGE Dividend proposal I developed and will keep working with the administration to return savings to taxpayers." He added, "The truth is that Elon set expectations that he relayed to the President, me, and the country that he did not come close to fulfilling. That's disappointing, but okay." According to Fishback's proposal, the DOGE dividend check was described as tax refund check to be sent to every taxpaying household, funded exclusively with a portion of the total savings delivered by DOGE. The potential refund would be sent only to households that are net-income taxpayers — people who pay more in taxes than they get back — with lower-income Americans not qualifying for the return, according to news reports. The Pew Research Center cites most Americans who have an adjusted gross income of under $40,000 pay effectively no federal income tax. According to the DOGE website, it cites an estimated $205 billion — approximately $1,273 per individual federal taxpayer — in savings and proof in their "Wall of Receipts." Albeit, only half the amount is itemized thus far, raising doubts about accuracy. Amy Gleason is the acting administrator and head of DOGE. Musk's departure from the federal government will likely do little to change DOGE's work carrying out Trump's vision of downsizing the federal government or eliminating the 'fraud and waste.' Maria Francis is a Pennsylvania-based journalist with the Mid-Atlantic Connect Team. This article originally appeared on Asbury Park Press: How to check your stimulus check status? Trump $600 - $2400 rebate Solve the daily Crossword
