Gen. Wesley Clark, who is expected to be a Democratic candidate for the US presidency in 2008, has a novel idea on how to tackle the growing contretemps between his government and Iran over the latter’s nuclear program.

Clark suggests the two sides should simply talk together face-to-face and discuss their problems instead of yelling threats at one another across the fence. Sounds eminently sensible, doesn’t it? But in these peculiar times, sensibility, not to mention testosterone, usually triumphs over sense.

The fact is that isn’t going to happen, at least not as long as the “new world order” Bush administration inhabits the White House, and the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad insists on ratcheting up the anti-US and anti-Israel rhetoric.

Sadly, there will be no Sadat moment; no spectacular Air Force One landing in Tehran with a cargo of olive branches and carrots. Instead, it is looking more and more like we will all have to face the discordant music badly orchestrated by players who wouldn’t recognize a harmonious tune if it jumped up and bit them in the face.

At risk is everyone in this region and beyond.

With Iran’s nuclear file on the point of going before the UN Security Council with all that may mean, US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton is living up to his rambunctious reputation.

On Sunday, Bolton told members of the pro-Israel lobby, AIPAC, that Iran would suffer “tangible and painful consequences” if it didn’t abide by its responsibilities under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

There’s just one problem. While the US and its European allies are demanding Iran’s compliance, the American president has himself flouted the terms of the NPT by offering nuclear technology to nuclear-armed India, which is not a signatory.

On the other hand, Iran has abided by the treaty, chapter and verse, and there is as yet no smoking gun to indicate it is pursuing a nuclear weapons program. George Bush makes no apology for this glaring double standard other than to point out that India is a democracy, which presumably means it should be trusted.

The same argument is frequently used when American politicians defend Israel’s covert nuclear activities. Conversely, Pakistan, a military state, which is a close US ally, has been denied a similar courtesy under the pretext it is not a democracy.

However, America’s hallowed democracy standard does not apply to Hamas, which was fairly elected to govern the Palestinian people. If the US has its way, Hamas is to be starved out of office.

So, the message from the US is clear: If you’re our friend, you can throw away as many treaties as you like and sideline international law. But if you’re not, then those same treaties and laws will be used as platforms from which we will batter you over the head and persuade our allies to do the same.

This biased and self-serving US foreign policy is naturally causing resentment among disfavored nations and their peoples. As long as they feel excluded, marginalized and demonized, then those countries will naturally morph into breeding grounds for angry extremists.

Moreover, those countries which haven’t been accepted into the fold are forging close alliances not only with each but also with big powers, such as China and Russia, a trend that could one day threaten US security.

A case in point is the new Latin American left, led by the firebrand Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, which terms itself “the Axis of Good.”

Venezuela, Cuba and Bolivia have teamed up against what they view as US neo-imperialism and are fast trying to bring Argentina and Brazil on their side.

In the meantime, Hamas leaders have been offered the Venezuelan presidential jet to tour the new “Axis,” while the bloc is currently cozying up to Iran.

In short, while the superpower may be able to dominate less powerful nations with the threat of its military firepower and economic clout, once those nations band together in the face of a perceived common enemy, then America will lose its current influence. It was no doubt with this in mind that George W. Bush set out to woo India before it embarked on a honeymoon with China and Iran; certainly a masterful move from the American point of view.

Returning to the subject of Iran, the next weeks will be crucial. Questions revolve around what the UN Security Council will decide. It is generally thought that sanctions aren’t a workable option, mainly because China and Russia are unlikely to stick to them and also because Iran has threatened to withdraw its oil from the market and close the Strait of Hormuz in retaliation.

Worse, if Iran feels it is truly under siege, it would have little incentive to abide by the NPT and may even accelerate uranium enrichment.

If sanctions aren’t feasible, there is always a military option just as there was with Iraq. But the state of the global party is very different from that of 2003.

America’s ability to cobble together another willing coalition, given the loss of life and treasure that the Iraq misadventure entailed, would be a major feat in itself. Indeed, America’s closest ally, Britain, has already made noises to the effect it won’t be joining.

Could the US go it alone and take on Iran? The respected Democrat Sen. John Murtha, an ex-Marine, doesn’t think so.

Speaking on last Sunday’s CBS program “Face the Nation” concerning a military option vis-à-vis Iran, Murtha said, “ . . . we have a situation where our military’s in such bad shape it couldn’t deploy to a second front. And the Iranians know this. This is not something I’m telling the Iranians. North Korea knows it, China knows it. We are depleting our resources in Iraq . . ."

Sanctions won’t work. A military option doesn’t appear feasible. So what’s left? Gen. Clark has the answer. This sensitive situation doesn’t require bluster and empty threats. We need to see Ahmadinejad taking tea in the Rose Garden or Bush garnering the courage and the statesmanship to topple a dividing wall rather than erect one so high it can never be breached. At least not in our lifetimes.