Go Read It: Hillary's "Obliterate Iran" Remark and the Overseas Response

Maybe the one big piece of news that came out of the otherwise content-free ABC News debate was Clinton's stance on the "what-if?" situation where Iran uses nuclear arms to attack Israel. Clinton spoke about maintaining an "umbrella of deterrence" and that the U.S., under her lead, would "obliterate Iran"--with nuclear weapons, if need be--to protect our ally Israel.

It wasn't a mistake, she said it again when interviewed a few days later.

Contrast this with Governor Bill Richardson's more reasoned comments on Iran:

Clinton's remark disappeared into the ether, we were all so rightly annoyed at the overall vapidity of George Stuffin'envelopes and Chuck Gibson's moderation of that so-called debate.

But the international press certainly sat up and noticed--go read it here.

Clinton's comment didn't just vanish without consequences overseas. Around the world, people are wondering who and what will replace Bush.

Domestically, apparently enough people in Pennsylvania weren't bothered by the remark to change their vote to Obama or stay at home. Clinton has already voted in favor of Kyl-Lieberman, which designated the entire Iranian army, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, a "terrorist organization." And we know that Kyl-Lieberman, while non-binding, is an open door to Bush's oft-repeated threat to invade Iran next.

I know it can seem exotic and farfetched to be concerned about foreign policy when worries staring you right in the face demand your attention: skyrocketing food prices. An economy that's losing jobs and slowing by the minute. You worry about meeting your monthly nut, or your 401k shrinking due to a weak stock market. Isn't that all the more reason to hold the line against overseas entanglements and another costly military excursion as the first fallback?

Because crazy talk about "Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction in Iraq" is what led us down this sorry path we're currently on. Do we really need a president who'll speak irresponsibly about "obliterating" another country--before even preventative diplomacy or other multilateral tactics to safeguard the region have been applied? Has Clinton read the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) report on Iran and whether or not it even has nuclear weapons capability? We know she admitted she didn't read the NIE reports on Iraq before voting.

These comments might be useful to pander to one segment of the electorate in a given moment, but they reverberate around the world and we've already shown that as a nation, the U.S. has gone off on a 7-year long half-baked mission in Iraq that is by all accounts a mess. So why should we be trusted when we sabre-rattle again?

Some have tried to explain away Clinton's comments as "pandering to the pro-Israel vote." That's too easy. If she's saying anything and everything to get votes, including things that seem opposite of what she's said before, exactly what does she stand for? If she really means it, what kind of a foreign policy are we going to have once she's inaugurated? We're already fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq--are we supposed to squeeze in this Iran debacle on Mondays, Wednesdays, and every other Friday?

This schizophrenic Hillary Clinton worries me. The warm and enticing domestic policy for the crowd at home, and the menacing, beyond hawkish positions she's staked out to convince the home team she's as tough as the guys and to sabre-rattle a little in the international arena.

We need fixes in our domestic economy, and a calm, rational approach to foreign policy. Not someone who'll create more messes with rash, imprudent language or undermine her own credibility with ill-thought out statements that alarm our allies and make us less safe abroad and at home. We cannot afford to fight on three fronts. We can barely afford to fight in Iraq as it stands.

(Syria has recently popped up as a hotspot--is this an invasion of Iran by the back door? An unpleasant "October surprise" left by Shrubya for the next occupant of the White House? ArmsControlWonk.com has the full text of the briefing on Syria's construction of a nuclear reactor here; Obama and Clinton have both clammed up on foreign policy statements for now, it seems.)

Cynematic's personal blog is P i l l o w b o o k.

Comments

[John J.]

I don't really have a problem with Clinton, or anyone else, saying that if Iran launched a nuclear attack that we would respond in kind. One of the greatest deterrents of nuclear war, and what in part kept us out of war with the USSR, is the threat of mutually assured destruction. Now, that is also a major risk of such threats, as we had several times come very close to launching an attack, but it has its place.

The issue with her response to that, and her more recent statements, is that she is willing to threaten such an attack over most threats between any countries in the Middle East. This sticks our nose right in the middle of all regional politics there. Iraq was idiotic enough, do we really need to get in the middle of a Syria/Lebanon dispute? Jordan/Iraq? Threats like this is exactly how World War I got started and escalated to the level it did. This is why the League of Nations and more recently the UN were created.

[cynematic]

John J., I agree--the "umbrella of deterrence" involves a whole lot of other countries we'd be taking up arms for against the hypothetical Iranian attack. This is the part that seems rash and ill-advised to me, and makes me nervous.

[Jozet at Halushki]

Honestly, I don't see the difference between this and Obama's threats to go into Pakistan against the will of its government to "kill" terrorists. Will that be before or after the trial? Or do those morals not count in other countries? Of course, that comment was explained away also, again with "it's not what he meant." So, my choice is one candidate who can't be articulate enough to be understood on first pass without having to be be handed Cliff's Notes to his speeches, and another who is equally sloppy in her diction.

I think that they are both scary-talking saber-rattlers when they need to be. I think both are politicians in the not-so-nice meaning of the word as well as in the best connotation.

Both are talking about opening up yet one more battlefield.

Mostly, I think both are tired and I think that we'll hear and see more schizophrenic misspeaks and pandering from both.

[John J.]

There is a major difference between going after terrorists who are direct threats to us, as we did in January, and threatening an entire nation with a nuclear holocaust due to an international dispute.

Also, the Pakistan issue is already an open battlefield. We (or at least NATO) are already fighting Al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters along the Afghanistan/Pakistan border. It isn't starting a war with Pakistan, it is taking out (I would personally prefer capturing and putting on trial, but take what you can get) a direct threat to us.

I think Obama meant exactly what he said in that - he will go after bin Laden no matter which country he is hiding in. I believe (IANAL) we would be within our international legal rights to do so (unlike Iraq...).

[cynematic]

Jozet,
I'm not excited about Obama potentially going after al Qaeda in Pakistan either, but on Pakistan, at least, both he and Clinton seem essentially in agreement that they would pursue bin Laden if 1) they had "actionable evidence" and 2) if Musharref did nothing. And this pursuit of bin Laden is in the name of bringing him to account for 9/11.

Obviously, current events are changing as we speak; I'm taking what I understand of Clinton and Obama's positions from this source: http://www.cfr.org/publication/15148/candidates_on_uspakistan_policy.html

But to get embroiled in Iran and its *hypothetical* moves against another middle eastern country nation is to be a little too cozy with Bush (and John "Bomb Bomb Iran" McCain's, for that matter) hawkish goals.

It's not even clear to me that Iran has nuclear arms--have we just decided to pass over the flimsy excuse this time and go right to invasion/occupation? If so, yikes. And if so, we won't need Victory Gardens, we'll need undergound bomb shelters.

[Gunfighter]

Excuse me... but aren't we forgetting that Israel has it's own nuclear arsenal that is more than capable of "Obliterating Iran"?