Nuke, Nuke, Nuke, Nuke Nuke Iran?

In an interview with ABC News, Hillary Clinton said "In the next ten years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them." But then Howard Wolfson told Ben Smith that neither this talk of total obliteration nor her talk during the debate about "massive retaliation" should be understood as threats to use nuclear weapons. But then she went on Olberman later and said we should "make it very clear to the Iranians that they would be risking massive retaliation were they to launch a nuclear attack on Israel."

John Aravosis is confused and so am I. If these aren't threats to use nuclear weapons, then what are they? Massive retaliation has a pretty clear meaning in this context. And I still don't understand why Israel's own nuclear deterrent isn't looming larger in these conversations.

Comments

Hypersonic, bowel-loosening cackle weapon being developed by the Pentagon that will have all of Tehran soiling itself instantaneously?

Posted by norbizness | April 22, 2008 9:20 AM

They aren't threats of actual use of nuclear weapons. They are threats against Obama's electability, and a signal to super delegates that to the extent the Democrats rely on the support of wealthy Jews looking for clear signals on the Israel issue, an Obama candidacy is a problem.

Plus, this forces Obama to say something in response, and if his recent performances are any indication, he's going to fuck it up. He won't rule this out -- because he can't for the reasons I just said -- so it will look like he is going back on his diplomacy-before-war stance. To the extent he is more dovish, she will attack him -- for the reasons I just said.

Posted by dan | April 22, 2008 9:21 AM

It's also a dog whistle to all the self-appointed "grownups" that, yes, we can make this WW II all over again and win it in a spectacular mushroom cloud all over again.

Posted by elle loco | April 22, 2008 9:24 AM

If these aren't threats to use nuclear weapons, then what are they?

Oh, I don't know for sure, but I have some ideas:

1) Attempts to prove she has the biggest set of brass balls of any of the remaining candidates.

2) Attempts to force Obama to make similar statements, less he appear weak on defending Israel.

3) A last-minute attempt to lock up the white-male warmonger vote in PA.

Posted by Jake | April 22, 2008 9:26 AM

Obama can be more dovish than Clinton or McCain when both Clinton and McCain take hawkish behavior to the extreme. A lot of voters are getting tired of all this constant talk of bombing the shit out of other countries.

And since Obama has massive financial resources available to him through his small voter fundraising machine, a high level of support from wealthy jews are less of an issue for his candidacy.

Posted by Helter | April 22, 2008 9:28 AM

Israel only has a 100 or so nuclear weapons. Nothing to sneeze at but still not really enough to make Iran uninhabitable for next few centuries.

On a more serious note, isn't Israel's official position that it doesn't acknowledge it's nuclear weapons? That means if American politicians openly act as if they exist (which they do), that would make Israel's official stance kind of ridiculous.

Posted by MS | April 22, 2008 9:29 AM

And I still don't understand why Israel's own nuclear deterrent isn't looming larger in these conversations.

Um, why don't I believe that at all?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | April 22, 2008 9:29 AM

It's worth recalling Hillary's response in NH some time ago concerning what she thought about "cowboy diplomacy".

I believe she said she'd be a "cowgirl". Yup.

Posted by Jake | April 22, 2008 9:34 AM

MS:
Didn't some Israeli politician admit they existed 2 or 3 years ago(of course he retracted his statement a day or two later)?

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | April 22, 2008 9:34 AM

Well, I'm no great fan of Hillary's foreign policy, but this doesn't seem like the sort of stance which makes me too nervous.

After all, Iran *doesn't* have nuclear weapons and (according to our intelligence agencies) *isn't* trying to acquire them. And even if they had them, it's extraordinarily unlikely they'd launch a first-strike against Israel.

So Hillary's statement seems a little like saying that if Finland nuked Argentina, we'd retaliate with our own ICBMs. It's the sort of totally crazy and silly statement American politicians have to make because of our bizarre political landscape, but not all that "dangerous" compared to lots of other statements. For example, didn't Saint Barack say something crazy a while back about attacking Pakistan or something?

Also, to the extent that it dramatically undercuts the argument for a crazy American attack on Iran to destroy their fictional nuclear weapons program, it actually serves a very helpful purpose.

Posted by RKU | April 22, 2008 9:37 AM

A highly subsidized 51st state that does not pay taxes and cannot honestly be discussed.

Posted by antisemiteforsaying | April 22, 2008 9:39 AM

Don't forget that in her world, this security umbrella isn't limited to Israel.

Posted by 55 | April 22, 2008 9:40 AM

Bala Cynwyd and Squirrel Hill must be polling badly for her to make such a statement.

Posted by Davis X. Machina | April 22, 2008 9:42 AM

It depends on what your definition of "obliterate" is.

Posted by 55 | April 22, 2008 9:43 AM

I'm struggling to find a reason to be confused or outraged here. We obliterated Iraq without benefit of nuclear weapons, didn't we?

Has the debacle leading up to, and in, Iraq made those of us on the left a little gun-shy? Of course Israel should and can take primary responsibility for its own defense, and its nuclear capability plays a big role in that. And there's every reason to believe Iran knows this (the neocon theory that they are undeterrable is nonsense). So I can't imagine we, the US, will ever really have to respond to an Iranian attack on Israel because (a) Iran won't attack Israel, and (b) if they do, Israel will obliterate them. But there's certainly no harm in us piping up and saying we'll pitch in if necessary.

Completely merging US and Israeli defense priorities is a big concern and like Matt, I dislike attempts to do so among the chickenhawks of the right. But we were right to respond to Iraq's attack on Kuwait, and we'd be more right to respond vigorously to an Iranian attack on Israel.

Posted by The Puzzled Ibex | April 22, 2008 9:44 AM

I believe President Ahmadinejad also told reporters that his talk of total obliteration should not be understood as a threat to use nuclear weapons.

The key difference is that Clinton really was making a threat to use actual nuclear weapons in retaliation for an attack on Israel. Ahmadinejad, whose country does not have nuclear weapons, was talking out of his ass.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | April 22, 2008 9:48 AM

It's the sort of totally crazy and silly statement American politicians have to make because of our bizarre political landscape,

Are you kidding me? "[S]ort of totally crazy and silly statement," but not anything to worry about, apparently. Fortunately, it's a very stable region.

Jeebus. Does that mean Bush gets a pass on everything short of "I will nuke the fuck out of you"? I think that's got to include "axis of evil." And pretty much anything else he might have said.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | April 22, 2008 9:48 AM

Re MS

The number of nuclear devices that Israel possesses is very uncertain. Two or three years ago, the DIA estimated 82. Mordecai Vanunu, the former Dimona employee estimates 200. Critic of Israels' nuclear arsenal, John Steinbach estimates up to 600. However, it should be pointed out that it is believed that many of these devices have been designed as low yield weapons (

Posted by SLC | April 22, 2008 9:53 AM

Matt:

When you previously wrote about this you said, I quote "I have no objection." Today, when it comes from Hillary, you do have an objection?

Why do you object now when you did not object BEFORE
it came from Hillary?

Posted by Armando | April 22, 2008 9:53 AM

"Why do you object now when you did not object BEFORE
it came from Hillary?"

You have to ask?

Posted by Petey | April 22, 2008 9:59 AM

She said she'd nuke em on KO. I wonder how Russia would respond.

Posted by Jay | April 22, 2008 10:01 AM

After all, Iran *doesn't* have nuclear weapons and (according to our intelligence agencies) *isn't* trying to acquire them. And even if they had them, it's extraordinarily unlikely they'd launch a first-strike against Israel.

You left out the biggest reason to not be nervous: There's absolutely no chance that Hillary will be the next President anyway.

Posted by Seitz | April 22, 2008 10:01 AM

I'm particularly worried about her statement that some think Iran is a martyr state and MAD wouldn't work against them; she doesn't, but we "have to test it."
No, that's not something we want to test. Find some other tools to start with, like diplomacy. And stop acting like the only thing we see in Iran is a nuclear capability or lack thereof.

MAD worked in the cold war, but it was damn high stakes--I was growing up then. It's not the first place I'd look for a cool new foreign policy. Further, that was against the Soviet Union--a global power with a return address. What we face now is much more analogous to the anarchists of the turn of the last century.

Yeah, let's play high-stakes poker with Iran, trusting Russia and China (which do have nukes) to let us have our playground on top of most of the world's oil--I don't see how anything could go wrong with that.

Did she ever criticize McCain for his "bomb bomb Iran" joke, which at least everyone recognized as a joke?

Posted by Deborah | April 22, 2008 10:05 AM

Are you kidding me? "[S]ort of totally crazy and silly statement," but not anything to worry about, apparently.

Well, partly it's a matter of context. Bush is a dumb former drunk and McCain is "erratic" and perhaps a little senile. Both are also totally controlled by the crazy neocons. So when they say things like this it makes me nervous.

On the other hand, Hillary seems a totally calculating politician and certainly smart enough to realize the disastrous consequences from starting another war (just see what it did to Bush!). Her advisers may be a bit more neoconish than Barack's, but I doubt they'd be able to pull her strings as easily as they did Bush's.

Anyway, she's saying that if some other country launched a nuclear first-strike we'd retaliate, which really isn't all that far from traditional American policy.

And it looks like Armando may have totally nailed poor, hackish Matt!

Posted by RKU | April 22, 2008 10:05 AM

Sorry about the tags. Second part was my addition.

Posted by Seitz | April 22, 2008 10:07 AM

She also said on Olbermann:

[T]heir use of nuclear weapons against Israel would provoke a nuclear response from the United States . . .

I think that's pretty unequivocal.

Posted by southpaw | April 22, 2008 10:08 AM

The Israeli politician who let his tongue slip was the current Prime Minister.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/799736.html

Posted by Ehud the Silent | April 22, 2008 10:11 AM

Threatening a nuclear attack on a nation presently without nuclear weapons (and which is apparently not trying to get them), on the hypothetical supposition that they might get nuclear weapons sometime and use them against the only state in the Middle East that actually does have them, strikes me as loopily unrealistic and inflammatory.

I can't take any comfort in the silliness of it. This lady making crazy threats is auditioning to get her finger on the nuclear button.

Posted by John Emerson | April 22, 2008 10:14 AM

On the other hand, Hillary seems a totally calculating politician and certainly smart enough to realize the disastrous consequences from starting another war (just see what it did to Bush!). Her advisers may be a bit more neoconish than Barack's, but I doubt they'd be able to pull her strings as easily as they did Bush's.

Oh, that makes total sense. To simplify a bit: "When she says stuff I like, she's telling the truth. When she says stuff I don't like, she's just playing politics and won't actually do anything like that." I can't decide if that's depressing because it's cynical beyond belief or because it's cringe-inducingly naive.

Anyway, she's saying that if some other country launched a nuclear first-strike we'd retaliate, which really isn't all that far from traditional American policy.

What the fuck are you talking about? You're saying that it's explicit US policy that we will retaliate in the case of any first strike against any other country? Our new policy is that we have a security agreement with everyone else in the world? Gawd, the ease with which you accept that is terrifying.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | April 22, 2008 10:18 AM

Not discussed yet is the question of how many nations she plans to bring under the American nuclear umbrella. A rather important question. It's starting to look as though Hillary won't be much better than McCain on international affairs.

Posted by John Emerson | April 22, 2008 10:18 AM

She's just trying to get more Jewish votes. Obama isn't as popular with Jewish voters for a variety of reasons (allegations of being crypto-Muslim, statements that he'd talk to Iran, opposition to the Iraq war0 and so Clinton is trying to exploit her comparative advantage.

Posted by hass | April 22, 2008 10:18 AM

As much as I dislike Hillary, I think this is still just campaign chest beating and cage rattling. She's trying to look tough. No big deal.

If you want to be scared, look at McCain's views on a nuclear armed Iran. We could end up in a nuclear war without the Iranians having even fired the first shot or even confirmation that they have a nuclear weapon. (At least it won't be a "nucular" weapon.) He's already supported, and continues to loudly support, one preemptive war so there's a precedence to believe he'd do it again.

Posted by LFC | April 22, 2008 10:19 AM

By the way, if we can nuke Iran for attacking Israel, can't Iran claim a right to nuke Israel for attacking Lebanon - again?

Or is there some law that says we and Israel can go around attacking whomever we want?

Posted by hass | April 22, 2008 10:22 AM

"That means if American politicians openly act as if they exist (which they do), that would make Israel's official stance kind of ridiculous.
Posted by MS | April 22, 2008 9:29 AM "

It's a concealment that's meant to be seen through, it's probably as ridiculous as it's going to get.

Posted by aleks | April 22, 2008 10:25 AM

John Emerson writes:

"Threatening a nuclear attack on a nation presently without nuclear weapons (and which is apparently not trying to get them), on the hypothetical supposition that they might get nuclear weapons sometime and use them against the only state in the Middle East that actually does have them, strikes me as loopily unrealistic and inflammatory."

As I read John's comment, it is premised on the belief that Iran is not trying to develop nuclear weapons and is highly unlikely to seek to develop nuclear weapons.

Given Iran's involvement with AQ Khan, I find Emerson's belief to be rather "loopily unrealistic."

To understand the attacking Iran preemptively is madness is not to say that Iran is some good citizen in the world who is not seeking and will never seek nuclear weapons.

To call application of deterrence theory, as opposed to the Neocon Bush Doctrine of preemptive war, loopily unrealistc" strikes me as unintelligent, kneejerk and stupid.

Posted by Armando | April 22, 2008 10:25 AM

If she ever becomes President it is not only same old politics domestically but internationally. How does her statements of the past few days help bridge relationships with the world?

Posted by Afewtoughts | April 22, 2008 10:32 AM

This is the third time Matt has asked this samequestion. The answer was in the Washington Post article he linked to the first time he brought this topic up.

So for the third time. Israel's nukes are land based which can be wiped out in a first strike. Israel has a few subs that are capable of a second strike but no one knows if they have nukes on them or how many if any are on them.

Posted by Dave | April 22, 2008 10:33 AM

I wish that for the phrase "totally obliterate Iran" Hillary and other politicians would substitute "ensure that millions of Iranian men, women and children die a horrible, agonizing death." It would make the issues at stake a little more clear.

Posted by William Burns | April 22, 2008 10:34 AM

Ehud the Silent:
Thank you!!

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | April 22, 2008 10:38 AM

To call application of deterrence theory, as opposed to the Neocon Bush Doctrine of preemptive war, loopily unrealistc" strikes me as unintelligent, kneejerk and stupid.

But Armando, don't you know that the ever man in the Iranian leadership is insane, totally irrational, and is praying for death to collect on their 72 virgins? That's why MAD won't work. Their goal is to die.

Gee, how could anybody consider that view "loopily unrealistic". After all, the neo-cons have been soooooo correct about sooooooo much in that region in the past 5 years, right?

(Keywords: greeted as liberators, mission accomplished, turned a corner, last throes, surge is a success)

Posted by LFC | April 22, 2008 10:41 AM

Israel only has a 100 or so nuclear weapons. Nothing to sneeze at but still not really enough to make Iran uninhabitable for next few centuries.

I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh, depending on the breaks.

Posted by Buck | April 22, 2008 10:43 AM

Israel only has a 100 or so nuclear weapons. Nothing to sneeze at but still not really enough to make Iran uninhabitable for next few centuries.

MS
**********************************************

The widely accepted estimate of Israel's nuke stockpile is 200 nukes---more than double the amount necessary to make all of mesopotamia uninhabitable.

Additionally, Israel recently acquired two Dolphin class submarines which have first strike capability. Iran has no deep water navy and as such is powerless against these subs. Israel has a more than ample deterrent and statements like this from Hillary "Krauthammer-Cheney" Clinton are just one more reason why Obama is the only Democrat left in this race.

Posted by jimmy | April 22, 2008 10:46 AM

Israel only has a 100 or so nuclear weapons. Nothing to sneeze at but still not really enough to make Iran uninhabitable for next few centuries.

MS
**********************************************

The widely accepted estimate of Israel's nuke stockpile is 200 nukes---more than double the amount necessary to make all of mesopotamia uninhabitable.

Additionally, Israel recently acquired two Dolphin class submarines which have first strike capability. Iran has no deep water navy and as such is powerless against these subs. Israel has a more than ample deterrent and statements like this from Hillary "Krauthammer-Cheney" Clinton are just one more reason why Obama is the only Democrat left in this race.

Posted by jimmy | April 22, 2008 10:47 AM

Let's set aside the possibility that Hillary may truly believe in the protection of Israel.

The Democratic Party stands in some danger of losing a sizeable share of the Jewish vote. Too many Democrats say too many kind things about Palestinians. Hillary knows we--the Democratic Party--need to increase our "street cred" with Jewish voters.

It's not always some plot. Some people do truly consider the over-all position of the Democratic Party, as Hillary has done throughout her career, and as, frankly, Obama has not.

Posted by John Petty | April 22, 2008 10:51 AM

As I read John's comment, it is premised on the belief that Iran is not trying to develop nuclear weapons and is highly unlikely to seek to develop nuclear weapons.

You need to brush up on your reading skills, Armando. That's not a premise of John's argument, it's a parenthetical statement offered in passing.

John's apparent argument is premised on the fact that Iran is not presently a declared or suspected nuclear power. They do not have nuclear weapons right now. So issuing retaliatory threat based on what they might do with nuclear weapons they do not have is grossly premature. In fact, that's precisely the sort of inflammatory provocation that kneecaps diplomatic efforts to prevent Iran from joining the nuclear club.

Posted by southpaw | April 22, 2008 10:54 AM

These TalkLeft muppets are funny. There is nothing inconsistent about agreeing that the U.S. deterrent should cover Israel and having a sitting U.S. Senator and prospective President threatening states with "obliteration". If she was truly interested in detering an attack, she would not be preemptively poisoning diplomacy, which is the only way to truly have peace.

If Armando wants to be so stupid as to follow Clinton to war, be my guest. But it also should be noted that MY was only approving of an Isreal umbrella. I want to see someone give me a reason why any other regime in the Middle East.

Posted by Bubba | April 22, 2008 10:54 AM

Israel only has a 100 or so nuclear weapons. Nothing to sneeze at but still not really enough to make Iran uninhabitable for next few centuries.

This is really a pernicious statement if it was meant seriously (I can never tell). It's been estimated by weapons experts that 50 nuclear bombs would essentially end the United States.* True, I suppose central North America wouldn't be completely uninhabitable after such a holocaust. But even one nuclear bombing would be past bearing.

==
* Arsenals of Folly, Richard Rhodes, pp.122-123. How about that, a book meme comes in handy.

Posted by Thomas Nephew | April 22, 2008 11:00 AM

Armando, it strikes me as inflammatory and silly to volunteer a threat of nuclear retaliation based on a hypothetical, unlikely case that might possibly happen sometime. The most recent reports are that Iran's nuclear program is nowhere and going nowhere. Even if Hillary got two terms, it would be very difficult to have a nuiclear capacity by the end of her second term. Hillary was just putting out hot air in a way should assure us that she's not going to be good on war and peace issues. And "totally obliterate Iran" is genocidal talk.

On top of which, as I said, there is one actual nuclear power in the area, Israel, which is defending itself against non-nuclear powers.

And Hillary also retailed the idea that Iran is undeterrable. There's no evidence for this and lots of contrary evidence, and it's a standard wingnut assumption.

As much as I dislike Hillary, I think this is still just campaign chest beating and cage rattling. She's trying to look tough. No big deal.

She's sending a definite message. It's not a definite plan, but it means something. SHe's going to try to beat Obama by outhawking him, and if Obama beats her she might undercut him. If she wins she's match McCain on the hawkery and then try to beat him on domestic issues, and everyone who voted Deomocratic because anti-war feeling, and every anti-war Democrat, will be left holding the bag. That's the message.

Posted by John Emerson | April 22, 2008 11:02 AM

Why don't we just make Israel the 51st state? That would give us an opportunity to really dig into the problems they've got over there. Consider the benefits:

- Our nuclear guarantees would then be implied, and Hillary Clinton wouldn't have to go on tv to make inflammatory threats.

- We'd have a chance to try out our top notch immigration policies on a much thornier problem.

- We'd have a much more obvious case for invading and occupying other middle east states (which, prior to Israel joining the Union, really didn't threaten our security).

- Great beaches

What do you guys think? Any takers?

Posted by southpaw | April 22, 2008 11:05 AM

Israel only has a 100 or so nuclear weapons. Nothing to sneeze at but still not really enough to make Iran uninhabitable for next few centuries.

This is really a pernicious statement if it was meant seriously (I can never tell). It's been estimated by weapons experts that 50 nuclear bombs would essentially end the United States.* True, I suppose central North America wouldn't be completely uninhabitable after such a holocaust. But even one nuclear bombing would be past bearing.

==
* Arsenals of Folly, Richard Rhodes, pp.122-123. How about that, a book meme comes in handy.

Posted by Thomas Nephew | April 22, 2008 11:06 AM

John Emerson:

As I understand your answer, the policy itself does not strike you as loopy, but the timing strikes you as loopy because the possibility of Iran nuking Israel is hypothetical and unlikely.

Perhaps so, but I think what is not hypothetical or unlikely is the Neocon Bush argument that, in your words, "Iran is undeterrable," and thus we ned a PREEMPTIVE war to make sure Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons.

You must take into account the politics of the policy.

To beat back the Bush Doctrine and the Neocon philosophy of a McCain, you must present a realistic and credible policy for the perceived problem.

That is what the Clinton deterrence proposal does. you can beat back the Neocon dreams of preemptive war in Iran with a credible alternative that ALSO make good policy sense.

"give peace a chance" ain't a winning issue, politically or policywise.

Posted by Armando | April 22, 2008 11:07 AM

The Democratic Party stands in some danger of losing a sizeable share of the Jewish vote.

We're doing fine with the Jewish-American vote. IIRC, they vote Democratic at a greater frequency than anyone save African-Americans. And dollars to doughnuts says that, for the most part, the Jewish voters that need reassurance on Israel are--like much of the rest of HRC's vote coalition--old. There aren't going to be that many elections left in which they can leak to the Republican party.

some people do truly consider the over-all position of the Democratic Party

Setting aside whether there is any reason to believe HRC is doing that, the issue is whether she's doing--yet again--a surprisingly shitty job of it.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | April 22, 2008 11:10 AM

John Emerson:

As I understand your answer, the policy itself does not strike you as loopy, but the timing strikes you as loopy because the possibility of Iran nuking Israel is hypothetical and unlikely.

Perhaps so, but I think what is not hypothetical or unlikely is the Neocon Bush argument that, in your words, "Iran is undeterrable," and thus we ned a PREEMPTIVE war to make sure Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons.

You must take into account the politics of the policy.

To beat back the Bush Doctrine and the Neocon philosophy of a McCain, you must present a realistic and credible policy for the perceived problem.

That is what the Clinton deterrence proposal does. you can beat back the Neocon dreams of preemptive war in Iran with a credible alternative that ALSO make good policy sense.

"give peace a chance" ain't a winning issue, politically or policywise.

Posted by Armando | April 22, 2008 11:10 AM

John Aravosis is confused and so am I. If these aren't threats to use nuclear weapons, then what are they?

BTW, not to get too much into the discussion of whether we should or should not protect Israel, but one other point to make is that Matthew's (and everyone else's) confusion is not necessarily a bad thing. In some cases, we value ambiguity - see, for example, our statements as regards Taiwan.

Now, I am not sure we shouldn't clarify our position towards Taiwan and Israel, for example. But Matthew should be aware that the ambiguity may be deliberate as a foreign policy (completely apart from as a campaign strategy).

Posted by Al | April 22, 2008 11:14 AM

I agree that "totally obliterate" is gutter language and surely false. But I have no problem with the idea that America would retaliate with nuclear weapons if Iran or any state ever does nuke Israel.

Of course none of this will ever happen; so I'm only really objecting to some insignificant campaign bluster from a candidate who has no chance of being elected president anyway.

Posted by Gary Sugar | April 22, 2008 11:17 AM

But Matthew should be aware that the ambiguity may be deliberate as a foreign policy (completely apart from as a campaign strategy).

HRC seems intent on reducing the ambiguity. Nobody thought Iran would get a pass if they nuked Israel.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | April 22, 2008 11:17 AM

Man, this whole thread is like poly sci in junior high.

One adult in the comments trying to guide the conversation up a few levels.

Embarrassing.

Posted by new and improved | April 22, 2008 11:19 AM

She's lost her mind. This isn't simply irresponsible - it's insanely bad policy. Wake up, America - this woman is a Republican in sheep's clothing.

Posted by Bishop | April 22, 2008 11:20 AM

Shorter Armando: How do you beat a neocon? Be even more of one.

What is with this false dichotomy that people have been presenting the past few days? There are other alternatives to being complete doves than "obliterate them."

Posted by 55 | April 22, 2008 11:21 AM

Man, this whole thread is like poly sci in junior high.

One adult in the comments trying to guide the conversation up a few levels.

Embarrassing.

Posted by new and improved | April 22, 2008 11:23 AM

Disney (parent of ABC) must be punished for that silly debate otherwise the US will go to war again. If you embrace silliness, silly alternatives start looking realistic.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | April 22, 2008 11:25 AM

Al, the only source of confusion is that Howard Wolfson is trying to walk back unequivocal statements by the candidate.

Posted by southpaw | April 22, 2008 11:27 AM

Dr. Strangelove? Dave

Posted by Dave | April 22, 2008 11:28 AM

I think the idea was to create a real, impending, scary foreign policy crisis in people's heads, so that her commander-in-chief threshold argument can take hold.

She already lost to Obama on the actual foreign policy crisis facing this nation (Iraq), so she's ginning up another one that she can win.

Unfortunately, I am not what demographic she's targeting. Are there tons of ultra right wing Jews that vote Democratic?

Posted by neilrlca | April 22, 2008 11:30 AM

Israel has to pretend not to have nukes, and the U.S. has to pretend to believe them, because otherwise American aid to Israel would be restricted by our own laws.

If a presidential candidate were asked about Israel's nukes, I expect he/she would double talk around it.

A disarming first strike would require sophisticated bunker-busting weapons, and knowledge of where Israel's weapons are located. I doubt the Iranians will be able to do it soon, or ever.

Posted by David Tomlin | April 22, 2008 11:32 AM

She's lost her mind. This isn't simply irresponsible - it's insanely bad policy. Wake up, America - this woman is a Republican in sheep's clothing.

Posted by Bishop | April 22, 2008 11:33 AM

Israel has to pretend not to have nukes, and the U.S. government has to pretend to believe them, because otherwise American aid to Israel would be restricted by our own laws.

If a presidential candidate were asked about Israel's nukes, I expect he/she would double talk around it.

A disarming first strike would require sophisticated bunker-busting weapons, and knowledge of where Israel's weapons are located. I doubt the Iranians will be able to do it soon, or ever.

Posted by David Tomlin | April 22, 2008 11:35 AM

I don't think the policy Clinton is outlining is unreasonable -- I just don't understand why Howard Wolfson is denying that that's the policy she's outlining.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | April 22, 2008 11:46 AM

Thanks Matt. I appreciate that.

I agree that Wolfson's denial is bizarre.

Posted by Armando | April 22, 2008 11:48 AM

Deterrence is good.

But doing it on ABC News is simply Bush-league.

Posted by Bill White | April 22, 2008 11:54 AM

I don't think the policy Clinton is outlining is unreasonable -- I just don't understand why Howard Wolfson is denying that that's the policy she's outlining.

Agreed, IF communicated quietly rather than on ABC News.

AND, if done in a way not to minimize the perception of Israel's ability to obliterate Iran without our assistance. (Do not dilute the perception that Israel can defend itself quite well, thank you)

AND, if top aides don't muddy the message.

Using ABC News and Olbermann as the venue for establishing a perfectly legitimate policy of deterrence needlessly erodes our soft power in the Middle East.

Now, a question. May POTUS unilaterally extend our nuclear umbrella over Israel (or even Saudi Arabia) or do we need Congressional approval or at least Senate ratification of a treaty?

Posted by Bill White | April 22, 2008 12:02 PM

I don't think the policy Clinton is outlining is unreasonable -- I just don't understand why Howard Wolfson is denying that that's the policy she's outlining.

I'd agree that there's a rational argument to be made on behalf of Clinton's arguments. But when you consider that she's proposing extending the US nuclear umbrella not just to Israel but to essentially all of the Sunni nations in the middle east, I think you have to concede that such an argument is premised on a fairly imperial conception of American interests. It's an argument I'd expect Matt (and most Democrats, along with paleoconservatives) to oppose, and that's why I think Wolfson's trying to backpedal and sow confusion.

Posted by southpaw | April 22, 2008 12:03 PM

It is a theory that some people have been looking at because there is a fear that if Iran, which I hope we can prevent, becoming a nuclear power, but if they were to become one some people worry that they are not deterrable, that they somehow have a different mindset and a worldview that might very well lead the leadership to be willing to become martyrs.

I don’t buy that but I think we have to test it and one of the ways of testing it is to make it very clear that we are not going to permit them, if we can prevent them, from becoming a nuclear power.

I don't get paragraph 2 at all. The way to find out if Iran is deterrable is to try to deter tham and see if they attack Israel anyway? Scientifically that makes operationalist sense, but not as policy. She doesn't say that Iran is undeterrable, but she takes the possibility seriously enough to want to run a little test, and if Israel is attacked with weapons Iran doesn't have, then we will know that they really are undeterrable?

It sounds like she was floating a scare tactic in a mushy, somewhat deniable way, outhawking Obama, and giving herself a free hand militarily if she's ever elected. Obviously she's not going for myy vote and doesn't care what I think.

She also was not clear about how many countries would come under the US umbrella. She didn't specify Israel, the country which would need it least in any case.

Posted by John Emerson | April 22, 2008 12:06 PM

Re Thomas Nephew

"This is really a pernicious statement if it was meant seriously (I can never tell). It's been estimated by weapons experts that 50 nuclear bombs would essentially end the United States.*"

This statement is heavily dependent on the yield of the bombs being set off. If we are talking about Hiroshima sized fission bombs, this statement is grossly exaggerated. If we are talking about 50 hydrogen fusion bombs of the order of 1 megaton or more each, then the statement is accurate.

Posted by SLC | April 22, 2008 12:13 PM

Yes, I mostly agree with Armando's comments above (though I really doubt Iran is currently pursuing nukes), and it now appears that Matt does as well!

I think this whole issue is just a tempest in teapot. Let's suppose that back in 1987, the old Soviet Union had launched a sudden, massive nuclear first strike, totally annihilating Israel (or Egypt or any other major country generally friendly with the U.S.). Does anyone really think that simply the lack of a "mutual-defense" treaty would have meant the U.S. might not have possibly responded in an extremely harsh and comparable fashion?

There's a gigantic difference between candidates "showing they're tough" by threatening massive retaliation and candidates doing the same thing by threatening massive, unprovoked first-strikes.

The difference is world war and world peace.

Put another way, I'll bet that if Saint Obama had said exactly the same thing, 85% of the commenters would be praising his words to the sky as the "sensible middle ground" between McGovern and McCain.

Posted by RKU | April 22, 2008 12:27 PM

She's decided that the way to beat Obama is to look exactly like McCain (except for the male part). Gas tax holiday, then this, not to mention the smears...

Posted by dbh | April 22, 2008 12:29 PM

If Iran had an active nuclear weapons program and the mullahs were actively threatening to nuke Israel as soon as possible, her declaration would make sense. However, doing this now is just odd. She's playing a really weird hypothetical game. Is she going to tomorrow talk about what she plans to do if Russia and China team up to nuke Mozambique and Venezuela and the day after that talk about how she will react if Taiwan invades Japan? This is just wingnut masturbation. Also, are working people in Pennsylvania really that obsessed with Israeli security? I could see being scared that if Iran starts up its nuclear weapons program again they hand it off to terrorists who set it off in a major American city, but Irish Catholics living in coal-mining towns aren't exactly the prime demographic of a "Left Behind" reader.

Posted by Reality Man | April 22, 2008 12:33 PM

"BTW, not to get too much into the discussion of whether we should or should not protect Israel, but one other point to make is that Matthew's (and everyone else's) confusion is not necessarily a bad thing. In some cases, we value ambiguity - see, for example, our statements as regards Taiwan.

Now, I am not sure we shouldn't clarify our position towards Taiwan and Israel, for example. But Matthew should be aware that the ambiguity may be deliberate as a foreign policy (completely apart from as a campaign strategy).

Posted by Al | April 22, 2008 11:14 AM"

Holy shit, I actually gained some intellectual respect for Al with this comment in the abstract. No more medicinal Chinese liquor for me!

Posted by Reality Man | April 22, 2008 12:38 PM

I'll bet that if Saint Obama had said exactly the same thing, 85% of the commenters would be praising his words to the sky as the "sensible middle ground" between McGovern and McCain.

I'll readily admit to being in the tank for Obama, but I don't think this is true. I'm not standing up for Obama's ridiculous position on vaccines and Autism, and I wouldn't be cheerleading for this either.

There would be benefits to extending mutual-defense protection to Israel. But I think the only way to do that without undermining other American interests is through the framework of NATO. The problem is that Israel can't join NATO until it has settled and universally recognized borders, which is obviously not going to happen any time soon. In the absence of NATO membership, there appear to be two ways to help secure Israel: (1) assist them in developing their own deterrent, and (2) extend our own nuclear guarantee.

As you say, everyone recognizes that a nuclear attack on any of our major allies would probably draw the US into the war. But it's a big deal to go from "probably" to "explicitly and certainly," and to do so in public. For one thing, it undermines our relationships with NATO allies. It undermines Taiwan. It hardens the Iranian position at a time we're trying to negotiate.

And the idea that we'd envelop the rest of the Sunni Middle East in our nuclear umbrella is both a bit pie-in-the-sky and also stunningly imperial. And again, the interaction of that policy with our other arrangements with allies is bound to be volatile and damaging.

Posted by southpaw | April 22, 2008 12:44 PM

What's at stake? The security of the Middle East? Then suppose that the only nation in the Middle East capable of launching a nuclear strike does so. Do we retaliate? No, of course not. This was an ugly fantasy exercise. But it may have worked for Hillary.

Posted by John Emerson | April 22, 2008 12:49 PM

"BTW, not to get too much into the discussion of whether we should or should not protect Israel, but one other point to make is that Matthew's (and everyone else's) confusion is not necessarily a bad thing. In some cases, we value ambiguity - see, for example, our statements as regards Taiwan.

Now, I am not sure we shouldn't clarify our position towards Taiwan and Israel, for example. But Matthew should be aware that the ambiguity may be deliberate as a foreign policy (completely apart from as a campaign strategy).

Posted by Al | April 22, 2008 11:14 AM"

Holy shit, I actually gained some intellectual respect for Al with this comment in the abstract. No more medicinal Chinese liquor for me!

Posted by Reality Man | April 22, 2008 12:56 PM

She's decided that the way to beat Obama is to look exactly like McCain (except for the male part). Gas tax holiday, then this, not to mention the smears...

Posted by dbh | April 22, 2008 1:02 PM

That's why I absolutely wouldn't vote for her in the general, should she manage to steal the nomination. If we're going to continue to have crazy Republican policies, then I want an actual Republican president to take the blame for the fallout (maybe literally in this instance...) Hillary would be the worst of both worlds, a nominal Democrat getting the party blamed for the results of Republican policies. (Fortunately, I don't think there's the remotest chance she'd beat McCain. How much would African-American turnout be depressed compared to 2004? 20%? Even more?)

Posted by Steve LaBonne | April 22, 2008 1:17 PM

To those who dismiss this nuclear talk as just Hillary trying to look tough -- well yes, it is a pose, but it shows us exactly why she really is a dangerous choice for president. The tough, aggressive, bullying demeanor hides a frightened, self-destructive human being with a chip on her shoulder. She consistently goes overboard in everything she does -- never recognizing where the line is. That is why the decisions she has made that required real thoughtful, insightful leadership, from healthcare to the Iraq War vote, to her presidential campaign have backfired. I imagine her reaction to a foreign policy crisis with Iran would be similarly stupid and miscalculated -- a la George W. Bush. She'd be focused on proving her cajones to a domestic audience and willfully blind to the longterm international consequences. These fear-mogering commercials and statements she is putting out should be a red flag to everyone about what's going on in that twisted head of hers.

Posted by donna L. | April 22, 2008 1:28 PM

I'll bet that if Saint Obama had said exactly the same thing, 85% of the commenters would be praising his words to the sky as the "sensible middle ground" between McGovern and McCain.

Actually, I think we had a perfect test of this hypothesis in this exact case right now.

Once Armando nailed poor Matt for having supported exactly this position up until Hillary Satanus said the same thing, poor Matt "clarified" his remarks to actually be a criticism of Howard Wolfson's confused statements. But then why was the headline of this posting "Nuke, Nuke, Nuke, Nuke, Nuke Iran" rather than "Wolfson is Confused"?

I suppose that 85% of all the commenters will now start denouncing Matt as some horribly deranged crazy warmonger...at least until Saint Obama says exactly the same thing, at which point Matt becomes "sensible" again.

Why bother visiting The Onion, when you get get much better political satire on poor Matt's blogsite...

Posted by RKU | April 22, 2008 1:28 PM

If Obama says something this stupid, then I might not vote for HIM, either. So far he's been relatively speaking a voice of sanity, though like all "serious" mainstream politicians he refuses to tell the truth about the unsustainability of the American empire and the crying need to CUT the armed forces let alone further expand them.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | April 22, 2008 1:35 PM

Deterrence theory?

You're all out of your fucking minds, and you have no right whatsoever to call yourselves left, progressive or liberal. What's next - threaten China with nukes over Taiwan? Bloody hell, what's the world coming to.

Posted by novakant | April 22, 2008 1:35 PM

It's just the Problem That Ha No Name again- the fact that Serious foreign policy is run for the benefit of the Israeli right (as distinct from that of Israel itself, which is being led down the garden path by its politicians as we have been by BushCo), not for that of the United States.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | April 22, 2008 1:40 PM

Terrorists BAD! SMASH! DECAPITATE! ROAR!

That's about the extent of it.

Posted by M | April 22, 2008 1:41 PM

All this talk about Hillary shoring up the Jewish vote with tough talk against Iran is just hogwash. First of all, most polls show the Jewish vote split 50/50 between Hillary and Obama. Demographics are completely consistent with democratic voters at large. Senior citizens go for Clinton, younger, college educated voters for Obama. Nothing new there. By the way a 50/50 split is about what you would expect wit the Jewish populations, since it is older then the public as a whole.

That being said, this is a means of getting more white middle class Christian votes. You know, the security moms who want us to be safe at three o'clock in the morning when Hillary is siting at her desk just waiting for her phone to ring. Besides, outside of PA, there is no other state left to vote with significant Jewish populations anyway.

Posted by Cosmo | April 22, 2008 2:10 PM

All this talk about Hillary shoring up the Jewish vote with tough talk against Iran is just hogwash. First of all, most polls show the Jewish vote split 50/50 between Hillary and Obama. Demographics are completely consistent with democratic voters at large. Senior citizens go for Clinton, younger, college educated voters for Obama. Nothing new there. By the way a 50/50 split is about what you would expect wit the Jewish populations, since it is older then the public as a whole.

That being said, this is a means of getting more white middle class Christian votes. You know, the security moms who want us to be safe at three o'clock in the morning when Hillary is siting at her desk just waiting for her phone to ring. Besides, outside of PA, there is no other state left to vote with significant Jewish populations anyway.

Posted by Cosmo | April 22, 2008 2:12 PM

John Aravosis:

Let me walk you through the various positions of Hillary and her staff regarding US nuclear policy and the Middle East:

1. Last October, Hillary says it would be wrong to speculate publicly about when and if the US should attack Iran: "I am not going to speculate about when or if they get nuclear weapons." Hillary also criticized her Democratic opponents for publicly discussing their war plans for the region: "[R]emember, you shouldn’t always say everything you think if you’re running for president, because it has consequences across the world. And we don’t need that right now."

2. During the ABC debate a week ago, Hillary implied that she'd nuke Iran if they nuked Israel. She also suggested that the US extend its nuclear umbrella beyond Israel, to protect other Middle Eastern countries from an Irani attack.

"I think that we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. Of course, I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States, but I would do the same with other countries in the region."

3. Hillary reiterated her nuclear threat against Iran yesterday, telling ABC that if Iran attacked Israel with nukes, she'd "obliterate them" - widely interpreted to mean that she would nuke Iran.

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton said. "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

4. Then last night, Senior Clinton campaign aide Howard Wolfson backs off Hillary's Iran comments, telling Politico's Ben Smith last night that "she wasn't referring to, or suggesting, nuclear weapons."

5. Then, minutes later, Hillary goes on MSNBC's Keith Olbermann's show and says explicitly that she would use nuclear weapons against Iran, and that she would consider extending the US nuclear umbrella to other countries in the Middle East besides Israel:

"In order to forestall that, creating some kind of a security agreement [with countries in the region] where we said, no, you do not need to acquire nuclear weapons. If you were the subject of an unprovoked nuclear attack by Iran, the United States and hopefully our NATO allies would respond to that as well....

"[T]heir use of nuclear weapons against Israel would provoke a nuclear response from the United States, which personally I believe would prevent it from happening. And that we would try to help the other countries that might be intimidated and bullied into submission by Iran because they were a nuclear power, avoid that fate by creating this new security umbrella."

6. Then, a senior Hillary aide tells CNN that she didn't mean to imply that she would extend the US nuclear umbrella to other countries in the region, even though this is what she repeatedly said over the past week.

However else you want to implement your deterrence strategy, it's absolutely crucial that adversaries know exactly how that policy works. Uncertainty breeds unpredictable behavior, which undermines the assurance of destruction that keeps the two adversaries in equipoise. If Hillary feels free to improvise on the subject of United States nuclear weapons policy and her staff feels free to contradict her, she simply shouldn't be anywhere near the football.

Posted by southpaw | April 22, 2008 2:22 PM