Diplomatic fallout from Hillary Clinton's remarks on obliterating Iran. It seems like the right answer to give on this issue involves artful use of the passive voice -- "the Iranians need to understand that if they use nuclear weapons against Israel, they will suffer massive retaliation."
« Mmm...Eggs | Main | Congress: Where Laws are Written »
Obliteration
24 Apr 2008 12:23 pm
Comments (58)
If Iran ever used nuclear weapons against Israel, Iran would be obliterated... by Israel. The only responsible use nuclear weapons have is their deterrent value in response to the threat of a nuclear attack. Clinton made a strong argument during the Pennsylvania debate that extending the umbrella of deterrence to US allies in the Mideast could prevent a nuclear arms race in the region.
So what are YOU up for in Iran, Matt?
Still can't answer my two questions, eh?
Can't make any substantive post on Iran, can you? Might fuck up your book sales.
I await Petey explaining to us all how, once again:
1) MY is a trust-fund scumbag
2) Hillary is THE choice for progressive folks. Look at how progressive she is on foreign policy!!!
And Tim K, you're an idiot. That's really all that needs to be said.
The only responsible use nuclear weapons have is their deterrent value in response to the threat of a nuclear attack.
By that logic, we should all be for maximum proliferation of nuclear weapons. But something tells me you never got that far in logic.
Either A) Iran is pursuing a nuke, which means all the tough talk (Axis of Evil/Kyl-Lieberman/Beach Boys/etc.) doesn't work, or B) Iran isn't pursuing a nuke, and it's dumb as hell to use rhetoric like this.
And even Wes Clark was appalled at Hillary's new security strategy. When a Democrat starts reading Charles Krauthammer's essays for ideas, you know she's not a Democrat anymore.
Will someone please help me with a few quick questions:
1. Why isn't Israel held accountable for refusing to sign the NPT and then Iran, an NPT signatory, can't obtain nuclear energy as provided by international law (in the NPT)?
2. Why is it that Iranian aquisition of nuclear weapons will cause instability and an arms race but Israels possession of the same isn't mentioned? Isn't it at least plausible that Israel's development of nuclear weapons is the real cause of the coming arms race in the Middle East?
3. In the event of an attack on Israel why is the U.S. expected to provide the main responose? Why can't Israel respond with its own invasion/nuclear boming of Iran? I understand Israel is an ally, but that doesn't mean we need to fight their wars for them.
Any explanation will be appreciated.
Finally, isn't there a saying about fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me, or something along those lines. I think that might apply to Hillary's recent hawkish comments on Iran and those that continue to support her candidacy.
Has a U.S. President ever threatened to obliterate another country before. I am not saying it has happened, but I am not aware of any precedent for this type of language, which strikes me as a rather undiplomatic.
A nuclear armed society with a nuclear armed society next door is a polite nuclear armed society.
And when nuclear arms are outlawed, then only outlaws can pry the nuclear arms out of my cold, dead, HANDS!!!
C'mon Matt. That blog entry you linked is from the LA Times Iranian-born Beirut bureau chief. And his links are weaker still if you check them out. The Scotsman link is a letter to the editor!
Iran will be obliterated in kind if they start firing off nukes at Israel. To hint at any less of a response is irresponsible. Accurate and necessary comment by Hillary.
@blah,
Starting with Truman (who first proposed what came to be known as massive retaliation) and continuing right through Bush II, every President has publicly supported the idea of Massive Retaliation and, thus, an implicit (and sometimes explicit, remember what Kennedy said during the missile crisis) threat to obliterate the USSR/China/Whoever.
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!
Has anyone asked Hillary what the US response to Israel would be if Israel attacked Iran with nuclear weapons? Would our policy be symmetrical? Would we then obliterate Israel? If not, why not?
The only responsible use nuclear weapons have is their deterrent value in response to the threat of a nuclear attack.
I thought that's why we built the Doomsday Device.
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!
How so?
Pedantry alert! The message that MY suggests does not make use at any point of the passive voice.
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!
I thought it was excellent news for Gravel.
It seems like the right answer to give on this issue involves artful use of the passive voice -- "the Iranians need to understand that if they use nuclear weapons against Israel, they will suffer massive retaliation."
I disagree. The point is to make sure the Iranians are aware how seriously we're committed to maintaining Israel's security. Once you've made that clear, the nuclear threat is implicit.
So I'd go with: "The Iranians need to understand that Israel is our closest ally in the region and the United States considers safeguarding Israel's security as a matter of gravest consequence."
As godoggo indicates, your sample sentence is not in the passive voice.
Ambiguous agency != passive voice.
Undecided has also determined that Hillary's statement that "the sun rises in the east" is also an accurate and necessary statement.
The problems with Hillary's statement are numerous.
1) Iran does not have, has probably never had, and shows no indications of wanting a nuclear weapons program.
2) Therefore, at best, the statement was a tautology in that the circumstances described are highly unlikely to exist any time in the foreseeable future. As someone else pointed out in another thread, if Iceland attacks Israel with nuclear weapons, the US would no doubt "obliterate Iceland". Similarly, if China attacked the US, the US would presumably respond "with massive retaliation". The latter at least has some plausibility as a scenario.
3) The statement is unnecessarily belligerent in that it threatens "obliteration" of Iran - which is the equivalent of threatening genocide of the Iranian people, as various commentators on this statement have pointed out in the MSM.
4) It establishes that Hillary is owned and operated by the AIPAC/Zionist crowd. It was nothing more than pandering to the Zionist/neocon hawk crowd.
5) It fails to mention Israel's nuclear arsenal AT ALL, and what response Israel would be responsible for. Not to mention that the US has NO treaty with Israel for mutual self defense.
All of which makes Undecided's comment moronic.
Has anyone asked Hillary what the US response to Israel would be if Israel attacked Iran with nuclear weapons? Would our policy be symmetrical? Would we then obliterate Israel? If not, why not?
No surprise that the Israel hating crowd is solidly behind Obama. You think maybe he's not as pro-Israel as he claims? ;)
I guess if the Iranians nuked Tel Aviv, Obama would give Ahminedejad a good talking-to!
"The Iranians need to understand that Israel is our closest ally in the region and the United States considers safeguarding Israel's security as a matter of gravest consequence."
Impressive. I wish I could write stuff that's this portentous.
Undecided clearly doesn't understand the degree to which Obama has been pandering to the Israelis. He even opened a Web site - in Hebrew - in Israel in order to pander more directly.
Unfortunately for him, Clinton is already owned by various Israeli billionaires.
Undecided is little more than another right wing troll a la Fred, Al, Ford, etc. The very handle "Undecided" is brain dead. Why not change it to "Bush Ass Licker"?
No surprise that the Israel hating crowd is solidly behind Obama.
One out of two ain't bad: I support Obama, but I don't hate Israel.
My basic point is: suppose country A makes an unprovoked nuclear attack on country B. It seems to me that attacking another country with nuclear weapons is an act involving such a large magnitude of badness that, in comparison, our prior relations with either country wouldn't and shouldn't really matter.
Or, are you suggesting that if Israel did do such a thing we should search for some kind of rationalization to justify it?
Obviously Hack's response to a nuclear attack on Tel Aviv would be popping a bottle of champagne.
RSH, Undecided has admitted to being a Hillary voter, and he/she has proved his/her idiocy on many occasions.
Now, it's vote for Hillary or you hate Jews. All black people are Hitler!!!
What is it about Israel that makes American fascists foam at the mouth anyway? Normally the powers-that-be in the US don't care about anything but turning a buck.
Does Israel's perpetual insecurity just provide a good excuse for militarism to the end of time, or what? I don't have the answers myself, but it would be nice to see a little more elevated conversation about the subject than what I see here.
The likelihood of Israel making a nuclear attack on Iran in the next eight years is obviously much higher than the reverse, given the fact that Iran doesn't even have a nuclear weapon, and is not very close to having one. So, why the focus on the much less likely hypothetical?
My basic point is: suppose country A makes an unprovoked nuclear attack on country B.
This is not country A and country B.
Iran does not recognize Israel's right to exist. The President of Iran called for Israel to be “wiped off the map.” Otherwise, we wouldn't even be discussing hypothetically how to respond to an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel.
Obviously Hack's response to a nuclear attack on Tel Aviv would be popping a bottle of champagne.
Don't underestimate it's value as a 'clarifying' historical moment.
Now, it's vote for Hillary or you hate Jews.
Actually I don't believe Obama has given an opinion on the "obliteration" comment. I doubt he would back very far away from it.
However I find it fascinating how willing and eager Obama droids - lacking guidance from their master - are to get into bed with the Israel haters.
For what it's worth, I'm actually quite sure that Obama is just as committed to Israel's security as Hillary. The debate isn't over the depth of our strategic committment; it's over how not to cause a diplomatic fracas.
(And thanks, Jim W; portentous is all I've got sometimes.)
Hasn't that Monster Hillary had her fatal stroke yet? Damn, I'm starting to doubt the efficacy of prayer.
The President of Iran called for Israel to be “wiped off the map.”
There's that passive voice again. He never said Iran should be the wiper, did he?
Jake:
Don't you have flag to burn or something? Run along now.
The idea that Israel would ever preemptively strike Iran with nuclear weapons in ridiculous. Incidentally I don't think Iran would be foolish enough to hit Israel first, either.
My only real concern with Israeli possession of nuclear weapons is, in the event a significant portion of their territorial integrity were seriously threatened, they would would consider using them. (incidentally, if 1/4 of US territory were invaded then America would consider using nukes too).
The President of Iran called for Israel to be “wiped off the map.”
He never said "wiped off the map." Sigh.
What, like Israel will be too cheap to use their own nukes to strike back against Iran?
Hell, even for that to happen Iran would first have to get a nuclear weapon
then miniaturize it enough to slap on a missile
then develop a missile that would be reliable enough so that they could trust it to work
then find Israel's nukes and be able to lob the missile with enough accuracy that it is able to destroy them
and even then there's still the potential counterstrike from their SLBMs (you think a tiny country would be stupid enough to not have a backup counterstrike capability)
And the great part is that Iran doesn't even have nuclear weapons, nor are they currently working on building any.
What, like Israel will be too cheap to use their own nukes to strike back against Iran?
Hell, even for that to happen Iran would first have to get a nuclear weapon
then miniaturize it enough to slap on a missile
then develop a missile that would be reliable enough so that they could trust it to work
then find Israel's nukes and be able to lob the missile with enough accuracy that it is able to destroy them
and even then there's still the potential counterstrike from their SLBMs (you think a tiny country would be stupid enough to not have a backup counterstrike capability)
And the great part is that Iran doesn't even have nuclear weapons, nor are they currently working on building any.
"The idea that Israel would ever preemptively strike Iran with nuclear weapons in ridiculous."
Same with Iran nuking Israel, do you think they would nuke Israel? Keep in mind the Muslims that live there and not to mention Muslim holy sites within Israel. There's a big difference in the want of using nuclear weapons if your goal is to kill some of the people living there and taking possession of the land (what Iran wants to do) rather than turning a country into a sheet of glass.
Naturally if 5 or 6 unelected nuts in Tehran blow up even one town in Israel, we should incinerate all 65 million Iranian civilians and turn Asia into a big nuclear fall out zone. What could be more obvious?
Making idol threats is the cornerstone to building international credibility, so we should tell Iraq that if one more American soldier dies, we'll nuke them too.
Wrong on passive voice, wrong on subjunctive mood... Where did you go to college again?
Bill C:
What do you think would be the appropriate response if Iran nuked Tel Aviv?
I can't believe anyone could find a way to defend this sort of language.
This woman wants to lead the free world but is willing to casually toss around threats of obliteration of countries that don't behave as she wishes?
Course this was said how many days ago and is just now getting some coverage on the blogs but no where on the MSM?
We are all so involved with discussing someone's pastor, how many old white blue collar workers voted for whom that we're too busy to examine this sort of language?
The world reacts, but we're mired in BS political gamesmanship...simply because that's the Clinton narrative as handed out every morning to the media who accepts it like a bunch of bobblehead dolls.
God help this nation.
Vote hope, not fear.
What do you think would be the appropriate response if Iran nuked Tel Aviv?
I'm fairly sure the United States would enter the conflict on Israel's side were this to happen.
Nevertheless, let's not forget that Israel has assured second-strike nuclear weapons on submarines (and neither Iran nor any other middle eastern state has a blue water navy that could counter them). If Iran nuked Tel Aviv, Israel would retaliate with nuclear weapons. The Israelis have lots of nuclear weapons for precisely that purpose. So it's not clear to me why the US nuclear arsenal would need to come into play.
If a small country nukes another country without provocation, there is a good chance that all other nuclear powers will nuke it right away (assuming the rogue state lacks second-strike capability). If Iran 1) had an active nuclear weapons program and 2) the mullahs were threatening nuclear genocide against Israel, then this type of talk would be necessary. However, neither of these things are happening.
As such, she's just playing her overcompensation game of looking tougher than she actually is. She hasn't learned the difference between being tough and being a hawk as an aesthetic stance. Someone who is tough yet smart (say, Samantha Power) would have been in favor of bombing Serbia's forces before they destroyed the UN safe area in Srebrenica and would have realized the UN and/or NATO could have won that fight. Instead, Hillary Clinton freaked out and convinced Bill not to because a crappy Kaplan book convinced her it would be another Vietnam. She's just playing at shadow puppets with herself here.
"Iran does not recognize Israel's right to exist. The President of Iran called for Israel to be “wiped off the map.” Otherwise, we wouldn't even be discussing hypothetically how to respond to an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel.
Posted by Undecided | April 24, 2008 2:23 PM"
The president of Iran possess no actual control over the Iranian military, which is in the hands of the mullahs. The mullahs hate A-jad and have made sure that he is not anywhere near Iran's nuclear research because he keeps on freaking everyone out in his attempts to wrap himself in an ultra-nationalist flag to electorally cover up his weaknesses on domestic policy. The situation would be similar to the US freaking out about an unpopular provincial governor in China on the verge of being removed by Beijing making xenophobic crazy comments.
The problem with relying on Israel's 2nd strike capability is that Israel has never officially acknowledged it is a nuclear power. Are people here proposing that the next time Iran makes a move toward nuclear weapons, or makes an implicit threat against that country (ie:"wipe Israel off the map") that Israel declares it's status as a nuclear power, tests a nuclear weapon off the Arabian Peninsula, and announces it's intention of obliterating Iran if it is ever attacked with nukes?
How does everyone think that would go over?
If the US lays out the pretense that it will retaliate for Israel then there is no reason for it to officially join the nuclear club.
"The problem with relying on Israel's 2nd strike capability is that Israel has never officially acknowledged it is a nuclear power. Are people here proposing that the next time Iran makes a move toward nuclear weapons, or makes an implicit threat against that country (ie:"wipe Israel off the map") that Israel declares it's status as a nuclear power, tests a nuclear weapon off the Arabian Peninsula, and announces it's intention of obliterating Iran if it is ever attacked with nukes?
How does everyone think that would go over?
If the US lays out the pretense that it will retaliate for Israel then there is no reason for it to officially join the nuclear club.
Posted by Tim K | April 25, 2008 11:44 AM"
This comment is pure nonsense. Do you really think that Israel would give up making a second-strike capability just because that would mean having to admit they have nukes? That would nullify the whole point of having such an expensive program in the first place and would be totally half-assed. If Israel, which has submarines not too far from the coast of Iran that are capable of being outfitted with nukes for second-strike capability, has chosen not to create a second-strike capability, then Israel is either being led by the biggest military idiots since Chiang Kai-shek or doesn't take the threat of Iran's potential nukes far down the road seriously.
Everyone knows Israel has nukes. In fact, it's better for Israel for everyone to know Israel has nukes because then those nukes can act as a deterrent under the logic of MAD. The whole point of engaging Iran is to make sure the leadership doesn't see it is in their interests to pursue nukes. After all, a big reason to pursue nukes is to make a deterrent to neighbors or rivals that have already have nukes (the USSR getting them after the US did, NK getting them to deter the US, China getting them to deter the US and the USSR, India getting them to deter China and, to a lesser extent, the US and the concurent Pakistani project, Pakistan getting them to deter India). If Iran can be assured that we will not make an unprovoked attack on them and that there are benefits to having nukes, they will likely not re-start their program. This is partly why Libya gave up their program, after all. The fact that they have canceled their program (and that Khomeini of all people was the one to cancel the Shah's program after the Revolution) shows Israel is capable of acting rationally. In addition, the people with actual authority over nuclear research and the military, as I have pointed out way too many times for people who are claiming ignorance to claim otherwise, hate A-jad. Why should the US cover Israel for having nukes and not wanting to admit it?
Also, why would Iran nuke some of the holiest sites in Islam which lie in Israel? That's just silly. If the mullahs were really the type of suicidal Islamists that wanted a nuclear exchange so they could be martyred, they would be more likely to nuke the US instead of Israel because nuking Jerusalem and Bethlehem would undo any brownie points with Allah gained from martyrdom. So when is Israel going to offer to put us under their nuclear umbrella?
Reality:
Of course Israel isn't going to give up any ability or refrain from retaliating on it's own. What it has already done, however, is refrain from saying what it would do itself. There is strategic and diplomatic value to keeping Israel's nuclear capability unofficial and permitting Israel to remain silent on what it would do in case of a nuclear attack. So far Israel has been very restrained in responding to Ahmadinejad's hateful ramblings, and that is how we should all hope to keep it. Maybe this is too subtle for you to detect, but there is a difference between "everyone knowing" Israel has nuclear weapons, and Israel officially declaring, testing and threatening use of nuclear weapons. Could you imagine how some of Israel's enemies in the Arab and Muslim world would use that sort of behavior by Israel as an excuse for more threats against Israel, and more whipping of ultra-nationalist and sometimes anti-Semitic fervor? It could even be an excuse for Iran to go nuclear itself. Its called an "arms race" in case you've never heard the term.
I never said nuke Jerusalem or Bethlehem, everyone knows that wouldn't happen. What about Tel Aviv?
"Of course Israel isn't going to give up any ability or refrain from retaliating on it's own. What it has already done, however, is refrain from saying what it would do itself. There is strategic and diplomatic value to keeping Israel's nuclear capability unofficial and permitting Israel to remain silent on what it would do in case of a nuclear attack. So far Israel has been very restrained in responding to Ahmadinejad's hateful ramblings, and that is how we should all hope to keep it. Maybe this is too subtle for you to detect, but there is a difference between "everyone knowing" Israel has nuclear weapons, and Israel officially declaring, testing and threatening use of nuclear weapons. Could you imagine how some of Israel's enemies in the Arab and Muslim world would use that sort of behavior by Israel as an excuse for more threats against Israel, and more whipping of ultra-nationalist and sometimes anti-Semitic fervor? It could even be an excuse for Iran to go nuclear itself. Its called an "arms race" in case you've never heard the term.
I never said nuke Jerusalem or Bethlehem, everyone knows that wouldn't happen. What about Tel Aviv?
Posted by Tim K | April 25, 2008 12:29 PM"
The threat is already implied by having nukes in the first place. There is thus no need for Clinton to say this out loud. What benefit is there to anyone, including the US, to actually verbalize this vis-a-vis Iran? None. It would be one thing if Clinton was talking about how if anyone nukes an ally, including Israel, then we will nuke them in return. However, she directed this explicitly at a country that is not pursuing nuclear weapons at this point. It's pure theater to make herself look tough, which is why some of her backers like Wesley Clark thought this was silly. How many times do you need it pointed out to you that A-jad has no control over Iranian military policy and Iranian nuclear policy?
What benefit is there to anyone, including the US, to actually verbalize this vis-a-vis Iran?
The recurring problem with foreign policy is that the costs/benefits to a country diverge wildly from the costs/benefits to the country's politicians and leaders. Figuring out the former is interesting, and of course we should try to educate people about them as much as possible. However, the central problem still remains.
Also, any nuke that could damage Tel Aviv is probably going to do some damage to Jerusalem and Bethlehem as well. Considering that Iran lacks the missiles to actually deliver a nuke and that when they did have a nuclear weapons program, it was downright laughable, the chance that Iran would get a nuke on an ICBM and then accurately hit Tel Aviv is unlikely. An inaccurate ICBM could possibly hit a holy site, which doesn't seem the type of chance you would want to rest your chance to go to Paradise for all eternity on.
This whole debate over what we should do if Iran turns suicidal and has nukes and highly accurate ICBM's is like asking if a madman highjacked all of the nukes in the world and would set them all off unless you raped a newborn baby. It's such an unlikely event so far off in the future of even being feasible that it's nonsense.
"The recurring problem with foreign policy is that the costs/benefits to a country diverge wildly from the costs/benefits to the country's politicians and leaders. Figuring out the former is interesting, and of course we should try to educate people about them as much as possible. However, the central problem still remains.
Posted by Jim W | April 25, 2008 12:46 PM"
Very true. Just look at the continuation of the Cuban embargo. The vast majority of Americans support lifting it, which would probably benefit most Americans and Cubans with increased trade and business opportunities. However, these benefits are only speculative and would be somewhat dispersed over the population as a whole while the benefits to a politician who is on any ballot in Florida are immediate and concentrated.
Reality Man:
Unlike when nuclear weapons were a relatively new military innovation in the 1950's and 60's, now in 2008 I agree it goes without saying that mere possessions of nukes implies retaliation. Yet it only implies retaliation for oneself, not for one's allies. The United States' possessions of nukes does that mean they would retaliate an attack on Israel with nukes.
It also doesn't matter that Ahmadinejad has no control over Iran's nuclear policy. The point is that somebody does, and those Mullahs need to realize that Iran should not possess nuclear weapons, and will never, never, NEVER, be permitted to use them under any circumstances. Especially not against Israel.
Since I think everyone is a agreed than a direct Iranian nuclear attack against Israel is extremely unlikely, the main goal of any US policy should be to prevent Iran from developing nuclear capability (in order to forestall greater proliferation in the region). Senator Clinton was correct that if Iran were permitted to develop nuclear weapons it would create an incentive for other powers like Saudi Arabia (or especially Iraq in the future) to develop their own nuclear deterrent. She didn't mention this, of course, but it would also cause Israel to augment it's own substantial capability. Israel could also be provoked into launching a conventional disarming first-strike against Iran's nuclear capability, an action I do not want to see happen.
So, given these eventualities, what is the best way to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power?
I see only two general possibilities. One would be to do everything conceivable to make the Iranian leadership feel more comfortable and safe, ruling out any future attack on Iran for any reason, downplaying any defense guarantees to Israel while cutting military support, and pursuing a generally hands-off approach. The problem with this strategy is that is may not be sustainable. What position would the US be in to demand anything from Iran in the future in any forceful way? Any action to curtail Iranian interference in Iraq, or support for terrorists like Hezbollah, could then provoke Iran into threatening to acquire nuclear weapons again. That kind of permissive strategy leaves Iran holding all the cards.
The other general strategy would be to convince the Iran leadership of the futility of acquiring nuclear capability.
" One would be to do everything conceivable to make the Iranian leadership feel more comfortable and safe, ruling out any future attack on Iran for any reason, downplaying any defense guarantees to Israel while cutting military support, and pursuing a generally hands-off approach. The problem with this strategy is that is may not be sustainable. What position would the US be in to demand anything from Iran in the future in any forceful way? Any action to curtail Iranian interference in Iraq, or support for terrorists like Hezbollah, could then provoke Iran into threatening to acquire nuclear weapons again. That kind of permissive strategy leaves Iran holding all the cards.
The other general strategy would be to convince the Iran leadership of the futility of acquiring nuclear capability.
Posted by Tim K | April 25, 2008 1:43 PM"
Another nice false dichotomy here. Your overuse of them implies a lack of an understanding of nuance. You are a fundamentally silly person. Two can play that game: "There are only two possibilities: either we can develop the technology to allow Israelis to become cyborgs with their own anti-nuclear shield. Or we can nuke Iran now and remove any possibility of them pursuing nukes whatsoever."
"It also doesn't matter that Ahmadinejad has no control over Iran's nuclear policy. The point is that somebody does, and those Mullahs need to realize that Iran should not possess nuclear weapons, and will never, never, NEVER, be permitted to use them under any circumstances. Especially not against Israel."
Someone has control over the decision to pursue nuclear weapons in every country on earth. Should we threaten them all with nuclear retaliation if they threaten Israel? There was no need for Clinton to do this at this time. Iran has been moving in the direction we want them to move on this issue - away from nukes - and towards a position closer to what we want. There is no indication that Iran is doing anything explicitly illegal under the NPT. The message that sends is that anything Iran does will be met with hostility.
"Unlike when nuclear weapons were a relatively new military innovation in the 1950's and 60's, now in 2008 I agree it goes without saying that mere possessions of nukes implies retaliation. Yet it only implies retaliation for oneself, not for one's allies. The United States' possessions of nukes does that mean they would retaliate an attack on Israel with nukes."
And as such, it means that there is actually no net benefit to Israeli security as long as they can secure a second-strike capability. You nuke Tehran once, it is gone. You nuke Qom once, it is gone. Israel has around 180-200 estimated nukes in its arsenal. That's more than enough to destroy Iran several times over. After all, if I shoot you in the head 20 times, you'll be just as dead if I shoot you in the head 150 times. As such, Clinton's statement was self-refuting in context and only served to heighten tensions.
Since you're clearly the only serious foreign policy thinker here, I would like to hear your solution (not your criticism) to the Iranian nuclear problem. Unless, of course, you don't mind if Iran develops nuclear weapons. In fact, I really doubt you do mind if they do. But if you do care I would love to hear your ingenious answer. Although I may be too fundamentally silly to understand it, I'm sure.
Iran is NOT goingn to attack Israel with nukes!!! Clinton shouldn't just be criticized for the absolute insanity of her statements, she should be run out of town on a rail for buying into the Republican bullshit that Iran is somehow poised to attack Israel with nukes, or that they have shown any intention of doing any such thing. Iran is NOT trying to make nuclear weapons! they have had the capacity, in terms of spent fuel rods, to make nukes for about 2 years now, but have demonstrably done no such thing (see most recent NIE and IAEA findings). Clinton is straight up ignorant on this incredibly important issue, and uses her ignorance to push the dialogue in exactly the direction the Republicans want it to go.
Iran is NOT goingn to attack Israel with nukes!!! Clinton shouldn't just be criticized for the absolute insanity of her statements, she should be run out of town on a rail for buying into the Republican bullshit that Iran is somehow poised to attack Israel with nukes, or that they have shown any intention of doing any such thing. Iran is NOT trying to make nuclear weapons! they have had the capacity, in terms of spent fuel rods, to make nukes for about 2 years now, but have demonstrably done no such thing (see most recent NIE and IAEA findings). Clinton is straight up ignorant on this incredibly important issue, and uses her ignorance to push the dialogue in exactly the direction the Republicans want it to go.
Comments closed May 08, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
...massive retaliation will be suffered."
Posted by godoggo | April 24, 2008 12:30 PM