Clinton: I will "obliterate" Iran

Hillary Clinton's threat to "obliterate" Iran, in an ABC interview broadcast just as the voters of Pennsylvania prepared to head to the polls this morning, doesn't appear to have been particularly well received by anyone other than the hard right, which is somewhat telling as to where the former first lady is pitching her policies - or at least campaign pledges - these days. While one assumes that her campaign must have known what she was planning, it too seemed a little taken aback at just how belligerent and absolute her language was: it spent a large part of last night and this morning frantically backpeddling away from her apparent commitment to nuke a large swathe of the Middle East.

The ABC clip can be seen here:

A few key points were repeatedly raised by pundits. First, in exactly what scenario would this obliteration take place? Would a proxy attack, for example by Lebanese Hezbollah, justify the obliteration of which she speaks? Or would a retaliatory attack by Tehran, for example if Israel had launched strikes against suspected Iranian nuclear facilities (a reasonably likely prospect) be sufficient cause? Or, as her statement might be interpreted, would a suspicion that Iran was considering such an attack be met with a preemptive strike? Some also noted that while the second part of her answer (below) made a strike conditional on Iranian aggression, the first part seemed to suggest the only condition was a Clinton presidency.

“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.”

Further queries were raised as to exactly what she meant by "total obliteration." Though campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson insisted that she was not alluding to a nuclear strike, the candidate herself appeared to reaffirm the reference during a later interview with MSNBC's Keith Olbermann.

"We used (deterrence) very well during the Cold War when we had a bipolar world and what I think the president should do and what our policy should be is to make it very clear to the Iranians that they would be risking massive retaliation were they to launch a nuclear attack on Israel," she said.

If so, what kind of aggression against Israel does she think would justify an obliteration of entire country and its 71 million innocent citizens? Not to mention the deadly nuclear fallout across much of the Middle East and quite possibly Europe? Given that the US intelligence community doesn't believe that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, perhaps employing genocidal phraseology of the kind that usually gets President Ahmadinejad referred to the United Nations might not be the best way to defuse Mid East tensions? Interestingly enough, her husband doesn't seem to think it's that good a move either.

The interview with Olbermann can be seen here.

Comment from the web:

Daily Kos:

"To obliterate Iran using nuclear weapons would make the entire Middle East uninhabitable! What Middle Eastern country or any NATO country would agree to this idea????? ...

"Since when is it ok to threaten to kill 70 million innocent people because of what a psychotic government does????  If I assume that Hillary just hadn't considered the effect on all the other Middle Eastern and neighboring countries, why is she ok with the idea of killing even one entire country?  What is wrong with her head and her heart?"

Outside the Beltway:

"For one thing, I’m a little disappointed that Clinton didn’t take GMA to task for the premise of the question. Namely, the fact that Iran doesn’t actually possess any nuclear weapons to attack Israel with.

"Secondly, I find it a little problematic that Clinton offered an unequivocal commitment to “obliterate” Iran in the event that Iran attacked Israel. What if Israel attacked Iran first? Would we back them unequivocally then? No matter what the cause or reason for Israel’s attack?"

AMERICAblog:

"This is an incredibly dangerous topic. And she made a mess of it, repeatedly, to the point where her staff had to get involved to try to make amends, so that now our enemies and our allies have no idea what Hillary's position is on war with Iran, the defense of Israel, and the possible use of US nuclear weapons. Even more disturbing is the possibility that Hillary made these comments, this apparent flip-flop on US nuclear policy, in order to curry favor with voters in Pennsylvania on the eve of that state's primary. ...  It's a possible nuclear war scenario, and Hillary, in an effort to act all tough, win a few votes, and take a jab at Obama, played politics with our national security and sent the wrong message to the world, the wrong message to our enemies. It's 3am, folks, and the phone just rang. And Hillary got it wrong."

Political Byline:

"This nation, for the last 5 years, has been in quagmire called Iraq... The tough reality is, that involving this country in another military escalation of this sort would do nothing more than further strain and possibly destroy what military we have left.  This is outside of the scope of instituting a military draft.  Not to mention, any sort of military action, outside of the approval of the United Nations, would result in further destabilization of that very region.  Not to mention the United States' relations with our allies in the region."

Instapundit:

"I've often echoed the prediction that Hillary Clinton would make the most uncompromising wartime President in United States history, but here's some evidence that it just might be true...

"If the Iranians are smart, they'll believe her. I think she'd kinda like obliterating somebody.

"I like Hillary best when she shows her hawkishness."

Comments

[LordFlashheart7]

I think that people are focusing far too much on what the candidates are doing to win over certain demographics in Pennsylvania and not on the national issues.

[Louis Pascal de Geer]

The true colours of Clinton are starting to appear at last and by the looks of it she may even be more dangerous than Bush jr. All Obama has to do is to say Thank you.
Hopefully tonight Obama will set another step on the road of becoming the Democratic Nominee.

[Billy Bop]

What scary big eyes you have grandma.....!

[C. L. Green]

Our strategy in Iraq has handed the nation to the shia majority (provided they can hold out against the sunni insurgents), at the same time it made room for Iran to become a much bigger player in the region. Now, Ms. Clinton suggests that military action against Iran might fix things? What consequences might follow in the wake of that action? Do we end up antagonizing the whole world and then "obliterating" them? We are pretty slow learners! Another Clinton presidency? No thanks!

[JOHN CHUCKMAN, TORONTO]

The woman has clearly gone over the edge.

Some tough ability to handle problems she has.

She gets the 3 AM call and has a recording that says "bomb 'em!"

Every time she opens her mouth now, the parallels with Richard Nixon's personality and character become more pronounced.

God, they might as well leave that certified moron, Bush, in office.

[Thomas Goodey]

And this thing is bidding to be Commander-in-Chief?

[michael]

...i think this article blows her comments out of all proportion: she answered "we would be able to obliterate them" as part of an answer in response to the direct question: "what would you do if iran launched a nuclear attack on israel?"
Her answer was a very reasonable one considering what was asked, and i can see no way that any of the other potential candidates on either side would have responded in a particularly different way. If ANY country launched a nuclear attack upon its neighbour, it is hard to imagine a different answer.

[starling]

Well, she's now proved that she's just as clueless about foreign affairs as our dear Dubya is.

[Scott Benowitz]

Wooh-hooh!!! Thousands of more civilian casualties in yet another country in the middle-east, get another few thousand more soldiers from the different branches of the U.S. military killed, futher agrivate an environment which is already becoming a breeding ground for terrorists, and even better- all of this probably without any consultation or authorization whatsoever from any of the branches of the United Nations- Go Hill!!!

[Roberta Jackson]

Hillary Clinton's warning to Iran is entirely sensible and right. As in the long standoff against Soviet aggression, the threat of nuclear obliteration made the Soviet leadership think twice, and in consequence we had peace. The same policy must be pursued against Iran. It is heartening that American politicians still have the necessary qualities of leadership, guts and clarity to keep our world safe.

[Peter Southampton]

This is the most scary stance on foreign politics since Hitlers lebensraum.
I just can't believe anybody being this despicable. Stop her or we will head for holocaust.
She is prepared to destroy more people than Stalin and Mao.

[HilaryClinton]

God save us from Americans!

[David S]

Hey Hilary! Who banged their head in the shower this morning? Maybe you misspoke?

[Helen Walls]

What a disaster? Look like she is desperate to get votes and will say and do anything to get them! Absolute desperation corrupts absolutely!

[Nice]

Please, please, please Americans don't let this woman in power - she's as much as said she'll nuke them. Think how much safer the world seems post 9-11....

It really isn't.

[Mireille]

iSRAEL HAS IT'S OWN NUKES. iF ATTACKED BY iRAN, WHY WOULD THEY NEED OURS?

[Sunny Singh]

I think it shows that she will be a strong leader, like Margaret Thatcher was.

[Larry Storch]

I wish she could do it now, before they have time to move Osama to another country. Only kidding. Nobody really ever wanted to use a nuke, not even in WWII, it was an accidental drop on Hiroshima, unintentional, unprovoked, and obviously preemptive only in nature. I plan to vote three or four times for Hillary and am paying many others I know to not vote for Obama, the ivy league guy from Jakarta.

[Dennis]

At last a lady with the balls of Maggie Thatcher!
And if she means what she says, no one needs to vote for McCain.
I am sure that in the great hereafter, Winston Churchill, Air Vice Marshall Harris, Lord Kitchener and Audie Murphy will enjoy a vintage cognac, a large cigar and a quiet chuckle, celebrating the knowledge that once again the world is safe in the hands of someone who will never surrender to savage, heathen terrorism.
Three cheers for Hilary.

Oh God. So we've got a promise of World War III - and all because Hillary hates men, wants to prove she's tough, and doesn't have a penis like every other American President. God help us all.

[Phil Greene]

Is she just another Bush, or is she further to the right, or is she dumber than him?

[Peter Southampton]

Mrs Clinton obviously talks before she thinks when threatening using nuclear bombs against Iran.
Oil price will sky rocket and a lot of oil fields will be contaminated remember
Chernobyl?

[W. Worsley]

Of course we would obliterate Iran if it nuked Israel. And the Iranians should know it, too. What did anyone think the USA would do if Iran destroyed Israel?

[Max Shirry]

When suicide bombers appeared for the first time in 1982/83 in Lebanon there was no secret that the "suicide bombing" concept was primarily the brainchild of Iranian operatives who sought to exploit the vaccum created by a weakened Lebanese government. The immediate result was no less than 400 fatalities mostly U.S Marines and Lebanese employees at the U.S.Embassy in Beirut. The Reagan administration had no stomach to confront this brutal Iranian design and a decision to withdraw the U.S. Marines was made, I venture to add in haste.
Fast forward, 23 years later, and 3 U.S. presidents took turns at the White House, Iran didn't wobble or waver but instead it developed Hizbullah as its surrogate thug in Lebanon and at a time or another threatened oil shipments through the "strait of Hormuz" to the extent that Kuwaiti ships had to fly U.S. flags in the early eighties so that Iran will be deterred.
This must be only a snippet of the reality that Senator Clinton had in mind when she made her statement to warn the Iranians about the consequences of their belligerant and brutal actions. Collateral damage is most definitely a serious issue, and no one would want to risk harming Iranian or Lebanese civilians but there are times when a line in the sand must be drawn....that's the unfortunate reality that the person at the White House might have to confront.
Ask yourself as to what advise would you have given to President Reagan 23 years ago, knowing what you know today and considering the opression that Iranian and Lebanese civilians had to endure for the duration and considering the constant threat to Israel and the whole region.

[joe]

did anyone else notice that she said in would be in the best interests in the iraqi's for america to withdraw, yet in the next question she gave the impression that she didn't think it would, but that it did not concern her too much