Iran Condemns Clinton For "Obliterate" Comments

UNITED NATIONS — Iran strongly condemned presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton late Wednesday for threatening to attack and "totally obliterate" the country if it uses nuclear weapons.

Iran's deputy U.N. ambassador, Mehdi Danesh-Yazdi, called an April 22 statement on ABC by the New York senator, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, "provocative, unwarranted and irresponsible" and "a flagrant violation" of the U.N. Charter.

Clinton was asked by ABC News' Chris Cuomo in an interview that aired on "Good Morning America" what she would do if she wins the White House and Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons, according to the ABC News Web site.

"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."

Danesh-Yazdi's letter used a partial quote that did not mention an attack on Israel. It said Clinton "unwarrantedly and under erroneous and false pretexts threatened to use force against the Islamic Republic of Iran."

The Iranians sent the letter to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and asked that he circulate it to the Security Council.

The council has imposed three rounds of gradually tougher sanctions on Iran for refusing to suspend uranium enrichment. Iran insists it is enriching uranium to produce nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, but the U.S., key European nations and other countries suspect Tehran's real motive is to eventually produce nuclear weapons.

In the letter, Danesh-Yazdi said "Iran is a leading nation in rejecting and opposing all kinds of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons." He added that Iran has repeatedly declared "that nuclear weapons as the most lethal and inhumane weapons have no place in the defense doctrine of the country."

Iran has also campaigned to make the Middle East a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone since 1974, he said.

"Moreover, I wish to reiterate my government's position that the Islamic Republic of Iran has no intention to attack any other nations," Danesh-Yazdi said. "Nonetheless ... Iran would not hesitate to act in self-defense to respond to any attack against the Iranian nation and to take appropriate defensive measures to protect itself" as authorized under the U.N. Charter.

Comments

[CommonSensePlease]

By making that statement, BILLARY has disqualified herself from the presidency. In the White House we need someone COOL and with GOOD JUDGEMENT! We need Barack Obama who has shown that he can take tough decision when necessary. Common sense people will vote Obama in November!

[OJSIMPSON847]

My man, Obama, would never obliterate a muslim nation.
He is committed to letting all religions spread the globe.
Only Hillary would defend the Jeish nation for the NY Jeish.
Oh, yeah, McCain would defend the Jeish people and bomb,
bomb, bomb Iran.
Clinton must have Big Balls to say this stuff. Obama doesn't.

and, my man will get these white cops off my back.

[Tane]

Diplomacy is the answer - not more saber rattling! We have got to decrease animosity towards the US, not increase our bully image. We need to focus on curbing nuclear proliferation, not fuel the area's fear ridden desire to increase nuclear ability in order to reach a cold war stance in the Middle East. Do we really think it would be a good idea to go back to the Cold War era? Diplomacy now!

[browndog2]

I just love it!

Diplomacy is the answer

US: Please don't do bad things.
Iran: I see your point. we'll be good.

[LeftLeanWing]

Did you know that the US and the UK initiated a coup in Iran in the '50s. Overthrowing its democratically elected Prime Minister. The reason stated was because he wanted to nationalize their oil resources. He wanted to do this so Iran could benefit from its own resources instead of the big oil companies.

They put in The Shah who was a west-leaning version of Saddam Hussein.

So these bad things that you speak of have a bases in their history.

[CommonSensePlease]

Hillary is dangerous because she does not have a good JUDGEMENT! She could start War War III in a beat! WE CANNOT TRUST HER! whether it is a 3:00AM or at 3:00PM!

[repugnicansfearme]

Explain this too: SHE WAS FOR NAFTA, WHILE SHE WAS REALLY AGAINST IT??? How can this be?

[marthlois]

If Obama said this - he'd be flogged again 24/7!

Will you guys please digg this article and get it out there. Free passes for HRC - I'm so tired of it.

[hubbstan]

Read This: Three Candidates, Two Sets of Rules - Is It Racism?
Posted 5/1/2008 8:40 AM CDT
Bob Cavnar
http://www.chron.com/commons/persona.html?newspaperUserId=eljefebob&plckController=PersonaBlog&plckScript=personaScript&plckElementId=personaDest&plckPersonaPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3aeljefebobPost%3abf4be408-5c74-49e6-bba2-72c4b8aa42a7

[betz55]

And what if Israel attacks Iran ? The Iran issue is 100% Israeli. Iran is no danger to the US. Israel refuses to sign the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty ,which Iran has done. Israel refuses to allow IAEA inspections of their nuke facilites, which Iran has done. Israel refuses to comply with any UN resolutions, which the US protects it from. Make Israel adhere to the standards that it and the US want to impose on Iran. Israel is the biggest bully,dest­abilizing,­warmongeri­ng,bellige­rent aggressor in the ME and needs to be dealt with before Tehran. Iran has every right to defend themselves against Israel. As a member of the NPT Iran has every right to enrich uranium. It's absurd the pretense that Israel stands as the pathetic guardian against the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the ME. The IAEA in Israel ? The reaction would be spectacular and filled with claims of persecution and divine right. Unconditional, unquestioned, never ending financial support of Israeli policy is bad for the US. Israeli policies are no longer in line with US policies, and, as a result are making the US more of a target than ever in the Islamic world.The US arms Israel and shields Israel from international and UN repercussions which does us enormous harm in the eyes of the world. Good news? There will be when Israel and the US recognize a two-state solution, a separation between their country and this one, the United States.

[piul05]

I totally agree. And I suppose what should be asked of Clinton is the following: If , on the other hand, Israel attacks Iran, will she be prepared to obliterate them as well? What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

[undecidee]

Shhh, don't talk about Israel! She is trying to win some jewish votes here.

If Israel attacks Iran, she will probably say that Iran provoked that attack and join Israel to fight Iran. I think that when she said an umbrella she only meant ISRAEL! ;-)

[charlietuna11]

israel is frighened of iran. hillary knows how to play that card..the only thing that would please israel more would be if she added syria, hamas and hezbollah as other targets to annialate. hillary, mccain and aipac are one..elimi­nate obama and they can't lose. i receive e-mails and news every day linking obama to the muslim world, it doesn't take a rhodes scholar to know where there coming from.. the bottom line that no one talks about is the fact iran has not invaded another nation in more than a hundred years..can we make that same statement??

[sclucie]

Well, she did do more. She told us how she had loved Esther as a child (I like Esther too, but even Haaretz made fun of that one. She told us a Passover story about Moses (but evidently didn't study it well enough to make it to the Promised Land). It was pandering - but reckless, irresponsible, war-mongering pandering for votes. How is Clinton, who voted for the Iraq war, the Patriot Act and Liberman/Kyl less of a war-mongerer than McCain?

[Aramingo]

I see a lot of hand wringing over HRCs quote here, but no one seems to have their own answer to the original question: What would ANY of you do if Iran launched a nuclear attack on Israel? Or more generally, what is the proper response if a country launches a nuclear attack on another country?

[mulegino]

In answer to your question, I would say that the proper response to nuclear war is not having one-ever. So I would say that the best way to avoid any such conflict in the Middle East is to have Israel, under international supervision, destroy its arsenal of illegal nuclear weapons. Iran, according to the IAEA is not developing nuclear weapons, merely a nuclear energy program, which it is allowed to do under the NNPT.
Unfortunately, administration and congressional slavishness to AIPAC makes sanity and common sense unworkable in Washington. Look at the three candidates falling all over themselves to convince the Likud lobby that they are that groups most submissive lap dog.
But in all fairness to not effusively and unconditionally praise Israel is political suicide.

[Durango]

My response is that as a Presidential Candidate or as President of the United States I would NEVER answer hypothetical questions regarding nuclear war.

And Hillary certainly knows better. If she didn't, she is not fit to be President.

Since she did know better, but chose to answer the question for personal political advantage, it also shows her unfit for the office.

This is nuclear holocaust we are talking about.

[sclucie]

That one is pretty easy - and I imagine that you know the answer. The IDF, thanks to our tax dollars has the nuclear capacity to blow up the entire Middle East. MOSAD has far better intelligence than the CIA. Israel can take care of itself - and Hillary Clinton knows that.

I agree with Durango - she was completely out of line making that statement. It sounds like something that would come out of one of the more deranged FOX Newsmen, or Reverend Hagee.

[undecidee]

I agree. Israel have nuclear weapons and does not need the US to help bomb bomb bomb Iran. They can do it themselves.

Why are we meddling in the middle east anyway? I don't think that we would like it if China meddle with our policy.

MYOB is the best policy.

[Agent007]

I think you ask the right question Aramingo, but people are avoiding it just to criticize Hillary. Does anyone really think that if Iran executed a nuclear attack on Israel, we (the US) wouldn't respond militarily? Of course the we would, though Israel would likely already have done them in first before we get the chance.

Hillary should have mentioned getting a declaration of war from congress first, and you could argue that she should be less explicit about the extent of retaliation, but I think being explicit is called for deterrence purposes. Diplomacy should always be used when possible, but if a nation like Iran starts using nukes, I would like to hear someone defend the case that we wouldn't likely need to use military power to ensure Iran's nuclear capacity and/or those ordering the use of nukes are removed in such a case. By the way, for those comparing such an action to Iraq, it is a poor comparison since ground forces for occupation would not likely be a part of such an action.

[bsworld]

Had Obama said anything even remotely close to what she said the MSM would have been all over it. Such a double standard.

[BeyondTheBull]

You're absolutely correct!

[OJSIMPSON847]

Thank our African God that Obama doesn't have the balls to say this stuff.
He will talk with everyone and get them to accept our way, or he will
accept there way. Either way, it will be the Obamaway.

[Durango]

All this rush to war was started because the President of Iran Ahmedinajd allegedly said that they would wipe Israel off the face of the earth.

Leave aside the fact that he was misquoted. Or that he does not have the power to make such decisions. Or the fact that it is the official policy of Iran not to produce nuclear weapons. Or the fact that the collective wisdom of the American intelligence community that Iran doesn't have a weapons program.

How does that justify Hillary's statement?!?!?

If Ahmedinajad was wrong in stating that, how can Hillary, speaking as a candidate for Commander In Chief of the Armed Forces of the USA, which does have nuclear weapons, which does have the capacity to deliver those weapons and has more than an adequate supply of those weapons to accomplish the wiping out of their nation, be a right thing to say?

Hillary's statement was foolish on the face of it. She should not have answered a hypothetical question about nuclear holocaust.

And the fact she did renders her unfit to be President of the United States. We need intelligence in the Oval Office. Not a continuation of stupidity.

[TrueD]

Hillary would without hesitation directly obliterate 65 million people in Iran. Perspective? World War II is thought to have taken the lives of 72 million people (47 million civilians and 25 million soldiers). The obliteration of Iran, its oil reserves contributing to a massive conflagration, would no doubt spill over into neighboring countries in direct impact and fallout and indirect effects that would last for thousands of human generations. How many of Pakistan's 164 million or India's 1.1 billion people is Hillary willing to obliterate as collateral damage? Some ABC coward ought to ask Chelsea if she would be proud of her mother if her mother took the lives of 65 million people.

[PennP]

Men, women, children, babies in arms....do­es wiping an entire nation off the map qualify as genocide?

[Durango]

That is pretty much the definition of genocide isn't it?

[doyourownresearch]

Hillary pulls a Bush. Haven't we seen enough "cowboy" or cowgirl diplomacy - it's served us really well to this point, right?

[w8aminute]

'Obliterate Iran' and we'll need way more than a summer gas tax holiday...­.gas would be in the 100s of dollars per Gallon. Then what?

[sclucie]

No kidding. In addition to the incredible foreign policy gaffe, and the concept that anyone would threaten to wipe out a country with 65 or 70 million civilians, including women and children, Clinton might have looked at a map. The world's largest oilfield, and the world's largest offshore oilfield, the world's largest offshore transfer facility (Ras Tanura) are all closer than 300 km from the Iranian border. The two major Saudi oil pipelines converge near Ras Tanura.

If Clinton can't handle an interview without making an error of this magnitude, why wold anyone trust this politician with the most powerful position on the planet?

[katefranklin]

Gaffe alert. Does provoking Iran during a presidential primary bode well for that candidate's presidency? Given that the regular voters are generally more concerned about flag pins and pastors, I would hope that at least the superdelegates would take note of this "remark".

[PennP]

In case anyone might have thought she'd have second thoughts, she just repeated that stance in her interview with the Indianapolis Star: '"They would face massive retaliation," said the senator.'
It's in "Exhausted Clinton Clunks In Webcast Interview.­" The webcast isn't available, so all there are at this point are the comments. Hopefully it'll show up elsewhere.