Clinton Defends 'Obliterate Iran' Comment, Obama Calls It Bush-Style 'Cowboy Diplomacy'

Sen. Hillary Clinton today defended her statement that the United States would "obliterate" Iran if it ever launched a nuclear strike on Israel. "Why would I have any regrets?" she told George Stephanopoulos and group of Indiana voters on ABC's This Week. "I am asked a question about what I would do if Iran attacked our ally, a country that many of us have a great deal of, you know, connection with and feeling for."

She continued:

"I think we have to be very clear about what we would do," Clinton said. "I don't think it is time to equivocate about what we would do.

"I sure want to make it abundantly clear to them that they would face a tremendous cost if they did such a thing."

Clinton said she disagreed with experts who believe her comments actually undermine Iranian reformers who are trying to build ties with the United States. Moreover, when asked if an Iranian attack on Saudi Arabia would be treated the same as an attack on Indiana, she avoided answering. Watch it:

Barack Obama, for his part, criticized Clinton on Meet the Press for standing by her Iran rhetoric:

"Well, it's not the language that we need right now, and I think it's language that's reflective of George Bush. We have had a foreign policy of bluster and saber-rattling and tough talk, and, in the meantime, we make a series of strategic decisions that actually strengthen Iran. So -- and, you know, the irony is, of course, Senator Clinton, during the course of this campaign, has at times said, 'We shouldn't speculate about Iran.' You know, 'We've got to be cautious when we're running for president.' She scolded me on a couple of occasions about this issue, and yet, a few days before an election, she's willing to use that language."

Last week, Iran's deputy U.N. ambassador sent a letter to Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon denouncing Clinton's comments, and saying they were, "provocative, unwarranted and irresponsible." The Clinton camp shrugged off the letter.

However, the U.N. seems to have taken more interest in Iran's plea than the Clinton campaign. According to a recent interview with a member of Ki-Moon's staff, the U.N. would not treat lightly such statements if Clinton were elected:

Following Iran's United Nations Mission letter to both the United Nations Security Council and Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon on United States Senator Hillary Clinton's recent statement on Iran on ABC News, Ban's spokesperson Ferhan Haq told me on Friday, "If she [Hillary Clinton] becomes president and she keeps saying that, then we'll have to react," when I followed up on the U.N.'s position.

Provocative language aside, the new foreign policy of a nuclear security umbrella against Iran that Clinton advocates is meeting mixed reviews among intelligence and policy analysts:

Some analysts have praised her proposal as a bold initiative, but it has also attracted concerns about its feasibility and whether it would tie the hands of a future president. Martin S. Indyk, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel, one of the originators of the idea and a Clinton supporter, said that Arab states would probably need to promise to recognize Israel for such a treaty to win congressional approval....

Indyk, director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, acknowledged that such an agreement with Israel would easily win approval, but "in the case of the Arabs it would be quite controversial." He said the debate would be: "Do we want to be at nuclear war with Iran on behalf of Saudi Arabia, or do we want a region with five nuclear powers?"

Comments

[OliviaRee]

Hillary needs to show some class tomorrow and pack it in. It's over for her. Time to move forward. Barack is the nominee. Wahoo!!!!!

[abellofgrace]

I will be so relieved when this campaign is over, with Obama being our democratic nominee. Hillary Clinton has never taken responsibilty for any mistake she has made. Talk about narcissistic....sheeesh. She is truly scary and her judgement is not to be trusted. Of course no one is perfect, but Senator Clinton is totally out of control. With her, sense of entitlement, her blind ambition, her Tonya Harding tactics to her fellow democrat...... should be enough to make any normal person feel unsettled, when it comes to her being the potus. The fact that she still has some die hard supporters, says a lot about the state of America. God help us.

[skibum49]

Lets be clear what Senator Clinton said in the Penn. ABC debate

CLINTON: 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. You can't go to the Saudis or the Kuwaitis or UAE and others who have a legitimate concern about Iran and say, well, don't acquire these weapons to defend yourself unless you're also willing to say we will provide a deterrent backup.
And we will let the Iranians know, that, yes, an attack on Israel would trigger massive retaliation. But so would an attack on those countries that are willing to go under the security umbrella and forswear their own nuclear ambitions.

Isnt that great. A whole region of wackos and she is suggesting we form a defense agreement with them against the wackos in Iran.

[HumeSkeptic]

I don't see what the big surprise is here. Hillary has always been pro-NeoCon. And an attack on Iran is the next phase of the NeoCon plan. It's not really a secret.

Actually, all that "obliterate" and "nuke" Iran stuff is to win some NeoCon and Jewish votes (and money!). The real danger is another unnecessary (conventional) war if either Hillary or McCain get elected.

Also, there is no reason to believe that Hillary would actually pull ot of Iraq. She will most likely use some excuse (such as fabricated evidence of Iran's involvement in Iraq) to change her mind and comply with the NeoCon plan.

[sclucie]

Just in case you missed it. And I'd like some answers - not more Mark Penn insults.

Well, I'm an Obama supporter, and I just gave you some. Here's some more: the largest offshore oil field, the world's largest oil field, the largest transport center, and the two Saudi oil pipelines converge within 300km of th Iranian border. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to "obliterate Iran" without hitting those fields. The impact would not hurt the western economy, it would virtually paralyze the world economy. It was a stunningly ignorant statement for Hillary Clinton to make - and it certainly did not help convince me that Clinton would do anything at all to restore the confidence of America's allies. But it did convince me that she will do virtually anything to win.

[naijaman]

Didn't Hillary spend the entire summer of 2007 slamming Obama for "hypothetica statements" that "would destabilize the region"? Didn't she say that was "naive and irresponsible"? So now it ok for HER to use hypothetical statements?

[Bigeasy]

What signal does that send out and to make it worse she stands by her comment, between the gas tax and this comment just proves how far a politician will go to get elected.

[robeson]

I call it a war crime and murder.

[newshawk14]

This is classic Hillary, no matter how stupid your comment, never admit you're wrong. The other
recent example, is jumping on the tax holiday band wagon with McCain, and calling almost all
the professional economists that think the idea is absurd, and calling them elitists because
they don't agree with her. The other interesting thing is demanding that her fellow congressmen
vote on the issue, and that they are either for her or against her. I bet that cost her at least five
super delegate votes. I think the lady is beginning to lose her marbles.

[BubbaC33]

There is nothing stupid about Ms. Clinton's comment.
The idea of having the oil companies paying the gas tax for the summer is not designed to be a long-term solution, just a rspite for the mddle class. Obama's mocking of the plan is a very good and accurate indicator of his feelings for the middle class of this nation.

[Leota2]

Ahhhh, delusion---the Clinton reality. Obama isn't the only mocker. . . .
But maybe even one lost job to save people 30 dollars
over the summer is worth it to you.
It's called pandering. Even Krugman who worships at the
alter of Clinton is horrified at the holiday gas tax.
Yes BubbaC33, sadly this is extremely stupid.

[skibum49]

Ok everytime I see one of these posts I will ask the same question. Which so far nobody seems to have an answer to. If you believe that Senator Clinton or Senator McCain for that matter are really serious about this tax "holiday" ask yourself this question.

What is the Senate Bill Number(s) for the legislation that they have introduced in the United States Senate to make this holiday happen. Talk is cheap. Words are important but if you really want to change something that requires laws to be modified then it isnt done with words its done with legislation. So far a week has gone by . We have about three weeks until the official start of the Summer driving season (Memorial Day Weekend). Hmmmm no bill introduced in the Senate by either Senator.
Lest you believe that they have been to busy I might point out that they don't even have to be in Washington to introduce a bill. An Aid can draft the bill and submit it to the Senate Clerk. Hell they can draft it themselves and fax it to the Senate Clerk.
The lack of any effort for actual legislation speaks volumes about whether they are serious or this is just political pandering to grab a few votes from the uninformed.

[Mekarri]

I voted for Hillary Clinton. But now I regret that I did. At least she didn't win in GA. I am very disappointed in her. Now she is just desperate and saying anything to get elected. It is ashamed that she can't be the woman that she started out being. Maybe it was just another lie. I know that she wants to win and I am all for putting up a good fight but to just say ridiculous things without thinking of the consequence is not what we need. And it doesn't win any points with me. She would win more votes if she stayed true to her belief but then again maybe these are her true beliefs. I hope Obama wins otherwise its over for America as we know it.

[DFDoerr]

Hillary and Huffpos are morons.
Don't you know how nuclear blackmail works?
Iran will nuke Israel, but they will have more bombs ready and waiting.
If America responds, Iran will retaliate, you idiots.
Your either willing to blow up the entire world or not.
Live with reality Huffpos.

[Leota2]

Are you new to this blog?

[chery]

Israel has nuclear weapons, have had for a long time now! Isreal can easily take care of itself. And because of its standing, America would not be the only nation that would help defend Israel of it were unfairly attacked. So this charlton heston pandering of hillary's is only proof that she really needs to leave the democratic party and join her buddy Joe Lieberman in McCain's campaign! We have had 8 years of cowboy diplomacy!

[BubbaC33]

So, if Israel was destroyed by an Iranian nuclear attack your idea of the correct US response would be?

[ceti]

The point is the question doesn't merit an answer, as it is based on false premises. It is Israel that is far more likely to attack Iran with nukes, as it is the US that has always been far more likely to employ its first strike capability against the Soviets.

What Hillary and you by extension is that you accept the premise of the question, and are willing to exact the maximum retaliation -- destroying an entire nation and a part of the world for ever -- as a result.

This is genocidal madness of the Curtis Lemay school of death from above.

[sclucie]

Do you honestly believe that Iran would attack Israel without MOSAD having a clue? I imagine they'd be a little insulted. Are you aware that Israel has the capacity, all by itself, to wipe out the Middle East, if they felt threatened?

Hillary needed to pick up some extra votes - and she made one of the most reckless and dangerous foreign policy statements I have ever heard from a member of either party during a primary. It.was.wrong. Even the WSJ found it outrageous. If she is this undisciplined during a primary, it does not indicate that she would have better judgement as a President.

[LucasFibonacci]

Clinton just doesn't think before she speaks. Compare also her comments on Kosovo with Obama's. Obama really has an outstandlingly clear mind. The Clintonites should really consider this. Who is better able to evaluate a situation carefully before speaking out? Who has a deeper understanding of the issues? There's plenty of evidence that Clinton is just not the best person for the job.

[BubbaC33]

The only evidence I have seen in the postings of Obama supporters is evidence of an inability to write anything postive about Obama. I've seen evidence of people against Ms. CLinton, with nothing that indicates they are for anything.

[sclucie]

Well, I'm an Obama supporter, and I just gave you some. Here's some more: the largest offshore oil field, the world's largest oil field, the largest transport center, and the two Saudi oil pipelines converge within 300km of th Iranian border. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to "obliterate Iran" without hitting those fields. The impact would not hurt the western economy, it would virtually paralyze the world economy. It was a stunningly ignorant statement for Hillary Clinton to make - and it certainly did not help convince me that Clinton would do anything at all to restore the confidence of America's allies. But it did convince me that she will do virtually anything to win.

[Chris]

I am confused are people here actually upset the someone who could possibly be president would dare to say that they would defend an ally.

Sorry peaceniks if someone drops a nuke on a country they are not looking to talk things out.

[sjarodet]

Wouldn't they first need a nuclear capability?

[Chris]

The quesiton was if Iran nuked Isreal.

[Lesjoan]

Wow a woman is tought big deal I guess Obama would just talk a flowery speech.

[sclucie]

Saying that she would "obliterate Iran" is not tough - it is ignorant and politically ruthless. And I've had enough of tough Donald Rumsfeld was "tough." Dick Cheney is "tough." George Bush was gooing ot "take Osama bib Laden dead or alive." Tough as you can get. So five years later, 2000 American lives later, $2 Trillion dollars later - what do we have? A war without end to build an Islamic Republic in Iraq - with closer ties to Iran than the US. I have had enough tough guys. I'm ready for someone who can think.