Does Hillary Support War with Iran?

Since her vote for the odious Kyl-Lieberman amendment, Hillary Clinton has been forced to make what appear to be moves in the direction of the position of the vast majority of Democratic voters on the issue of war with Iran. But these moves, aimed at assuaging the anxiety and anger of anti-war voters, fail to address the real question: Does she support an unprovoked military assault on Iran or not?

She has been on the defensive on Iran primarily because she was the only Democratic candidate to vote in favor of the odious Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which approves not only the administration's declared intention to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a "terrorist organization" but administration's carefully crafted and completely unsupported case for war with Iran. Clinton has offered a lame excuse for that vote, telling a campaign audience Saturday that the amendment would give the United States "leverage when we negotiate with them." That position represents an almost perfect political straddling of the issue - invoking both negotiations and toughness toward Iran in the same breath - that allows a Democratic candidate to appeal to all but hardcore antiwar voters.

Even more serious, she told the same audience Saturday that the Iranians "are supporting sending weapons into Iraq right now that are used against our troops". That tortured formulation tells us that Clinton cannot be counted to exercise any independent judgment about the facts surrounding the administration's case for war.

That is why Clinton's co-sponsorship of the Webb amendment requiring the president to seek congressional approval before any military action against Iran should not be taken seriously. Some bloggers have viewed that move as a hopeful clarification of Clinton's Iran policy. But calling for a vote on the issue is not an indication that Clinton is opposed to war with Iran. She has carefully avoided saying anything about her views on that issue except insofar as they can be inferred from her acceptance of the administration's rationale for war.

Her campaign and her Senate office have carefully refrained from issuing any statement about the Webb amendment, much less the bigger issue at stake. The reason for her reluctance to have the spotlight shown on her position is clearly that she is unwilling to state flatly that she is opposed to war with Iran.

In fact, of course, she is one of the leading supporters in the Senate of the Bush administration's policy of threatening war against Iran. In a speech last February 2 to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Clinton said, "U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," she said. "In dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table."

The rhetoric of "no option" being taken "off the table" is, of course, the signature of the Bush administration's approach to Iran. It means nothing more or less than that the administration asserts the right to attack Iran unilaterally and without provocation, should it decide that it is necessary in order to deal with an alleged nuclear threat from Iran. It posits no requirement that the intelligence community has reached a conclusion that Iran is actually on the verge of building nuclear weapons and that there is no possibility of reaching a diplomatic agreement with Iran to avoid a confrontation. That policy line reflects the views of the most extremist leadership the United States has ever known and would expose this country and the entire world to what could be the most incalculably dangerous sequence of events known since World War II.

When Clinton first uttered her "me-too" stance on the Bush policy of threatening war, I was inclined to interpret her position as a reflection of the popular notion among national security specialists that one never gives up a power advantage over an adversary. After all, John Edwards and Barack Obama were falling into line with the "all options on the table" line as well. And the fact of U.S. military dominance has tilted the entire national debate sharply toward the exploitation of threat to get Iran to bend to American will. I hoped that position could still give way to firm opposition to an actual strike when such a plan emerged.

But we now have Sy Hersh's most recent report in The New Yorker, that there has been "a significant increase in the tempo of attack planning" on Iran by the Bush administration. That comes on the heels of a reliable report in August that Cheney had been pushing for a limited strike on bases in Iran that would be aimed at provoking an Iranian response and my own analysis that Lieberman was coordinating his own pro-war amendment in July with the U.S. military command production propaganda supporting war with Iran.

Clinton's failure to utter the slightest protest in the face of a real threat of war must be taken as prima facie evidence that Clinton has no fundamental disagreement with war against Iran. Unless the voters of New Hampshire and Iowa send a signal that they will not accept a Democratic candidate who is not ready to stand up against war with Iran, the chances of preventing such a war recede to the vanishing point.

Unfortunately, neither Edwards nor Obama have done anything to indicate that they will actively oppose war against Iran either. The only hope for reversing the present momentum for war is that Democratic voters will begin a massive shift to a candidate who has been straightforward in opposing war with Iran from the beginning. Bill Richardson declared in an op-ed last February, "Saber-rattling is not a good way to get the Iranians to cooperate. But it is a good way to start a new war -- a war that would be a disaster for the Middle East, for the United States and for the world."

That is the position the voters must rally around decisively in the primary states. And there is no time for dallying over candidates based on other issues and qualifications. The anti-Iran war shift has to happen right now.

Comments

[EspressoAtNoon]

Obama said it best when he inferred that Hillary is "Dick Cheney lite".

[bethinCary]

Looking back at Bill Clintons' tenure in the WH-he was deeply, DEEPLY just as rooted in Big Oil (Enron connections)as the current WH is.
Since HRC still has that rolodex of contributors from her hubbys' campaign-do you really think she is going to deviate from that strategy which made her hubby successful?

[NABNYC]

Yes, of course Hillary supports war against Iran. Why wouldn't she? She supports war against Iraq, another country that did absolutely nothing to the U.S. At least she's consistent.

During the last debate Hillary announced that U.S. troops would NOT be out of the mideast by 2013 because she plans to keep U.S. troops there to fight against Hamas and Hezbollah. Really? We are not in a war against Hamas and Hezbollah. Neither Hamas nor Hezbollah is in Iraq or in Afghanistan. So she just announced that she plans to turn the control of the U.S. military over to Israel, so they can direct our military to fight against their enemies.

In fact, maybe we are just emulating Israel, a nation that has managed to make enemies out of every single country in the rest of the world. Now it's our turn. Attack, bomb, kill, steal, deny, lie: the Israeli roadmap to "peace." Because war is peace. And death is life.

Hillary would love Bush to attack Iran. But if he doesn't, she will when she gets in office. Her plan is clear: keep the U.S. military tied up in the middle east for decades defending Israel and defending U.S. oil companies as they loot the oil and other resources from the area.

I'm beginning to think those crazy Christians may be right. Maybe we are headed for Armageddon. After all, over-stretching the military to occupy foreign lands, creating enemies throughout the world, wasting resources, using every cent of the wealth of working people to prop up these military adventures which benefit only the elite: doesn't this sound like the same old story for the destruction of empire? Toga anyone?

[Countess]

Hillary Clinton will do whatever is required in order to satisfy Israel's so called security needs even if means starting world war three. She is absolutely no different from McCain and Giuliani who are both in love with with perpetual war.

[fourex]

All of Hillary's votes and opinions indicate she supports an American Empire in the mid-east not far from the PNAC positions.

[Thorn]

No one -- no one -- wants a hot war with Iran. But I'll tell you what a lot of people want less: Iran with the ability to hand a nuke to a bad player. The notion that Iran might "launch a nuke" is ridiculous. That's 1950s thinking. But there might be some Iranians only too happy to pawn off a nuke to someone, in which case the city where I live will cease to exist.

[fourex]

I believe you mean Pakistan where they already have the nukes and radicals.

[brutus948]

why would the iranians do that? We would know where the nuclear material came from and nuke them.
I'm not sure why we are so worried about iran doing that and not pakistan or india or israel for that matter.

[RDixon]

If it takes 12 paragraphs to answer a yes or no question, you might be a politician.

[chery]

Hillary has really very little new to bring to the table. It's obvious that she's a status quo candidate. There are many candidates that bring more to the table this primary, but the press are too bored with them to bother! And this primary is all about media ratings and the advertising coffers, remember! What a sham!

[CorkExaminer]

This is so true. We are meandering into a much worse catastrophe. A few brave souls on the Clinton campaign trail have had a telling effect though. It shows that it is still possible to speak truth to power.

[MrLion]

She voted for the Kyl-Lieberman resolution, then co-sponsored the Webb amendment. Yet another example of the Hillary Two-Step.

[bethinCary]

She knew Webbs' bill would go nowhere-that's why she did it-to save face.

[altohone]

Hillary's position is to have it both ways.

Nobody can claim to know where she stands, and her statements allow her to claim consistency whether an attack occurs or not.

We are officially in a War on Terror, with any and all definitions implicit, so playing down the Kyl-Lieberman bill that declares the Quds force a terror group ignores how that resolution truly opens the door for an attack.

The leverage argument is disengeniuous at best.

[hopeless277]

She knows a good gravy train when she sees one. Chris Dodd is the most qualified and the most experienced candidate. And he doesn't have the 'Clinton mystique'(NAFTA) to live down.

[peaceandfreedom]

hopeless (I hope not...)

There are half a dozen Dems superior to Hillary who come with more experience and less baggage.

Dodd would be an excellent president.

Hillary's Kyl/Lieberman vote shows her allegiance to the war machine, and her support from Dianne Feinstein, whose husband's company continues to profit from these wars, makes her even more suspect.

http://www.counterpunch.org/frank02282006.html

http://thehill.com/david-keene/feinsteins-cardinal-shenanigans-2007-04-30.html

[Henry]

Triangulators all. It goes to show you that policy, plans, and intent of this country are not a result of the enlightened impulse of the electorate but a narrow group of influence. A group that does not share the good reputation of the meaning and intent of America writ large. What narrow group of interest would be likely to commit an act of war using the U.S. military as hired guns?