Clinton's "Obliteration" Remark is Genocidal, Requires Apology

Senator Clinton should apologize for using a genocidal term during her campaign. Her recent remark-- stating that if Iranians were to launch a nuclear attack against Israel, the United States would be able to obliterate Iran -- is out of the line, politically inappropriate, and reflects a hawkish approach toward foreign policy.

Even neoconservative warmongers who have been saber rattling with Iran over the past 8 years have never used such a term. If the media were not distracted by Rev. Wright's controversial remarks, this comment would cause a huge backlash against Clinton.

This calls into question Clinton's ability to pick up the red phone at 3 a.m. and make a tough decision on a crucial foreign policy issue. Also, before taking that 3 a.m. call, Clinton should read the National Intelligence Estimates during the daytime. She did not read them a single time for Iraq in 2002 and consequently voted for the Iraq war.

Once again, it seems that she did not read the latest NIE on Iran's nuclear program (PDF), which is a collection of reports conducted by dozens of intelligence agencies. The report released last December emphasizes that Iranians stopped their efforts to make a nuclear bomb in 2003. This means Iran has no bomb to attack Israel with, and consequently there is no need to "obliterate" a country with 70 million people, three times larger that Iraq in size and population.

Even if Iranians were to gain a nuclear bomb, there would be no way for them to use it against Israel, simply due to the geography of the region. Palestinians and Israelis live side by side. No bomb has yet been made that can differentiate between ethnicities.

Clinton's attempt to be tough has pushed her to internalize a neoconservative tone in her foreign policy agenda that is disrespectful of international mechanisms in dealing with global crisis. This destructive approach has dramatically damaged the image of the United States since the Iraq war in 2003.

Moreover, in the literature of peace and conflict studies, "obliteration" of a country, in whatever shape or form, is genocidal, irresponsible and irrational.

While thousands of people have died in a war that could have been avoided, talking about obliteration of yet another country -- which President Bush has called "the third World War" -- does bode well for change in the White House in January 2009.

Clinton should also know that there are between 25,000 to 35,000 Jews in Iran. Jewish people have a member in the Iranian parliament. They can practice their religion freely to a large extent, and love their homeland, even though they might not like their controversial president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. She should also remember that Iranians were the first in the Middle East to show their sympathy for the victims of the 9/11 tragedy by lighting candles in their memory.

Clinton's remark is disrespecting millions of Iranians who are struggling hard for their rights, which include thousands of intellectuals, journalists and activists who have paid huge costs to change their society but still think that the west and Iran should engage in a constructive dialogue -- even with the current government -- rather than go to war.

Follow Omid Memarian on Twitter: www.twitter.com/omid_m

Comments

[CivilDisobedient]

making such a threat leaves no doubt in the Iranian leader's minds of what the consequences of an attack on Israel would be.
But Israel doesn't need our nukes, they have their own, and they would surely use them. This is just more banter between us and Iran.

[Durango]

Hey man, like hey Hillary dude. What would you do if, like, the Iranians got secret death rays from tlike the Venusians and like they used them against, wow man, like they used them against Israel man. Just wiped them out man.

Like what would you do then man?

[JimR]

There are 30,000 Jews living in Iran. Would Clinton "obliterate" them, too?

[michiganvoter]

Mr. Memarian,

Thank you for your well articulated response to Senator Clinton's alarming rant. I only wish the serious implications of Hillary Clinton's own words regarding this volatile situation would receive the same amount of coverage as the Rev. Wright issues that have taken center stage in the news.

The more I learn, the more I fear the prospect of Senator Clinton becoming our president.

[BubbaC33]

I can see why you live in Michigan.

[MourningDude]

Clinton was simply stating a fact. We ARE able to obliterate Iran. And China, and Russia, and England, and the rest of the world, if necessary.

The entire premise of maintaining a nuclear arsenal is to act as a deterrent. In the case of the Cold War, the principle of "Mutually Assured Destruction" -prevented- nuclear war. That's the entire point.

For Obama or anyone else to say "We will not use nuclear weapons, no matter what" nullifies the value of having a nuclear arsenal. It welcomes irrational, irresponsible actions on the part of other countries like Iran who are willing to test our limits.

[NotThisTime2008]

When did Obama say that?
Link plz

...thats what I thought

[thedirtman]

You would think that with an issue as important as nuclear arsenals one should expect to get a quote right and account it to the right person. Googling, I can't find anyone to attribute that quote.

[slc20]

You are so wrong.

WE, the people in AMERICA would be obliterated before we were able to reign down the destruction you describe. Do you think we are the only country with nuclear weapons? We're not.

Maybe you are willing to die, and welcome the deaths of your children, mother, father, friends, and all your loved ones to protect Israel. I am not.

[BubbaC33]

Thank you Pat Buchanan.

[speciallady2003]

There is so much about your insightful post that HRC is ignorant about. Starting with your comment about genocide, I suspect she believes you are an Arab country. She never paid the slightest attention to Iraq--I'm sure it was often discussed while she was POTUS in training while in the White House or the Senate. She thought Saddam was so good at playing hide the WMD for the 10 years the UN was there that she wanted to send anyone but Chelsea into the game.
Hillary doesn't have to read--she already knows everything--so that comment about what she didn't read was just silly.
And that geography thing--she knows more about dodging sniper fire.
The lighting of candles thing, that was 2001. What have you done for her lately? Maybe a campaign contribution will do the trick!

[BubbaC33]

OK, what should the US response be to a nuclear attack against Israel by Iran. I know, according to the NIE Iran doesn;t have a nuclear capability. But the report did not speak to what Iran is doing now. So the question for you is what should the US do? What if the nation Iran attacks is Saudi Arabia or Kuwait or the UAE?
Instead of the usual Obama supporter posting, never offer anything specific about Obama, just attack Ms. Clinton, try answering a question directly.

[JimR]

Of course there would be a response. The point here is that you don't go around making childish threats like a 6-year old. What exactly that response would be depends on who they attack, how many killed, etc. It's pointless to answer a hypothetical question exactly. But it's incredibly irresponsible to suggest you would "obliterate" the country. So killing every man, woman and child in that country is her answer?

[joeinvt]

Memarian argues that Iran doesn't have the capacity to build a nuclear device and even if they had one, they would never use it. If so, then what's to worry? But if they did have and did drop a nuclear bomb on Israel or anyone else for that matter, what would the appropriate response be? Clinton says retaliate in kind. What are some better alternatives?

[Bill3rdterm]

OMID< So if IRan does get nukes and they use them say against us, would it be ok for us to retaliate with Nukes? IT's not as if she's saying we would just do it, if they launched a missile or raised gas prices. Wake the f' up and stop being such a bunch of pussies

[NotThisTime2008]

It AMAZES me that ANYONE with half a conscience can defend her remarks on this matter. There was/is absolutely NO need for her to make this comment, especially not now. As the author has mentioned, the majority of the Iranian population does not support the "wipe Israel off the map" comments - yet some of you are eager to execute their death sentence based on conjecture? Based on "IF's"?

And we wonder why they hate us....
It's not Britney Spears, it's not Diet Coke
It's ARROGANCE
It's COLONIALISM

It's DANGEROUS RHETORIC

Intellect no Re-Elect

OBAMA '08

[Durango]

Lets look at this another way.

Suppose in answer to the question Hillary had said "I will, under no circumstances use nuclear weapons against Iran."

That would be stupid. Who knows what the future will bring?

Lets say she say's. I would leave it up to the Israelis to retailate."

Again that is stupid. As President and Commander In Chief she needs to keep options open.

What if she said " If Israel attacks Iran I will obliterate Israel." How many of you Hillary supporters would be howling?

But the fact is ALL THESE ANSWERS ARE WRONG. A President , or candidate shouldn't answer hypothetical questions of imaginary future events BECAUSE THOSE ANSWERS BECOME OFFICIAL POLICY.

By answering the question, not to mention the way she answered, shows her unfit for command. We don't need further war. We need INTELLIGENCE in the White House.

And she showed the opposite.

[rmajh5]

While talking power and politics many years ago, my father pointed out to me that the most expensive and most powerful car around was only as good as the smallest parts of that car. Take away just one small and inexpensive spark plug from the car and you have taken away that car’s power.

We are a powerful nation, but we are not as powerful as we think we are. No great power in all of history has ever been as powerful as they thought they were.

More than powerful, we need to be smart. We need to be at least as smart as our enemies, and if at all possible, a bit smarter. And being smart means accepting one’s limitations as well as one’s strengths. It also means making certain that the national body within is well kept and secure from erosion before daring to tread outside in an attempt to judge and then to fix another nation’s system.

Here in America, our infrastructure is deteriorating, the numbers of the poor and the needy are expanding, our murder rates in too many areas are growing and our economy, in general, is suffering. A smart nation, observing that other great nations of the past facing these same problems eventually fell from their high positions due to failures to treat their own illnesses, would take heed and begin to seriously address its own problems. The question for us and our descendants is, will we be smarter than our predecessors?

[thedirtman]

I hear you. We can start becoming smarter by electing officials who are not embarrassed by truth and by science. In this neoconservative era the truth hides in the closet while the consequences are thrusted upon the American people. It is evident in Iraq when secret lies come out one at a time. It is evident in science when scientists have to seek permission from the federal government to speak. It is evident when activists are required to be inside "free speech zones" to exercise the First Amendment. It is evident when knowledgeable people are labeled "elitist" and the mainstream media burns their crosses. All of these are battle maneuvers in the War on Intelligent Thought. Petrifaction, stupefaction, hopelessness are weapons used against us.

[secret38b]

Matt Drudge and Politico still have a link to the Youtube clip in which Hillary's campaign calls African-Americans the n-word. We've got to get this on the weekend news shows. Call in as many talk shows as you can. The Hillbots are trying to silence the truth but they can't prevent investigative journalists and gay truthseekers like Matthew Drudge and John Aravosis.

[thedirtman]

If you want an effective plan to keep Israel safe, as I do, here is the recipe that will work:

Diplomacy. Trade. Reconnaissance. Espionage.

A foreign policy should be guided by reason and not fear. Saber-rattling threats has never and will never work to mitigate nationalistic hatred. It has only worked to escalate trouble. It causes adults to shout and gives children nightmares. All intelligence points to growing terrorism under repression by fear.

For once, give the stupidity a rest. Choose intelligent thought.

[john456]

Your second point is the most important. Without a viable middle class in the Middle East peace can not be possible, regardless of any diplomatic solution.

[YenNguyen]

Hear! Hear! Well said.

I've heard of the acronym DIME (Diplomacy, Intelligence, Military, and Economic) to describe the concept of US National Power. Clearly we have put too much weight on one area and not enough on the others.

As for Clintons comments, we are already stretching our military between two wars and she's offering a Third Front?

I wish all women (especially mothers) who are voting for Clinton because "it's time for a woman in the White House" would just consider that they may be voting for someone who would have no problems drafting their sons and daughters for a war with Iran. Clinton has no credibility to rally the military rank and file.

In fact, Clinton had no problem voting to Authorize use of Military for in Iraq even though she didn't even read the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq. It's not like her daughter, Chelsea, was going to actually fight the war.

[cybersense]

I am sorry, but you are off your rocker. It needed to be said and it was IF Iran was a question of importance. What are you all missing here - a history lesson? This is an important statement. The Iranian President is looney and if you remember any history about this country and their own statements about wanting to wipe Israel off the earth or map, perhaps you would think a little more?

Look, are you the same person who thought that the tiger in San Fransico who escaped, mauled and killed people, should not have been shot? Are you kidding me? What part are you and the others who posted here do not get? I tell you what, I will go along with you if you go over there and want to give a "looney" man a hug and get all nice with him if you want, but when you are jailed and held against your will, tortured and set up for death because you are an american, I guess you would then expect the rest of us Americans to come over there and rescue you to eh? Well, stay home and pay attention and learn your history lessons. This President of Iran is nuts and apparently needs a higher fence like the tiger in the Zoo should have had to prevent him from doing anyone harm.

Hillary did that raised that fence higher with those words and I say Iran can whine about all they want.

[thedirtman]

Hillary didn't raise any fence. Nothing she said will improve anything. She only teased the lion and pissed him off.

[BubbaC33]

Iran is a lion? That is beyond goofy.

[Durango]

Niether a president nor a Presidential candidate has any business answering hypothetical questions on foreign policy issues.

And her answering that question with a threat of nuclear holocaust was foolish in the extreme.

Leave what MIGHT happen in Iran in a decade to the future. But don't threaten Iran OR ANYBODY simply to show you are tough in a political campaign.

And if you don't know how to deflect stupid questions by now, you also have no business being in the Oval Office.

[john456]

Your logic is from the same school of thought for parenting skills as yelling at the child "you do that and I'll kill you."

[JimR]

You are misguided if you think Ahmadinejad is in full control over there. The mullahs hold the power. Yeah, he talks a lot of smack. So does Bush. They're both looney blowhards.

Also, that Israel comment was mistranslated:

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=4527

Something that may or may not interest you... After 9/11, one of the greatest outpourings of sympathy came from the people of Iran. They held vigils in remembrance of the victims, and posted messages of support:

http://www.iranian.com/memory.html

Don't believe everything the media tries to forcefeed you.

[Inspire]

She is making it very clear....that as Commander in Chief, she WILL act if it is warranted!!!!

The author would be the first to punce on her female "weakness" if she indicated a less than strong position on this matter.

We have allies, we WILL defend them, and she has CLEAR LIMITS.

She is STRONG, get over it!

[thedirtman]

Strong could be firm. Strong could be strongly offensive.

[SayNoBHO]

Hillary is an irrational hothead like the looney bum we have in office right now. Her mood swings back and forth in this campaign indicate that she is mentally unstable and WEAK. She's unfit to be in charge of this country.

[JimR]

"Obliterating" innocent men, women and children is being strong?

God save us all from that kind of "strength."

[sebocd]

Clinton's "Obliteration" Remark is Genocidal, Requires Apology

IT IS IMMORAL!

[cybersense]

Immoral to whom? Iran? Did you eat your wheaties this morning? Iran's president has said he wants to wipe Israel off the map. You mean that Immoral statement? Or do you mean any of the other statements made by this man that are immoral and genocidal?

Why don't you ask the President of Iran for an Apology? Yeah....you have to be kidding me.

That statement HRC made was a very strong statement in response to asking what would she do if she was President and Iran used nuclear to bomb Israel and her statement was that she would make it clear to Iran that the US could Obliterate Iran. Strong? Hell yes. And a very needed statement at that. You want her to apologize? You are not paying attention to what is going on and you do not need a degree to figure this one out, you need common sense. Put your thinking cap on!

[JimR]

Well, that's what the media has reported widely, which you clearly lapped right up. But what he actually said was slightly different...

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=4527

You must be a big fan of George Bush if you support her comments.