Clinton Threatens to 'Obliterate' Iran
How proud the Clintonistas must be. They have learned how to rival what Hillary once termed the "vast right-wing conspiracy" in the effort to destroy a viable Democratic leader who dares to stand in the way of their ambitions. The tactics used to kneecap Barack Obama are the same as had been turned on Bill Clinton in earlier times, from radical-baiting associates to challenging his resolve in protecting the nation from foreign enemies. Sen. Clinton's eminently sensible and centrist--to a fault--opponent is now viewed as weak and even vaguely unpatriotic because he is thoughtful. Neither Karl Rove nor Dick Morris could have done a better job.
On primary election day in Pennsylvania, even with polls showing her well ahead in that state, Hillary went lower in her grab for votes. Seizing upon a question as to how she would respond to a nuclear attack by Iran, which doesn't have nuclear weapons, on Israel, which does, Hillary mocked reasoned discourse by promising to "totally obliterate them," in an apparent reference to the population of Iran. That is not a word gaffe; it is an assertion of the right of our nation to commit genocide on an unprecedented scale.
Shouldn't the potential leader of a nation that used nuclear bombs to obliterate hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese employ extreme caution before making such a threat? Neither the Japanese then nor the Iranian people now were in a position to hold their leaders accountable, and to approve such collective punishment of innocents is to endorse terrorism. This from a candidate who attacked her opponent for suggesting targeted strikes against militants in Pakistan and derided his openness to negotiations with other national leaders as an irresponsible commitment on the part of a contender for the presidency.
Clearly the heat of a campaign is not the proper setting for consideration of a response to a threat from a nation that is a long way from developing nuclear weapons. Obviously the danger of Iran's developing such weapons can be met with a range of alternatives, from the diplomatic to the military, that do not involve genocide and at any rate must be considered in moral and not solely political terms. Or is it base political ambition that would guide Clinton if she received that middle-of-the-night phone call?
If so, it cannot be assumed that Hillary Clinton as president would be less irrationally hawkish and more restrained in the unleashing of military force than John McCain. The latter, at least, has personal experience with the true, on-the-ground costs of militarism gone wild. Yes, I know that McCain still holds out the hope of winning the Iraq war that both he and Hillary originally endorsed, but for Clinton to raise the rhetoric against Iran in the midst of a campaign is hardly the path to Mideast peace, whether it concerns Israel or Iraq. It is bizarre that a politician who bought into the phony threat about Iraq's nonexistent WMD arsenal now plays political games with the alleged threat posed by Iran.
The war has accomplished only one major change in the configuration of Mideast power: Iran now holds uncontested supremacy as the region's key player. Whatever chance there is for stability in Iraq now depends on the blessings of the ayatollahs of Iran, whose surrogates were put in power in Baghdad as a consequence of the American invasion. It is totally hypocritical for Clinton or McCain to now talk about getting tough with Iran over the nuclear weapons issue, when both contributed so mightily to squandering U.S. leverage over Tehran.
To meet that potential nuclear weapons threat from Iran requires a serious, non-rhetorical, multinational response that makes clear that no nation has the right to obliterate the population of another, and that nations, even our own, that claim that right should be challenged as unacceptably barbaric. Instead, Clinton played into the thoughts of fanatics throughout the world who believe that might makes right and who take the United States--which spends more on its military than the rest of the world combined (including many billions on new sophisticated and "usable" nuclear weapons)--as both their enemy and an example to emulate.
What better argument do the ayatollahs need to justify their obtaining a nuclear "deterrent" than that the possible leader of the first nation to develop nuclear weapons, and the only one to ever use them to kill people, now threatens the people of Iran with obliteration?
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I am a progressive but I also common sense and Robert Scheer has none. He can't even understand a basic concept like deterrence. Clinton is NOT threatening to attack Iran without cause. There would have to be a casus belli. An Iranian attack on an ally. And we have many allies in the region. The treaty is called CENTO. Look it up.
And Arianna should know better because deterrence saved her sorry ass. If had been for the Truman Doctrine, where the concept of modern deterrence was born, Arianna would speak much better Russian and would have gone to Moscow State University not Oxford.
Well, perhaps its time to get out of these alphabet soup affairs, such as CENTO. Why can't Israel take care of itself -- it has 300 or so nukes? What has Israel ever done for us -- is it our "ally" -- hey, that's a two way street. Do we need them? I know that their spies have been active in the U.S., and that they did sink the U.S.S. Liberty without any provocation. I know they have rejected all efforts to remove themselves from the occupied territories, and that they have been active in starving the people of Gaza... but hey, that should be their business, and they should take whatever comes of it. Why should we protect them? My family and my nation is more precious to me than any mickey mouse settlement in the Middle East. These folks have their problems, we have ours -- enough already.
Yes yes so you are an Israel hater. and so it goes. That's the problem with bringing up Israel on left wing blogs. The left wing hates Israel and wants to see it destroyed. I'm surprised any jews for democrats at all now that the far left has taken control of the democrat party.
Israel made a mistake during an active war and attacked the USS LIberty, an act for which it compensated the servicemen and the US government. The US knew better than to have the ship i the area for the mistake to happen, Israel had asked the US to move all of our ships out of the area.
As for the territories, Israel acquired the land in the course of defending itself against overwhelming Arab forces in 1967. IT legally holds the land now and should not give up any more of it. Perhaps you don;t know this, but Israel has given up the majority of the land taken during the 67 war. The Arabs, who promised peace, have failed to deliver on their promises.
Strong retaliation with cause is one thing (and a nuclear attack on an ally would obviously be cause to retaliate)
Obliterating a nation in nuclear genocide, whatever horrors that nation's leaders have inflicted, is quite another thing, and is morally indefensible. There is no morally justifiable reason to threaten nuclear annihilation against a nation as long as we have more discriminate means of launching a strong retaliation.
We would not have been able to take down the Soviets with conventional warfare if retaliation had been necessary. Same possibly goes for the Chinese today. Iran, on the other hand, would have no way to defend itself from an allied strike aimed at destroying its military infrastructure and political leadership.
Clinton did not say that she would obliterate Iran with nuclear weapons. One small tactical nuclear weapon to take out their reactor, and then huge, multiple, and continuous conventional strikes could virtually obliterate Iran in a relatively small time.
Their power stations, water facilties, government facilties, air bases, and military bases could be taken out in 24 to 48 hours with conventional weaponry, along with then their refineries, and situations where systematic, grid driven attacks against their large cities, which would require less than thirty days, would virtually innihilate Iran, and the people who survived may well have wished they had died. People in this day and age are not prepared or equipped to deal with stone age situations, and that is what could exist in short order within Iran. They cannot even meet their food requirements now, and they are not taking steps to improve their food and agricultue output, and eliminating those imports, along with a number of other things would starve them in short order.
the recontextualization and smearing was not a lack of common sense thing, it was deliberate.
"Clinton is NOT threatening to attack Iran without cause. There would have to be a casus belli."
Won't attack without cause, eh? So, I have to ask, what exactly is cause for killing 70+ million innocent people?
On top of 70 million dead Iranians, how many people downwind of Iran in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India will also die from radioactive fallout and starvation? How many Americans will die from the inevitable retaliations against us? How badly will using that many nukes f*** up our already messed up environment.
If you think that (should Iran somehow get nuclear weapons) an Iranian zealot smuggling a small bomb into Israel and detonating it somehow justifies a genocide causing more deaths than all of WWI and WWII combined, you are really sick.
Ms. Clinton did not threaten to use a nuke against Iran. I know, accuracy is tough.
'Hillary mocked reasoned discourse by promising to "totally obliterate them," '
If you think that distortion of what Clinton's mendacious wife said is accurate, you're illiterate as well as stupid. Maybe you should try to brush up on the meaning of "if" and "could." If I were your boss I could make you do so. Don't worry--that isn't a promise that I'll do it.
On the other hand, maybe you did understand her remark, considering the fact that you studiously avoided quoting it.
Innocent Japanese citizens? Wow, I guess that makes the victims of Bataan, Nanking, Pearl Harbor, and the Korean girls forced into prostituti
All the civilians, on all sides of WW II were innocent. The Japanese women and children were not responsible for the actions of their leaders.
We in the USA do not believe in collective punishment. INDIVIDUALS can be guilty of crimes. A whole population can not.
Any way you cut it the United States of America is the only nation to use nuclear weapons. I can understand why Truman made that decision. And it can be justified for the greater good.
But it was a crime against the civilians incinerated at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They didn't deserve that fate. No one deserves that fate.
Yes, it was mostly innocent civilians who died when the US dropped the bomb on Japan. Go and read before you continue with your foul language vitriol. Also, most of the casualties in the Middle East (Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon and Afghanistan) have been civilians. What Hillary said was wrong, but she is a panderer, so I would expect that of her, but she went too far this time.
Indeed, I'm all in favor of comdemning Hillary's threat, but Scheer clearly drew false parallels by attempting to equate this process with atomic bombings which had been purely instigated in attempt to deter an imperialist dictatorship from furthering a helpless campaign which endangered lives on both sides. Although sympathy for the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is certainly justified, the fact remains that far too often, this issue is raised, not merely to supposedly "illustrate" the evils of nuclear warfare, but to portray Japan's role in the second world war as that of the unfortunate victim.
Ten times as many Japanese and U. S. and allied troops would have been lost, had the United States gone the conventional route and invaded Japan. The citizens were prepared to fight to the death, or to commit suicide.
Dropping those bombs on the Japanese was not any worse than what they did to the citizenry of every country they invaded. They were brutal to a degree which was inhumane. I detest those who permit Japan to play the martyr situation over Hiroshima and Kawasaki, as had they had the bomb, they wouldn't have hesitated to take out twenty times more highly populated areas with them. It just so happened they didn't have them, and they have played the we are the martyrs ever since. The Japanese earned their attacks, as they were the aggressors, detestable, and inhumane.
Clinton would "obliterate" Iran with 65 million people? That's like saying, I'm going to wipe them off the face of the earth. She's beginning to make Bush look like a peacenik.
We have nuclear weapons enough to destroy everybody but America and Israel. Why not, then? If we, for instance, destroy China, does that not cancel the trillion$ we owe them? Hot damn, debt free in one nu ku lar news cycle. Ain't America lethal and wonderful and war kittens kute?
We have another LIAR here in Mr. Sheer. Misrepresenting the criteria that Clinton used to say that she would obliterate Iran is dishonest, spin and Rovian to say the least.
Clinton said she would obliterate Iran if THEY ACTUALLY USED NUCLEAR weapons in Isreal. Not if there was a POSSIBILITY that they would. That's not hawkish, that's defensive. Your blog here, Mr Sheer, is another ironic example of the Rovian tacticsused by the same people that criticize Clinton for being Rovian.
Whats the point of her even saying that?? We all know this country can annihilate the world with nuclear weapons, so whats the point of trumpeting that out? Its a cheap way to play on peoples fears to get votes for a situation that doesnt even exist! Talk about baiting a country?? Lets all play the "what if" game. What if Russia shot nuclear missles at our country? We all know that would result in mutual destruction, so what would be the point in bringing that up now? It was a stupid, wave the sword statement. Hillary "nuclear annihiation" Clinton.
Clinton's comments were pure politics. But they also point out her glaring weaknesses as a leader, in this Age of Terror. What I think her comments do is create more damage to Israel, with the ever growing anti-Israel sentiment that has unfortunately translated into anti-semitism world wide, because of Iraq, 9/11 etc. The Clintons fail to see this, or do they?
But you fail to discuss the Arab ties her and her husband have made, over the course of the 8 years he has been out of office. Or the ties to China they have also made. You think China and many other country's like Russian are going to let Iran be obliterated. You think the allies in the War on Terror are going to let Iran be obliterated. Pure, political comments, on her behalf, ironically, the ones that should be condemning her, is Israel. She does them no favors. Sad.
I'm all for having a chick for president, but not hillary, man. woa. twitchy and itchy trigger fingers freak me out.
Yeah your "CHICK" comment says a lot about you.
Shes a clucking old hen who has outlived her usefulness in the barnyard..
and your screen name, Bill3rdterm, says alot about you.
Hillary's reliance on her husband's qualifications and coattails, plus your screen name dismissing Hillary's candidacy, says it all.
"Shouldn't the potential leader of a nation that used nuclear bombs to obliterate hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese employ extreme caution before making such a threat?"
One would think.
BTW, what do you think the Clinton campaign's reaction would have been if Obama had made such a statement? Clintonistas?
Hillary Ahmadinejad? No thanks. Wrongheaded, inflammatory. Unfit to conduct foreign policy. The U.N. and Lee Bollinger should condemn her.
Agreed.
As another reader pointed out, Hillary actually said that "Iran would be obliterated IF they attacked Israel with nuclear weapons", so I agree that the headlines is misleading. The REAL problems with her plan in case this happened is that:
1. Israel has enough nukes to reduce Iran and the entire region to the Stone Age if any survivors were left. Iran knows this, and I can't imagine they'd be stupid enough to attack Israel first, for any reason.
2. Because Israel is armed to the teeth and more than capable of erasing Iran off the map within seconds, there's no sound reason for us drop additional nukes on what already would have become a radioactive wasteland.
Lastly, if the US ever, for any reason, did a nuclear FIRST STRIKE on Iran, or joined Israel in a nuclear first strike, we would be at grave risk with China and Russia who DEPEND on Iran's oil. We could then say hello World War III, and goodbye civilization as we know it.
Who said anything about a first strike??? Why would you even attempt to spin it like that?
First of all, Russia and China don't want Iran do aquire Nuclear weapons. If they wanted them to get them, they would already have them. A country as rich as Iran and as Unstable is a threat to them as much as it is to us. I wish people could think reasonable about this issue instead of trying to make about Clinton V. Obama. this is an issue where we can not seem weak on, Iran is not a country who will respond to what seems like a weakness.
Err, ahh, ummm.
Cheney and Bush would love to make a first strike on Iran.
Or haven't you been paying attention. And those fools haven't given up the nuclear option.
So Hillary is throwing gas on an already existing fire.
You missed the point. Thanks to President Bush and his policy of pre-emption, we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. Should John McCain win, he's ready to carry that torch --> http://www
Hillary stopped short of going this far; at least she has enough heart to say she wouldn't attack unless Iran attacked Israel first, but the problem with her thinking is that it doesn't acknowledge that the Israelis are more than capable of quickly reducing Iran to dust. By the time we got there, the party would be over.
You are correct in stating that neither Russia nor China want Iran to have nuclear weapons. I never they said did.
You need to know, however, that Russia spent billions over the past decade in assisting the Iranians with their nuclear reactor - for the stated purposes of energy, not war - and they have plans for additional ones. Simply google "Iran, reactor, built, Russia, billions".
China has become increasingly dependent on Iran for oil and isn't alarmed about Iran having nuclear power plants. Google for that too, and you'll understand how this combination of a US pre-emptive strike policy and mentality, based on the kind of paranoia/lies that got us into Afghanistan/Iraq bloody and inhuman mess, to the likelihood that Russia nor China would tolerate a repeat of this with Iran.
"If they [Russia and China] wanted them to get them, they would already have them." That assumes that Iran actually WANTS nuclear weapons. The US NIE confirmed what Iran has been saying for years: they don't have a nuclear weapons program! So for Clinton to be even talking about Iran launching a nuclear strike on anyone is disingenuous. Not that Iran doesn't have good reason to want nuclear weapons. The worlds only superpower threatens them with bombing and worse on a regular basis, and refuses to talk to them until they meet every one of their demands. One of our leaders even put it to music (Bomb, bomb, bomb. Bomb, bomb Iran) As far as Russia and China go, they are far more concerned about the unstable US than about Iran. Iran is their trading partner and has never invaded a country because they didn't like their leader (and wanted their oil). Iran does not spend as much as the rest of the world combined on their military. Iran is not the ONLY country threatening to weaponize space. Iran adheres to the IAEA rules for development of peaceful nuclear power, the US does not. The US has in the mean time torn up the ABM treaty we negotiated with Russia, is developing next generation nukes, and far from working to curtail nuclear weapons wants them to spread, as long as its to countries like Japan who are our friends.
"Shouldn't the potential leader of a nation that used nuclear bombs to obliterate hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese employ extreme caution before making such a threat? Neither the Japanese then nor the Iranian people now were in a position to hold their leaders accountable, and to approve such collective punishment of innocents is to endorse terrorism.
So you mantain that the unconditional surrender and saving of countless American lives (and it can be argued, countless Japanese lives) was NOT a result of President Truman's decsion?
Don't bother Celtic. This is all about Obama to them. They throw reason and logic out the window in an attempt to attack HRC and they will stop at nothing. Obama could come out today and say the same thing and they would praise him. They think Hitler and the Japaneze and Iran etc. can be stopped by holding hands and singing Kumbaya.
Hitler, the Japaneze [sic]? That was done already, term.
Excuse me "Bill3rdTerm", if Obama came out and said what Hillary said about "totally obliterating" Iran I would think he was a stark raving lunatic and he would lose my support in a nano-second. What she said was reckless, stupid and irresponsible.
Or Truman could have accepted Japan's offer to surrender before any nuclear weapons were used. "Nuclear weapons saved lives" - Sixty year old propaganda is alive and well.
Which offer was that?
Celtic,
I had more than a wee bit of trouble digesting that statement too. To claim that the Japanese people were not in a position to hold their leaders accountable shows incredible ignorance of history. They not only approved of the Emperor, they worshiped him. And the Emperor backed the military. That was the central issue in structuring the terms for post-war Japan. The Emperor should have been deposed and tried as a war criminal. We could not do so because the Japanese people would not have stood for it. Thus the Emperor was permitted to stay in place if only as a figurehead. Countless lives WERE saved by using the atom bombs, as horrid as the destruction was. But to characterize it as 'terrorism' sounds like it's straight from Chomsky or Howard Zinn. Despicable.
I think a fair question to ask of Hillary Clinton is, what would you do if Israel carried out an unprovoked first strike attack on Iran, with nuclear weapons? Would you obliterate Israel?
If this statement had been made by GWB, Dick Cheney or John McCain (none of whom has actually publically talked about obliterating a country), would the Hillary supporters here defend them as well?
Would Bush be considered by them to be "pragmatic", "realistic", manly, having "backbone" and giving "the only sane response"? These are comments they have made about Hillary's statement.
If that's how they feel, I assume they have no problems with the war in Iraq (which Hillary was supporting long after the invasion and occupation took place).
Yes i would agree with it, regarless who said it, and that includes Obama. With Whom I supported when he talked about bombing Pakistan. I also agreed with Kyle-Lieberman bill as long as the President needed permission from Congress if he were to go to war. In case you missed it, Obama said the US would have a forceful retaliation against Iran if it occurred. HRC didn't pussy foot, and you can't pussy foot with Countries like IRan. If you give an inch they'll take a foot. If you say cross this line and don't say there are consequences they'll cross that line. They have been doing it with there missle systems, there testing and there attempt to acquire Nuc's since the 80's. You have to have some type of deterrance. This extremist leaders and countries need to know that IF they choose to use Nuclear Weapons as if they were toys they will suffer grave consequences.
Just a minute.
When has Iran threatened anyone with nuclear weapons? The idea is absurd because THEY DON"T HAVE ANY.
And even if they did, what possible scenario is there that they would attack Israel? Take a look at a map. They don't share a border, or anything close to a border with Israel. They could only attack Israel through some other country. Iraq perhaps?
Say what you will about the leaders of Iran. But they haven't invaded any other countries. They were the prime victims of foreign aggression in the Iarq/Iranian War. And their leaders, their true leaders, (not Ahmedinajad) are not fools. They are not likely to commit national suicide.
Hillary will take all of Bush's transgressions and magnify them. She will expand on the Military Commissions Act, Patriot Act, and the FISA program beyond anything Bush created to consolidate her power. She loves power. She will have to prove she's much stronger than any man, so after she removes 3 troops from Iraq, there will be a call to arms (she'll create something, the media and Israel are hers) to attack Iran. Blackwater will probably double in size because she will need a private army to protect her now. She will see to the consolidation of even larger media conglomerates since they helped her get elected (notice Murdoch buying another NY newspaper today). H1B Visas will be unlimited so there will be a labor pool so large that minimum wage will have to be lowered to keep up with the supply. Nothing will be manufactured in the USA, she gets way too many kickbacks from outsourcing. Yes, I hope the people from Pennsylvania enjoy the new America they helped create.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
