Hillary Clinton vowed that if she were president and if Iran were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel, the US could "totally obliterate" Iran.
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, facing a crucial primary in Pennsylvania Tuesday, said that if she were in the White House and Tehran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons, the United States would be able to 'totally obliterate' Iran.
Interviewed on ABC's Good Morning America program, Clinton was asked what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons.
"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton replied. "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."
Now, from a pro-Israel, anti-Iranian-regime standpoint, what's wrong with that statement? Just about everything.
First and most directly to the point, the object is to prevent Israel from being nuked in the first place. The question posed to HRC presupposed the hypothetical case of Israel having been nuked; but Senator Clinton failed to stress that such a scenario, if (G-d forbid) it were to occur, would itself represent an enormous tragedy and a massive failure of diplomacy and strategy. The cavalier "nuke 'em till they glow" attitude would be of scarce comfort to the Israeli victims of such a strike.
But what about deterrence? Cannot Senator Clinton say that by publicly articulating a hard line, she is making it less likely that the attack will occur in the first place? No. Again, by tacitly granting the initial premise - an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel - she makes it clear that she is not serious about preventing such an attack from occurring. And this in turn makes the obscene threat sound like a bluff.
Whether the threat is in earnest or not, it will do little to deter Iran. During the Cold War, deterrence was our only recourse against the Soviet Union, because we did not have the means to prevent the Soviets from acquiring nuclear weapons or building an arsenal; and it was effective because the Soviet dictators, cruel and evil men though they were, were not so suicidally irrational as to actively seek that Mutually Assured Destruction that would have been the result of a nuclear exchange.
None of these things apply to Iran. The mad mullahs in Tehran may very well be willing to sacrifice thousands or even millions of their people if it means furthering their destructive designs against the Jews. But there is no reason for the West to meekly accept those plans, because they can be stopped. The Iranian nuclear program can be stopped and, I believe, the regime in Tehran overthrown without recourse to massive nuclear weapons.
In short: An ounce of prevention is worth a kiloton of cure.
Finally, the most deeply offensive thing about Clinton's remark is its utter disregard for innocent human life, in Iran and elsewhere. What sane person would want to "totally obliterate" an entire nation? Destroy its war machine, if necessary, or topple its dictators - but "totally obliterate" Iran? What kind of madness is that?
It's the madness of someone who is afraid of being seen as weak; who, instead of imagining how she might win a meaningful victory, fantasizes about the scores she will settle when she loses.
