Should the U.S. "obliterate" Iran if it launches a nuclear attack on Israel?

[sdbest]

Hillary Clinton has said she will "obliterate" Iran if it should launch a nuclear attack on Israel.

The Boston Globe has characterized this position as Hillary Strangelove.

A list of international responses is at Daily Kos.

Are Clinton's remarks the words of someone who has crossed the Commander in Chief threshold and can be trusted with the power of the U.S Presidency or are they those of someone too dangerous, intemperate, and irrational for the job on Day 1 or at 3:00am?

To put this question into some context, this is Iran.

[Technosoul]

Any country that attacks another country with nuclear weapons should be quickly burried under six feet of ground. Glad she made our stand on that perfectly clear. Nice to have a no "if and butts about it" Commander and Chief. As long as we have vowed to protect Israel from other countries then I see no reason for Congress not to agree with that statement. (unless later we change our mind and no longer wish to protect Israel and the many buildings held sacred by Jewish people, Chistian people, and Islamic people.

One thing is for sure, we cannot allow fundamentalists from using nuclear wepaons to fullfill thier religious agendas.

Very good "day one thinking" on the part of Hillary Clinton.

[HelioPrime]

As much as I don't like the idea of nukes be used I agree with Hillary.

We have the greatest power on earth and must use it to prevent any other nations from being able to abuse power. Letting Iran nuke Israel and then just standing aside would tell any third world nation they can run over anyone if they get nukes.

I'm glad in that regard Hillary has the balls to stand up and say NO. The US left isolation a long time ago, there is no going back to 1800 and just being an isolated agricultural nation.

[another day]

The mere fact that these ridiculous fantasies are being discussed on a serious level with candidates is disgusting!!

What source is there for this "hypothetical" garbage about Iran nuking Israel? What source except the mouth of George Bush and the propaganda that his administration has been spreading regarding Iran?? Even their own real reports show Iran is not a threat, it's only bush and his cronies who have been spreading this lie that Iran wishes to nuke israel.

It is absolutely irresponsible of journalists to even be asking these kind of divisive, provocative questions and by doing so they are creating further damage and tension between America and Iran and are contributing in their way to stirring up trouble.

Do they even take into account that the land of israel is muslim holy land? You think a bunch of fanatic muslims would nuke their own mecca?!?! They may want the jews out of there, but they don't want to destroy the entire region. That's the whole issue! They want the land for themselves! How could they get that if they turned it into an atomic wasteland?

This is just evidence that trading one of these so called "liberal democrats" for Bush is a farce! They are all the same!

PS: the hilary strangelove thing is great. Her comments definitly remind me of a few characters in that film. One of the characteristics of militaristic war mongering fools is that they are constantly thinking up ridiculous hyperbolic "hypotheticals" which they use to justify further "pre-emptive" military action and attacks.

The Saudi paper called Clinton's nuclear threat "the foreign politics of the madhouse," saying, "it demonstrates the same doltish ignorance that has distinguished Bush's foreign relations." The Saudis are not always sound advisers on American foreign policy. But they understand that Rambo rhetoric like Clinton's only plays into the hands of Iranian hard-liners who want to plow ahead with efforts to attain a nuclear weapons capability.

Some great comments from that article.

[sdbest]

Quote by: another day The mere fact that these ridiculous fantasies are being discussed on a serious level with candidates is disgusting!!

It was Clinton, if memory serves, who raised the nuclear option not the journalists. The journalists pursued it, as they should, given the seriousness of the issue at hand.

[HelioPrime]

Being a holy land didn't didn't stop past wars between Israel and other Arab nations.

Israel could easily be nuked while sparing select cities. The Iran president himself has talked about wiping out Israel.

If your my neighbor and you talk about wiping me out and killing me, then are under the process of fashioning your own guns and knifes I think I'm going to assume the worst.

[sdbest]

Quote by: Technosoul One thing is for sure, we cannot allow fundamentalists from using nuclear wepaons to fullfill thier religious agendas.

If Israel, which is the only country in the region with nuclear weapons and which has a significant population of extremist fundamentalists, launched a preemptive nuclear attack on Iran, should the U.S. obliterate Israel? If so, why? If not, why not?

As well, given Israel does have nuclear weapons, shouldn't it be responsible for retaliation rather than the U.S? If not, why not?

How should the other nuclear powers, particularly Russia, respond to a nuclear attack by the U.S. in its back yard?

[sdbest]

Quote by: HelioPrime Letting Iran nuke Israel and then just standing aside would tell any third world nation they can run over anyone if they get nukes.

There are options other than a nuclear retaliatory attack. Ought they be considered prior to invoking the nuclear option? Should other countries in the region be consulted? Should Russia be consulted? Or, should the U.S. just kill everyone in Iran with a population of 65 million people, most of whom who would have had no part in the decision to attack Israel?

[another day]

One thing I know is that the US needs a president with a much more deft hand in dealing with foreign affairs then what mrs clinton has just displayed.

I think she's just pandering for the redneck conservative vote, and it's a pretty irresponsible way to get that, by making such inflammatory and dangerous statements.

Being a holy land didn't didn't stop past wars between Israel and other Arab nations.

A war is different then nuclear obliteration. Not to mention many of those wars were in arab countries defending themselves from israeli attacks.

The Iran president himself has talked about wiping out Israel.

A commonly used bit of propaganda so I don't blame you for lapping it up, but he never said that. He said he wants to see the nation of Israel disbanded, ie, a reversal of what the british did when they created Israel, this is what the sense of "wiped off the map" meant. This is not the same as destroying it with weaponry. It was a mistranslation. He would not want to see it literally wiped off the map because it is the muslim holy land.

Israel could easily be nuked while sparing select cities.

A little off topic, but how do you know? I hate when people make off the cuff remarks like this. What do you know about the mechanics of a nuclear assault on a country and it's consequences?

Letting Iran nuke Israel and then just standing aside would tell any third world nation they can run over anyone if they get nukes..

That's not the issue though because Iran doesn't even have nukes. Whats more important is that potential candidates for presidency not make such dangerous and provocative remarks that will further inflame international hatred of the US and push tension levels between the two countries to a new brink. They are the comments and attitude of an aspiring war monger and display the level of intelligence of a testosterone fueled teenager.

[sdbest]

Quote by: another day One thing I know is that the US needs a president with a much more deft hand in dealing with foreign affairs then what mrs clinton has just displayed.

I couldn't agree more. Clinton should never had broached the subject, nor should she have allowed the notion to have gained any traction. It demonstrated, in my view, very poor judgment given that important allies and adversaries are parsing every word the candidates say.

More to the point, the Iranians have demonstrated a very pragmatic approach to foreign relations. They are not irrational fanatics, something Clinton ought to know. The idea that Iran would launch a nuclear first-strike attack on Israel, which possesses nuclear weapons, is absurd.

[Milton Bradley]

No, we should nuke Canada for stirring up the shit between us.

[sdbest]

Quote by: Milton Bradley No, we should nuke Canada for stirring up the shit between us.

Oops! There goes your largest oil exporter.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: sdbest Oops! There goes your largest oil exporter.

We intend to wean ourselves off of oil, so perhaps that was not your best appeal.


Besides that oil is awfully expensive if we calculate in how much natural gas is being converted to carbon monixide to bring us that resource.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: sdbest Should the U.S. "obliterate" Iran if it launches a nuclear attack on Israel ?

Israel is the U.S.' watchtower, in the Middle-East region.
U.S. needs to protect its investment, partners, etc.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Rainbow Israel is the U.S.' watchtower, in the Middle-East region. U.S. needs to protect its investment, partners, etc.

Well, if you buy into the whole corrupt empire thing.


You really should qualify your statements more often.

[Tim]

Quote by: sdbest Hillary Clinton has said she will "obliterate" Iran if it should launch a nuclear attack on Israel.

No she didn't. She said that there would be "massive retaliation," and she pointed out that the US "would be able to totally obliterate Iran." Let's have a little accuracy please.

I agree with Hillary to the extent that I believe any country foolish enough to carry out a nuclear attack should receive massive retaliation. That being said I think it's a silly and unrealistic hypothetical situation. I don't like the extent of US support of Israel, nor do I believe Iran is the threat many politicians try to make it out to be.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Well, if you buy into the whole corrupt empire thing. You really should qualify your statements more often.

That is not much of corruption issue, but U.S. interests in the Middle-East region.
I think you are familiar enough with the subject, then there is no need to extend that aspect.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Rainbow That is not much of corruption issue, but U.S. interests in the Middle-East region. I think you are familiar enough with the subject, then there is no need to extend that aspect.

No, it's a philosophy issue. You believe it's right to interfere in the affairs of others, I do not.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Milton Bradley No, it's a philosophy issue. You believe it's right to interfere in the affairs of others, I do not.

The world is evolving everyday. We need to adjust our stance, accordingly. It is not necessarily the right approach always, though.

[Tim]

Quote by: sdbest I couldn't agree more. Clinton should never had broached the subject, nor should she have allowed the notion to have gained any traction. It demonstrated, in my view, very poor judgment given that important allies and adversaries are parsing every word the candidates say. More to the point, the Iranians have demonstrated a very pragmatic approach to foreign relations. They are not irrational fanatics, something Clinton ought to know. The idea that Iran would launch a nuclear first-strike attack on Israel, which possesses nuclear weapons, is absurd.

One of the things I find startling is the extent to which people consider Iran a threat. It really isn't. As you say, the idea of a nuclear strike from Iran is definitely crazy. I read an interesting paper from the National Defense University which argued that a nuclear-armed Iran would actually increase stability in the Middle East. I can't remember all of the reasoning but there were a few points that stuck with me. In particular, the authors of the paper ruled out any possibility of Iran attacking Israel or furnishing a terrorist group with nuclear weapons because that would almost certainly result in Iran's destruction. I'll try to find the paper if I can.

I agree that it was irresponsible for Hillary to bring up such an example; I just wish that the belief that Iran is a threat were limited to her rather than being shared by a number of politicians. McCain is even nuttier than she is.

EDIT: here is the paper, if anyone cares: http://www.ndu.edu/inss/mcnair/mcnair69/McNairPDF.pdf