Obama accuses Clinton of using the language of Bush on Iran
Barack Obama has highlighted Hillary Clinton's promise to "totally obliterate" Iran as an example of how the Clinton presidency would resemble the presidency of George W Bush in it's belligerence towards the Middle East.
Clinton's comments were an astonishing raising of the rhetorical bar towards Iran and no doubt an attempt by Clinton to outdo Obama in showing fervour for Israel.In the sharpest attack, Obama said that Clinton's threat to "totally obliterate" Iran should it attempt a nuclear attack on Israel was inappropriate. "It's not the language we need right now. It's language that's reflective of George Bush," he said.
Obama said it was time to get away from a foreign policy of "bluster and sabre-rattling and tough talk". He reminded Clinton that she had urged caution in terms of speculating about Iran on the campaign trail "yet a few days before an election she's willing to use that language".
I am well aware of the concept of allies issuing statements that, in effect, say that they have a defensive pact and that an attack on one is an attack on the other, but in this case Israel is herself a nuclear power and more than able to respond should Iran or any other nation decide to attack her.
It was that fact which made Clinton's statement so superfluous. It really didn't need to be said. And the notion of a president issuing dire threats to "totally obliterate" other country's is a new one to me. Normally the language would be of "dire consequences" etc., it is extremely rare for possible leaders of the most powerful nation on earth to talk in a way which resembles the language used by tin pot dictators. And yet, that is the way which Hillary chose to express herself.
I'm not an American so I can only speak as how a non American feels about Hillary's remarks. One of the most tiresome aspects of the Bush presidency has been his "my way or the highway" approach to diplomacy, his refusal to negotiate with country's like Iran and North Korea until they offer him utter capitulation being the most obvious examples of this.Obama's comments, made on Meet the Press on NBC, were put to Clinton as she appeared simultaneously on ABC's This Week. She remained unapologetic: "I think we have to be very clear about what we would do. I don't think it's time to equivocate. [Iran has] to know they would face massive retaliation. That is the only way to rein them in."
Asked by George Stephanopoulos, a former aide to Bill Clinton in the White House, whether she had any regrets over her Iran remarks, she replied: "No, why would I have any regrets?"
However, even Bush and Cheney never issued the kind of explicit threat of utterly destructive violence which Clinton has indulged in. The worst the Bush regime have done in this regard is to leak to the press the notion that they might use "bunker busting" nuclear weapons on certain Iranian facilities thought to be part of an Iranian nuclear bomb site, they certainly have never been as crass as to threaten to "totally obliterate" a nation of 70 million people.
Hillary actually appears to be outdoing the Bush regime with this kind of threat and that's the last thing the world needs at the moment.
It is in no-one's interests for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon, but ignoring them and refusing to negotiate with them whilst issuing what - until now - have been vague threats, has got the US nowhere.
Iran has the right to enrich Uranium under the terms of the NNPT. In Iran this is a matter of national pride and no amount of threats are going to prevent the Iranians from joining the leading scientific nations of the world and restoring the kind of national importance they once enjoyed when they were Persia.
What the west wants to ensure is that this does not lead to an Iranian nuclear weapon. The way to ensure that is to open negotiations with them and to look for a way where both their interests and ours can be guaranteed.
Hillary's ugly threats represent a continuation of a policy which has failed for the last 28 years. It is surely time to look for a new approach.
Click title for full article.
2 comments:
The way to ensure that is to open negotiations with them and to look for a way where both their interests and ours can be guaranteed.
Really? When has negotiation ever been effective with Iran? The US has outsourced their diplomatic efforts to the EU to negotiate regarding Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons (you're apparently the only one who doesn't believe they wish to develop them). How's that going for the EU? What diplomatic breakthroughs have they managed to make?
What those of your ilk refuse to recognize is that there are nations on the planet that only respect strength. The Bosnian Serbs were this way, so are most of the countries in the middle east. There is not a single carrot that can be offered that Iran is interested in that will convince them to move in the same direction as the civilized world. They have been very clear about this. When carrots aren't enough, there has to be the threat of a very big stick.
You Europeans are so incredibly weak that the thought of using the threat of the stick in conjunction with your diplomatic efforts doesn't even occur to you. Seriously, name one thing that European diplomacy has achieved. Anything? Ever? How about our negotiations with the DPRK where we've given them everything they've asked for? How's that been working out?
Attempting to convince a belligerent power to follow any course of action which is not in their self-interest is absolutely useless without even the hint of a threat of military force. Iran has nothing they want from Europe or the US, they have plenty of willing trading partners regardless of any sanctions (Europe, China, Russia... the usual suspects), and they are high enough on oil money that they are convinced they are relatively immune to any sanctions that can be thrown their way anyhow.
Now if the EU were to take a tough stance (I know, it was hard for me to not laugh while typing that), and along with the US, offer ample carrots on the one hand, while on the other hand being absolutely clear that they are utterly fucked if they develop nukes, then maybe, just maybe, there might be some movement with Iran. But since Europe apparently fails to recognize that keeping the threat of force on the table is a valid diplomatic tact when dealing with some belligerent powers, you will never get anywhere.
So when Clinton states she will "obliterate" Iran if they were to attack Israel, she is simply making it abundantly clear that her administration will not soften towards Iran. With one candidate pandering to the Iranians and others, and being endorsed by the Hamas terrorist organization, I don't see it as a bad thing if she is attempting to distinguish herself from the naive foreign policy of her opponent.
The US and the USSR threatened to "obliterate" each other for decades. And you know what we got out of these threats? Decades of peace.
Really? When has negotiation ever been effective with Iran?
When has your nation ever tried serious face to face negotiations with Iran?
The US has outsourced their diplomatic efforts to the EU
Really? The US outsourced it's negotiations to the EU, who it ignored along with the UN prior to the Iraq war, and you are surprised that the Iranians didn't see us as carrying any proper weight regarding what the insane regime of Bush would do?
What those of your ilk refuse to recognize is that there are nations on the planet that only respect strength.
How has that worked out for the last twenty eight years with Iran?
How did it work out with Cuba? How many presidents has Castro seen off? How did it work with North Korea? Didn't Bush eventually bend and resort to the Clinton arrangement which was so untenable?
You Europeans are so incredibly weak that the thought of using the threat of the stick in conjunction with your diplomatic efforts doesn't even occur to you.
No, but we also believe in international law, which Americans like yourself are so incredibly stupid that you don't even see as relevant. You favour bullying. Bullying which has to date got you nowhere. Iran is within international law to enrich uranium. The US is insisting that she gives up all her rights before negotiations can begin. That's DUMB. You have to first recognise her rights under international law and then (a) make sure you have inspectors to ensure she can't build a bomb, or (b) offer her enough to make her give up her right to enrich uranium.
Now if the EU were to take a tough stance (I know, it was hard for me to not laugh while typing that), and along with the US, offer ample carrots on the one hand
Please, THRILL ME, tell me what CARROTS the US are currently offering Iran?
The US and the USSR threatened to "obliterate" each other for decades. And you know what we got out of these threats? Decades of peace.
Under that logic, which Republicans for years held up as sane foreign policy - mutually assured destruction - then you must welcome an Iranian nuclear bomb. If Iran can obliterate others then, according to the logic of the Cold War, which you quote, this will - by your logic - result in "decades of peace".
So was that logic mad then or is it mad now? And if you are going to quote "martyrdom" as a difference between the situation then and now, I would remind you that martyrdom is an act carried out by an individual, it is not an act that can be carried out by a state.
Post a Comment