The ship carrying weapons to Zimbabwe may return to China  |   Home  |   Biofuels Driving Up Food Prices

Clinton Would Nuke Iran

Clinton’s getting downright hawkish.

In the interview Monday, Clinton affirmed that she would warn Iran’s leaders that “their use of nuclear weapons against Israel would provoke a nuclear response from the United States.”

She said U.S. allies in the Middle East were being “intimidated and bullied into submission by Iran,” raising the prospect of an “incredibly destabilizing” arms race in the region.

“I can imagine that they would be rushing to obtain nuclear weapons themselves” if Iran were to develop a nuclear arsenal, she said.

Clinton said it was vital that the United States create a new “security umbrella” to reassure Israel and its other allies in the region that they would not be threatened by Iran. She said she would tell them that “if you were the subject of an unprovoked nuclear attack by Iran, the United States, and hopefully our NATO allies, would respond to that.”

Of course, that’s all well and good, but what if Iran launches a non-nuclear attack on Israel?  Given that every war in history except one has been fought without nuclear weapons, it’s evident that nuclear weapons are not required for complete destruction.  How would she respond if Iran launched a conventional attack?  A biological or chemical weapons attack? 

Clinton’s position is the correct one, but incomplete. 

Posted by Owen at 0650 hrs
Foreign Affairs + Military + Politics + Politics - General

1. In the case of a non-nuclear war, I think Israel is not the helpless country that some people seem to paint it as.  How many wars does Israel need to fight and win before people will admit that Israel does pretty well for itself?

   Not to say that we shouldn’t support Israel… but Israel does pretty well for itself.  In fact, odds are that Israel has its own limited nuclear arsenal, which deters Iran.

   Posted by Nick on April 22, 2008 at 0933 hrs




2. I still don’t understand how nuking people solves anything.

   And ditto to the above commenter about Israel doing pretty well for itself already—so long as it can buy weapons from the US, of course.

   Posted by Emily on April 22, 2008 at 1301 hrs




3. Emily, if you’re crazy and believe that all your problems are because of the Jews, nuking Israel solves all (or at least most) of your problems…

   Posted by Matt on April 22, 2008 at 1430 hrs




4. We give Israel billions in military aid each year.  If they were bombed I would hope they would have the courtesy of using their own nukes to retaliate. 

   It is like a kid getting a hefty allowance, then asking Mommy for an extra dollar when they need to buy something.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 22, 2008 at 1446 hrs




5. Ho hum, just another Israeli spy caught today giving them “secrets on nuclear weapons, fighter jets and air defence missiles.”

   http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/news/international/Ameri can_arrested_as_nuclear_spy_for_Israel.html?siteSect=143&sid; =9004224&cKey;=1208888577000&ty;=ti

   These are our friends that we are supposed to do what for?

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 22, 2008 at 1458 hrs




6. Clinton’s getting downright hawkish.

   “Getting”?

   Posted by folkbum on April 22, 2008 at 2033 hrs




7. You’re right.  I should have said “gettin’.”

   My bad.

   Posted by Owen on April 22, 2008 at 2048 hrs

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.