By Steve Hynd
In Iranian circles she's reportedly known as "Madame AIPAC", and SecState Hillary Clinton has certainly lived up to that appelation by consistently being outspokenly hawkish and pro-Israeli in her public statements about Obama's now-overdue diplomatic outreach to Iran. In dozens of statements she's said that she believes Iran is seeking an actual nuclear weapon even while Obama has been more circumspect, talking of Iran seeking a "capability" to build such weapons should it choose ever to do so.
She's at it again today, on Meet The Press:
"What we want to do is to send a message to whoever is making these decisions, that if you're pursuing nuclear weapons for the purpose of intimidating, of projecting your power, we're not going to let that happen," Clinton said.
"First, we're going to do everything we can to prevent you from ever getting a nuclear weapon. But your pursuit is futile, because we will never let Iran � nuclear-armed, not nuclear-armed � it is something that we view with great concern, and that's why we're doing everything we can to prevent that from ever happening. ... We believe, as a matter of policy, it is unacceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons."
Apparently "all options" are still on the table.
I would like for just one mainstream journalist to have the nerve to as Clinton why she apparently trusts Mossad more than the US intelligence community's 2007 National Intelligence Estimate . Obama's own Director of National Intelligence, Adm. Dennis Blair, has said that "the intelligence community agrees ... that Iran has not decided to press forward... to have a nuclear weapon on top of a ballistic missile."
Someone needs to ask Clinton why she keeps ignoring that.
they run the media so dont hold your breath
ReplyDeleteThis would be an example of why it's a bad idea to rely on secondary accounts.
ReplyDeleteMR. GREGORY: Let me turn to another hot spot, and that is Iran. A big headline this week, again, with your words: "Clinton's `Defense Umbrella' Stirs Tensions." The headlines goes on, "Suggests U.S. Will Have to Protect Allies From Nuclear-Armed Iran." You were in Bangkok on Wednesday, and this is what you said that got this started.
(Videotape, Wednesday)
SEC'Y CLINTON: We want Iran to calculate what I think is a fair assessment, that if the United States extends a defense umbrella over the region, if we do even more to support the military capacity of those in the Gulf, it's unlikely that Iran will be any stronger or safer, because they won't be able to intimidate and dominate as they apparently believe they can once they have a nuclear weapon.
(End videotape)
MR. GREGORY: Did you mean to suggest that the U.S. is considering a nuclear umbrella that would say to nations in the Arab world that an attack on you, just like NATO or Japan is an attack on the United States, and the United States would retaliate?
SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, I think it's clear that we're trying to affect the internal calculus of the Iranian regime. You know, the Iranian government, which is facing its own challenges of legitimacy from its people, has to know that that a pursuit of nuclear weapons, something that our country along with our allies stand strongly against. We believe as a matter of policy it is unacceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons. The G-8 came out with a very strong statement to that effect coming from Italy. So we are united in our continuing commitment to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. What we want to do is to send a message to whoever is making these decisions that if you're pursuing nuclear weapons for the purpose of intimidating, of projecting your power, we're not going to let that happen. First, we're going to do everything we can to prevent you from ever getting a nuclear weapon. But your pursuit is futile, because we will never let Iran--nuclear-armed, not nuclear-armed, it is something that we view with great concern, and that's why we're doing everything we can to prevent that from ever happening.
MR. GREGORY: All right, but let's be specific. Are you talking about a nuclear umbrella?
SEC'Y CLINTON: We, we are, we are not talking in specifics, David, because, you know, that would come later, if at all. You know, my view is you hope for the best, you plan for the worst. Our hope is--that's why we're engaged in the president's policy of engagement toward Iran--is that Iran will understand why it is in their interest to go along with the consensus of the international community, which very clearly says you have rights and responsibilities. You have a right to pursue the peaceful use of civil nuclear power. You do not have a right to obtain a nuclear weapon. You do not have the right to have the full enrichment and reprocessing cycle under your control. But there's a lot that we can do with Iran if Iran accepts what is the international consensus.
How so, JPD?
ReplyDeleteThe whole context of Clinton's piece isn't "all options on the table" - it's more a statement that the kinetic option is not the preferred one and seeking instead to demonstrate to the Iranians that the costs of weaponizing will be high and that attempts to use weapons to strive for regional hegemony will be countered via the US security umbrella. Clinton goes on specifically to speak of the hope that the Israelis won't go to the kinetic.
ReplyDelete