Clinton threatens to 'obliterate' Iran if Israel attacked

Wednesday 23rd April, 08:56 AM JST

CONSHOHOCKEN, Pa —

Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton on Tuesday threatened to “totally obliterate” Iran if the Islamic Republic was ever “reckless” enough to launch a nuclear attack on Israel.

She later said her remark was an attempt to lay out a rationale for a Cold War-style system of deterrence with Iran, but her rival Barack Obama accused her of saber-rattling, as Pennsylvania held its crucial presidential primary.

Clinton took her hawkish line in an interview with ABC television, when she was asked what she would do as president if the Islamic Republic were to launch a nuclear strike on Israel.

“I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran,” Clinton said.

“In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”

Later, Clinton told reporters at a polling station in Conshohocken, outside Philadelphia, that Iran must be made aware of the “high price” it would have to pay for any nuclear strike.

If Iran were so “reckless to use them against the United States or an ally in a way that would destablize the world, they would have to take the consequences,” she said.

The New York senator said as president, she would first do whatever she could to prevent Iran manufacturing nuclear weapons in the first place.

Clinton’s tough talk came as she was trying to portray Obama, a first-term senator, as too inexperienced to shoulder the heavy responsibilities of the U.S. president and commander in chief of the armed forces.

But he said Tehran needed to know he would also respond forcefully to any such attack, but took issue with Clinton’s approach.

“I think that one of the things that we’ve seen over the last several years is a bunch of, you know, talk. Using words like obliterate doesn’t actually produce good results. And so I’m not interested in saber rattling.”

Implying that Clinton was now using national security arguments for political advantage, the Obama campaign pointed out that she declined in a debate last October to speculate on such military action.

But the former first lady denied her remarks were politically motivated.

“Iran is feeling quite powerful, they have been empowered by the actions of the last seven years and they must know there are lines that the world will not let them cross,” Clinton said.

The State Department would not comment on Clinton’s remarks, in line with its policy of keeping out of partisan politics, but deputy spokesman Tom Casey pledged Washington would pursue a peaceful path out of the nuclear showdown with Iran.

“Our approach on this is to prevent Iran from ever getting a nuclear weapon so that no one will ever be faced with the scenario of Iran being able to threaten its use or use it against any neighboring state.”

Obama’s camp accused Clinton of trying to scare voters, as she rocked their White House race with a dark campaign ad featuring images of al-Qaida mastermind Osama bin Laden.

The ad uses pictures of Pearl Harbor, bin Laden and the devastating 2005 hurricane that swamped New Orleans, mirroring the “3 a.m. phone call” spot credited with helping Clinton to win in Texas and Ohio last month.

“You need to be ready for anything—especially now, with two wars, oil prices skyrocketing and an economy in crisis,” the male narrator intones. “Who do you think has what it takes?”

Both Democrats have vowed to defend Israel against any Iranian attack, but they differ on how to engage the Islamic republic over its nuclear ambitions.

Both call for diplomacy, but Obama has gone further, renewing a promise of “direct talks” at a leaders’ level with Tehran and others the United States regards as foes, at a candidate debate here last week.

Iran should be presented with “carrots and sticks,” the Illinois senator said, while stressing “they should also know that I will take no options off the table when it comes to preventing them from using nuclear weapons or obtaining nuclear weapons.”

AFP

Latest 15 of 117 Total Comments Show All

grsmaz at 02:04 PM JST - 29th April

Iran has never threatened Israel but Israel has threatened Iran. Some person said Hezbollah was an Iranan creation. What a silly statement. Hezbollah emerged first after Lebanon was occupied by Israel. It was formed as a reaction to Israel who was occupying Lebanon. It was a national liberation movement to free Lebanon from Israeli occupation and they have been quite successful at that. If some country occupies some country you would expect resistance to free your country from occupation.
grsmaz at 02:10 PM JST - 29th April

Israel has not retreated from Gaza and Lebanon again an outrageous statement. Israel withdrew from most of Lebanon but occupies Sheeba Farms and Israel never withdrew from Gaza without an h as Israel controls the borders and never let go of that. Iran has never threatened Israel.
SezWho2 at 02:43 PM JST - 29th April

Zaphod,

Israel continues to settle occupied territories and to protect the settlements. It's manner of conduct of the war in southern Lebanon did nothing to to contain Hezbollah but did manage to inflict severe civilian damage and to leave the area only marginally habitable due to residual cluster bombs. You can spin this however you want, but Israel's military is used for other than defensive purposes.
Zaphod at 04:18 PM JST - 29th April

Sezwho,

Hezbollah (like Hamas) lobbed rockets into Isreali towns from the middle of population centers and then crows about "civilian casualties" once Israel finally responds. How exactly would you suggest to respond to that -- especially taking in account a press corps that says nothing about rocket victims in Israel, but immediately has screaming headlines once Israel responds?

grsmza: The tiny Sheeba farms are claimed by both Lebanon and Syria. Israel has totally withdrawn from Southern Lebanon, which it occupied for a long time, in exchange for--- more terror from Hizbollah.
grsmaz at 05:22 PM JST - 29th April

According to UN Sheeba Farms belong to Syria according to Syria they belong to Lebanon According to Lebanon they belong to Lebanon According to Israel it belongs to Israel.

What the world including USA has agreed on is that it does not belong to Israel. You got this completely upside down. Israel invades Lebanon occupies Lebanon Hezbollah tries to kick out Israel from their own country and try to get back their land back. If it was not for Israeli terror to begin with there would be no terror as you say by Hezbollah.
redacted at 05:24 PM JST - 29th April

"America needs a viable voting option, its forever been a 2 horse race constantly with morons for jockeys."

Name the option.

Can't?

Who is the moron?
SezWho2 at 05:34 PM JST - 29th April

Zaphod,

What I would not do is to wreak the kind of destruction on Lebanese civilians and Lebanese infrastructure that the Israelis did in response to the kidnapping of two soldiers. This destruction was not defensive. It was retributive.

This was similar in kind to the sort of attempted obliteration that Clinton was talking about. It was ineffective and misguided in Israel's case. It would be ineffective and misguided as a US response in the ridiculously hypothetical case of an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel.
grsmaz at 06:02 PM JST - 29th April

You cannot kidnap a soldier SezWho2. It is a capture then. The Israeli soldiers were captured inside Lebanese territory. How could it be an act of war if the Israeli soldiers were captured inside Lebanon? By the looks of things it looks as if Israel was planning a war against Hezbollah once and for all and they needed the right excuse to do it. Hezbollah captured the soldiers to have a prisoner swap.

Moderator: Back on topic please. Posts that do not refer to Clinton's comments on Iran will be removed.
jeancolmar at 11:00 PM JST - 29th April

Yes indeed, back to Clinton's comments. What ought to be underscored at this point is the real nature of Clinton's response to the inane, indeed childish question of Iran nuking Israel. She could have been logical and analytical, pointing out that Iran does not have the facilities to launch a nuclear attack on Israel and that it is unlikely it would launch a nuclear attack even if it did, citing the fact that no nuclear armed nation has used nuclear weapons in all the wars fought after World War II. She could have said simply that in the event Iran nuked or, for that matter, attacked Israel, the US and its allies would declare war on Iran. But what she said was vague and disingenuous: "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”

Let's deconstruct this.

First off, she did say she would obliterate Iran as president. She simply said that "we" have the power to obliterate Iran. This a mere truism. Having the power does not mean using it. "In the next tens" does not necessarily have anything to do with her if she became president. In the next ten years could be tomorrow or after her presidency. In short the answer she gave was a non-answer. But she did use the provacative word "obliterate." Thus, though her answer signified nothing it nevertheless was filled with the sound and the fury that we associate with the neocon hawks.

Clinton is fence-sitting. She knows (probably better than her rival Obama) that there is going be military action taken against Iran in the near future. She does not know the size and the scope and how the American public will react, even if the media launches its typical war hysteria and shuts out dissenting voices. The Americans are sick of Iraq. But they are also easily misled into supporting American wars. So, given how the wind blows, Clinton is ready to either be a hawk or dove or something in between. "Obliterate" suggests that being a hawk would best serve her interests. But the fact that her answer was in the end so tentative suggests that she is ready to turn dovish if the war or Iran turns into another disaster like Iraq.

Remember two things about Clinton: She was next to her husband when he orchestrated the Nato rape of Yugoslavia and she voted from the making war on Iraq--though she says she would not do now knowing what she knows (which is what we who opposed the war from the start knew all along).

If you want to see Clinton's remark within the proper context you will need to go to news sources outside Japan Today. You'll see that the Pentagon is gunning for Iran.
jeancolmar at 12:12 AM JST - 30th April

Opps. Third paragraph should read: She did not say...
JeromeInJapan at 12:49 AM JST - 30th April

Great! Just what we need another war and more senceless loss of human life. Hillary you definatley don't get my vote.
Zaphod at 08:16 AM JST - 30th April

jeancolmar:

" Yes indeed, back to Clinton's comments. What ought to be underscored at this point is the real nature of Clinton's response to the inane, indeed childish question of Iran nuking Israel. "

There is nothing inane about it. Ever since the Iranian islamic revolution, Iranian leaders have been spewing hate against the Jewish state, and Ahmedinejad has repeated announced the coming destruction of the "zionist entity" (he consistently refuses to even use the name Israel). Khameni is on record for having speculated that the islamic world can easily survive many nukes, while Isreal would be destroyed by a single one.

With a nuclear armed Iran, Israel will be under permanent threat. And a first use by an Iranian president (be it Ahmedinejad or another mullah appointee) is ENTIRELY possible.

What is inane is to pretend that reality is otherwise, because we don`t like it.
jeancolmar at 01:15 PM JST - 30th April

Zapod, Iran does not have nuclear weapons. Israel does. Asking what you would do if a non-nuclear power attacked a nuclear power is inane. The Iranians and the Israelis have exchanged bitter words, but so far this has not led to military action. Of the two countries, Israel is the one most prone to attacking its neighbors on slim pretexts. So the question was inane for that reason too. I would have asked the question differently: In your judgement, what are the chances of Iran taking unilateral military action against Israel and Israel taking unilateral military action against Iran? This would have required more than a sound bite answer.

Given the kind of answer Clinton gave, she might as we have been asked, "What if space aliens invaded the Earth."
grsmaz at 02:39 PM JST - 30th April

Iran has never threatened Israel. Iran have said. *The regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time," * On the other hand US is threatning to nuke Iran and Israel has threatened with the destruction of the Iranian nation. The only tough words and lies are coming from Clinton and Israel.

Clinton has come with more idiotic statements. Clinton exploited the baseless accusation of Holocaust denial of Iran. For a start the Holocaust happened in Europe also Iran never did deny the Holocaust.

More Clinton lies here.

“To deny the Holocaust places Iran’s leadership in company with the most despicable bigots and historical revisionists,” the latter prosecuted and imprisoned in Europe for the crime of historical research, now considered “despicable” bigotry if it questions the Holocaust orthodoxy. One cannot help but ask if Clinton is running for political office in the United States or Israel.

http://adereview.com/blog/?p=19
jeancolmar at 09:23 PM JST - 30th April

The second sentence in the first paragraph should read: " Asking what you would do if a non-nuclear power attacked a nuclear power with nuclear weapons is inane."

This is what comes of not writing for money.