Over the past week, Hillary repeatedly said that she would nuke Iran if Iran nuked Israel. She also said that she would consider extending the US nuclear umbrella to protect other US allies in the Middle East as well. This is a rather large change in US nuclear policy. Apparently aware of this fact, senior members of Hillary's staff tried three times yesterday to deny that Hillary said she would nuke Iran (Hillary literally said that the US would have "a nuclear response" to Iran - it doesn't get any clearer than that) and they denied that she said we should extend our nuclear umbrella to protect other countries in the region (but she did, twice).
In an effort to determine just how a large a gaffe Hillary made, I decided to contact a national security expert. AJ, our former defense intelligence officer, is taking his law exams, so in the meantime, here's the take of Dr. Jeffrey Lewis. Dr. Lewis is Director of the Nuclear Strategy and Nonproliferation Initiative at the New America Foundation. He founded and maintains the leading blog on nuclear arms control and nonproliferation, ArmsControlWonk.com. Here is Dr. Lewis' take on Hillary's, and her staff's, comments on this issue:
It is frustrating, because she handled it exactly wrong. I like Senator Clinton and, if she is the Democratic nominee, will wholeheartedly support for candidacy for President.
That said, I think the strain of the campaign is getting to her. A couple of rules about nuclear weapons.
Rule number one is never, ever, ever threaten to use nuclear weapons against another country unless you plan to do so in the near future. Brandishing our nuclear arsenal doesn't achieve anything beyond what comes from having nuclear weapons in first place-- the Iranians are well aware of our nuclear capabilities. Talking about it always rings hollow, while encouraging the other side to call your bluff by saying or doing provocative things in response.
Rule number two is don't act freaked out by other countries current or possible nuclear weapons. The model here is LBJ, who gave a very reassuring speech saying that China's first nuclear test in 1964 wouldn't change the balance of power in Asia. The goal is to reassure allies, not talk like some deranged lunatic, which Senator Clinton is normally not.
Rule number three is to remember that the credibility of the nuclear umbrella comes from the credibility of our security commitment to other countries. So you don't talk about extending nuclear deterrence; you talk about how we regard the security of Israel (or Japan or Europe or whomever) as a vital national interest. The nuclear part is pretty obvious and best remains unsaid.
A couple of months ago, I thought Obama got the better of an exchange with her over his decision to rule out the use of nuclear weapons in Pakistan and Afghanistan against civilians. She trotted out the tired, old never rule anything in or out.
I wrote an op-ed in the FT about it and mentioned in a recent essay for SIPRI. I still think he got the better of the debate (because he was right on the merits.) But her gaffe really illustrates the rationale behind the conventional wisdom. It's Abe Lincoln -- better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.
She's not a fool, of course, but this kind of mistake helps illustrate the downsides of talking about nuclear weapons, either as a campaign ploy or when one hasn't thought carefully about the policy matter.
