It's a story that the American media totally ignored. Our wonderful "independent" reporters collectively decided last week that it simply wasn't news that Hillary revealed she'd be nuking Iran if they attacked Israel, and that it wasn't news that she'd like to extend the US nuclear umbrella to Israel's neighbors. That means we'd be nuking Iran if they attacked Jordan, Egypt, maybe even Saudi Arabia. Show of hands: How many Americans are willing to start a nuclear war for the Saudis?
Well, it seems even the Saudis aren't too keen on the idea. They criticized Hillary this week, we learn via a Boston Globe editorial entitled "Hillary Strangelove" (the Globe is one of the few American papers to even write about this issue). They said she was as stupid as Bush:
The Saudi paper called Clinton's nuclear threat "the foreign politics of the madhouse," saying, "it demonstrates the same doltish ignorance that has distinguished Bush's foreign relations."
A British Foreign Ministry official wasn't very pleased either:
"While it is reasonable to warn Iran of the consequences of it continuing to develop nuclear weapons and what those real consequences bring to its security, it is probably not prudent in today's world to threaten to obliterate any other country and in many cases civilians resident in such a country."
The Globe says that Hillary has done real damage to the reform effort in Iran:
While Clinton has hammered Obama for supporting military strikes in Pakistan, her comments on Iran are much more far-reaching. She seems not to realize that she undermined Iranian reformists and pragmatists. The Iranian people have been more favorable to America than any other in the Gulf region or the Middle East.
A presidential candidate who lightly commits to obliterating Iran - and, presumably, all the children, parents, and grandparents in Iran - should not be answering the White House phone at any time of day or night.
A year ago, Hillary criticized Obama for making a blanket statement about the use or non-use of nuclear weapons in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Which is interesting, since last night Hillary said she will nuke Iran if they use nukes against Israel. Here is what Hillary had to say last year:
"Presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons," Clinton said. "Presidents since the Cold War have used nuclear deterrence to keep the peace. And I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons."
But that was before Hillary thought she could win a few extra votes in Pennsylvania by changing decades of US nuclear policy on the fly. That 3am phone keeps ringing, and I'm not liking who's answering.
In the past week, Hillary has dramatically altered US policy regarding the use of nuclear weapons in the Middle East. Specifically, Hillary is saying that she would launch a nuclear strike on Iran if they launched a nuclear strike on Israel. She is also saying that she wants to extend the US nuclear umbrella beyond Israel, and include other US allies in the Middle East (i.e., we would nuke Iran if they nuked these US allies).
That's a huge, and newsworthy, change in US policy. First, we don't admit publicly when and if we are going to use nukes. Hillary just did. That's big news. Second, defense experts I talk to say that we have never said publicly that we would use nukes to defend Israel (even though this might be assumed, it's different when you confirm it publicly). Third, we have never before said that we would extend the US nuclear umbrella to defend other countries in the Middle East. Again, Hillary just did.
Whether Hillary has adopted this major change in US nuclear policy simply to curry favor with voters in Pennsylvania is certainly worthy of discussion (one would hope that such policy is made to advance US national security and not to simply win votes). But there is something even more newsworthy to this story. Hillary's staff twice, yesterday, told the media that Hillary didn't say what she said. Top Clinton staffer Howard Wolfson said last night that Hillary did not mean to say that she'd use nukes against Iran. And then a second Clinton staffer told CNN that she did not mean to suggest that she would extend the US nuclear umbrella to other countries in the Middle East. Only problem? She did, repeatedly. (UPDATE: In fact, senior Hillary staff denied a third time that Hillary never mentioned using nukes, when she clearly said the US will have "a nuclear response" to Iran.)
So now we have no idea what US nuclear weapons policy would be under Hillary, and neither do our friends or our enemies. That creates an incredibly dangerous situation. One of the hallmarks of the US mutually-assured-destruction (MAD) policy during the Cold War was that the Soviets knew exactly what US policy was. If they used nukes, we would use nukes. There was no confusion. Confusion breeds uncertainty, and uncertainty leads your opponent to act in unexpected ways. And when you're dealing with nuclear war planning, you don't want a jittery opponent acting in ways you can't predict. Iran needs to know what will happen to it if it goes nuclear and attacks Israel (or anyone else). It is not helpful for Iran to think that, per Howard Wolfson and Hillary's other senior staff, maybe it can get away with a nuclear attack on Israel, or at least Saudi Arabia.
And finally, the same dilemma occurs with regards to our allies. It does no good for our allies, including Israel, to now be speculating that maybe the US won't defend them should Iran come knocking. That kind of uncertainty could lead our allies to take matters into their own hands, possibly even leading them to pre-emptive war, or even to seek their own nuclear weapons (Israel already has several hundred, but other US allies in the region have none).
Hillary's public battles with her own staff over the issues of US nuclear policy vis-a-vis Iran and US policy vis-a-vis our overall nuclear umbrella in the Middle East suggest that she doesn't have a clear, well thought out, policy - that she is simply winging it. If this were official campaign policy, her senior staff would know about it. And you'd think that nuking Iran and extending the US nuclear umbrella to our allies in the Middle East would be a sufficiently important enough policy change for it to have been vetted by Hillary's staff. Hillary's staff didn't even know about the policy - hell, they denied the existence of the policy - because it appears that Hillary made up this new nuclear policy on the fly, and is still honing the details in public as she speaks. So much for the phone ringing at 3am. It's not clear what Hillary thinks even at 3pm during the light of day.
Let me walk you through the various positions of Hillary and her staff regarding US nuclear policy and the Middle East:
1. Last October, Hillary says it would be wrong to speculate publicly about when and if the US should attack Iran: "I am not going to speculate about when or if they get nuclear weapons." Hillary also criticized her Democratic opponents for publicly discussing their war plans for the region: "[R]emember, you shouldn’t always say everything you think if you’re running for president, because it has consequences across the world. And we don’t need that right now."
2. During the ABC debate a week ago, Hillary implied that she'd nuke Iran if they nuked Israel. She also suggested that the US extend its nuclear umbrella beyond Israel, to protect other Middle Eastern countries from an Irani attack.
"I think that we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. Of course, I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States, but I would do the same with other countries in the region."
"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."
5. Then, minutes later, Hillary goes on MSNBC's Keith Olbermann's show and says explicitly that she would use nuclear weapons against Iran, and that she would consider extending the US nuclear umbrella to other countries in the Middle East besides Israel:
"In order to forestall that, creating some kind of a security agreement [with countries in the region] where we said, no, you do not need to acquire nuclear weapons. If you were the subject of an unprovoked nuclear attack by Iran, the United States and hopefully our NATO allies would respond to that as well....
"[T]heir use of nuclear weapons against Israel would provoke a nuclear response from the United States, which personally I believe would prevent it from happening. And that we would try to help the other countries that might be intimidated and bullied into submission by Iran because they were a nuclear power, avoid that fate by creating this new security umbrella."
6. Then, a senior Hillary aide tells CNN that she didn't mean to imply that she would extend the US nuclear umbrella to other countries in the region, even though this is what she repeatedly said over the past week.
Nice. So in the space of 12 hours, Hillary has twice suggested that she'd nuke Iran, but now her staff is saying that she didn't mean to imply that she would. Maybe she's just 60 years old and tired, like her husband said she was when she repeatedly lied about Bosnia for four months. So long as foreign policy crises only happen when Hillary is well rested, and feeling honest, we should be fine.
I've thought some more about this. And jokes aside, this is serious. Hillary Clinton misspoke today, twice, when detailing the possible use ofUS nuclear weapons in the Middle East as it concerns Iran and the defense of Israel. This is an incredibly dangerous topic. And she made a mess of it, repeatedly, to the point where her staff had to get involved to try to make amends, so that now our enemies and our allies have no idea what Hillary's position is on war with Iran, the defense of Israel, and the possible use of US nuclear weapons. Even more disturbing is the possibility that Hillary made these comments, this apparent flip-flop on US nuclear policy, in order to curry favor with voters in Pennsylvania on the eve of that state's primary. (I've also heard speculation that Hillary's new nuclear policy is really about forcing Obama into some kind of bind, or something.) This isn't Bosnia any more, where you can send the First Lady in with a child, a singer and a comedian to read a poem. It's a possible nuclear war scenario, and Hillary, in an effort to act all tough, win a few votes, and take a jab at Obama, played politics with our national security and sent the wrong message to the world, the wrong message to our enemies. It's 3am, folks, and the phone just rang. And Hillary got it wrong.
Last month, AMERICAblog exposed yet another act of hypocrisy from Bill O'Reilly. We also showed he's a wimp who is afraid of his own boss:
Earlier this year, arm chair terrorism fighter Bill O'Reilly blasted the chair of General Electric for doing business with terrorist countries like Iran. Bill was in rare form when he took on this issue. But, Bill needs to have on another guest and blast him for cavorting with Iranians and Syrians, possibly even aiding in the recruitment of terrorists and certainly facilitating the spewing of hatred against Israel.
That guest would be Rupert Murdoch, the head of FOX News.
Murdoch owns FOX, for whom O'Reilly works. Murdoch also owns MySpace.com. Therein lies the problem. An astute observer pointed us to some of the users of Mr. Murdoch's site. There are numerous users of MySpace.com in states that sponsor terrorism, like Iran, Syria and Sudan. That alone should warrant intervention from O'Reilly using his own standards for doing business with terrorist nations. But, that's not the biggest problem. It's the Web sites honoring terrorist organizations that give us pause. There is the self-described "Offical Hezbollah MySpace" page.
That post includes links to several of the other terror sites hosted by Murdoch's company. You'd think that would set off Bill O'Reilly. You'd be wrong. Last night, O'Reilly again went after companies doing business with Iran. Again, he failed to mention Murdoch. This is a link to the video, which includes the following exchange:
Millions of Americans hold GE stock in good faith, but this is a bad company. Doing business with people killing American soldiers and Marines is simply unacceptable, and paying a guy $20 million to run a company into the ground is simply breathtaking.
There are more than a few villain CEOs in this country, but Jeffrey Immelt could well be the worst. And that's the memo.
Now, General Electric isn't the only concern doing business with Iran. The government of Switzerland and the French company Total, the oil company, are among other big offenders.
Actually, Bill, Rupert Murdoch is another big offender. Really big offender. Big tough Bill O'Reilly doesn't dare to go after Murdoch.
There has been a lot of commentary about how confusing the situation in Iraq has been over the past week or so. While there are some unanswered questions -- precisely how much influence the US had on the operational decision, how much control Sadr has over some elements of the militia, etc -- the basics seem pretty straightforward, albeit kind of a disaster.
After months of US and Iraqi Army tensions with Sadrist forces (a.k.a. Mahdi Militia) despite a tenuous ceasefire, increasing anger from Sadrists against Sadr's perceived passivity toward the US, and with provincial elections looming, Sadrists started making noise about ending their months-long ceasefire. At the same time, Prime Minister Maliki, former Sadr ally who has since become a rival due to SCIRI (a competing Shia party) support, decided to exercise some power in Basra, the southern province of Iraq that has the vast majority of the country's oil. The objectives of this move included reducing Sadrist power in advance of this fall's scheduled provincial elections, making the Iraqi Army more loyal to Maliki, and demonstrating to the US that the central government is on a path to self-sufficiency. At least, that was the theory.
In reality, Maliki (et al, including, it seems, US officials) drastically misjudged his ability to project power in Basra against the Mahdi Militia. As it turns out -- and I know you'll be shocked to hear this -- it's tough to fight an indigenous force that is highly motivated, knowledgeable about the battle terrain (especially in an urban environment), and doesn't rely on a strict hierarchical command and control structure. Who knew! I don't know how many times this lesson needs to be learned, but apparently Maliki didn't even take it from the difficulty the US has had in his own country. For another regional example that I think is a relatively close analogy, compare the Israeli operation in Lebanon last summer -- in that case, too, a state-based army drastically underestimated the ability of a militia to defend its own territory in the streets and alleys, leading to a humiliating operation.
And regardless of whatever you read about Sadr suing for peace, this absolutely was a humiliation for Maliki. Sadr doesn't appear to be giving up a single thing, and he never wanted an all-out fight (hence the ceasefire in operation since August). Sadr got to test out his fighters, see who was loyal and who was rogue, and then his forces held their own in the battle -- and as we all know by now, if you're attacking and not winning, you're losing. Then Iran got fed up with the skirmishing in its sphere of influence and told everybody to shut it down . . . so they did! The agreement to stop major fighting was brokered by Iranians, with Sadrists and members of Maliki's government essentially undermining him by agreeing to what is essentially a return to the status quo.
So after all the talk of this vital and determinative operation, it looks like the only thing that changes is an increasing intra-Shia rift, a weakened Maliki, and strengthened Sadr and Iran. This huge operation mounted against Sadr, he it doesn't look like he lost anything. Maliki -- and the US -- played this badly, and made greater internal violence more likely going forward, and for basically unnecessary (and political, rather than security) reasons.
It's increasingly clear that despite having somehow gained a reputation for foreign policy expertise, Senator McCain doesn't have a grasp on the most basic -- and important! -- details of Iraq or even the greater Middle East. Joe mentioned this yesterday, but it's really impossible to overstate how significant an issue this is.
Of course, regular AMERICAblog readers already know this -- two weeks ago, regarding McCain's ludicrous claim that Iraq is in danger of being taken over by al Qaeda, I wrote, "Considering [McCain's] evident lack of intellectual curiosity on the economy, health care, science, and a whole host of other issues, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that he has an understanding of the *military* but not any sophisticated *Middle East foreign policy* knowledge . . . if McCain says this is what he thinks, I'm sort of inclined to take him at his word. And if [a different candidate] were to demonstrate such a lack of basic knowledge, it would be viewed as a huge gaffe. Because, y'know, it is."
McCain is at it again, this time telegraphing his profound lack of understanding of the regional dynamics. He recently claimed, multiple times, that Iran is training al Qaeda elements from Iraq. Iran, of course, is a Shia theocracy, and al Qaeda a Sunni terrorist group. This is like claiming that the RNC is training Democratic congressional candidates. Seriously -- this is a HUGE error. Not a single other government official or expert has claimed anything like this. It wasn't a momentary gaffe or slip; again, he said it multiple times. It's increasingly clear that he truly doesn't understand the situation . . . five years into the war.
Two final thoughts: If McCain is in a position to decide whether to, say, order a military strike on Iran, it would probably be good if he didn't think (erroneously!) that Iran supports al Qaeda. Secondly, it's nice to see the press picking up on this -- a pretty straightforward piece from AP here, for example. And if people discover that McCain doesn't understand the issue he claims as his greatest strength, he's finished.
Thankfully the British Home Secretary has come to his senses. John posted about this earlier in the week when the government was preparing to send Kazemi back to Iran where he feared a death sentence, like his boyfriend, for being gay. It's almost beyond belief that it had to come to this. How could any government even think of deporting someone under such circumstances?
A gay teenager who faces the death penalty if he is forced to return to Iran has won a temporary reprieve after the Home Secretary halted his planned deportation and agreed to reconsider his case.
The Government's surprise intervention yesterday follows an international outcry over the plight of Mehdi Kazemi, 19, who lost his asylum claim in Britain even though his former boyfriend had been arrested by the Iranian state police and executed for sodomy.
Combining foreign policy analysis with Kelly Clarkson analysis is, let's be honest, basically catnip for me. There's no way I'm not linking to it, but it certainly helps that Spencer Ackerman's analysis of the resignation of CENTCOM head Adm. William Fallon is right on. Spencer explains,
Gates said in a press conference just now that no one should think the move reflects any substantive change in policy. That sure won’t be how Teheran sees it. The Iranians will consider Fallon’s resignation to indicate that the bombing begins in the next five minutes.
Fallon was widely believed to be a (lone?) voice of sanity in terms of administration policy regarding Iran. It may not be especially bad news, but it's certainly not good.
NOTE FROM JOHN: I think Gates is telling the truth. The policy always was to force a war with Iran, and pushing Fallon out helps to eliminate the greatest risk to that policy. So Gates is technically correct: With Fallon's departure there will be no substantive change in the Bush administration policy of seeking a military conflict with Iran. Feeling reassured?
In turning down Ms Emambakhsh and Mr Kazemi's asylum applications, the Home Office has said that, provided Iranians are discreet about their homosexuality, they will not be persecuted.
Did you get that? The British government says it's the gays fault if they get executed by the Iranian government for being gay. If the gays were simply more "discrete" no one would want to execute them. (I can imagine the British Home Office circa 1943: "If European Jews would only stop acting so Jewish...") Absolutely astounding.
Oh that's right, Hillary can't. She voted for the war, so now she can't criticize McCain on the war because of her baggage. McCain's number one liability, getting us into an endless disaster of a war, and if Hillary's our nominee, we can touch it. Well, but at least we can get him on Iran. You know, bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran? Scare the heck out of people that John McCain supports going to war with Iran too? Oh shoot, that's right, Hillary voted to authorize the use of force against Iran too, so now that issue is off limits too because of her baggage. Hillary likes to talk about what the Republicans will do to Obama should he become the nominee. But look what they've already done to her.
The longer the oil prices stay high, the better it is for extremists such as Ahmadinejad and his supporters. Why does Big Oil and Dick Cheney want to help Iran? Why do they hate America?
Even the grandson of Ayatollah Khomeini has been barred from running in the elections because he may not be conservative enough.
Despite those problems, the government feels confident about excluding candidates because of plentiful oil revenue, said Saeed Laylaz, an independent political analyst in Tehran.
"It is a sign that the government, supported by lavish oil revenue, does not need anybody, except an obedient parliament," Laylaz said. "They not only barred Khomeini's close allies but also his grandson."
There's been extensive discussion about the "confrontation" between US and Iranian navies in the Persian Gulf last week, and I've refrained from commenting thus far because the details have been murky, at best. I was suspicious of the initial furor simply because routine contact between "opposing" ships happens *all the time* in the Gulf, and this really doesn't seem like it was anything unusual. It's just that it sound like a big deal when you don't know it's a common occurrence. Despite hyperventilating initial reports, it turned out that US government accounts were exaggerated, the US officers didn't think it was a big deal at the time, and the US tape was likely not an accurate portrayal of the incident. Pretty disgraceful, not to mention misleading.
The comparison to the USS Cole is one that I've been hearing a lot, but it's not really a helpful analogy, and here's why: the Cole attack was carried out by terrorists, i.e., there was nobody for us to hit back against. Were an Iranian navy ship to suddenly decide to randomly carry out a suicide attack against a US ship, we'd bomb Iran back to the stone age, and of course they know that. There's absolutely *no* incentive for them to do such a thing, which is why we can coexist all the time in the Gulf with their ships. Iran is absolutely not going to attack us (at least not openly) because they're a state, not a terrorist organization. So while they *could* have done something to the ship, it's so extraordinarily unlikely that to hype it like it was a close call or something seems pretty disingenuous of the administration.
Despite the changing story with the "incident" in the Strait of Hormuz, the Republican candidates are all doing their best to out-macho one another with the exception of Ron Paul, who suggested caution and further review. The others are ready to throw fire and brimstone to kill 'em all and ask questions later. Great. Just what the country is demanding after WMD in Iraq and too-many-to-count "terrorism" threats in the US conveniently announced during troubled times for the Bush administration. (Think, Miami Seven, for example.)
The Guardian picked up the faltering story today and we will probably hear an update after 4PM on Friday or over the weekend to make sure the story is as buried as possible when it contradicts the war-lust of Dear Leader. Are Americans really begging for another war in the Middle East? Do the Republican candidates honestly think that's what the people are screaming for? Out of touch and out of office.
Just days before Bush departs for his Middle East tour, the Pentagon reports a "significant provocative act" from Iran. Unbelievable (quite literally). The boy who cried wolf strikes again. Somehow I feel like we've been here before.
A government should indeed explain its "past actions," especially when those actions serve to "continue on a path of isolation that is not in the best interests" of the nation's people.
On a related note, a Google search for all of the Bush administration spokesmen (and spokeswoman) and the phrase "old news" turns up about 85,000 hits, including such gems as Iraq WMDs, the Plame outing, all sorts of 9/11 stuff, and plenty of various events during the Iraq war.
Asked at a news conference if he was maintaining his threat to attack Iranian nuclear facilities, Bush replied, "The best diplomacy, effective diplomacy, is one of which all options are on the table."
He said that the new intelligence finding provides a "rare opportunity for us to rally the international community" behind new sanctions and that he and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had been "working the phones" with foreign leaders.
The report, though, has dealt another blow to Bush's credibility — which already was low over his false claims about illicit weapons in Iraq — because he was aware of the findings when he warned on Oct. 17 that Iran's quest for nuclear weapons could ignite World War III.
