Hillary: "totally obliterate" Iran if they attack

[Cairber]

story

Clinton on an Iran Attack: 'Obliterate Them'

Clinton further displayed tough talk in an interview airing on "Good Morning America" Tuesday. ABC News' Chris Cuomo asked Clinton what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons.

"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."

She expanded on the whole security umbrella idea on Olbermann tonight.

"Well what we were talking about was the potential for a nuclear attack by Iran, if Iran does achieve what appears to be it's continuing goal of obtaining nuclear weapons, and I think deterrence has not been effectively used in recent times, we used it very well during the Cold War when we had a bipolar world, and what I think the president should do and what our policy should be is to make it very clear to the Iranians that they would be risking massive retaliation were they to launch a nuclear attack on Israel. In addition, if Iran were to become a nuclear power, it could set off an arms race that would be incredibly dangerous and destabilizing because the countries in the region are not going to want Iran to be the only nuclear power. So I can imagine that they would be rushing to obtain nuclear weapons themselves. In order to forestall that, creating some kind of a security agreement 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.'

It is a theory that some people have been looking at because there is a fear that if Iran, which I hope we can prevent, becoming a nuclear power, but if they were to become one, some people worry that they are not deterrable, that they somehow have a different mindset and a worldview that might very well lead the leadership to be willing to become martyrs. I don't buy that, but I think we have to test it. And one of the ways of testing it is to make it very clear that we are not going to permit them, if we can prevent it, from becoming a nuclear power, but were they to become so, their 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."

[Patrick Degan]

My my. I didn't know Hillary decided to switch parties before even the nomination was decided.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Wow, giving U.S. nuclear policy another Berlin-trigger is a great idea. Especially one that doesn't give a hoot about our national interests and has a history of its own interventionism in the region and currently the only nuclear power there.

[Superman]

I know Israel is one of our best friends and all, but wouldn't an Iranian attack amount to suicide? How long would Iran last against the full might of Israel?

[Edi]

And Iran being the only nuclear power in the region just shows Shillary has no grasp of geography at all. Last I checked, Pakistan and India were rather goddamn big regional players around there and both have nukes. Only power in the region indeed...

[K. A. Pital]

In addition, as Israel became a nuclear power, it set off an arms race that is incredibly dangerous and destabilizing because the countries in the region are not going to want Israel to be the only nuclear power. So I can imagine that they would be rushing to obtain nuclear weapons themselves.

Seriously, how fucking dumb must Hillary be? That's a little more than a misstep. But maybe speaking about Israels' nukes are a taboo in America?

[MKSheppard]

It's like the 1950s all over again!

Come back Massive retalitation! We missed you!

[MKSheppard]

Awesome, she even used the term "massive retalitation"

OLBERMANN: You mentioned the oil suppliers and that obviously leads us into something else that really flew by during the debate that seemed awfully important. In that debate you were asked about a hypothetical Iranian attack on Israel and your hypothetical response as commander in chief and you said, let me read the quote exactly, “I think that we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than Israel. Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would include massive retaliation from the United States but I would do the same with other countries in the region.”

Can you clarify since there was no follow-up to that which hypothetical Middle East conflicts would incur massive retaliation by this country and what constitutes massive retaliation?

CLINTON: Well, what we were talking about was the potential for a nuclear attack by Iran. If Iran does achieve what appears to be its continuing goal of obtaining nuclear weapons — and I think deterrence has not been effectively used in recent times. We used it very well during the Cold War when we had a bipolar world — and what I think the president should do and what our policy should be is to make it very clear to the Iranians that they would be risking massive retaliation were they to launch a nuclear attack on Israel.

[phongn]

And Iran being the only nuclear power in the region just shows Shillary has no grasp of geography at all. Last I checked, Pakistan and India were rather goddamn big regional players around there and both have nukes. Only power in the region indeed...

She probably considered South Asia to be a distinct region from the Middle East.

Seriously, how fucking dumb must Hillary be? That's a little more than a misstep. But maybe speaking about Israels' nukes are a taboo in America?

It's considered something of an open secret.

[Tanasinn]

Sadly, this will probably appeal to more idiots than it disgusts.

[Justforfun000]

Actually I don't see much wrong with what she said. She's totally correct. If Iran dared to nuke Israel, the United States would almost certainly nuke the fuck out of them and obliterate their government, nuclear facilities, and any other potential warlike threat. I would expect Obama to say the same thing.

America has been far from a goody-two shoes in it's current world affairs involvement, but they would have every right to pull off the kid gloves and stick it up the ass of Iran, North Korea, or any other warmongering nation that decided to throw nukes into the mix. What the fuck would anyone expect? Even though America has lost a great deal of world face and respect over the last decade or so, it remains the one world superpower. It's arguably the most benign superpower the world has ever know, but it still has teeth and even though their Iraq bullshit has been a deservingly derided sore point for them, they still have the might to haul anyone's ass up beyond the moon.

[K. A. Pital]

The nation that uses nukes first must be made example of. That is very clear. The question is, could Israel waste Iran into a Fallout landscape on it's own...

[Tanasinn]

Chest-beating over a nuclear conflict that isn't going to happen is infantile at best and verges on mental masturbation at worst.

[Havok]

Chest-beating over a nuclear conflict that isn't going to happen is infantile at best and verges on mental masturbation at worst.

And why exactly would it be impossible for it to happen?

[Tanasinn]

Chest-beating over a nuclear conflict that isn't going to happen is infantile at best and verges on mental masturbation at worst.

And why exactly would it be impossible for it to happen?

Countries that acquire nuclear weapons stockpiles, in the modern day, tend to be run by people stable enough to not commit suicide in a fit of religious or political pique.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Chest-beating over a nuclear conflict that isn't going to happen is infantile at best and verges on mental masturbation at worst.

And why exactly would it be impossible for it to happen?

Countries that acquire nuclear weapons stockpiles, in the modern day, tend to be run by people stable enough to not commit suicide in a fit of religious or political pique.

.
I don't want to start a debate on this, but seriously, dude, Iran, "Stable enough not to commit suicide in a fit of religious pique"? Run by clerics, with the figurehead having a messiah complex greater than that of any comparable western nations.
There are no gays in Iran.

Are you still saying that the Holocaust is just "a myth"?

Ahmadinejad: I will only accept something as truth if I am actually convinced of it.
holars harbor any doubt about the Holocaust?

Ahmadinejad: But there are two opinions on this in Europe. One group of scholars or persons, most of them politically motivated, say the Holocaust occurred. Then there is the group of scholars who represent the opposite position and have therefore been imprisoned for the most part.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

.
I don't want to start a debate on this, but seriously, dude, Iran, "Stable enough not to commit suicide in a fit of religious pique"? Run by clerics, with the figurehead having a messiah complex greater than that of any comparable western nations.

And yet they haven't done anything stupid for the past decade beyond the usual diplomatic posturing. And the current figurehead currently is a good only for being a loud horn and not good for the economy, which just about any cleric is feeling pinch because of a lack of coin which is why he's pretty unpopular.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Wow, that's only the worst setup someone could have ever put themselves in for a massive misquoting, and it's bad enough as it is. "totally obliterate" Iran? The only thing I can really say is that Shep must have a new girlfriend.

[Edi]

I don't want to start a debate on this, but seriously, dude, Iran, "Stable enough not to commit suicide in a fit of religious pique"? Run by clerics, with the figurehead having a messiah complex greater than that of any comparable western nations.
There are no gays in Iran.

Are you still saying that the Holocaust is just "a myth"?

Ahmadinejad: I will only accept something as truth if I am actually convinced of it.
holars harbor any doubt about the Holocaust?

Ahmadinejad: But there are two opinions on this in Europe. One group of scholars or persons, most of them politically motivated, say the Holocaust occurred. Then there is the group of scholars who represent the opposite position and have therefore been imprisoned for the most part.

Your inability to distinguish between rhetoric intended for domestic consumption and actual policy that has been implemented is nobody else's problem but yours.

[Lord of the Abyss]

America has been far from a goody-two shoes in it's current world affairs involvement, but they would have every right to pull off the kid gloves and stick it up the ass of Iran, North Korea, or any other warmongering nation that decided to throw nukes into the mix.

How about Israel ? If Israel decided to nuke Iran, does anyone think America would nuke Israel ? And if not, how can you argue that our position is about threatening "warmongering nations" ?

And if we are threatening Iran with nukes, there goes any argument that they don't need them and shouldn't try to get them.

[Pablo Sanchez]

I don't want to start a debate on this, but seriously, dude, Iran, "Stable enough not to commit suicide in a fit of religious pique"? Run by clerics, with the figurehead having a messiah complex greater than that of any comparable western nations.

As everyone with a marginal knowledge of Iranian politics knows, Ahmadinejad's word counts for exactly dick. He is, as you say, a figurehead. All executive power resides with the Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has taken a more moderate stance with respect to nuclear weapons and Israel. Even if Iran had the bomb, Ahmadinejad would not have the authority to use it. And frankly, who gives a fuck whether he believes in the Holocaust or not? What bearing does the holocaust denial of a fuckstick hillman like Ahmadinejad have on Iran's nuclear policy? Since I probably can't trust you to answer correctly, I'll tell you: "jack shit" is how much.

Basically Ahmadinejad is a strawman designed to soak up the attention of the Iranian people and the world abroad while the ayatollahs run the country. Congratulations, you fell for a pretty elementary political scam which could have been dispelled by ten minutes of google-fu.

Stupid people like to suggest that, since Ahmadinejad is basically a crazy hick, the Iranians are likely to attack Israel. As I say: stupid. These ayatollahs are pretty much the same folks who cut the Iran-Contra deal. They know what they are doing and they're willing to hedge, make compromises, and be political animals. They are not going to attack Israel with nuclear weapons, because it is an open secret that Israel has nuclear bombs and the delivery systems to put a hurting on anybody in the Middle East. They don't want to trade Tehran for Tel Aviv, especially not on behalf of a bunch of Sunni Palestinians who, as far as they're concerned, can go fuck themselves in Hell.

Even if the Israelis didn't have the bomb, the Ayatollahs would know that nuclear aggression would get them in deep shit not just with the USA, but also with Russia, Pakistan, India, and--fuck it--every other country with nuclear weapons. If Iran blew a mushroom cloud in Israel, then everybody is going to know they're fucking crazy, and nobody would feel safe. But in real life, as opposed to the cartoonish reality which political commentary in America loves, and you bought into (you daft berk!), the ayatollahs are not that crazy. They're ignorant fundamentalist assholes, maybe a little crazy, but still they live in the real world. They're smarter than you, at any rate, because at least they know Ahmadinejad is a posturing cretin.

[Rye]

I have to say I'm a bit annoyed that Hillary felt safe enough to, as a supposed liberal, say that she'd "completely obliterate" Iran, basically because she has no problem adopting/co-opting the images the neocons have been pushing that must appeal to the "gelp, gelp, ahooie" swathes of middle America. This means either Clinton is a cynical demagogue or as much a delusional victim of neocon populism and chicanery as large parts of the American voting mass (and the neocons themselves).

It should also be noted that there are comparatively liberalising movements within the clergy in Iran as there are in most if not all such governments. The Iranian people themselves are also diverse enough to matter when you start talking of "massive retaliation"; I even know of a couple of satanic black metal bands in Tehran. I would think they're tired of war and the western media showing them as homogeneous and they're under the thumb of a tyrannical regime (probably with a sizable chunk supporting that, but regardless).

Had it been me, I think that my answer would've been either a short barely-committal "we'd retaliate as per the situation required", but apparently Hillary's all about blowing warmongers, now. In the second part quoted in Cairber's OP, I would've been saying how I'd be helping the Iranians build power plants and setting up some sort of pre-emptive relief for the impending earthquake in Tehran. But no, none of that, not even a hint of anything like that, it's all about "us vs them" in every sentence.

[Darth Yoshi]

The illusion that Clinton was somehow liberal was dispelled for anyone who bothered to look a long time ago. The fact is that even granting that the Iranian leadership is composed of religious nutjobs, being able to get control of a country and maintain country means they're not stupid.

I even know of a couple of satanic black metal bands in Tehran.

Seriously? Wow, that's awesome.

[Rye]

Yeah, they must have balls made of titanium. Seriously.

[Vaporous]

Empty posturing. Israel has the bomb. On the off chance Iran hit them, there wouldn't be an Iran left for us to obliterate. The fact that the entire thing is moot doesn't help her case.