Blogs For Victory

Or, “how to sound like you’re talking tough, but you really ain’t“:

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?

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.

GREGORY: All right, but let’s be specific. Are you talking about a nuclear umbrella?

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. (emphasis added)

First off, Madam Secretary, it is absurd to talk of Iran not having a right to nuclear weapons. No nation has an intrinsic right to such horrific things – some nations have them, and some don’t. As a nuclear-armed nation the question for us always will be: do we want “Nation X” to obtain nuclear weapons? If you’re going to argue a point that Iran doesn’t have a right to the weapons, then Iran’s position in any negotiations will be to get us to agree that Iran does have a right to such weapons. We’ll be arguing in circles and making no progress. So, do we want a nuclear-armed Iran?

The official Obama Administration position is, “no” – but the statements of Secretary Clinton indicate we consider a nuclear-armed Iran a foregone conclusion unless the Iranians, by some chance, voluntarily agree to eschew such weapons, out of the goodness of their hearts (the same hearts which gun down young women in Iran’s streets, that is). We have just telegraphed, loud and clear, that we will not act to prevent Iran from obtaining such weapons…the talk of “we won’t allow” or “we will stop” is just mindless yammering right after anyone in the Obama Administration says, “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”. What needed to be said is, “we will not tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran and Iran should pay heed to our resolve and seek to make the best deal they can in return for their voluntary surrendering of the nuclear option”.

Once Iran has a nuke, they will inherently intimidate their neighbors and will inherently be able to project their power – these two things are the result of building nukes, not something you do with a nuke after you’ve built it. A nuclear armed Iran changes the power calculus in the middle east because the statements of Iran’s leaders cannot be ignored – while it might all be bluster, everyone will have to work on the assumption that they’re crazy enough to use them. And don’t think a “nuclear umbrella” will do much…no one in Saudi Arabia or Turkey is really going to think we’ll risk a nuclear counter attack on ourselves because Iran nuked Ankara or some other city. And the Israelis won’t care about it – a couple nukes over Israel means the end of Israel, period: Holocaust II. It wouldn’t even be cold comfort to think that after 5 million more are murdered the US will possibly nuke Tehran in response.

Clinton, speaking for Obama, has blown our chances of using something short of all out war to prevent an Iranian nuclear force. Nice job. No we’ll either get a nasty war in a couple years, or a generation of nuclear brinksmanship and even worse terror-sponsoring.