Hillary is right

Wednesday, 23rd April 2008

Deary me, there's been some drivel written about Hillary Clinton's remarks about Iran. Here's what she said:

Mrs Clinton, who on Monday released a television commercial using images of Osama bin Laden that ended with the question “Who do you think has what it takes?” made her comments about Iran during an interview with ABC.
“I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran,” she said after being asked what she would do if Iran launched a nuclear attack on Israel. “In the next ten years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”

That prompted, for instance, this from Richard Silverstein:

Is this really the type of president Americans want? One who so demonises Iran that she's prepared to go to war at the first sign of conflict in the Middle East? Do we want to create a Middle East cold war like the one we had with the Soviets for four decades?

There's a lot more in similar vein elsewhere. Not least from Obama:

In response, Mr Obama said: "Using words like 'obliterate' - it doesn't actually produce good results, and so I'm not interested in sabre-rattling." He said only that Iran should know he would respond "forcefully" to an attack on any US ally.

And it's all grade one nonsense. Oliver Kamm spells out some basics of deterrence:

It does of course sound a terrible thing to say. But Senator Clinton is right and Obama wrong. For nuclear deterrence to hold, it is essential that Iran - a regime that is autocratic but aware of costs - understand the consequences of nuclear brinkmanship. To say Iran would meet a "forceful" response in the event of a nuclear strike is a feeble comment that would not effectively deter. The only response to a nuclear strike that could prevent military victory by an aggressor is a countervailing nuclear strike. Leaving open the possibility, even implicitly, of a purely conventional or even a diplomatic response is to soften deterrence.

I think Hillary's campaign has at times been decidedly unpleasant. But what an impressive candidate she can be - and her stamina is clearly spectacular, which is not something to be disregarded in choosing a President.

It may be that an Obama victory would be, in many ways, a good thing. But if it isn't going to be McCain - which I hope it is - the rest of the world should hope that it's Clinton, who not only appears to understand the reality of the world better than Obama, but also has serious advisers rather than the likes of Zbigniew Brzezinski, possibly the worst National Security Adviser of all time. As Tom Gross writes:

If it was only one, or two, or even three, of Obama’s close advisors who have adopted anti-Israeli and anti-American positions (and in some cases used anti-Semitic language), one might possibly excuse Obama. But Obama has chosen to surround himself with many such persons.
Again, if Obama had appointed even one reliable, experienced Democrat, such as Richard Holbrooke, to his foreign policy team, one might feel more comfortable that he won’t make disastrous foreign policy mistakes if elected. But he hasn’t.
...A previous dispatch on this list referred to Obama advisors Zbigniew Brzezinski (who served as Jimmy Carter’s disastrous national security advisor), Robert Malley (a relentless apologist for Yasser Arafat), and Samantha Power (who has called for the elimination of foreign aid to Israel and its redirection to “Palestine”).
...(Incidentally, although Power had to withdraw from the public face of Obama’s campaign after calling Hillary Clinton a “monster,” I am reliably told that she remains in close contact with Obama and would almost certainly be given a senior posting were he to become president.)