Home > Stephen Pollard

Sunday 18 May 2008

Dare to dream and make your ultimate trip a reality

The latest culture as recommended by our staff

Peter Hoskin

Pete suggests

Email registration

Free weekly email update

Great products and special offers for Spectator readers

Click here for great value reader offers and events

Click here for the latest Spectator Wine Offers

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.)

Previous Back to Stephen Pollard Next

Blogs: Clive Davis | Melanie Phillips | Americano | Coffee House | Trading Floor

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (8)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

John

April 23rd, 2008 9:01am

Silverstein is an illiterate idiot (I would use much stronger language if I thought it might be allowed here) if he regards a nuclear strike by Iran as 'the first sign of conflict'. Obambi is not much better. Do these people have enough sense to get in out of the rain? I seriously doubt it.

Ian C

April 23rd, 2008 12:20pm

This is beginningto get to the undefendended/undefensible underside of Obama. About time.

patricia

April 23rd, 2008 4:34pm

What an idiot Pollard really is.

Hillary was right to talk about obliterating Iran?

And what happens next, Pollard?
After the US destroys the world's third largest oil producer?

After the repurcussions of a nuclear attack are felt regionally?

After the rest of the Middle East countries gird their loins against America?

Never has the US Jewish lobby been shown to be more dangerous to America and the rest of the world, and never have its UK spokespeople, such as yourself, been shown to be as dangerous as you do now.

Tariq

April 23rd, 2008 4:47pm

"In the next ten years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them." And the fallout would contaminate which neighbouring American allies, exactly? Also, the worst national security advisor of all time, hands down, is Condoleeza Rice, who also wins the Worst Secretary of State award.

The Chocolate Orange Candidate Inspector

April 23rd, 2008 7:52pm

Yes, Hillary is right. Obama is a hard left limousine liberal and truly alarming. Hillary Clinton may be terribly irritating, but she knows the score and she's not a ditherer.

Ann

April 23rd, 2008 9:05pm

I wondered for a moment which absurd anti-Israel fanatic was posting the following nonsense: "After the repurcussions [sic] of a nuclear attack are felt regionally?", and then I noticed the name of the poster. And the reference to the evil Jewish lobby, horns and all.
Everything fell into place.
Let's spell it out slowly for her benefit: this presupposes that an attack had ALREADY been launched by IRAN.
All clear, dearie?

patricia

April 24th, 2008 10:28am

Ann - your withering irony is matched only by your aggressive ignorance.

Did you know that Iran has never invaded anyone? Probably not.

Did you know that the US and UK murdered its first democratically elected premiere in the 50s, it lost 1 million men in a US inspired Iran-Iraq war and is today increasingly encircled by the US and Israel. Probably not.

Cheney and Israel agitate on a daily basis for embargoes and advocate first strikes.

So why should Iran not gain nuclear defence, given such a consistent history of attack and provocation against it?

And why should Israel, a serial war crinimal, illegal coloniser and regular invader of its neighbours - with an army found guilty of regular massacres, be defended to the hilt by the US?

Hilary is merely playing to inmates of the U.S Hard Right and its weird sister the Israeli Lobby. That she should have to do so underlines that lobby's power, which consistenly undermines America's interests.

If Hilary had America's interests at heart, she would be threatening Israel, not Iran, because Israel is responsible for the woes of the middle east and America needs LEGAL access to Iranian crude.

Ann, get your head out of propaganda books such as Melanie Phillips's Londonistan and read some objective history.

Then by all means feel free to come back and say something constructive.

Nick

April 24th, 2008 1:55pm

Er well Patricia, Iran has stated it wants Israel wiped off the map, so this might explain why the US and most countries don't trust the regime or want it to get nuclear weapons.

As for Israel invading other countries, this has come about either because it was attacked first (in 1948) or about to be attacked (in 1967). Israel pulled out of Gaza only for Hamas to fire rockets at it (why is that by the way?). Israel also handed back the Sinai to Egypt. So if it was this criminal state why would it hand land back? Especially as it has seized lands as aresult of wars not of its own making.

Interestingly you say nothing about Syria's illegal occupation of Lebanon. Or Turkish occupation in Northern Cyprus. What is it specifcally about Israel that urks you so?

If Jews did 'run' Amserican foreign policy, would this be why Saudi Arabia gets sophisticaed weapons from American and general backing for its regime which is fundamentally opposed to Israel's existence and bans Jews?

You are another example of these Muesli apologists for hard-line regimes you'd loathe to live under in real life. How convenient to live in England.