- 5 May 2008
-
- 7 Comments
-
-
-
- Diplomacy, Election 2008, Presidential 2008 Elections, US-Iran War
Rhetoric Continues to Reign Supreme
5 May 2008 Posted By Arash Hadjialiloo
It appears that rhetoric is the most resilient weed in the US-Iran diplomacy garden. Despite several rounds of both Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama attacking President Bush’s “saber rattling,” Clinton has not been able to avoid falling back on the tough talk when in a pinch.
In her appearance on ABC’s Good Morning America on April 22, Senator Clinton said that she would respond in kind to an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel and that the United States could “totally obliterate” Iran in the process. She defended this statement yesterday in an appearance on ABC’s This Week.
This comment, along with Clinton’s plans for a nuclear umbrella for the Middle East, have been heavily criticized by NIAC, some American newspapers, and international organizations. Last week the United Nations even received a complaint from Iran’s deputy UN ambassador on the comment. The secretary-general of the United Nations has not yet responded but his spokesperson Ferhan Haq has reportedly commented that the UN would pay much more attention to this sort of comment if Clinton is elected president.
Obama accused Clinton of mirroring President Bush’s style of “cowboy diplomacy, or lack of diplomacy.” Given the same question, Obama delivered a more measured statement saying that the US would use an appropriate and serious response to an Iranian attack on the US’ “most important ally.”
But as NIAC has pointed out, these hypothetical statements accomplish nothing and raise tensions between the two nations. The US should focus not on “nuclear deterrence, but nuclear diplomacy.”
The hypothetical questions placed before the candidates are such that the only appropriate response is to use overwhelming force against Iran. While Obama, for the most part, has resisted the premise of the hypothetical situation (On Meet the Press he said he would make sure Iran never got nuclear weapons in the first place), Clinton seems a willing participant in raising the stakes. As if to prove that she can out-hawk the neo-conservatives with her rhetoric.
For the most part, Clinton’s “obliterate” statement has been received in the press as just a campaign tool. However, the effect of her words is so dangerous and alarmist that one can imagine that as President, she is likely to pick up the old saber and start rattling.
7 Responses to “Rhetoric Continues to Reign Supreme”
Clinton has received mostly criticism for her “obliterate Iran” comment. Has her comment changed how you feel about the candidates or the way you plan to vote? What do you think about the Iranian government’s response?
I think it is so terrible how this is being portrayed in the our Iranian community and is being blown out of proportion. She has not said anything outside of what all the candidates have been saying. She was asked what she would do if Iran Launched a Nuclear attack on Israel. and I think this would have been the response of Obama as well.
Obama in fact has said similar things in the past but for some reason Hillary’s comment was the only thing that was picked up. I think it is also funny how the video is cut-off and does not include the question, nor does it include the whole answer, where she ends her sentence by saying:
“That’s a terrible thing to say, but those people who run Iran need to understand that, because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic.”
I did not like how NIAC handled this at all.
when Obama says “he will not let Iran get nuclear weapons in the first place” and he also adds that he will consider a military option to prevent Iran from getting these weapons, doesn’t that imply that he will be willing to attack before Iran attacks Israel? are we only looking at how people “sound” rather than what they actually say?
Sara…
I do understand what you are saying here… that any politician would respond the same way. And I think that is the exact point.
no on in their right mind would doubt that if Iran were to do such a thing (IF they ever got nukes) then the US and Israel would respond with nukes.
thats not the question. In fact, that is a standing policy since probably the late 60s… and it was US policy towards USSR… and the exact reason that Israel now has nuclear subs (second strike capability).
the question is her ‘judgment’ in using such language – and more importantly – the effect it will have on the potential for resolving these complex issues between the US and Iran in an alternative way.
My personal reason for being angry at her, is that this type of language helps out Ahmadinejad more then anything. Now he can go to the Iranian people and say “see – the Americans all want to kill us” he can raise his rhetoric too… and claim that his ‘wipe out’ comment was no different then the Hillary comment.
If she does win the primary (which at this point seems extremely unlikely) and she does win the Presidency – I certainly hope she will not make outrageous and dangerous comments like this. This verbiage is Cheney territory.
I do want to know though, why you think it is blown out of proportion? setting aside the primary – would you not feel outraged if say Bush or McCain or Lieberman had said this?
sara… in response to your second post…
i think you are absolutely right that they are ‘saying’ the same thing ultimately. which everyone already ‘knows’. but the issue really does come down to ‘word choice’ or as you said ‘sounding better’.
I dont think Iranian-Americans are ticked off at the idea of attacking back if Iran uses Nukes… in fact, we all hope that Iran or at least the IRI never does get nuclear weapons. But the point is, a willingness to say “obliterate” when it is unnecessary to do so – reflects a willingness to throw a whole nation of people under the bus for a few political points.
And I think most people (correctly) interpret that as a lack of care on her part about Iranians (the people) and Iranian-Americans. I mean could you imagine any politician using that word about China over Taiwan?
I am reminded of my parents telling me about the difference between “Befarma”, “Beshin”, and “Betamarg”. All mean the same thing… but one is far more diplomatic then the rest … and isn’t diplomacy the outcome we are all hoping for?
sorry for the long response – but I really do want to have this conversation – because there are A lot of Clinton supporters out there (including my parents) who are struggling with this issue right now, and I am very interested in hearing their take on this dust-up.
Clinton spoke, the press reacted, and Iranians (particularly Iranian-Americans) reacted even stronger. Was it for a lack of anything better to say? I can’t determine. I personally would vouch that she may get more and more desperate to bolster credibility and this juncture with her popularity waning, instead of just running her campaign on the scam to the effect of “Hey, look what I look like on the outside! Vote for me just because no prior president has ever looked like this!”. The tactics politicians use seem to get more and more shady with passing time. The 2000 and 2004 election “miscounts”, anyone?
When a government is weak, any opportunist wants to take a stab at it and profit from it. Hillary just showed her low and weak character by using words that show her arrogance and carelessness. I think she deserves every bit of negative media that she is getting. You just can’t be in a position of power and be so irresponsible.