The Iran Consensus Grows More Dangerous

[Purveyor]

As I've noted, the three candidates share a consensus, backed by the national security community, that Iran is the new strategic threat. It is radical, anti-American, anti-Israel, terrorist-supporting, nuclear-armed and provocative.

But just because this is the consensus view does not mean it is right. The danger, regardless of who is the next president, is that officials have already begun military preparations, and shaping public opinion, to build momentum for the inevitable.

--
So what to make of Sen. Hillary Clinton's remarks last week that she would "totally obliterate" Iran if it attacked Israel with nuclear weapons? Sen. Barack Obama quickly accused his rival of mimicking the Bush administration, and Clinton was roundly denounced by the left.

Yet on Sunday on ABC This Week, after she had had a chance to think about her "totally obliterate" statement, Clinton repeated her unambiguous threat: "I think we have to be very clear about what we would do," she said in response to a question about Iran and her earlier remark. "I don't think it's time to equivocate. to know they would face massive retaliation. That is the only way to rein them in."

On the floor of the Senate in February 2007, Clinton said: "U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal. We cannot, we should not, we must not, permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. And in dealing with this threat, as I have said for a very long time, no option can be taken off the table." (The statement is prominent on her campaign Web site under her support for Israel.

My point here is American policy toward Iran and not just the campaign or Hillary Clinton. The threats emanating from Clinton are certainly unstatesmanlike, and I would say damaging to American interests. Given an opportunity to be more judicious, she didn't take it. That is the true danger right now with regard to the Iran consensus: Apparently none of her advisers thought it necessary to clarify or correct her, and none thought it inappropriate to threaten Iran with American nuclear weapons, explicitly and publicly.


By William M. Arkin | May 7, 2008; 12

---eoe---

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2008/05/the_iran_consensus_grows_more.html?nav=rss_blog

[Pietrogustapov]

1. Obama is the only one using reason

Obama is willing to sit down with the leaders of these nations instead of threatening with obliterating them if they did something to Israel.

He's the only one who understand how peace is achieved.

[rAVES]

2. That "obliterate" statment was all about cozying up to the Israeli lobby..