Much has been made of Hillary Clinton’s recent comments that she would “obliterate” Iran if the Islamic republic uses nuclear weapons against Israel. Some are arguing that this threat is a continuation of President Bush’s overly aggressive foreign policy, but in actuality it is a continuation of the deterrence policy that the U.S. has engaged in since the beginning of the Cold War. Both Democratic and Republican presidents have engaged in this policy of deterrence, and it was effective in preventing our Soviet enemies from using nuclear weapons against us and our allies abroad until the cold war ended in the ’90s.
This is not to say that Clinton’s position on the Middle Eastern conflict is not problematic. On the contrary, the bipartisan U.S. obsession with supporting every Israeli action has been an obstacle to the peace process in that it idealizes one participant in the conflict and demonizes the others. At the same time, it cannot be denied that Israel is our strongest ally in the Middle East. It also cannot be denied that the international community still owes a debt to the Jews who have migrated from many parts of the world to Israel. These Jews, primarily from Europe, left their homes for Israel precisely because of the anti-Semitic persecution they have suffered for generations. At a minimum, the international community owes to Israel a promise that it will not be wiped out by a nuclear holocaust.
The only way to ensure that Israel is not wiped out by an Iranian launched nuclear holocaust is to make sure that Iran knows the consequences for launching such an attack. The costs of such an attack must outweigh the benefits, otherwise Iran will not be deterred from launching a nuclear attack against Israel. The most effective deterrent to a nuclear attack is the possibility of reciprocity: If Iran launches an attack, it must know that a similar attack or, worse yet, an attack of greater magnitude, will be the consequence of its action.
Aside from its implications for the Middle Eastern conflict, Clinton’s threat also has a broader meaning. Her willingness to “obliterate” Iran if it uses nuclear weapons against one of its greatest enemies could act as a deterrent for Iran to continue pursuing a nuclear weapons program at all. If Iran sees that its possession of nuclear weapons will not actually be militarily useful, there would be no reason to continue the pursuit of such weapons. One way to convince Iran that nuclear armament will not be beneficial is to convince the regime that the use of nuclear weapons on any nation, not just the United States, will be greeted by a nuclear response from the U.S. that would be even more devastating. This alters the framework in which the Iranian government views its pursuit of nuclear weapons, shifting the emphasis from the benefits of nuclear armament to the costs.
This policy is far shrewder than the policy pursued by the Bush administration, which has involved vague and useless threats of war with the Iranian regime. This new move toward deterrence would be a policy that presidents like Truman, Kennedy and Reagan would approve. The possibility of a ground war and a prolonged occupation of Iran probably does not seem like much of a threat to the Iranian government, which has observed the Iraqi debacle that we have so foolishly involved ourselves in. On the other hand, the possibility that Tehran will cease to exist with the push of a button in Washington, D.C. is probably much more sobering. Clinton has reminded the Iranian government that even if it possesses nuclear weapons, it will be no match for the United States. In doing so, she has adapted the cold war policy of deterrence that helped us defeat the Soviet Union to our conflict today. Let’s hope this policy of deterrence meets with similar success in our conflict with Iran.
Reader Comments
"This policy is far shrewder than the policy pursued by the Bush administration, which has involved vague and useless threats of war with the Iranian regime." -NN
Huh?
What a worthless piece of rhetoric that was!? Where is your proof?
What about this quote?
"I have for two years advocated diplomatic engagement with Iran, and I think that's what the president should do. He should seize this opportunity and engage in serious diplomacy." -HRC
"Bush insisted earlier on Tuesday that Iran remains dangerous and urged continued international pressure despite a new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that said Tehran halted its nuclear arms program in 2003."
All from this article- http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKN0429836020071204?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0
So, your claim that Bush is not shrewd enough compared to the Dems and Clinton is completely unfounded. Hilary (and Barack) actually feel we should meet with Ahmedinajad (a raging lunatic who proves it every time he opens his mouth, I shouldn't even need to quote him as he lashes out at Israel almost daily.).
In fact, I can recall Bush not ruling out a military option when it came to Iran and the Dems were all a flutter because of it.
I think you need to lay off the Kool Aid, Nathan.
I will give you props for recognizing Reagan as the leader he was, but you are way wrong on HRC.
So I love how I said you needed to lay off the Kool-Aid once and since then you've used it maybe 50 times.... I guess you would be real good at repeating everything you hear other people say, your posts typically revolve around the same rhetoric heard on O'Reilly and Limbaugh.
The United States would do well to send less apocalyptic imagery to Tehran. Hillary's ham-fisted response implying nuclear annihilation demonstrates, again for those in the cheap seats, that her eight years' experience as First Lady has been grotesquely exaggerated. She, along with her supporters, simply will not accept the fact that the vast plurality of rational Americans finds her unappealing, not because she is an assertive and tenacious woman, but because she is as underhanded and duplicitous as her husband.
In any case, rather than bravado, the U.S. needs to spearhead a diplomatic effort with the other permanent members of the U.N. Security Council as well as NATO, commit to meet with Tehran face-to-face, and candidly lay the circumstances out for Iran in practical terms like you would for a child: Nuclear warfare would pale in comparison to an economically-crippling blockade of the Persian Gulf, Oman, and Caspian Sea, in addition to the prospect of calculated electromagnetic interference of a broad portion of Iran's frequency spectrum -- an EMF sanction, perhaps?
jpmo13--
Ignoring even our worst enemies is what led us to be cold-cocked by the Taliban on February 26, 1993 and then again on 9/11, decades after your f*cking champion, Ronald Reagan, decided to aggressively arm militants in Afghanistan via the Pakistani SS, for God and country and the War on Communism.
Ironically, Ol' Gipper was the only one of us who wasn't haunted by the memory of his boneheaded foreign policy.
i enjoyed reading the comments more than the article.
one question though to xfactor...do you watch or listen to O'Reilly or Limbaugh?
Personally, I feel it behooves one to tune in regularly to pundits from both sides.
How would I know to hate both of them with an undying passion if I didn't?
that's what I thought...you don't watch the factor nor do you listen to limbaugh. oh, but you probably do watch the cut together clips on youtube. typical.
CNash--
Bill O'Reilly is only tolerable in small doses. I don't see the problem there.
Rush's program, on the other hand, is essentially one three-hour long sentence, so it's kind of necessary to catch the entire broadcast.
Tell me, have you watched Olbermann recently? Other than splices from the given day's Talking Point Memo?
nope, i do not watch olbermann. but i dont refer to all liberal posts as democrat talking points from liberal commentators either.
Um... I'm not sure if you're illiterate or just stupid, but my previous comment implied I have and do watch and listen occasionally. I don't frequently because I despise them both, but it's always good to know what the enemy is planning. If it makes you feel any better, I hate Bill Maher just as much.
exfactor-get over yourself. next time make a comment that actually rebuts my point of view and not a word I choose to use. Your assumption that "Kool aid" is a term that you coined is absurd.
To Kevin Casey, your recollection of history is hazy at best. But for Reagan arming Afghani's, the Soviets would have had a much easier time pushing South and taking over the country. Because we armed them, they forced the Soviets into an extended conflict and proved Communism would implode with pressure. So, yes arming them was a good choice.
To say that arming Afghanis led to 911 or 2/26/93 is rather far fetched. I dont recall terrorists using weapons that we provided on those days.
Meeting w/ Tehran would only legitimize Ahmedinejad you buffoon. The President of the United States should not ever meet with anyone who calls for the destruction of Israel almost daily. Meeting w/ them would only de-legitimize the United States as Ahmedinejad would surely use it as a pedestal to scream hateful things and make us look awful.
Only after 1) He recognizes the Holocaust happened, and 2) He recognizes Israel as a state...only then should we even consider meeting with him.
...
Yes, we all sound like talking points, Olbermann, Rush, WTF?
That is a pointless comment. I was expecting something more original.
yes xfactor...but i dont believe you
I'm not sure you understand what does and does not make a government legitimate, because technically, Hamas is a legitimate governing body. Simply meeting with someone who has radical and very wrong views does no delegitimize your governing body.
And the arming and training of Bin Laden played no factor in his rise to power in the Afghanistan and his subsequent attacks on the US. You're totally right there... or not
jpmo13--
No, arming them was not a good choice -- The Soviets (not Communism; open a book) were on the verge of collapse by then anyway.
Does my reading of history seem hazy to you because it's not what you want to hear? Poor baby. Keep it tuned to Pravda/Fox News, I suppose.
Refusing to meet with certain opposing perspectives is merely perpetuating a self-serving hypothesis. In simpler terms: having an enemy to have an enemy. Be it Nazis, Japs, Commies, Terrorists... the list will go on and on as long as inbreds like you are in office.
Yeah. That's what I thought.
Submit a comment to The Post