Was Hilary Clinton right to threaten to "Obliterate" Iran?

[Whiternoise]

BBC NEWS | World | Americas | Clinton's poll day threat to Iran

"If I'm the president, we will attack Iran... we would be able to totally obliterate them.
"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,"

In the hypothetical situation that Iran launched a nuclear strike on Israel, Clinton effectively said that they would go to war with Iran and would not hesitate to wipe them out.

Obviously a Nuclear strike would be a very very serious "offense" by Iran, and no doubt most of the World would make some sort of retaliatory gesture - be it actively aggressive or otherwise. However, for a country that has stretched itself rather thinly and has lost hundreds to a war in the middle east that was received with a lot of criticism, it seems a bit odd to be threatening a hypothetical all out war within the next decade (Clinton mentioned the next 10 years - presumably her time in the White House).

I personally hoped that that sort of mentality would die down a bit after Bush left office - apparently not, certainly i would hope that a large part of the rest of the world would put their foot down before the US gets it's itchy finger on the trigger again.

I think it's important to note that 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.

[pauldarkside]

I hope it's just political gesturing and a show of force from Clinton. The last thing we need now is another tyrant in the White House. Iran has been threatening with hot air for a long, long time and if they were serious about it surely they would have acquired the means to annihilate Isreal already and used it?

If it did happen though, could the west afford it given the current financial climate and the fact that we're pretty stretched with regards to forces/resources already? Also, could we afford not to? If we stood back and did nothing, there's little to deter other groups/governments from doing the same.

[directhex]

hillary clinton hasn't been right about anything for years

[Stewart]

The thing is, all of this rests on Iran actually launching a nuclear attack, and they know that if they do that, its the last thing they will ever do.

It is highly unlikely that even Imadinnerjacket would ever do more than talk about it. He might seem a ranting madman, but is hardly likely to commit suicide by pressing the nuclear button.

This statement was just aimed at showing the Yank voters that she's no soft touch, and just as capable as McCain at defending American interests.

It was just another way of saying - vote Hill and Billary Clinton!

[arthurleung]

To be fair I don't think it matters what Obama or Clinton says if that scenario does happen.

If Iran ever fire nuke(s) at Israel, Israel will just fire nukes back to Iran (before Iran's nuke even hit. It doesn't need US to obliterate Iran. It then trigger some other Middle East countries to attack Israel. Which will eventually develop into a mess. And we'll see the radioactive cloud blanket the Middle East. Iran would be flattened well before any American ICBM arrives.

Its just the same Cold War scenario.

Assume complete different scenario though, if Iran's target is not Israel, for example USA.
Technically speaking that would be a better off scenario, Iran will only have a handful of (low-yield) nukes at best, US may lose half a city, Iran will get its "obliteration". Things will probably stop there, rather than Middle East going Boom!
(Felt like a rip-off story of US and Japan in WW2)

[Whiternoise]

I mean it's all very well saying that "Iran isn't likely to do it", but i think the main point is that she's made her mindset clear and American that if anything stands in her way, well gosh darn is, she's gonna whup its ass. As Pauldarkside mentioned, it's a bit unnerving having the possibility of having another "tyrant" coming into power. It seems fairly likely that this is a last ditch attempt to gather up voters so she can stay in the race though.

[funke_munke]

Slightly off on a tangent, but if there was a war, and we ended up joining in, is there any way we could get hit ICBM style? Or do Iran not have the range?

[Rosaline]

In political races, women are often seen as less fit to act as military leaders.

This was a major bit of posturing to show that she's tough and willing to war, and to win over the substantial and influential Jewish lobby.

Oh, and to totally mess up global politics and put Iran onto an even more dangerous footing! Well done!

[directhex]

Originally Posted by Rosaline

In political races, women are often seen as less fit to act as military leaders.

This was a major bit of posturing to show that she's tough and willing to war, and to win over the substantial and influential Jewish lobby.

Oh, and to totally mess up global politics and put Iran onto an even more dangerous footing! Well done!

odd that the woman says she's both the best person to deal with a crisis at 3am - and that she confuses "little girl with poem" and "sniper" due to lack of sleep

[Agent]

Two things have amazed me about this US election:

1) How the hell she is still standing
2) How the US main stream media doesn't seem to report anything of interest

I'm not a big fan of the UK political system, but my god, if she had pulled half of the stunts she has there she would be the laughing stock of England.

[chuckskull]

It's just posturing, that's quite obvious. At the end of the day, if Iran even gets close to having working nuclear ICBM's they'll be on the receiving end of an airstrike, before they're finished being built. The US and Israel will see to that.

Look what happened to Iraq and they were only pretending to have WMD's.

[Saracen]

I don't see the problem. This is one of the dangers of stupid interviewers asking loaded questions.

For Clinton to say "we would be able to totally obliterate them" is really nothing more than a statement of the bleeding obvious. The US has a nuclear capability, and more to the point, delivery systems, far superior to anything Iran is going to gain in anything short of the very long term. Sub-launched missiles, if nothing else (and there's plenty else) ensure that.

So of course the US could obliterate Iran. Or almost anyone else.

Then, she was posed a loaded question, predicated on Iran already having launched an unprovoked nuclear attack on Israel. It has long been stated US policy that any such attack on security partners would be met with a robust response. That policy runs from the MAD of the cold war, and is still part of official US policy, as stated relatively recently in both the Nuclear Posture Review and the Nuclear Doctrine documents from the Joint Chiefs.

Those doctrines include multiple broad policy statements, but include both reassuring partners, and deterring opponents. But part of that is to never quite state exactly what response would accompany what action, because to do so puts down lines of what someone can do without provoking such a response.

As far as I'm aware, the US (or the UK for that matter) have never actually stated that a nuclear response would follow such an attack, but it's always been very clearly implied.

Israel is a security partner, and it's long been the case that US policy is that a WMD attack on it or it's partners would run a severe risk of retaliation in kind. I can't see how what Clinton said is anything new ..... or if it's a response to an unprovoked nuclear attack, why saying it is a bad thing.

[kalniel]

But she had the chance to say the US is better than that, rather than dragging things down to the level of the militants. Of course, the US public probably respond better to the notion that the US should be policing the world using force rather than going through any world political arenas, and it's not like Britain hasn't done the same thing either.

[format]

IIRC most people agreed that Iran has stopped military grade nuclear manufacturing, and it would take 5-10 years for them to start it up again??

[Steve A]

Nothing new really, lets face it the US are gung-ho (too many people watch war moves me thinks), but the worst bit for us that its usually the British armed forces that bare the brunt of it , "if it moves shoot it" ) maybe they should take a leaf out of Steams approach and Turn FF off ,

I am also bewildered that the US thing they would be any use, the Isreal Armed force is one of the best trained, best equipped on the planet and far better than there US allies, and are more than capable of wiping out iran on there lonesome, All the US is good for is numbers,

Its all hype, the american people love that sort of thing, so i dare say it will get her a few more votes from the redneck population.

[Saracen]

Originally Posted by Steve A

...

I am also bewildered that the US thing they would be any use, the Isreal Armed force is one of the best trained, best equipped on the planet and far better than there US allies, and are more than capable of wiping out iran on there lonesome, All the US is good for is numbers,

Its all hype, the american people love that sort of thing, so i dare say it will get her a few more votes from the redneck population.

Not so. First, the US has capabilities Israel doesn't, like the ballistic missile subs. Secondly, while Israel's military is certainly well-equipped, the operate on a very different scale from the US. The US is capable of many things that Israel simply isn't.

Third, we don't actually know for sure if Israel is nuclear-armed. It is certainly believed that they are (and long have been), but Israel operates a very careful policy of not confirming that. They have certainly not done much to dispel the notion, but it is their overt, stated policy to keep everyone guessing. They are on the record, both at military level and political leadership level, of having said that if people believe you have nukes and will use them, you will probably not need to actually have them. Personally, if I had to bet one way or the other, I'd bet they do have nukes, but how many, and what delivery systems they have is entirely another matter.

Fourthly, the American population is, like every other population, pretty varied. They are not, by any stretch of imagination, all either rednecks or all hawks.

And finally, what HC said was in response to a very specific hypothetical situation, so it isn't isn't actually hype, and even then, as with any politician, you have to be careful to look at what she actually said rather than what it's been reported that it meant.