Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, what if Israel attacks Iran and you are elected as president of the USA?
May 10th, 2008Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
US Presidential Candidate
Your Excellency,
In one of your recent campaign interviews you stated that: “I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran. . . . In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them” (Interview with ABC).
This is not different from President Bush’s stated policy towards Iran. The logic of threatening a total obliteration of Iran, possible only through a nuclear holocaust, is based on the “right of power”, not the “power of the right”.
As you may know, chapter I, article II of the United Nations Charter states that:
“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”
Regardless of any hypothetical attack on Israel, the United States is legally bound not to threaten Iran or any other country. In addition to the UN Charter, the US constitution prohibits such threatening policies. Article IV Clause II states:
“This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”
As an Iranian, I feel compelled to ask you some questions. First, why are you threatening “the Iranians”? Second, if Israel attacks Iran and you are elected as president of the USA, what would then be your policy and position?
I do not agree with the rhetorical statements and foreign policies of Dr. Ahmadinejad, the President of Islamic Republic of Iran. However, while the military capability of Iran to attack Israel is questionable, Israel’s capabilities concerning the conventional and non-conventional armaments to attack Iran is beyond any doubt.
With respect
Ebrahim Yazdi,
Secretary General, Freedom Movement of Iran and
Former Foreign Minister, Islamic Republic of Iran
May 6th, 2008
*****
Ebrahim Yazdi was the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the interim government of Mehdi Bazargan until 6 November 1979, when he, along with the rest of the Bazargan cabinet, resigned in protest of the takeover of the United States Embassy by the Muslim Student Followers of the Imam’s Line.
Loading ...
Loading...
A U.S attack on Iran would be the biggest mistake ever. I sincerely hope she does not win.
everyone please note, that this author has taken the quote completely out of context. He has removed a large part of the text, in the “. . .” that makes the quote seem more like a thread than retaliatory action.
Nice work, _Mohammed_
me:
I know that it was “we will attack Iran if it attacks israel”. but this does not make a difference, for it is still so: “you, Iranians, attack Israel and we will obliterate you. however, if Israel attacks you, thats probably a pre-emptive attack and certainly ok. understand it plz.”
There is talk, and there is policy. Hillary probably went overboard in using the word “obliterate.” She could have said something along these lines, “If Iran attacks Israel, we will respond in kind to neutralize the threat.” But those are just words. What do they really mean?
The issue comes down to this: Given Iran’s stated intentions, and given the role she has played in recent years in the Middle East, can the U.S., or Israel, or the West, or the rest of the world, for that matter, allow Iran to become a nuclear power?
Some would say yes, but most would say no. If Iran becomes a nuclear power, it become probable that Sunni states like Saudi Arabia and Egypt would follow suit. If the Middle East becomes flooded with nuclear weapons, then it becomes more likely that such weapons will fall into the hands of terrorist organizations. Unlike the detente that was achieved between the Soviet Union and the United States, it is possible that a rogue state or a terrorist organization could decide to push the button, thus initiating a nuclear holocaust, along with economic and ecological disaster throughout the world.
The stakes are already high in the Middle East. How much higher can we let them go, and still believe that life can continue as usual? At some point, someone has to say no. And while it is wrong to say that you will “obliterate” another nation, it may not be wrong to say, sooner rather than later, that you will not allow a nation to acquire nuclear weapons, if doing so will greatly increase the chance for a nuclear holocaust, and an end to life as we know it.
So while wording is important, it is not as important as policy, and the world has to come up with a policy that respects the rights of other sovereign nations, but that ensures the survival of our species on this good earth. Together we will have to find a way to say no to the extremists, while empowering the overwhelming majority of Iranians, and all good people around the world, to take charge of their lives, and to move their countries to policy positions which are sustainable, not just ideological.
Given Israel’s stated intention and actual atrocities and of course USofAs atrocities such as butchering of Iraq, funding every fucking terrorist known to mankind, shall we obliterate these nations from the face of this Earth? Give me a fucking break, you don’t fucking want peace, you want the “peace” YOU want, aka total destruction of the people you hate. Peace only when the people you hate seize to exist.
Iran never ones said their nuclear program is for military use, no evidence exist to backup anyone’s claim that Iran is pursuing nukes. Funny when nations who already have enough to obliterate this planet million fold or the nation that already used couple on civilian population make these ridiculous demands.
Get over it.
If Pakistan, one of the most unstable countries in the world can protect their nukes.. why can’t these nations? That is IF they acquire them.
Yes yes ifs and ifs and ifs and ifs and ifs… wona step into reality for a while? Pretending to foretell the future of humanity gets irritating when there are far worse dangers exist right before your eyes.
M16S AND AK47 ARE THE REAL WMD, why don’t you tell your fucking government to stop shipping them to poor nations, then you’ll be doing something worthwhile, right now sticking ur dick into Iran is all about appeasing your ego. Open your fucking eyes and look at the world as it is instead of the scenario you want it to be.
Just for your info, rogue states already have these weapons… Israel, DPRK, USofA and UK. Deal with them first. Only funny thing about this whole thing is that at least Iran never tried to invade other nations, but America did try to invade Iran using their proxy Saddam… whom used other WMD to kill Iranians and Kurds… sigh..
Mohammad,
Amen
Israel and Iran should be pushed into attacking one another. Israel essentially does not threaten the existance of any country in the region, other countries are there which have tried to underminde Israle in any pissble way, but despite all the events happening in Middle East for the last 60 years, Israel exists and it is home to many people from many ethnic groups, many religions, it is home to Jewish peopel and to the Arabs and the problem that exists with Palestinians , there is a hope more than ever that will be dealt with in a way both nations will approve of. Here in this point of history countries really should help this peace plan to work, people of the region need peace more than ever, they need to set aside sifferences to progress, to make a life for you and me for the generations to come, it is nice to back a peace process and intervene to make good things happen.
What Mrs Clinton says is perhaps merely what the advisors have suggested, the ones who are very well aware of the sphychological and social sensities of the voters. Well, there are times when the same advisors make a mistake, even but promoting the imagine of If Iran attacks… if there are weapons of mass destruction… if….
In the USA election, I hope all the best for the people of USA and I hope the person is is more than all in tuned with the needs and expectations of the nation would succeed. I am very sure that attacking other countries and finding excused for that is not of interest to the honorable people living in that land and I hope one day a cool person would be the president of USA, a person who could borker the peace deal in the whole MIddle East.
Mohammad,
Amen
Israel and Iran should be pushed into attacking one another. Israel essentially does not threaten the existence of any country in the region, other countries are there which have tried to undermined Israel in any possible way, but despite all the events happening in Middle East for the last 60 years, Israel exists and it is home to many people from many ethnic groups, many religions, it is home to Jewish people and to the Arabs and the problem that exists with Palestinians , there is a hope more than ever that will be dealt with in a way both nations will approve of. Here in this point of history countries really should help this peace plan to work, people of the region need peace more than ever, they need to set aside differences to progress, to make a life for you and me for the generations to come, it is nice to back a peace process and intervene to make good things happen.
What Mrs. Clinton says is perhaps merely what the advisors have suggested, the ones who are very well aware of the psychological and social sensitivities of the voters. Well, there are times when the same advisors make a mistake, supposedly by promoting the image of ” If Iran attacks… if there are weapons of mass destruction… if…. ”
In the USA election, I hope all the best for the people of USA and I hope the person is more than all in tuned with the needs and expectations of the nation would succeed. I am very sure that attacking other countries and finding excused for that is not of interest to the honorable people living in that land and I hope one day a cool person would be the president of USA, a person who could broker the peace deal in the whole Middle East.
I’m skeptical about what politicians say while in office: I have no faith at all in what they say on the campaign trail.
I love Mr. Yazdi’s question about Israel attacking Iran… Let’s see you answer that one, Hillary!
Jina, a very spirited response, but I still say you’re playing with fire.
Most of your arguments have to do with “moral relativism.” You’re basically saying that countries like the U.S. or Israel have perpetrated misdeeds, and still have nuclear weapons, therefore, they are not in a position to criticize anyone else. It doesn’t hold up, not when you’re talking about mixing up a concoction of ideological extremism and nuclear weapons.
You don’t itemize Israel’s atrocities, but you mention Iraq with respect to the U.S. I don’t particularly think that going into Iraq was a good idea, but it was much less of an atrocity than Saddam Hussein, who caused the deaths of close to two million people, and who invaded two countries, and who used weapons of mass destruction on his own people and on Iranians.
Iraq is not going well for the U.S. but the purpose of going in there was not to perpetrate atrocities, but to topple Saddam’s government, to neutralize the threat he posed, and to introduce a more democratic model into the Middle East. It has not worked well, to say the least, but it was not close to the brutality of Saddam’s regime.
You go on to say that I want to destroy the people I hate, and that I want peace on my terms. Not really. If peace could be attained without killing, I would be all for that. But in reality, I think we will have to fight the extremists, because that is the only language they understand. But instead of just fighting militarily, I want to fight them in a multi-faceted fashion, using a combination of: Ideology, Investment, Hope, Diplomacy, and the Military. That is what the extremists are doing and that’s what we should be doing to beat them at their own game and to marginalize them in the eyes of their own people.
You use Pakistan as a good example of a country keeping control of its nukes. And you don’t seem to mind Saudi Arabia and Egypt acquiring nuclear weapons. Well, first of all, considering that there are parts of Pakistan that are cooperating with Al Qaeda, I don’t think that I would point to Pakistan as a source of assurance with regard to nukes. And if there is a proliferation of nukes in the Middle East, coupled with extremist ideology, and within the context of terrorists threats, I think that is a recipe for disaster, and I’m surprised you don’t see it as such.
You blame the U.S. for supplying arms to poor nations. You are probably right to say that there are instances when the sale of such arms was unjust and unwarranted, and caused the deaths on innocent people. But there are also instances when poor nations need to defend themselves, and when the U.S. considers it in their interests to arm them. For example, in the wake of 9/11 it was not only justified to topple the Taliban regime, but to also arm and defend the new government in order to prevent the Taliban from regaining their power.
You say that it is difficult to predict the future, so why even try? Jina, we’re talking about life and death, and about preserving life as we know it. It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure out that nuclear weapons in the hands of rogue states or terrorist organizations is about the stupidest thing on earth, and if we don’t try to prevent it, then we become just as stupid. And when the world gets blown apart there will only be some bugs remaining wondering what went wrong with the smartass humans who used to step on them.
You mention that Iran never invaded another country. Maybe. But it sure as hell is financing terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hizbullah and using them to destablize countries like Lebanon, and Iraq, and territories like Gaza, and the West Bank.
You say that Iran never mentioned that it wants nuclear weapons. Well excuse me, but it did happen to mention that it would like nothing better than to destroy the sovereign state of Israel. It also said that losing half the Iranian population would be worth it, if Israel could be destroyed. And there is still a strong debate in the intelligence community about the development of nuclear weapons in Iran. The recent report said that this program was halted in 2003, but there is evidence to the contrary.
What is fishy about the whole thing is that Iran is being offered assistance with nuclear energy for electricity, the kind that is not weapons grade, but it is refusing the deal. Let me ask you this, Jina. If Iran just wants nuclear power for peaceful use, why is it rejecting a deal based on this premise?
To make a long story short, I think that in your attempt to create a balanced approach when it comes to Iran, you lose sight of the very real threats out there, and you substitute your notions of fairness for what is needed to prevent a holocaust, in the name of false ideology, that may well become the undoing of us all.
Nissim:
Before everything else, I’m certainly against nukes in the hands of IRI, partly for it may deliver ‘push button’ to some idiots (and this concern applies to Israel as well. I see no difference, sorry.), and mostly for it freezes the democratization of Iran: it will ensure the very survival of regime even if the people happen not to support it that much or try resistance.
Then, let me ask, why ‘you, Iranians… we will obliterate you’ is just talk, not the policy; and when it comes to ‘wiping Israel off the map’, that is policy, not the talk? Iran’s declared policy for mideast conflict is, though unpractical, very simple: have a democratic election in that piece of land, all of it together as it had been, with all of those who truly belong to it. Yeah, this may translate into ‘wiping Israel off the map’, but not in the sense that Media depicts.
After all, I think Mr. Yazdi’s letter is more about the mistakes that US foreign policy has made and is about to make again in Mideast. For example, America explicitly follows ‘regime change’ policy with regards to Iran, and meanwhile asks Iranians to give up on Nuclear Weapons (probably the only mean which could help them survive). That is contradictory, I see. And US leads a unilateral attack on Iraq while refusing to include/respect the international society, and even threatening all of the region’s states with a ‘new mideast’ plan, then when stuck in the Iraq cries for help and accuses this nation or that of destabilizing Iraq. If US were to have the hand of help from region’s states, it should behave in a different manner. And now, we have the problem of ‘power balance’ in mideast and US again making the same mistake: “if Iran attacks Israel, we will obliterate you. And if Israel attacks any country, that’s ok.” This is not just talk, it is indeed what US has practiced in the region for about half a century.
And finally, about nuclear deal with Iran: though I understand why the world maybe skeptical of Iran, I can’t deny the fact that ‘enrich uranium outside of your borders’ is not the choice of a rational creature. That is why Iran needs the uranium enrichment facility. But I have no idea how this whole mess may come to an end.
Right now, there are stronger voices in Iran, even within conservatives, demanding direct negotiation with US. I think ‘aggressive negotiations’, as Obama promised, may be the only way to solve the problem.
Mohammad, as usual you bring to the table a very nuanced and balanced approach.
I agree with you that nukes are indispensable to the Iranian leadership for two reasons: they will help quell internal dissent and the move toward democracy, and they will provide further assurance that the outside world will not dare intervene. In this manner, nukes will help ensure the survival of the regime.
You are worried that Iran may push the button, and you put Israel in this category as well. The difference I would draw is that Iran is more ideologically motivated than Israel. Israel would only push the button, in my opinion, if it faced an existential threat that it could not meet with conventional weapons.
For example, during the Yom Kippur war in 1973, when Israel was attacked by Syria and Egypt, and when Israel, for a while, thought it was losing, there was some talk among the military, and the Prime Minister, Golda Meir, of using nuclear weapons. Thank God it never happened, and Israel was finally able to repel the attack through conventional means. But it was a close call.
But in Iran, unlike Israel, the ideological motive is much greater, and it is conceivable that an extremist in power could be compelled to push the button in the name of religion, even knowing that a nightmarish scenario would be in store for his people. To my mind, when you put religion into the mix, you easily cross the bounds of what is rational, in favor of your religious beliefs, and such is especially the case when death is celebrated as part of your belief system.
When you say that America makes mistakes in the Middle East, I couldn’t agree more. America finds it difficult to cope with the irrationality and passion in the Middle East. “It does not compute.” That’s why I’m working on Selling a Vision of Hope, which is a much more comprehensive approach.
American often means well, but her intentions are not matched with a good comprehensive foreign policy. Like you say, she wants Iran’s help in Iraq, but threatens her at the same time. It doesn’t work. She wants to liberate Iraq, but throws her into chaos. It doesn’t work. What will work is to Sell a Vision of Hope using a multi-faceted approach that covers all the bases.
By the way, I have a new introductory video on the home page of my website http://www.sellingavisionofhope.org You press on the Hamsa and you’ll get a good idea of what I’m trying to do.
You talk about Israel attacking another country. To the best of my knowledge that only happens when Israel is acting in self-defense. For example, Israel went into Lebanon, but only in response to terror attacks, or the kidnapping of soldiers, etc. Israel may go into Gaza, but only in response to a barrage of missiles fired at civilians. Israel is tough, but it is not bloodthirsty. It is against Jewish teachings and beliefs to kill needlessly. The only reason to kill is self-defense, and the defense of others.
You wonder how this mess will end? Well, Mohammad, if we don’t play our cards right, it will end very badly, even if Obama is president. A young man like Obama may feel the need to prove himself militarily. He has stated that Iran will not be allowed to have nuclear weapons. He is all for negotiating, that’s true, but don’t forget that John Kennedy, as idealistic as he was, got us into Viet Nam, and almost got us into a nuclear war over Cuba.
Mohammad, you have a good head on your shoulders, and a kind approach in your manner. It will be up to young people like yourself to make their voices known, and to bring reason to the negotiating table. We will have to fight for peace as hard as we fight for war. We will have to knock hard on the doors of the old men who think they have all the answers. And we will have to come up with answers which are taken into consideration not because of fear and intimidation, but because they make more sense, and because they will move us closer to peace, which if we know anything about God, is His intent.
mohammad, it is good that Yazdi knows about all the wrong US policies, but is he worried at all that a bunch of fundamentalist wouldn’t make use of the nuclear power in the wrong way? Specially when they are ambitiously focused on the project without any proper effort to make the neighbors and the world believe it is going to be used for peaceful purposes? How do they interprete peace really I would like to know what is their definition of peace with all the hate mottos they make their supporters chant. As an iranian I am really caught up between believing and not- believing in the earnestness of the gov., how would I expect people of the world be sure of the good intentions of IRI?
If the whole story was really t0o support the interest of our peopel it wouldn’t be threatening countries around us. I don’t know, I expect the officials of my country Care about countries around us.
I agree with Elinor. Almost all countries do stupid things at different times. The U.S. and Israel are no exceptions. That’s understandable. But when you’re dealing with nuclear weapons, the bar must be raised. You can no longer tolerate the kind of mistakes and risks that you would otherwise tolerate in normal circumstances.
Now if you add to this the matter of religious fundamentalism, then this adds even another degree of risk. Not only are you worried about common mistakes, which all nations make, but now you’re also worried about the potential for an ideological committment which leads to a nuclear holocaust. Fundamentalist religious ideology knows no rational bounds.
This is not just about personal conjecture. This is about the calculated and methodical weighing of risk which will be undertaken by the incoming American administration, along with all other concerned nations.
Nissim:
With regards to Iranian officials, “with all the hate mottos they make their supporters chant” (as Elinor says), one can hardly come to believe that “IRI is not an ideology-driven regime.” Sure. However, let me say that I have some doubts in this case, to say the least. In other words, the whole thing doesn’t seem to me this way: “there is an ideology (a religious one indeed) which drives IRI.” But you may rightfully ask what it is then, and how I interpret all the signs which seem to be contradicting my view. I don’t have a coherent answer yet. I have to contemplate it, and will let you know when it’s done.
Mohammad, ideology is not an exact science. We can debate back and forth what exactly Iranian ideology is, and how it could affect the use of nukes. The problem is that a nuclear war is so final in its outcome, that we cannot afford the risk, even if the risk is relatively small.
In other words, no matter what analysis we come up with, in the final analysis the answer to Iranian nukes must be no, because even the smallest risk in this regard cannot be tolerated. That’s why we have to be just plain stubborn about it, even if the rest of the world wants to keep on analyzing. And I believe that the next president, whoever he is, will take this aproach.