Major Deja Vu- "Clinton: If Iran strikes Israel, expect retaliation"

[masuki bance]

18:24 07/06/2009
United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Sunday that Iran must expect full retaliation from a "a battery of nuclear weapons countries" should it ever attack Israel.

When asked during an interview with ABC News whether America had set as policy envoy Dennis Ross' statement that an attack on Israel would be seen as an attack on the U.S. itself, Clinton said:

"I don't think there is any doubt in anyone's mind that were Israel to suffer a nuclear attack by Iran, there would be retaliation."

"I think part of what is clear is we want to avoid a Middle East arms race which leads to nuclear weapons being in the possession of other countries in the Middle East, and we want to make clear that there are consequences and costs," Clinton told interviewer George Stephanpoulos, though she would not elaborate on whether the U.S. would be part of said retaliation.

...

The International Atomic Energy Agency report said Friday that Iran is continuing to expand its uranium enrichment, despite three sets of prohibitive UN Security Council sanctions.


The watchdog reported that Iran had increased its rate of production of low-enriched uranium, boosting its stockpile by 500 kg to 1,339 kg in the past six months.

...


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1090954.html

June 8, 2009 - 6:09AM
...Clinton also referred to the possibility of a pre-emptive "first strike" on Iran's nuclear sites "the way that we did attack Iraq".

"They might have some other enemies that would do that to them," she said.

"Part of what we have to make clear to the Iranians is that their pursuit of nuclear weapons will actually trigger greater insecurity," she said, noting that both Israel and Arab states "are deeply concerned about Iran having nuclear weapons".

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/clinton-warns-iran-against-israel-attack-20090608-c00a.html

2009? 2008?






*edit format

[BlooInBloo]

1. Is this the one where she promised to "obliterate" tens of millions of innocent men, women, and...

children?

Gawd I'm glad she left THAT one behind, and "turned the corner", or whatever it was she said Obama did.

[AtomicKitten]

7. word x 1,000

:thumbsup:

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

20. I forgot about that little miscue. Scary.

[Orsino]

25. I think the whole trouble is that the speaker regrded it as a little miscue.

The need for diplomacy should keep a candidate well away from such terminology--even when running for office in the US, where swagger and bluster would seem to be constitutionally mandated.

[dkf]

32. Ugh.

I wish she would shut up about nuking people. What an idiot thing to say.

[babylonsister]

2. So what happens if Israel lobs the first one? Does this apply to everyone? nt

[Baby Snooks]

36. Depends on who Israel nukes...

If Iran launched a conventional weapons assault and Israel decided enough was enough and nuked Tehran I doubt we would do anything. But Russia of course would. They have an alliance. It was forged by Princess Ashraf almost a century ago and while the relations between the two countries has waxed and waned for the most part the alliance is still very much in place. We of course would do something at that point and we would have the beginning of a nuclear war that would spread very quickly. That is the danger risked with Iran. That alliance is one of the legacies of the Pahlavis. We wouldn't be facing this situation if Jimmy Carter hadn't listened to the CIA and decided the Shah needed to go. Emphasis, please, on "hadn't listened to the CIA."

If Saudi Arabia or another country launched a conventional weapons assault and Israel decided enough was enough and nuked Riyadh or Damascus I doubt we would do anything. Even after Riyadh or Damascus nuked Tel Aviv. They most likely have nuclear weapons. We just don't talk about it. Particularly where the Saudis are concerned. They might get upset and cut off the oil. Of course we also don't talk about Israel's nuclear weapons either becuase of course they are not supposed to have nuclear weapons.

During the first Gulf War two fighters were seen taking off from Tel Aviv and then seen returning within several minutes. The assumption has always been that they were carrying nuclear weapons. And were called back on our orders. The next time they may not respond to our orders.

The Middle East has always been a powderkeg and much of the tension has been created by us because it has provided a "bargaining point" particularly with regard to oil. The time has come for Israel to finally accept the premise behind the Partition Plan of 1947. The time has come for us to accept it as well.

No one, however, should be "huffing and puffing" and threatening to "blow the house down" because Little Red Riding Hood may decide to take a chance and launch a nuclear missile and hope that Russia's missiles wipe the United States off the map long before our missiles are even launched.

It would be sufficient to say there would be retaliation. Threatening nuclear retaliation is not really wise. But then Hillary Clinton obviously believes might makes right and no one is mightier than the United States. Reality is some may foolishly believe nuking Tehran would be a simple means by which to finally get the oil.

It's all about the oil.

[paulk]

3. now she's speaking as Obama's SOS

does that make it somehow different?

[ecstatic]

5. Sounds like she went off script to me

but I don't know... I know Pres. Obama has a strict view on the situation, but he prefers to speak in less ominous tones. :shrug:

[William769]

27. If she went off sccript, I believe he would say so,

[ecstatic]

4. It seems that our friendship is one-sided

As long as we're defending and handing out checks, it's all good. The minute we make minor suggestions we're told to STFU.

Besides that, I'm tired and disgusted with all the war talk.

[SamCooke]

She said nuclear attack? What are the odds of that happening?

I don't think Iran is as crazy as people make them out to be. They seem to care about their future and are proud of their history. They have something to lose.

[SamCooke]

6. She said nuclear attack? What are the odds of that happening?

I don't think Iran is as crazy as people make them out to be. They seem to care about their future and are proud of their history. They have something to lose.

[SharonRB]

8. July 6, 2009?

Huh?

[CakeGrrl]

9. Europe and the Middle East use DD/MM/YYYY notation, reverse of the U.S.

so 07-06-2009 is 7 June.

[TexasProgresive]

10. The whole world & U.S. military date that way

day/month/year

We just have to be different; like not using the metric system and crashing a Mars probe into the surface - stupid is as stupid does.

[Beacool]

22. Hear, hear!!!

:applause:

[Skip Intro]

11. OMG. Mega-Fail, masuki bance. First the pic - your photobucket acct, or

did you google for just the right "ominous" one?

Of course, tho, if Iran nukes Israel, there will be retaliation. Nuclear Attack. Duh!

She doesn't say it would be the US. And she clearly said other nations might strike Iran pre-emptively should Iran acquire nuclear weapons.

Your spin and your pic choice betray you.

But if that's what you gotta do to hit Hillary, then good job.

And in the end, she is speaking as Obama's SOS.

Where's the scary picture of him?

:shrug:

[masuki bance]

13. ...

“So, does Iran want to face a battery of nuclear countries?”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6451892.ece


Better?

[truedelphi]

41. There is no scary picture of Barack.

That is his whole point. He is the smiling face that is stamped on the onerous policies of the University of Chciagfo's eoconimc theories.

He is the pleasant person romping witht he friendly puppy that helps us see exactly how nuic everyone and everything is relating to Federal Poilicies.

Don't pay attention to that weird guy Bernanke and Geithner over behind the curtain, spenidng oyur children's future.

[Better Believe It]

12. And if Israel attacks Iran what will the U.S. response be?

[PBS Poll-435]

14. Wow.

:wtf:

[Captain Hilts]

15. That statement has been US policy for decades. nt

[MasonJar]

16. But what if Israel attacks Iran? They have been threatening to for years.

That seems a more likely scenario to me that we should be planning for and speaking out against.

[Better Believe It]

17. Iran will attack Israel so that Israel can destroy Iran with their atomic arsenal???!!!

I don't think so.

I'm more worried about the nutjobs running Israel.

[Occam Bandage]

18. This comment is fine, and in accordance with long-standing US policy.

The problem with her comment in the primaries (from my perspective) wasn't that she was stating that there would be retaliation, but her use of the unnecessarily ominous (and civilian-targeted) language "obliterate."

"There would be retaliation, so we should avoid an arms race" is a sensible statement. So is, "Iran may have neighbors who would become afraid of Iran's program and launch an attack to stop it." Both are rational and realistic.

[Better Believe It]

19. And what nation in the Middle East started a "nuclear arms race"?

And when did they start it?

[boppers]

21. 1967.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel

That's 42 YEARS ago.

[Beacool]

23. It's very simple.

If Iran attacks Israel with nuclear weapons, they will receive the same in kind. They have been warned, it's up to them to comply.

"Part of what we have to make clear to the Iranians is that their pursuit of nuclear weapons will actually trigger greater insecurity," she said, noting that both Israel and Arab states "are deeply concerned about Iran having nuclear weapons".

:shrug:

[dionysus]

29. of course.. but does anyone really think irans going to nuke anyone...

oh, just for you BTW;

:hi:

[Beacool]

30. Bankie!!!

Where have you been???

:hug:

I don't know, but does anyone really believe that Iran's nuclear program is only for peaceful purposes?

:eyes:


:hi:

[dionysus]

31. i'd wager that if they were going to build a nuke, it would be for deterrent purposes. i doubt they

would be so stupid as to use it. i hope i'm right.

[Beacool]

34. The world hopes that you are too.

;)

[Metric System]

24. The use of that photo is classic Drudge. Just saying.

[dionysus]

26. well, no crap.. if iran nukes israel they'd get flattened...

except i don't see iran nuking anybody...

[William769]

28. So I gess we are giving Obama another free pass?

One for not knowing what his S.O.S is going to say, or two not knowing whats going on in his Administration. Your pick.

[Mass]

33. Obama administration trying to reassure Israel. Apparently, they were concerned

the Egyptian speech went too far in the other direction (not sure how, but this is what the media were reporting, that the administration was concerned).

This said, I do not like hearing these types of noises and dislike the fabrication of paper tigers.

[Sebastian Doyle]

35. Two reasons Iran won't be nuking anybody

1) They don't have the capability to do so.

2) Even if their nutbag figurehead IS reelected this week, he wouldn't be the one in charge, even if such weapons did exist.


On the other hand, Israel is currently led by someone as crazy as Ahmadinnerjacket is. And he's the actual guy in charge, not a figurehead. And they DO have nuclear weapons. And yes, he's fucking crazy enough to use them.

Who is the credible threat in the region?

[Baby Snooks]

37. We are...

Who is the credible threat in the region?
_____________________________________________________________________

Some believe a nuclear strike on Tehran would solve the problem of the oil. Millions of lives for billions of barrels. The legacy of the Bushes.

[TheKentuckian]

38. The ones that are actually in charge make their figurehead President look pro-western and rational

I'm not saying they have the capability but I think it is pretty naive to pretend they aren't working towards it.

[Posteritatis]

39. If someone nuked any US ally unprovoked I couldn't get upset at retaliation

Actually, if anyone nuked anyone unprovoked I couldn't. The government that pulled a stunt like that waives its right to exist.

[Douglas Carpenter]

40. All 16 U. S. Intelligence agencies are confident that Iran stopped nuclear weapons development

U.S. Intelligence Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work in 2003

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/world/middleeast/03cnd-iran.html?_r=1

"But the new estimate declares with “high confidence” that a military-run Iranian program intended to transform that raw material into a nuclear weapon has been shut down since 2003, and also says with high confidence that the halt “was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure.”

The estimate does not say when American intelligence agencies learned that the weapons program had been halted, but a statement issued by Donald Kerr, the principal director of national intelligence, said the document was being made public “since our understanding of Iran’s capabilities has changed.”"

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/world/middleeast/03cnd-iran.html?_r=2

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons in August 2005

In the Iranian system the elected parliament and president have limited powers. By far the single most powerful person is Chief of State Grand Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. He has the final say. In addition to his political position--within the Shiite version of Islam he is what is known as a marja'a. Ayatollah Sistani in Iraq is also a a marja'a. A fatwa is a final religious decision absolutely binding on all Shiites within that marja'a's domain. All fatwas issued by a maja'a are written down and publicly announced. They carry almost as much weight as sacred scripture

Ayatollah Khamenei issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons in August 2005. Even if other mullahs or ayatollahs would disagree or make a contrary declaration - Ayatollah Khamanei's decision would over ride them and would be the final word in matters of the Iranian state and to any Shiite believers within Ayatollah Khamenei's domain which would include almost all Iranian Shiites.

*This is the statement regarding Ayatollah Khamanei's fatwa which comes from the website of the Islamic Republic of Iran:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei#cite_note-irna-61

*click on reference # 61.

If Israel were to launch a non-nuclear preemptive strike, The Israeli military simply does not have enough long range bombers capable of flying approximately one thousand miles and successfully attacking Iran's massive array of North Korean style deep earth, heavily fortified bunkers.

in a manner capable of significantly degrading Iran's nuclear program and their military.

Furthermore an attack would require flying over Iraqi airspace when no democratically elected government in Iraq would ever, ever allow that. Talk of an awkward position that would the United State in.

The United States would find itself trapped into intervening given that Iran would retaliate against the U.S. presence in the Gulf. For the U.S. to continue such an attack and to make the attack at least technically successful, this would require forcing the Gulf states into granting rights to air space and facilities. Thus making the Gulf states and their oil fields, refineries, infrastructure and transport network targets of devastating Iranian retaliation. Although Iran does not have particularly sophisticated weaponry, they do have a vast array of relatively unsophisticated medium range missiles positioned in hostile and unapproachable terrain and quite capable of causing enormous and crippling damage very rapidly and choking off the Straits of Hormuz.

Even more importantly, any attack by either the United States or Israel on Iran would have a catastrophic effect on the world's oil supply thus sending oil prices into the stratosphere way beyond anything currently imaginable thus making the current global economic collapse lead inevitably into a massive worldwide depression of catastrophic proportions.

Would Israel really want to be seen in the eyes of the world as the ones who caused the worse global depression and economic collapse in modern history, to say nothing of a protracted and probably unsuccessful war with absolutely massive carnage and destruction? I do not think even Benjamin Netanyahu is that mad. At least I hope not.


.

[CreekDog]

42. "...were Israel to suffer a nuclear attack by Iran, there would be retaliation."

so are you saying that's an unreasonable statement?

if yes, what the hell? a nuclear attack would NOT warrant retaliation? :crazy: