by George Dienhart
While I find it interesting that Hillary Clinton has suddenly started pandering for the Jewish vote, It is the manner in which she is pandering even more interesting. It is positively Clintonian. No, it has nothing to do with Bill’s “shenanigans” with the opposite sex; it is Clintonian in the other way. First, let us look at what Hillary said- “their (Iran’s) use of nuclear weapons against Israel would provoke a nuclear response from the United States.” This is strong talk for someone that had earlier positioned herself as an anti-war candidate. She then went further- “if you were the subject of an unprovoked nuclear attack by Iran, the United States, and hopefully our NATO allies, would respond to that.”
Now, I am all for a tough stance against Iran, but why has Hillary seen the light? That is where the pandering comes in. The Jewish demographic leans heavily Democratic, and she needs to lock down every voter she can. That has to be expected. The fact that she offered to Nuke Iran, while dragging along NATO for the ride, was more than a bit surprising- until I put some thought into it. This is typical Clinton foreign policy. Do nothing about a situation then act surprised when it backfires. Let police agencies handle what would be considered acts of war in times that are more sensible. Let Osama run wild, payday will come on someone else’s watch. This continuation of the Clinton Doctrine would mean the end of Israel.
How? This policy allows Iran to continue along on its merry path to nuclear weapons- Hillary, if elected, needs to do nothing. She just sits back, waits for the disaster, and then reacts after the fact. The truth is that there will be precious few 3 a.m. calls if the next president’s performance is up to the task. If he or she is not, then maybe there is a 3 a.m. call to inform the president that Tel Aviv no longer exists. Then what?
NATO will not participate in nuking Iran. Much of Europe is unsympathetic to Israel, at best. Most of Europe will not defend her. I also question whether Hillary will actually defend Israel- she’s great at sound bites, but seldom means what she says. Her response would most likely parallel Obama’s pledge of a “measured” response. This would be a disaster for Israel. The problem is that a measured response is defined by who is doing the measuring. For Obama, the measured response would most likely be strong words followed by strong (and insincere) apologies. I imagine that Hillary’s response would be similar.
Clearly, this problem needs to be handled before the catastrophe hits. If we disallow Iran to develop nuclear weapons, we are saving lives. This may entail taking preemptive action against Iran. Air strikes against Iran would save the world from a possible nuclear strike- not just Israel. While Israel is closest, Iran has other enemies- such as the United States.
No one thinks that the mighty Iranian Air Force is going to bomb New York or Washington, but an old freighter is cheap. It is also big enough to transport the most rudimentary nuclear device. A third tem of the Clinton Doctrine will cost us dearly; most likely, it will cost us an American city. If you live in New York, or Washington, you especially cannot afford to live under a President that will re-impose this tragic policy. It does not matter if that president is named Clinton or Obama, either way; we start down a dark and stormy path- a path paved in the blood of innocent civilians.
Cross-posted at Illinois Review
