Hillary The Hawk Circles Over Iran

Hillary talks tough on Iran; Dan Drezner staked out some ground a few days back.

This is classic from Hillary:

Though never mentioning President Bush by name, Clinton strongly criticized the current administration's policy toward Iran. "I believe that we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations," Clinton said.

Oooh, the evil "outsourcing"!  One might say that we involved our allies, but that is only a good thing when it works.

Comments

[Kate]

One expects an opposition party to oppose, but is it to much to expect some intellectual honesty or consistency.

The Democratic's entire strategy is oppose Bush.

[kim]

'Outsourced negotiations' may come back to haunt her. Is this her tin ear, or her husband's fundamental loathing of the polity?
================================================

[Dwilkers]

Notice she avoids the NSA thing.

She isn't stupid like the rest of the left. Or perhaps more likely Bill has warned her off.

[kim]

'Outsourced negotiations' is very odd coming from the spouse of an aspirant to the Secretary-Generalship.
=========================================

[drjohn]

No, she isn't stupid, but she is depending heavily on the stupidity of followers and therefore is likely to find success.

[Dwilkers]

Let me rephrase that before I get flamed.

What I mean is more along the lines of 'stupid politically'.

[fdcol63]

If she has to "move to the center", it's clear that she's "out of the mainstream" and on the left.

Only the "stupid" people that drjohn refers to above could ever believe that she's "to the right" of Bush on defense.

[nittypig]

Complain all you like, but she's basically right. Playing footsie with the Europeans isn't helping to resolve the problem.

Of course such critisism would be more helpful if she suggested what she would do. Reading between the lines, she seems to be suggesting the North Korean model of 1994. That DID work well didn't it.

[Nash]

What are the components of US policy with regard to Iran from 2001 to the present? Have these been effective?

[Toby Petzold]

Hillary's remarks were rescued from the recycling bins of John Kerry's 2004 Presidential run. Outsourcing? Losing critical time in dealing with a dangerous country (think North Korea)? These are stupid complaints ---especially coming from a Democrat who was opposed to so-called unilateralism in Iraq. Why shouldn't our European allies have played a role in reining in the Iranians? Their economies are just as likely to go in the toilet as ours if the Iranians' oil goes off the market.

I wouldn't mind it so much if Hillary would just admit that the Europeans are worthless in either instance, but she won't do that. She'll just insinuate that Bush was somehow wrong to remain silent while the EU's efforts went forth. But you know that if Bush had done more to associate himself with them or to bang any more on the war drums, Democrats like Hillary would have accused him of interfering in the superior diplomatic efforts of our European betters.

Why is she allowed to get away with stuff like that?

[The Unbeliever]

She's generally right--leaving Iran to the EU and UN was doomed from the start--but will she stand by the logical conclusions from such a statement? I.e., certain of our allies are useless when it comes to serious foreign policy matters, so American unilateralism may be the preferred solution after all?

And in any case, I seem to remember one John "Global Test" Kerry who, not so long ago was his party's banner carrier for letting our allies carry some of the load...

[richard mcenroe]

Nash — Components of US Iran policy:

1) The Bush Admin declares Iranian nuclear ambitions to be a problem.

2) The Democratic Party shrieks: "You better not do anything unilaterally! You... you... you just better not!

3) Ditto NYT, networks, NPR, Air America (snork), etc.

4) Ditto UN

5) Ditto EU

6) Iran scorns 3,4,5

7) 2, 3, 4, 5 scream, "Dammit, why didn't Bush DO something?"

Did I miss anything?

[Extraneus]

I would think the insertion of significant miltary forces on both their eastern and western borders constitutes potentially effective components of US policy, considering the configuration of forces that were there before 2001.

[Nash]

richard, that parallels my recollection as well. In fact, I think it states it succinctly.

Am I to infer that the answer to my second question would then be "no?"

Are you saying that 2)-7) in your list have effectively blocked this administration from acting on its (quite correct) determinations in 1)?

[Gabriel Sutherland]

A must read on Iran appears in the Jan06 Atlantic Monthly. The piece, "The Point of No Return", by William Langewiesche, provides an essential backgrounder on the NPT, the IAEA, and why the world really cannot stop the spread of nuclear weapons.

Hillary might be imploring the "outsourcing" of non-proliferation, but, short of explicit use of hard power, there is little the United States could do to use diplomacy to stop Pakistan from selling nuclear knowhow to every nation that wanted it.

Langewiesche talks to nuclear proliferation reporter Mark Hibbs a lot in his piece. I recommend reading anything that Hibbs has written in the past 15 years. You can start with this 1996 interview with Frontline.

[The Unbeliever]

Exactly right, Extraneus. It's been said several times before, but it's worth repeating: if, back in 2003, you thought Iran or Syria was the real threat rather than Iraq, OIF was still the best option for the US simply, in part because it puts us within easy striking distance of both countries.

[Gabriel Sutherland]

The main problem with the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty is that nations that are not signatories to it are not bound to restrict their marketing of atomic energy. The natural outcome of atomic energy research is atomic weapons. A handful of nations have developed atomic energy and opted not to shoot for atomic weapons. However, the assumption that Iran or North Korea will follow the same path is to ignore the blatant examples in China, Pakistan, and India.

The NPT calls for atomic nations to assist other signatories in developing atomic energy. Although, we know this is an untenable long term crisis.

Hillary is not the first Democrat to attempt to talk tough about Iran. Barack Obama was practically calling for bombing of Iran last year, his first in the Senate.

[maryrose]

Hillary; She swings left-plantation remark
She swings right -Do more about Iran
Here in the red states we know what she is.
We don't buy the pander bear theatrics.

[Gary Maxwell]

Was not there much derision and snorting when a Bush speech coined the term "axis of evil"? Seems to me that it was front page stuff on the likes of the NYT. In retrospect exactly where was Bush wrong? For the dimwitted that would be North Korea, Iran, and Iraq.

The guy is a genius I say we start a campaign to repeal the 22nd amendment. It should be a bipartisan effort since Clinotn, Reagan and Eisenhower have all expressed sentiments that are at odds with the limitations of the 22nd amendments.

How about it AL are ya with me? ( toungue firmly planted in cheek, we got three more years to go!)

[Lurking Observer]

Nash:

So, to clarify:

"Going it alone" into Iraq (alone=w/ Australia, England, Spain, Italy, etc.) is wrong, presumably b/c the UN and France didn't join in.

"Not bilaterally negotiating" w/ North Korea (negotiating=giving them what they want) is wrong, even though we are giving Russia and China (as well as Japan and South Korea) plenty of time to get their points across to Pyongyang.

And now, "allowing the EU, UN, and IAEA to take the lead" is wrong, b/c it was ineffective.

I'm curious, is there any policy that you and yours would support, short of Bush, Cheney, and presumably the entire GOP leadership in the House and Senate resigning in favor of Gore/Kerry?

[Cecil Turner]

What are the components of US policy with regard to Iran from 2001 to the present?

I'd list 'em somewhat differently:

1. Encourage EU negotiations, playing "bad cop" as necessary.
2. Topple the regime to the East of Iran
3. Topple the regime to the West of Iran
4. Establish military ties with the countries North of Iran

Have these been effective?

We'll soon find out.

[clarice]

My plan for Iraq:Repeal the 22d Amendment and 12 bombers filled with JDams.

God Bless George Bush.

[clarice]

My plan for Iran:Repeal the 22d Amendment and 12 bombers filled with JDams.

God Bless George Bush.

[clarice]

I meant IraN..dammit..

[Rick Ballard]

Clarice,

I don't believe that Bush would want another term. Iran will be wrapped up (at least the nuclear program portion of the problem) well before he finishes his second term. I don't think 12 bombers will do the trick. 350 targets with some well hardened will take a bit more. Cecil could fill us in with a decent SWAG if he chose to do so.

I appreciate the fact that Bush is allowing the EU and the UN to reveal once again their profound ineptitude. Their dithering does no real harm, we weren't going to launch any strikes until after the elections anyway.

[dorf]

So call Hilly's bluff and let's do a few arclights over Iran. Bet the Dem's would still screech.

[topsecretk9]

Complain all you like, but she's basically right. Playing footsie with the Europeans isn't helping to resolve the problem

What happened to the "Global Test"?

"The top Democrat urged instead, "'We need to be cautious and be careful," arguing that Middle East experts with "a lot more experience and a whole lot more humility" think powersharing with European allies is the way to go."

[clarice]

Rick, McInerney who I trust says there are really only 12 critical sites and we could easily take them out with 12 bombers loaded with a full complement of bunker busters.

The Iranian people are for us. Any other option, including sanctions (assuming they could be agreed to and enforced) would only hurt them.

We should bomb those sites fast and arm and assist the anti-Mullahs pronto.

[Nash]

Lurking: "Going it alone" into Iraq (alone=w/ Australia, England, Spain, Italy, etc.) is wrong, presumably b/c the UN and France didn't join in.

Your words, not mine. The discussion, in case you missed it, was Iran.

"Not bilaterally negotiating" w/ North Korea (negotiating=giving them what they want) is wrong, even though we are giving Russia and China (as well as Japan and South Korea) plenty of time to get their points across to Pyongyang.

Your words, not mine. Again, the discussion was Iran.

And now, "allowing the EU, UN, and IAEA to take the lead" is wrong, b/c it was ineffective.

Your words, not mine. I asked richard if he was saying it was ineffective. It seemed as if he was saying as much, but I was not sure. I made (and make) no value judgment as to whether that was good or bad. I'm looking for information on where we go next, policy-wise. It is obvious that you won't be able to supply any light to the matter.

[Gabriel Sutherland]

Clarice: The long term policy question is the assumption that Iran, minus the mullahs, will eventually utilize atomic energy so as to free up petroleum for transportation refining.

Two things have to happen before an Iranian strike.

1) Iraqi oil needs a pipeline to the Mediterranean that skips Syria.

2) Iraqi oil production needs to return to at least pre-war levels, but ideally must increase output to assume the capacity that will be subtracted by a "lit" Iran.

[topsecretk9]

The left and Kerry spent 2 years disparaging the Bush Admin. (and our Allies) for their failed diplomacy with regards to France, Germany and the UN ....blah, blah, blah.

Now, of course the criticism is too much diplomacy blah, blah, blah.

Snakiness aside, don't you think this is a big mistake "politically" for Hillary?

I can imagine their are many in the WH very pleased that HRC is out, making the case (in a round-a-bout way) for pre-emption?

"...like Bush, a tough-talking Clinton left open the possibility of military action against Iran if it sought to acquire nuclear weapons. "We cannot take any option off the table in sending a clear message to the current leadership of Iran that they will not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons," Clinton said..."

So, if Bush does act militarily, know with the endorsement of HRC, won't this inflame the KOS kids?

Also, just a question, just curious? I get the feeling she is just pandering to the Jewish bloc. Am I wrong?

[steve sturm]

My first thought on reading the headlines of her talk was that, finally, here's a Democrat who gets it on Iran.

But after reading the story, I realized I shouldn't have gotten my hopes up, as all she was really complaining about was that Bush let France and Britain take the lead in negotiations...

as if who was taking the lead would have mattered in the least. Apparently, she is as deluded as all the others who think that diplomacy, referring Iran to the UN, not letting their Olympic team participate or other half-baked measures (defined as not using the military) will accomplish what needs to be accomplished...

[maryrose]

tHE ONLY THING IN hILL'S HEAD AND ON HER AGENDA IS hILLARY FOR PRESIDENT IN 08. aLL ROADS LEAD TO THIS PATH AND DESTINATION. sHE HAS TUNNEL-VISION ABOUT THIS BUT ALAS SHE WILL BE DEFEATED BY mCcAIN , rUDY OR SOMEONE IN HER OWN PARTY.

[Sue]

Clarice,

I have my doubts about the Iranian people if we start dropping bombs. Not saying we shouldn't do that...just don't think the Iranian people will be too thrilled with it.

[Cecil Turner]

Cecil could fill us in with a decent SWAG if he chose to do so.

Sorry, I don't know enough about the targets and weapons, and wouldn't be able to share if I did. I also have a tough time remembering what's classified and what isn't, so feel constrained from technical discussions. FAS has a pretty good targeting overview here, but it avoids going into detail on allocation issues, and I won't either.

I would observe that there have been phenomenal advances in weapons precision in the last few years, and that has an obvious effect. There's also the practical consideration that though we certainly wouldn't want to, we'd be able to go back and hit 'em again if necessary. (As opposed to, say, Israel, for whom a second attack would be far less feasible.)

[clarice]

Sue, we are not talking carpet bombing but rather targeted bombing at 12 locations. There seems no democratic way to remove the mullahs:either there will be collateral damage to those near these sites or there will be a long bloddy civil war.

[maryrose]

Hardball: All agree, Scarborough Rita cosby and Tucker Carlson, Hillary's comments; House like a plantation is a political loser. Joe and Rita are from the South and said her comments aren't going to play down there. Michael Moore is the new Bin Laden. He is parroting the lefts comments.Rogue State by Blum jumped on Amazon.com.

[Sue]

Clarice,

I know they will be precision bombs. And if tht is what it takes, that is what it takes. I just don't think the Iranians will be all that thrilled about a strike against their country, no matter how much they want the Mullahs outta there...

[Rick Ballard]

Sue,

Do you think they would get so mad that they would storm our embassy and take hostages? Or conduct a thinly disguised terror campaign for 28 years?

I'm not about to get worked up over what a servile population will "think" about our taking out "their" nuclear program. They've tolerated living under the mad mullahs for this long without doing more than talking about a revolution and they tolerated the shah even longer before that. They'll get over it a lot better than we would get over their leader's use of nuclear weapons.

If your choice was being irritated or turned into a cinder, which would you choose?

Cecil,

Thank you for the reply. I didn't realize that you were circumscribed in being able to answer.

[clarice]

Sue, I recall that when we invaded Iraq, there were reports of Iranis on the border carrying signs saying,"bomb us next."

[maryrose]

I get nervous about another war because the aftermath is so unpredictable. For me the Iraq war was never about WMD. It was about removing Saddam Hussain who was and still is a crazy maniac. I wish they could have a revolution from within but I'm realistic enough to know that probably isn't going to happen.

[Rick Ballard]

Sue (and MaryRose),

Joe Katzman and Tom Holsinger at Winds of Change have a pair of articles (Joe's links back to Tom's) which lay out the long version of what I've been saying.

Hillary is simply getting on board the caboose of a train that is moving past the end of the platform.

The Iranians are out of time.

[maryrose]

Rick, A very interesting pair of articles. It really illuminates the situation over in Iran Thank you for the informative reference. Time to go celebrate my birthday!

[clarice]

Rick, they are surely running out of time, but I think the WOC article reminds me of many I read before the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan which proved to vastly underestimate the US military, greatly exaggerate the likely problems, and missed altogether the Baathist revanchism.

What they all forget is that no military is stronger than the society from which it springs. In the WOC article I skimmed I noticed the Mullahs have parallel armed units. Think about that. Think about the kind of military you have where corruption and tribalism runs so deep.

Cheney was just in Saudi Arabia for secret talks.I 'd bet we are lining up ducks and drakes--trying to get all our allies to commit to promise to attack Iran if it makes the first move against any other state.

Iran just lost it's bet that it would turn Iraq into a dependent state and is trying yet again to be the big dog in the ME..I doubt that pleases any of its neighbors, save Syria.

[Rick Ballard]

Clarice,

They are a bit more dire about things than I am but Joe's 'solution' is precisely what I anticipate. Resolution of the Iranian problem involves taking out the nuclear program - bombing followed by reconaissance to ensure that it is demolished - followed by the complete destruction of all Iranian air assets and a fair amount of their armor. Then a US offer of a cease fire so that terms can be dictated. If the offer of a cease fire is not accepted or our terms are rejected then the methodical destruction of Iranian infrastructure should begin and continue until the terms become acceptable.

[Terrie]

Sorry to interrupt, but AP Breaking News has a Scooter update.

"Lawyers for a former top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney told a federal judge Friday they want to subpoena journalists and news organizations for documents they may have related to the leak of a CIA operative's name.

In a joint filing with prosecutors, lawyers for I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby, 55, warned U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton that a trial likely will be delayed because of their strategy to seek more subpoenas of reporters' notes and other records."

You can find the article here: http://tinyurl.com/bfmz9.

[clarice]

Yes, Rick..much more likely scenario I think.

[Peter]

The reasons it was left to Europe to negotiate first,apart from the good cop bad cop routine were,Iran would not have given concessions to the Great Satan,there would have been confrontation from day one.
Secondly when talks broke down there would simply have been nowhere else to go,this way thee is still another level.

Iraq was always about Iran,Iraq was merely low hanging fruit and the only possible staging point for an invasion,Afghanistan being as it is land locked.

If it ever happens we will soon know because the first thing to disappear will be the Iranian Airforce.

[Rick Ballard]

First - Iranian submarines
Second - Iranian surface ships
Third - Iranian Air Force
Fourth - Iranian Nuclear Sites
Fifth - Iranian Armor

and Mad Mullah of Omaha is going to cancel a great number of life policies when the first sub doesn't respond to radio contact.

[clarice]

The subs and ships first? Why? To keep them from any mischief in the Gulf of Hormuz?

Speaking of their air force? Are any of their planes functional? Are the mechanics in our hire?

Does anyone have a map of the sites--Again McInerney says only 12 are critical. Do we know which ones they are?

(Did I tell you I'm a killer player of Battleships. I always can tell where they're hiding? LOL