"We used [deterrence] very well during the Cold War when we had a bipolar world and what I think the president should do and what our policy should be is to make it very clear to the Iranians that they would be risking massive retaliation were they to launch a nuclear attack on Israel," she said.
I have nothing against Israel, but threatening nuclear war on their behalf seems just a tad bit hawkish. Is Hillary trying to bring about the "end of times" in some eschatological orgy of rapture? I hope not, because all that would result from a nuclear war is a society based on cannibalism and barbarism as we scrounge for the few remaining resources, and the only thing beneficial that could come out of nuclear apocalypse would be a make-shift Thunderdome where young female participants would fight in Xena-style warrior gear.
I'm no expert on Middle Eastern affairs, but it seems most of the Arab states are no fans of the Iranian theocracy. But, they fear hawkish American threats towards Iran as a path towards a massive regional conflict not seen since the Mongols last came through. Ironically, there's an LA Times article about the Persians closely watching our election. At a time when their economy is in the shits, and our Ambassador in Iraq seeking another round of security talks with Iran, shouldn't we a little more diplomatic in our approach. While nefarious Iranian influence in Iraq, Lebanon, and elsewhere signifies an exceedingly complex diplomatic problem, this isn't exactly the Cuban Missile Crisis in the desert.
Forget dodging sniper fire, Hillary, try living through Nuclear Winter
No comments:
Post a Comment