Generally, you don't destroy a country where 95% of the country is actually on your side. Also, any withdrawal of troops from Iraq/Afghanistan wwould be a huge disaster for those countries and the U.S. . Al Qaeda is dreaming of such a thing happening. Iran would be far more difficult to take when compared to Afghanistan and Iraq. More difficult that the two put tgoether. The cost would be too great. At the moment, the US needs to regroup, refocus its efforts and make a bigger effort to empower the people of Iran to replace the government with someone of their choice.
Man shes da bomb... But on a serious note, I agree with the poster who said they were glad she didn't become president.. good point.
I don't think there is much the West can do about Iran getting the bomb and I don't think there is much Iran can do with the bomb. But, I understand their wanting one. It's like a teenager getting a car; it sort of validates you as an equal player. What I did think was important was the Hillery beginning a propaganda attack suggesting that Iran was becoming a military dictatorship. That plays to the more secular/youthful internal conflict in Iran, and really that is the only hope of moderating their militant stance against Israel. On a world scale though, I think Iran is just an irritant, not a significant threat.
I can see them playing good cop / bad cop but I highly doubt that the Admin would allow Clinton to make such aggressive statements or that Hillary Clinton would go off herself without at least tacit approval. While Clinton and Obama were rivals during the primaries I think they are both aware of how important it is for the Admin. to avoid dysfunction.
I'm starting to think that the best thing we can do regarding Iran is not do anything. I think the regime is headed towards implosion and we can't do anything to hasten it. Its possible any aggressive moves on our part might only help the regime by rallying nationalism.
---- If Clinton was really completely dependent on the White House, they could just make a Max Headroom version of Obama and do away with the Secretary of State position all together. Remember the Colin Powell Dick Cheney public back and forth? Was that a planned piece of master strategy? Given that getting Democrats to act together is already like herding cats, if the Bush White House has that sort of problem, I guarantee you the Obama administration is not immune to infighting.
Touche and well played. This is a WH that values nuance so it serves their interest to have different figures deliver different messages but at the sametime something as critical as possibly war with Iran is one that I suspect they are going to be aware of what the message is. In this case it might suit their message to have Clinton be the hammer but I haven't seen Obama or anyone else contradict Clinton. True but again I haven't seen Obama or anyone else in the WH come out and contradict Clinton so I don't think this is a struggle over message or Clinton going rogue. Also while Clinton has made a few gaffes she is far from being the gaffe machine that Biden is.
<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5GR3KyiXhdY&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5GR3KyiXhdY&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>
I'm not saying bombing Iran would be a good thing, just disputing the notion that we don't have a military option against Iran. Our military has been in the nation building business recently which is very difficult. The destroying everything in sight business is pretty easy.
I think Iran is moving towards an outright theocratic military dictatorship. Sham elections, brutal crackdowns on dissenting citizens and throwing many in prison, who's "crime" is that they oppose the regime, leaders of opposition factions jailed, threatened with jail, seeing their relatives and friends arrested and threatened with arrest unless they stay quiet. One could go on in this vein for a long time. I think Ms. Clinton was right on target and it's about time to call what's happening in Iran what it really is, instead of pretending it is something that it is not.
To me, theocratic implies that they actually have religious credentials. They really are more ultra-nationalists and, thanks to monopoly powers, they are also the industrialists. The Supreme Leaders religious credentials are apparently not particularly good. Apparently he just barely qualifies as a Hojatoleslam (clerical rank below Ayatollah), and his support among the true religious elite, like the Ayatollahs and Grand Ayatollahs would be spotty at best. In any case, ratcheting up the rhetoric will only make the reactionaries dig their heels in more. Furthermore, it is useful to help them make the case to all Iranians that the whole world is out to get them. Not smart. She should look to "walk softly, and carry a big stick". Pronouncements like this make active military confrontation more likely. It is like when bin Laden comes out with a new video and says all sorts of things about America and military recruitment goes up.
