Clinton: "We would like to see a nuclear free Middle East and a nuclear free world."

What a joke. I was there. She was ranting on and on about Iran (fair enough, that's why she's here) but then when she gets asked the question: "if you want to avoid an arms race here, and you say that nuclear weapons would be a problem for this region, then why does the US allow and support Israel in keeping nuclear weapons?"

Her reaction was hilarious. Initially, she was shocked because she expected that no one would be allowed to even ask such a question. Then her voice just shrank and refused to comment and blurted out the hypocrytical sentence I've bolded above.

How such a sham of a policy stance can be allowed to continue is hilarious to me. I'm sure the US could garner far more (and less expensive) support for disarming Iran if they took, if not the same, then similar approach with Israel's arsenal of undeclared nuclear weapons. Even if Israel is just half as religiophobic, paranoid, aggressive, unpredictable, unstable and non-transparent as Iran, it doesn't justify them having roughly 100 nuclear weapons versus Iran's ZERO. You can't even use the Palestinian conflict to justify it because you can't drop a nuke in your own freaking backyard.

What does she do now? She riles up the Middle Eastern countries against Iran, essentially fanning the flames of conflict in a region that's already handicapped by conflict. If policy makers had half a brain, they would realize that neighbouring countries are the only hope of disarming Iran, yet they haven't even been included in direct negotiations and are now being polarized through Hillary Clinton.

 

If I hold 2 pistols to your head, and don't say a word, am I or am I not threatning wiping you off the face of the earth? Israel have threatened to attack Iran and have even carried out millitary exercises to that effect.
So in that respect, yes, Israel is continuously a threat to the security of Iranians - and that's where my concern lies > for Iranians, rather than the Iranian government.

The point here is for no one to have nuclear weapons.
If the threshold for allowing nuclear weapons was stupid remarks by illegitimately elected presidents (notice, I specifically don't consider him a leader) of countries with rogue governments, then we need to re-think this whole thing.

As StupidMoniker pointed out in a previous thread, (paraphrasing) Israel's stance on the two-state solution is that it won't concede or sacrifice anything and will only settle for a deal that is heavily in its favor because it is otherwise happy for things to carry on as they are... These are signs of the type of country which you don't want posessing nuclear weapons. The lives of Palestinians are cheap to them, and all because of some mythical level of security they are trying to attain.

The current Iranian government should not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon, but given the same reasoning, there should be a serious and active attempt to disarm Israel of its nuclear weapons. They have been gifted more than enough weapons technology to defend themselves against regional threats without the need for ~100 nuclear weapons.

But more to the point: The US is not truly interested in a nuclear free Middle East, and Hillary Clinton is a liar. These lies are also fuelling the conspiracy theorists and the extremists because they are propogating the idea that the US wants only Israel to have nuclear/hi-tech weapons and for the US to have bases all over the Middle East but for no Middle Eastern country to have the kind of weapons to defend itself.

 

I think the US needs to be consistent. It needs to take a fair approach. We all know that this Iranian government should not have nukes. The US seems to agree with that.

My issue is that the US seems to be ignoring the fact that Israel has nuclear weapons, which pose a threat to this region. If Iran is a 100% threat level, then Israel is not 0%. The US needs to decide what that threat level is and act accordingly. Now we can argue forever about whether Israel's threat level for destablizing the region and consequently the world is 50% or 1% or 20% or whatever. But the one thing we can agree on is that, given the same methodology, Israel is not a 0% threat, and if that threat level is 1% then it is silly to allow Israel to keep ~100 undeclared nukes.

It's also important to distinguish the 4 parties: Israeli people, Israeli government, Iranian people, Iranian government. There is a clear disconnect between the people and the government in these countries, and that speaks to the heart of the threat level I'm talking about here. We must not let the people of these countries suffer due to their governments going rogue on them in sham democracies. Once again, there are degrees of difference, and Israel's democracy is healthier than the Iranian democracy, but nevertheless they have both acted with varying degrees of irresponsibility.

She is now here because the wikileaks documents brought her here. They showed the Israeli/Iranian neighbours are seriously concerned about conflict and that they are pissed that they weren't included in the process. Her appearance in the region is merely to give the illusion that they are now included in the process when the reality is that if they were included in the process, there would be significantly higher pressure on Israel to behave responsibly.

I'm interested to hear your thoughts on what qualifies as suitable to hold nuclear weapons. Let me also distinguish another few concepts:

My belief: either no one should have nuclear weapons or everyone should be allowed to have them. The situation where only "responsible" countries are allowed to have them, whereby those very same countries have given themselves the right to define "responsible" due to their millitary power, is completely unacceptable.

What seems to be US official belief: Some countries act in a responsible way and if they don't pose a danger then they will probably be allowed to pursue nuclear technology independently.

What do you think is an acceptable methodology for who gets to develop nuclear technology?

 

If it were up to me, I would avoid nukes like the plague. I would much rather the UAE become a US-backed voice for disarmment of Israel than to create this counter balance of nukes.

This would also allow the UAE to become a key negotiatior with Iran since it was (before sanctions) one of its top trading partners.

Then again, it may be best to sit out these kind of things because neutrality is what has really ensured that the UAE remains free of attacks from all sides except the Israeli mossad.