Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
US Will Take 'Crippling Action' if Iran Becomes Nuclear, Says Clinton
Secretary of state pledges to protect Gulf allies if Tehran attempts to intimidate neighbours
Until today, the shared position of the US, Britain and France was that Iran would not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, and no senior official from any of the three countries would discuss the option of containment.
Demonstrators march in front of the White House in Washington to protest the recent disputed elections in Iran. The United States is ready to help its Gulf allies establish a "defence umbrella" if Iran does not back down over its nuclear programme, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Wednesday. (AFP/File/Nicholas Kamm) However, Clinton broke that taboo during a visit to Thailand, when she pledged enhanced US protection for Washington's Gulf allies, implying nuclear protection, if Iran succeeded in building a bomb.
"We... have made it clear that we'll take actions, as I've said time and time again, crippling action working to upgrade the defences of our partners in the region," Clinton told Thai television.
"We want Iran to calculate what I think is a fair assessment: that if the United States extends a defence umbrella over the region, if we do even more to develop the military capacity of those (allies) in the Gulf, it is unlikely that Iran will be any stronger or safer because they won't be able to intimidate and dominate as they apparently believe they can once they have a nuclear weapon."
Sir Richard Dalton, a former British ambassador to Tehran said: "She's implying that, if Iran became a nuclear weapon state, then the US would develop their existing defence commitments and that the US would contemplate nuclear deterrence to protect Persian Gulf states."
The remarks appeared to be aimed at reassuring Arab allies uneasy about the rise of a nuclear Iran, and considering their own nuclear options. It also seeks to influence the decisions being made in Tehran. But it drew an immediate riposte from Israel's minister of intelligence and atomic energy, Dan Meridor.
"I was not thrilled to hear the American statement...that they will protect their allies with a nuclear umbrella, as if they have already come to terms with a nuclear Iran. I think that's a mistake," Meridor said.
Clinton's comments appear to reflect a new US pessimism on Iran following the June presidential elections, that brought an entrenchment by hardliners in Tehran.
There had been hope in Washington that Barack Obama's warm overtures to the Iranian people and the offer of talks with Iran without preconditions would break the long-running impasse over Iranian enrichment of uranium.
Iran insists the uranium is intended for peaceful power generation, but the UN security council has called for it to be suspended, at least until doubts over Tehran's intentions are resolved.
Iran had put off, until after the recent election, a response to the latest offer from six major powers – the US, Britain, France Germany, Russia and China – to offer economic help and technical assistance in building a nuclear power industry, if Iran suspends enrichment. There is little hope left in Washington or other western capitals that any response now will be positive.
The outgoing director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, said recently he thought Iran was developing a breakout capacity to build nuclear weapons, so that it would have all the components in place to build a warhead at short notice.
The containment option is boosted by the belief that Iran is running out of uranium ore to convert and enrich. The US thinks the supply will run out by next year and is urging all uranium-producing countries to tighten control over their exports, to ensure Iran does not get hold of any more.
If that effort is successful, it would severely limit the size of arsenals Iran is able to build. That is the theory at least. It is very much "plan b" as far as the west is concerned, but it is a bow to new realities.
- Posted in
55 Comments so far
Show AllWhen will this AIPAC whore learn to shut up her hypocritical mouth? She looks downright stupid when she says things like that to people who have a longer memory span than all of the US citizens put together....
I don't mind her being stupid but this is dangerous.
Count on a new spike in oil prices today, courtesy of Hillary.
Regime change as US policy is still alive and well.
During the presidential campaign, I used to call that Clinton warmonger 'Hillary Bushlite'. I suppose it's time to call her 'Hillary Bush', period.
What an unspeakably repulsive individual she is.
As I have stated elsewhere, stop wasting your ire on Ms. Clinton because no serious proposal she makes has not been first cleared with or instructed by the White House. Please save your epithets for the President.
Even much better is send your reasons for the epithets to the President.
Hillary Clinton is linked to the Israel Lobby. Unfortunately, US foreign policy seems to be dictated by mob psychology driven by what some perceive are Israel's need.
The commenters who have posted here so far seem to have missed the implications of the material at the latter part of the article, that the Israeli government has itself condemned the "nuclear umbrella" on Israeli's (and other countries') behalf that Clinton was offering. If there is any sane thing that can be done in this insane world of nuclear proliferation (besides removing the provocations for attack), it would seem to be the idea that nuclear warfare is contained in the "deterrent" power of one's world rivals. Was this not the basis of the nuclear stand-off that prevailed during the period of near-monopoly of nuclear power by the U.S. and the Soviet Union? While I passionately support the nuclear disarmament of all nations great and small, is it not better (in a world of lesser evils) that nations not engage in independent nuclear power development but rather rely on the "umbrella" protection of those countries that already have such protections? In my view, the real measure of Clinton's (and the U.S. government's, including the White House and Congress) AIPAC capitulation is in its failure to demand that Israel take down its own nuclear weapons program as a condition to the offer of a U.S. "umbrella" (I don't think U.S. officials have even acknowledged the fact of Israel nuclear weapons.) A nuclearly-disarmed Israel would seem to be a real improvement in the security of the rest of the world. I find it a shade ironic that the posters here who condemn the "umbrella" as a measure of Israeli-government pandering of the U.S. are joined in their condemnation by an agent the Israeli government itself---although the reasons for their condemnation are assuredly very different.
not ever an obama supporter, i knew we were in real trouble when he nominated hillary for sec of state.
Secretary Clinton never makes a statement that is not first filtered and OK'd through the White House. The trouble began when our nation elected an imperialist warmonger. I have been called a few unprintable terms when I pointed this out prior to the elections.
By OK'd by the White House, you mean Rahm Emmanuel.
And that absolves Clinton how?
Actually the first signs of the direction an Obama presidency would take came with his selection of Biden, followed by Rahm (I love the IDF)Emmanuel.
Not to mention the FISA vote.
There was no excuse to vote for Obama.
Vote third party.
Would the US have invaded a nuclear armed Iraq?
Nope, statistics show that our Empire only attacks weaker nations that have resources we want.
That is why North Korea is arming themselves, for SELF DEFENSE from the Bully Empire, they are Aware of this Fact!
Whoever thought the US would not protect the oil source?
Israel wants the US to bomb Iran now.
Iran says it does not want to build a bomb.
Hillary is not really threatening anything except more protection if Iran builds a bomb.
If, If, and If pigs had wings they still couldn't fly.
Bush and McCain were much more aggressive in their threats.
The objective for the military is to protect the oil so bombing Iran would choke off the Mideast oil.
Even a general can figure that out.
The bullshit in this headline implies the opposite of the facts of her statement.
Becoming nuclear for power is what Iran will do as the UN tries to slow it down with sanctions.
The only thing Crippling when Iran goes nuclear power is increased military spending for more defense further crippling the American People.
This is an old story.
Israel still wants an Iranian war now, and they are mad at the American "Self Hating Jews" in the White House for not following their orders.
The Fact is even though Bush and Cheney were lying Monsters and WAR Mongers - Obama has carried on ALL Of and Extended even further ALL the WAR Mongering of the Bush era. We are Now at MORE WARS and with MORE on the Horizin - the ONLY difference is Obama does it with a BIG Smiling Grin on his face - and the Morons who voted for him eat it up and think its just fine and dandy since its OBAMA, their saviour, their Messiah
Lets NOT forget what Obama is doing to our economy as well
One
Big
Ass
Mistake
America
RON PAUL for President 2012
US elites and their political planners believe (backed up by a convenient and corrupting ideology) that all the world belongs to them by right of force - and consequently is theirs to exploit at will. It is therefore inevitable that they feel justified in telling everybody in the world how to act while punishing those nation states that behave otherwise. Mrs. Clinton is just the ugly face of those elites and their empire.
This is coming from the same woman whom yesterday in an article I read she and the United States just made a deal with India to sell them Nuclear technology for their own "power plants" - along with a contract for fighter jets!
WTF?!
How can we be threatening or continuing to threaten another nation, Iran, for WAR when we are currently at WAR in IRAQ, Afghanistan and Pakistan - we are not talking nice about North Korea AND we are Bankrupt here at home!
I mean I live in a Bankrupt state, California, but yet America wants to go to WAR (or at least threaten to) with yet another Nation State?!
And Obama was supposed to be the candidate turned President of Peace?! Ha, what an F*ing joke. Now don't get me wrong, I am NOT blind to the fact that our Puppet masters, the Zionists are behind this threat towards IRAN - it just makes me sick.
I feel so sorry for any American who was SUCKERED into thinking Obama was some Great Peace loving, Messiah who was here to save America and The World - What A Farce, What A Hoax, What a SICKENING JOKE!
Our once Beloved Nation is falling and falling fast. We NEED to Get this Administration out of office and fast and if it isn't going to happen via impeachment than I surely hope enough people wake up by 2012 to NOT Reelect this Hypocritical BUM!
You want Peace and Progress?! Vote Third Party or like I plan to do
Vote RON PAUL for President 2012 - Well, thats if he runs, and we are working on making that happen
One
Big
Ass
Mistake
America
Since you are telling us who to vote for in 2012, Do you think Ron Paul be third party (whatever that is) or remain Republican?
I couldn’t agree more with all that you wrote but the ironic kicker for me was her suggesting that it was Iran that was doing the “intimidating” and “dominating” when it is in fact Iran that is now literally surrounded by counties militarily occupied by the US and in an area of the world that has been egulfed by wars of aggression perpetrated by the US or Israel, the only nuclear armed rouge in the region. The same Israel which started three wars, is run by war criminals, is illegally occupying lands and is threatening to attack Iran at any moment.
Now, what would it take to take up Iran’s offer of an IAEA inspected, fully verifiable, nuclear free Middle East? Now would that not guarantee a reversal in nuclear proliferation that everyone in the world and the area say they want, but aaaaahhhhh Israel, now there’s the rub.
Dominate and Intimidate, give us a break Madam Secretary, who are you kidding!
I agree and am no fan of this Administration, but according to the article, She was basing the "Intimadation" statement on If they build the bomb not on what Iran is doing now.
I see, so she is suggesting that Iran has not got it yet, but wants the bomb so that it can throw its wait arround and intimidate and threaten its neighbours.
Is that not just what Israel is already doing and Madam Secretary's responce would be for America, who's presence is apparent in two illegal wars fronts in the region (counting that the WTC 1,2, and 7 were demollished and had nothing to do with some Saudis in Afghanistan) to just add more weapons and defence systems all arround in the Gulf.
The arms manufacturers will be rubbing their hands in glee already, and they better get some lobbyists in Tehran PDQ to make sure they do more than build a power station with their uranium.
I agree 1000%. But I think you are talking about a ROGUE nation. Diplomacy is difficult enough without inventing another language :) The 'rouge' spelling was used by several of us on this track, so we cannot let it go viral.
Madam Secretary please, please, please be a little more subtle, circumspect, and nuanced in your remarks. The world has plenty of thoughtless, sabre-rattlers with the bluster to keep it ablaze for decades. A super-power must be gracious, nurturing, and magnanimous to command respect as a world leader. Speak softly, but...., Trust but verify..yada, yada..
We can take a hint from the Dutch, for example, a tiny powerless nation of peace-loving people where the world community (UN) feels safe to locate its justice system (The Hague)and the EU Financial center (Maastricht).
BTW Elbert Hubbard and his wife went down with the Lusitania. In his pocket was a note to taunt Kaiser Wilhelm like 'come and get me'. He did. Bluster and taunting did not work then either.
if Iran Becomes Nuclear ,,, or Israel or India or ,,, What hath "Atoms For Peace" wrought?
The State of Israel is already nuclear-weapons armed.
We who are trying not to be in thrall to the Corporate Media need to be ever on our guard against adopting - or thinking in terms of - their Orwellian Newspeak - Hey! there's a pun there! - and Newthink.
The suicide bomber is cowardly while the computer jockey who controls a killer drone from an office in Nevada is never called that. Those who support the US and Israel are called moderates and those who fight against them are radicals and terrorists. Leaders who resist US control are hard-liners and a threat to world peace; while those who welcome it are moderates. Their bomb is a threat to the region and a threat to world peace and our ten-thousand bombs are a protective umbrella.
The cornered rat (or chipmunk) is vicious when it tries to bite the hand that tries to kill it.
Repeated endlessly for generations, this kind of distortion of the language, with never ever any deep analysis of what is really going on for the ordinary people of the world and its countries and where our interests lie, literally deprives people of the tools to think with. But acceptance of this Newspeak, and of the role of the US as defender of the interests of its billionaire oligarchs in their drive for world dominion, is the sine qua non for those who - like the Clintons and Obama - and like the Cold War Liberals before them - seek crumbs for the people. Without it they aren't allowed a turn at the microphone, and for most of the people they cease to exist. They become unpeople.
We need to free our minds from this drivel and challenge it constantly in each other and in ourselves, annoying as that might be. And it's hard to hear and hard to do. Hard to hear because it always feels personal when you are challenged for the very tools that you have to think with, and hard to do because it is always a strain on your relationships when you do that to someone else. Hard also because it puts you outside the public discourse, when you say in a group - no those aren't terrorists, that isn't a nuclear umbrella, they aren't threatening us, our government isn't us! But free ourselves from this Newspeak and Newthink we must!
Totally inspired!
"Lets all Newthink!"
We who are trying not to be in thrall to the Corporate Media need to be ever on our guard against adopting - or thinking in terms of - their Orwellian Newspeak - Hey! there's a pun there! - and Newthink.
The suicide bomber is cowardly while the computer jockey who controls a killer drone from an office in Nevada is never called that. Those who support the US and Israel are called moderates and those who fight against them are radicals and terrorists. Leaders who resist US control are hard-liners and a threat to world peace; while those who welcome it are moderates. Their bomb is a threat to the region and a threat to world peace and our ten-thousand bombs are a protective umbrella.
The cornered rat (or chipmunk) is vicious when it tries to bite the hand that tries to kill it.
Repeated endlessly for generations, this kind of distortion of the language, with never ever any deep analysis of what is really going on for the ordinary people of the world and its countries and where our interests lie, literally deprives people of the tools to think with. But acceptance of this Newspeak, and of the role of the US as defender of the interests of its billionaire oligarchs in their drive for world dominion, is the sine qua non for those who - like the Clintons and Obama - and like the Cold War Liberals before them - seek crumbs for the people. Without it they aren't allowed a turn at the microphone, and for most of the people they cease to exist. They become unpeople.
We need to free our minds from this drivel and challenge it constantly in each other and in ourselves, annoying as that might be. And it's hard to hear and hard to do. Hard to hear because it always feels personal when you are challenged for the very tools that you have to think with, and hard to do because it is always a strain on your relationships when you do that to someone else. Hard also because it puts you outside the public discourse, when you say in a group - no those aren't terrorists, that isn't a nuclear umbrella, they aren't threatening us, our government isn't us! But free ourselves from this Newspeak and Newthink we must!
H. Clinton: "We... have made it clear that we'll take actions, as I've said time and time again, crippling action working to upgrade the defences of our partners in the region."
I had hoped (vainly it would appear) that my post at 10: 52 a.m. today might have elicited some serious discussion on this string of comments about the pros and cons of a "nuclear umbrella" that Clinton was proferring to Israel and others of our "partners in the region." While giving qualified approval of such an "umbrella" concept as useful to the peace of the world, it's another matter when Madame Secretary begins talking about "crippling action working to upgrade the defences of our partners in the region," a formulation which speaks from the other side of the Obama admininstration's mouth about its relation to partners and rivals in the region. My comment condemned the U.S. for failing to condition the umbrella on its insistence that Israel dismantle its nuclear weapons program; and my condemnation rises a notch with a statement from this side of the mouth that the U.S. would "upgrade" the defences of our allies, even raising them to a "crippling" level. So what IS the policy: to offer an umbrella which encourages the de-militarization of states in the region----or to carry on business as usual and make of the U.S. defense industry a shopping bizaar in which each nation can arm itself to the teeth to produce a "security" which is no security; and no help really to anyone in the world except the shopkeepers of that bizaar?
I know we have "advanced thinkers" on these CD posts who can make some constructive as well as critical contributions to a citizens' forum on public policy. Where are you, guys?
Well Jerry I can't answer your call for "advanced thinkers" as many will confirm I'm sure, but I can say that we can condition all we want, we can insist, threaten or whatever else we want...Israel is not going to disarm its Nukes. Period, under any circumstances. They will not do it.
Henry 8: And why won't they do it---Period? Because the U.S. won't demand it of them. Period. And because the U.S. public won't demand this of their own government. Period? I put the question mark to this period because of a glimmering of forlorn hope that the people of this country---those not hopelessly bound in one way or another to the defense industry---will find a way to make this demand. Mind you, this may not happen until something disastrous happens like Israeli going on a renegade use of its nuclear weapons in a "pre-emptive" strike against Iran that sets loose the all-Hell of World War III. The church I attend (United Church of Christ) has adopted the comma, not the period, as its mascot on the belief that "God is still speaking" and that God ("however known" in our theology, could be the Will of the People) has yet to speak the final word and put the last period on human history.
Thanks, Henry 8, for answering my "call," an "advanced thinker" is one whose expressed thoughts advance the further dialog in the public forum of rational discussion of the public business. The sociologist Georg Simmel said of human talk: "the purpose of talk is more talk" (like the purpose of life is more-life) so anyone fills this purpose who keeps the talk going.
So define for me a nuclear, chemical, biologically armed rouge state that is perpetrating war crimes, crimes against humanity, threatening its neighbours, practicing apartheid, occupying and settling land illegally taken in wars of aggression.... etc. And then tell me why Iraq needed "regime change"??
I'll try a go at it.
This is how I've been reading it:
Israel and the neocons started freaking out over a "nuclear armed Iran" as a way of agitating for more war and giving continued reason for Israel's insane belligerence.
However, despite the talk of bombing Iran's nuclear facilities, I don't think anybody would actually be so stupid to do so. When Israel bombed Iraq's Osirak reactor, they made damn sure to do it before it was loaded with fuel--they supposedly waited to hit it until a day before it was scheduled to be loaded. One account I read said there was fuel on site but the Israeli planes and their missiles were so accurate they managed to blow up the plant but not the fuel that was 100 ft. away (uh-huh).
The reason they did so was because blowing up a fuel pile would create an environmental catastrophe probably worse than Chernobyl.
Now, by the same logic, Israel can't just go around blowing up a half-dozen operational nuclear facilities. There's nothing anybody can do.
But there's still the problem of all the crap that they've been flinging around for the past few years. Namely: the middle east and asia are now glaringly seen as being nuclear armed--and there needs to be some diplomatic stability or propaganda response as far as that's concerned.
If you're arab state, the last thing you want is for Israel to be the only nuclear armed country. That Iran would have a bomb too is also not the best thing in the world. So, what looks good on paper so you don't have to go investing a zillion dollars in nukes of your own? Ah hah, the United States can assure everybody of MAD. So perhaps the Israelis and the Iranians can STFU now.
In other words, diplomatic BS. Maybe we can get some new military bases out of it (not to mention some mangoes too) to ensure peace and Mutually Assured Destruction for everybody.
Yay.
The countries of the world do not understand, that the US are the only ones allowed to say who can have what. Israel is allowed, check out,- the Dimona Nuclear Plant in ISRAEL, in which our tax money supplied. Israel and the Bush administration threatened Iran and pushed them forward to defend themselves. Obama is under pressure by Israel, to entice Iran to start something, as an excuse to attack. Israel has an itchie finger to do another Gaza. What puzzles me is, why Israel is allowed to do what they please. What are they holding over the heads of the White House?
I remember when our government leaders insisted we must produce nuclear weapons as a deterrence to protect us from attack but now we use nuclear weapons as a reason to invade oil rich nations.It is irrational to believe that our government can judge the leaders of foreign nations as worthy or unworthy of having nuclear weapons.( We cannot even judge each other as we interact on CD. It has been said that only God can see into a human heart.) The U.S. uses the excuse that the leader of Iran is irrational, violent and an extremist, part of an axis of evil, who cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons. But maybe America's leaders, who appear rational but who have a dangerous, deity complex and think their irrationality, violence and extremism is good and they are without evil are more dangerous as leaders of a superpower with enough nuclear weapons to blow up the world in a mutually assured destructive war. No human being can be trusted with nuclear weapons. Such weapons must be abolished.
The US has been taking 'crippling action' since at least 1949 we are spending at an absurd rate on military equipment, aggression, torture, regime change, fascism, anti-democratic corporate takeover of other peoples' resources.
How much more will we spend on empire?
Clinton talking tough for her zionist puppet masters. Not one drop of American blood should be spilled for Israel and its fascist leadership. We've already given them billions and look how grateful they are, refusing to heed President Obama's call to end construction in Jerusalem and the occupied Palestinian territories, committing acts of piracy in international water kidnapping former Congresswoman Cythina McKinney. And these are out allies who we a havd a "special relationship" with. American taxpayers keep handing out the cash to Israel and now give the lives of your children to protect that fascist country.
IF (a big "if") Iran even wants nuclear weapons and manages to make a few, it would still not be a threat to the U.S., as Iraq was not a threat, and Afghanistan and Pakistan are not threats.
Iran would not even be a threat to Israel, because Iran is not suicidal. It knows Israel has 100 to 200 nuclear weapons and Israel would "obliterate" (Hillary's word) Iran if Iran were so foolish as to use one on Israel.
No, the bloody, tragic "game" here is U.S./Israeli hegemony in the Middle East, and U.S. hegemony in Central Asia. That's one reason, as retired USAF Col. Karen Kwiatkowski points out, we are keeping so many troops in Iraq and escalating in Afghanistan: to pressure Iran from both sides so Israel feels more "secure".
This is how the USA rewards a country which helped the USA defeat the Taliban ( the first time) and capture al Qaeda agents.
"Iran would not even be a threat to Israel, because Iran is not suicidal. It knows Israel has ..."
True, but I doubt that that's the sole reason that Iran wouldn't be and isn't a threat to Israel. I don't know about you, but I haven't heard or read of Iran going around attacking other countries. Meanwhile, the US, Britain and plenty of other NATO countries, governments, and Israel regularly go around attacking other countries and their populations.
"No, the bloody, tragic "game" here is U.S./Israeli hegemony in the Middle East, and U.S. hegemony in Central Asia."
YES, but it's also hegemony on or against the whole of this planet! It's hegemony even towards U.S. citizens, citizens of Canada, Britain, etc., for we're supposed to have real democracies, we're told and our laws state, but our democracies are made fraudulent by corrupt ruling "elites" and politicians.
However, it's also HYPOCRISY, and Hillary Clinton is definitely this more than 100% according to what the article for this CD page says.
It's hegemony, hypocrisy, imperialism, corporatism, even if the latter is less obvious, ... etc. It's WHOLLY criminal!
What Hillary Clinton is basically saying is that the U.S. "elites" plan to dominate the whole planet, and, which is obvious, they will make up and change the rules as they please. She works, prostitutes for EMPIRE.
Her words, as described in the article this page is for, are what? They are words of war; they are act of war. NO ONE in the U.S. government, any European government, Israel, ... not even the UNSC has any moral right to dictate to NPT cosignatory and respecting Iran that it can't have a nuclear program. NO ONE! They're all hypocrites, and hegemons, etc.
I have a few words for Hillary Clinton, but won't post them here. It's better that I keep them to myself. Political correctness, ya know.
By their silence, on Nukes for India, and Hillary's arming India, and now threatening Iran, where does Move-on stand?
It is high time for us to Move-out of the Democratic Party
and let the recycled candidates like Chris Dodd do their own
thing and re-elect themselves by themselves..WE have been sold out by the Clintons and the Bushees, when they outsourced
our industrial base to China, yet no one dares mention it.
WE are in a major depression, and no way out.
Let's Move-out
Is it annoying to anyone else how 0.2 % of the World's population can afford to have the 4th strongest Military in the World.
Is it annoying to anyone else how the USA seems to have been taken over by this 0.2% of the World's population via a certain 2.5% of the American population.
----In the US there are 13 Jews in the Senate and 30 in the House of Representatives.----
The only clear beneficiary of America's war on Islam is Zionistic Talmudic Judaism.
BTW--In the US collecting money for Palestinian children is very dangerous, you can go to jail for life whereas collecting money for the illegal building of illegal Jewish settlements on stolen Palestinian land in occupied territory is a well supported American charitable exercise.
But, who in America in interested?
And if there were as many blacks, Chinese-, Arab- or Indian-Americans in the Senate/House, you'd hear screaming about these minorities having disproportionate power in Congress. No fan of Sotomayor, but look at the crap they dished out to her.
>>>" aimed at reassuring Arab allies uneasy about the rise of a nuclear Iran"
Arab tyrants (er, allies) aren't uneasy about a nuclear Iran; they're uneasy about their own populations rising up and slitting their throats as they sleep in their beds at night .
Zionist alert. Off-topic demonization.
"Zionist alert"? Demonization? What are you talking about? The post you replied to neither inherently nor explicitly contains these characteristics that you infer that it does.
THIS is why I'm glad she's not president today. However, despite this her current position doesn't' exactly make me (or the mid-east and rest of the world) happy either. Thanks to this we WILL see a nuclear mid-east within 20 years tops. And see the world turn against us in the process.
PFunk
You're far behind the times. The Middle East has been nuclear ever since Israel became nuclear-armed, or, rather, ever since it had nuclear projects, so even before being nuclear-armed, unless it was initially provided nuclear arms, like by the U.S., f.e.
Iraq was evidently nuclear for a little while. Israel bombed an Iraqi nuclear plant in, I believe, 1983. I think it's Cheney or Rumsfeld who had arranged to sell nuclear tech. to Iran in the, I believe, 1970's. I don't know that Iraq's nuclear plant was actually operational and would need to look this up, but it did have a plant. And I guess Iran never became fully nuclear, but it did have project work for this; at times, and according to what I vaguely recall having read about IAEA reports over the past few years or so.
But Mordechai Vanunu blew the whistle, lit the lamps or lights on Israel's nuclear arms program(s) over 25 years ago.
So, you're just a little bit behind.