Clinton Wraps Last-Minute Endorsement of Iran Deal with Hawkish Threats of Military Force
Journalists and foreign policy analysts say speech serves as a reminder to voters that Clinton is 'prepared for war'
In a speech addressing the pending Iran nuclear agreement on Wednesday, presidential hopeful and former Sectary of State Hillary Clinton provided a glimpse into the possible militaristic future of the United States if, as she said, "I am in the White House."
Though she endorsed the deal, which seeks to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon by forcing controls onto the country's nuclear energy program, Clinton vowed that she would do so with skepticism and--as many have pointed out--an eye on a military alternative.
"The outcome of the deal in Congress is no longer in much doubt," she said, speaking at the Brookings Institution in Washington D.C., "so we've got to start looking ahead as to what's next: enforcing the deal, deter Iran and its proxies, and strengthening our allies," which was largely in reference to neighboring Israel.
Clinton continued saying that she "understands the skepticism" around the deal, and said that she too is not convinced. "There is absolutely no reason to trust Iran," she said.
"This is not the start of some larger diplomatic opening," she added.
During the address, she made it clear that if Iran "cheats" on the agreement she "will not hesitate to take military action."
She said: "Iranians and the world need to understand that we will act decisively if needed. So here's my message: The United States will never allow you to acquire a nuclear weapon. As president I will take whatever actions are necessary to protect the United States and our allies. I will not hesitate to take military action if Iran attempts to obtain a nuclear weapon."
Responding to her comments, Middle East political analyst and founder of Wide Asleep in America Nima Shiraz wrote:
Throughout the speech, Clinton repeated what she described as Iran's "malicious activity"--including allegedly supporting terrorism and threatening to annihilate "our ally and friend" Israel--and said what she would do to counter the broader issue of "Iran's bad behavior across the region."
If elected, Clinton vowed to "deepen America's unshakeable commitment to Israel's security" by "guaranteeing Israel's qualitative military edge" in the Middle East. To do so, she said she would strengthen their missile defense system, and increase military support and intelligence sharing.
In regards to Clinton's comments on Israel, foreign policy analyst Ali Gharib quipped:
As president, Clinton also said she would "sustain a robust military presence in the Persian Gulf," increase intelligence sharing and military support for Gulf allies, and expand the use of "cyber attacks" and other "non traditional attacks." As for the conflict in Syria, Clinton called for a "meaningful increase" in the effort to train and equipment moderate Syrian rebels.
All to which investigative reporter and Intercept editor Glenn Greenwald responded:
Dissecting her comments afterwards on MSNBC, Steve Clemons, Washington editor of The Atlantic, said the speech struck a very "neoconservative" tone.
"This is Hillary Clinton reminding a lot of people in the Democratic base what they used to be worried about her, that this is a candidate who's clutch is very much in the position of being prepared for war, being prepared for conflict, a very dark, muscular side of Hillary Clinton," Clemons said.
Similarly, Guardian reporter Trevor Timm added:
In contrast, Clinton's chief rival for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) also gave a speech Wednesday during which he, too, threw his support behind the Iran deal, likening critics of it to those who supported the Iraq War in 2003.
"It is my firm belief that the test of a great nation is not how many wars it can engage in, but how it can resolve international conflicts in a peaceful manner," he said in prepared remarks on the Senate floor. "I believe we have an obligation to pursue diplomatic solutions before resorting to military engagement--especially after nearly 14 years of ill-conceived and disastrous military engagements in the region."
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just two days to go in our Spring Campaign, we're falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
In a speech addressing the pending Iran nuclear agreement on Wednesday, presidential hopeful and former Sectary of State Hillary Clinton provided a glimpse into the possible militaristic future of the United States if, as she said, "I am in the White House."
Though she endorsed the deal, which seeks to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon by forcing controls onto the country's nuclear energy program, Clinton vowed that she would do so with skepticism and--as many have pointed out--an eye on a military alternative.
"The outcome of the deal in Congress is no longer in much doubt," she said, speaking at the Brookings Institution in Washington D.C., "so we've got to start looking ahead as to what's next: enforcing the deal, deter Iran and its proxies, and strengthening our allies," which was largely in reference to neighboring Israel.
Clinton continued saying that she "understands the skepticism" around the deal, and said that she too is not convinced. "There is absolutely no reason to trust Iran," she said.
"This is not the start of some larger diplomatic opening," she added.
During the address, she made it clear that if Iran "cheats" on the agreement she "will not hesitate to take military action."
She said: "Iranians and the world need to understand that we will act decisively if needed. So here's my message: The United States will never allow you to acquire a nuclear weapon. As president I will take whatever actions are necessary to protect the United States and our allies. I will not hesitate to take military action if Iran attempts to obtain a nuclear weapon."
Responding to her comments, Middle East political analyst and founder of Wide Asleep in America Nima Shiraz wrote:
Throughout the speech, Clinton repeated what she described as Iran's "malicious activity"--including allegedly supporting terrorism and threatening to annihilate "our ally and friend" Israel--and said what she would do to counter the broader issue of "Iran's bad behavior across the region."
If elected, Clinton vowed to "deepen America's unshakeable commitment to Israel's security" by "guaranteeing Israel's qualitative military edge" in the Middle East. To do so, she said she would strengthen their missile defense system, and increase military support and intelligence sharing.
In regards to Clinton's comments on Israel, foreign policy analyst Ali Gharib quipped:
As president, Clinton also said she would "sustain a robust military presence in the Persian Gulf," increase intelligence sharing and military support for Gulf allies, and expand the use of "cyber attacks" and other "non traditional attacks." As for the conflict in Syria, Clinton called for a "meaningful increase" in the effort to train and equipment moderate Syrian rebels.
All to which investigative reporter and Intercept editor Glenn Greenwald responded:
Dissecting her comments afterwards on MSNBC, Steve Clemons, Washington editor of The Atlantic, said the speech struck a very "neoconservative" tone.
"This is Hillary Clinton reminding a lot of people in the Democratic base what they used to be worried about her, that this is a candidate who's clutch is very much in the position of being prepared for war, being prepared for conflict, a very dark, muscular side of Hillary Clinton," Clemons said.
Similarly, Guardian reporter Trevor Timm added:
In contrast, Clinton's chief rival for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) also gave a speech Wednesday during which he, too, threw his support behind the Iran deal, likening critics of it to those who supported the Iraq War in 2003.
"It is my firm belief that the test of a great nation is not how many wars it can engage in, but how it can resolve international conflicts in a peaceful manner," he said in prepared remarks on the Senate floor. "I believe we have an obligation to pursue diplomatic solutions before resorting to military engagement--especially after nearly 14 years of ill-conceived and disastrous military engagements in the region."
In a speech addressing the pending Iran nuclear agreement on Wednesday, presidential hopeful and former Sectary of State Hillary Clinton provided a glimpse into the possible militaristic future of the United States if, as she said, "I am in the White House."
Though she endorsed the deal, which seeks to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon by forcing controls onto the country's nuclear energy program, Clinton vowed that she would do so with skepticism and--as many have pointed out--an eye on a military alternative.
"The outcome of the deal in Congress is no longer in much doubt," she said, speaking at the Brookings Institution in Washington D.C., "so we've got to start looking ahead as to what's next: enforcing the deal, deter Iran and its proxies, and strengthening our allies," which was largely in reference to neighboring Israel.
Clinton continued saying that she "understands the skepticism" around the deal, and said that she too is not convinced. "There is absolutely no reason to trust Iran," she said.
"This is not the start of some larger diplomatic opening," she added.
During the address, she made it clear that if Iran "cheats" on the agreement she "will not hesitate to take military action."
She said: "Iranians and the world need to understand that we will act decisively if needed. So here's my message: The United States will never allow you to acquire a nuclear weapon. As president I will take whatever actions are necessary to protect the United States and our allies. I will not hesitate to take military action if Iran attempts to obtain a nuclear weapon."
Responding to her comments, Middle East political analyst and founder of Wide Asleep in America Nima Shiraz wrote:
Throughout the speech, Clinton repeated what she described as Iran's "malicious activity"--including allegedly supporting terrorism and threatening to annihilate "our ally and friend" Israel--and said what she would do to counter the broader issue of "Iran's bad behavior across the region."
If elected, Clinton vowed to "deepen America's unshakeable commitment to Israel's security" by "guaranteeing Israel's qualitative military edge" in the Middle East. To do so, she said she would strengthen their missile defense system, and increase military support and intelligence sharing.
In regards to Clinton's comments on Israel, foreign policy analyst Ali Gharib quipped:
As president, Clinton also said she would "sustain a robust military presence in the Persian Gulf," increase intelligence sharing and military support for Gulf allies, and expand the use of "cyber attacks" and other "non traditional attacks." As for the conflict in Syria, Clinton called for a "meaningful increase" in the effort to train and equipment moderate Syrian rebels.
All to which investigative reporter and Intercept editor Glenn Greenwald responded:
Dissecting her comments afterwards on MSNBC, Steve Clemons, Washington editor of The Atlantic, said the speech struck a very "neoconservative" tone.
"This is Hillary Clinton reminding a lot of people in the Democratic base what they used to be worried about her, that this is a candidate who's clutch is very much in the position of being prepared for war, being prepared for conflict, a very dark, muscular side of Hillary Clinton," Clemons said.
Similarly, Guardian reporter Trevor Timm added:
In contrast, Clinton's chief rival for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) also gave a speech Wednesday during which he, too, threw his support behind the Iran deal, likening critics of it to those who supported the Iraq War in 2003.
"It is my firm belief that the test of a great nation is not how many wars it can engage in, but how it can resolve international conflicts in a peaceful manner," he said in prepared remarks on the Senate floor. "I believe we have an obligation to pursue diplomatic solutions before resorting to military engagement--especially after nearly 14 years of ill-conceived and disastrous military engagements in the region."