At the Philadelphia Democrat Party Presidential Nominee Debate the other day the question was asked, “Iran continues to pursue a nuclear option. Those weapons, if they got them, would probably pose the greatest threat to Israel. During the Cold War, it was the United States policy to extend deterrence to our NATO allies. An attack on Great Britain would be treated as if it were an attack on the United States. Should it be U.S. policy now to treat an Iranian attack on Israel as if it were an attack on the United States?”
First, I want to point out that this question is very leading and plays directly into the neocon playbook or Plan for a New American Century playbook where establishing US world dominance is paramount. The question assumes that Iran pursues nuclear weapons, which assumption has never been proven to be true. The IAEA has repeatedly found no evidence to corroborate this assumption and it seems to be a figment of our faith-based foreign policy, of the type that got us into the Iraq murder festival we now take part in.
In the second place, why should we get involved in an Iranian-Israeli conflict? Isn’t Israel, with its nuclear arsenal, very capable of defending itself against the non-nuclear state of Iran?
Next Obama’s answer included the following:
here are the issues that we find unacceptable, not only development of nuclear weapons but also funding terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as their anti-Israel rhetoric and threats towards Israel.
Why is it always the “terrorist” organizations that our so-called enemy supports, get all of the airtime? You can debate the word terrorist here until the cows come in, but what about fairly applying the same word to the Israeli death machine that the US supports with far greater funding and far nastier weapons and far deadlier results? What of all of the other terrorists we support? What of Jose Posada Carrilles, the biggest terrorist in this hemisphere and his buddy Bosch who live freely in Florida?
Clinton answered the same question with the following:
Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States, but I would do the same with other countries in the region.
Massive retaliation? Again, isn’t Israel capable of its own massive retaliation?
They continue to try to not only obtain the fissile material for nuclear weapons…
Again, Ms. Clinton uses her version of the facts and noone offers a peep about it. This has never been established.
And secondly, we’ve got to deter other countries from feeling that they have to acquire nuclear weapons. You can’t go to the Saudis or the Kuwaitis or UAE and others who have a legitimate concern about Iran and say: Well, don’t acquire these weapons to defend yourself unless you’re also willing to say we will provide a deterrent backup and we will let the Iranians know that, yes, an attack on Israel would trigger massive retaliation, but so would an attack on those countries that are willing to go under this security umbrella and forswear their own nuclear ambitions.
The big elephant in the living room that everyone is ignoring here, (probably because it would mess everyone’s precious rhetoric up) is the fact that there is already a nuclear power in the middle-east that uses its arsenal over the heads of every nation that might oppose its ambitions in the region. Of course that is Israel. Why not follow Iran’s support of a nuclear weapons free zone in the middle-east? Why don’t we talk about our rejection of that stance? Why not support FISSBAN at the UN? We and Israel are the only nations that vote against it every year. This proposal would ban the production of nuclear weapons grade fissile material in all nations and all nations, including Iran, support this proposal… with the exception of the US and Israel. Why is this question not brought up at the debates? Our nation continues with its murderous follies and the Democrats are as mixed up in it as much as the neocons are.