What Clinton is proposing is a very ambitious and a major security and political shift in the Middle East. Essentially, she is proposing a AGTO (Arabian Gulf Treaty Organization). This is the New Cold War with Iran as the central enemy. I cannot believe that Iran would be willingly isolated in the way that Senator Clinton is proposing. Russia and China would more than likely be interested in offsetting the U.S. influence that this Gulf Alliance would create. If you think that the current atmosphere is tense the proposal that Clinton is advancing would be a step up.
Again Liberty Youth on the Spot with a Rough Transcript of the Answer Unnoticed by ABC's Moderators.
SENATOR CLINTON: Well, in fact, George, I think that we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. 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.
And I think that this is an opportunity, with skillful diplomacy, for the United States, to go to the region and enlist the region in a security agreement vis-a-vis Iran.
...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 United States should also be prepared to extend guarantees of territorial security for Arab states in the Gulf region. Bush should announce that he wants consultations with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, Jordan and other Arab states -- as well as principal U.S. allies in Europe -- on extending a U.S. or NATO nuclear umbrella over friendly states in the Gulf. This would be a direct defensive response to Iran's destructive drive for a nuclear program that can produce atomic weapons. U.S. guarantees would enable Arab states to forgo developing their own nuclear arsenals, just as the U.S.-Japan bilateral security treaty is intended to keep Japan nuclear-free."
Hoagland is also known for notably having backed the later disgraced Ahmad Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress as an asset in the U.S. war in Iraq.
What's amazing is that Tapper finds a former Reagan Aid to really lay into this story. As Racheal Maddow said as well on Countdown, Pat Buchanan was out quick all over this boneheaded idea, and to roughly quote Rachel, sometimes Pat turns to the Right so far, he's on her left when she turns.
One former Reagan Aid calls the idea "reckless"
Doug Bandow, a former special assistant to President Reagan, says this proposal is a dangerous one.
"It’s one thing to promise to respond to a nuclear attack by a potential global hegemon, the Soviet Union, against a major ally, such as Germany or Japan, especially when Washington has deliberately disarmed them," he wrote last year in The National Interest. "Very different is to promise to protect Jordan or Kuwait, friendly countries, true, but neither historic nor important allies, against an attack by Iran, a regional power without global reach. The latter is an extraordinary extension of a doctrine fraught with danger."
That's because, he wrote, such an umbrella "makes conflict more likely in other ways. First, if the U.S. commitment is not credible, there is no deterrent effect. ...Second, if war erupts, U.S. involvement (assuming America makes good on its promise) is automatic. Washington loses the ability to weigh costs and benefits in the particular case at the particular time..."
This strikes me as the kind of big, complicated idea that someone should have asked Clinton to explain further. That didn't happen, though.
In the looking-glass world of nuclear weapons theory, a U.S. pledge to nuke Iran if it ever nuked Israel could make officials in both countries breathe easier. One potential benefit would be to lessen the possibility that Israeli leaders, fearing an Iranian attack that might eliminate Israel's ability to retaliate, would order a preemptive strike.
But is it wise to specify America's reaction to a threat that does not yet exist? Iran, after all, is years away from being able to build, let alone deploy, a nuclear bomb. What impact would such a U.S. declaration have on diplomatic attempts -- which Clinton says she will make -- to engage Iran in productive negotiations? And wouldn't Clinton's proposal just further George W. Bush's policy of deepening the fault lines in the Middle East, rather than trying to bridge them?
1- Hillary Clinton buys the "war on Iran" line and as President, may lead us down such a road, slower than Cheney, but ultimately potentially much more dangerous as choice will be removed from the President's Power.
2- Hillary Clinton is playing to Out-Hawk John McCain; meaning, there is zero credibility to her claim that she's interested in getting out of Iraq... I mean, where on heavens would we store the troops/missles/tanks/guns/nukes necessary to immediately retaliate to an Iranian agression? why... on those Iraqi Bases of Course.
3- Hillary Clinton has a base level misunderstanding of US Foreign Policy Reach and Ability. Our Military is sadly in no position to engage in such an effort today, even if it were a priority, without significant investments which would consume money she claims she's interested in using to subsidize Health Care and Green Collar Jobs
4- Hillary Clinton is more interested in Oil than Energy Independence and likely fails to grasp the fundamental purpose of said Independence (so we can get out of the ME). The Money needed to maintain a ME Strike Force would surely be enough to pave the west with Solar Panels, upgrade our Grid, and put a Hybrid Plug In SUV made in the USA in every home within a Decade
5- Hillary Clinton is in the Pocket of Dubai. This has Ron Burkle/Dubai written all over it.
I would add #6: We Cannot, As Peace Loving Democrats, Afford to have Hillary Clinton Elected President.
