‘Obliterate’ Iran Talk Signals Campaign Shift

Sen. Hillary Clinton’s tough talk on Iran points to significant difference among the candidates on Tehran policy. Getty Images

Sen. Hillary Clinton’s tough talk on Iran points to significant difference among the candidates on Tehran policy. Getty Images

by James D. Besser
Washington Correspondent

Sen. Hillary Clinton’s threat to “obliterate” Iran if it attacks Israel with nuclear weapons has catapulted the Iran issue into this year’s hot presidential contest. And some analysts say the escalating campaign rhetoric on Iran, though surely calibrated for political ends, points nonetheless to significant differences in perspective among the surviving candidates on how best to deal with Tehran.

“You’re seeing a certain level of bellicosity for Jewish consumption as part of the campaigns,” said Daniel Levy, director of the Prospects for Peace initiative of the Century Foundation. “But you are also seeing real differences emerging.”

Those differences include Sen. Barack Obama’s call for direct diplomacy, Sen. John McCain’s emphasis on efforts to prevent Iran from going nuclear that could include preemptive military action —

and Sen. Clinton’s strong words about what to do if Iran does achieve a nuclear weapons capability.

In fact, in recent weeks Clinton has edged toward a deterrence position — echoing the views of some analysts in Israel but standing in stark contrast to the official position of most American pro-Israel groups, which continue to emphasize efforts like international sanctions intended to derail Iran’s nuclear program before bombs are operational.

Clinton’s talk about “obliterating” Iran isn’t just for Jewish consumption, observers say.

“She has to prove that she’s tough enough to be president,” said Kenneth Wald, a University of Florida political scientist. “She has a special burden because she is a woman. And that’s not just a Jewish issue.”

Clinton’s comments came on Tuesday’s “Good Morning America” program on ABC as voters headed to the polls in Pennsylvania’s Democratic presidential primary.

Clinton was asked what she would do as president if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons. Her response echoed and toughened a stance she struck several weeks ago.

“I want the Iranians to know that if I’m president, we will attack Iran,” she said, according to transcript of her “Good Morning America” appearance. “Whatever stage of development they might be in their nuclear weapons program in the next 10 years during which they may foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”

Clinton added that “that’s a terrible thing to say, but those people who run Iran need to understand that, perhaps it will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic.”

A few sentences later she used the same word: “deter.”

The deterrence focus reflects Clinton’s view that current policy is not working and that preventing Iran from going nuclear may no longer be possible, said Levy of the left-leaning Prospects for Peace Initiative.

“What Sen. Clinton is doing is opening a window to the question of how do you create a strategic deterrent, a balance of power to deter a nuclear Iran,” he said. “That’s an issue most politicians are unwilling to talk about, but it is implicit in what she has been saying.”

In recent weeks Clinton has also talked about extending the U.S. nuclear umbrella to protect other allies threatened by Iran, including Saudi Arabia.

“She’s going beyond the ‘diplomacy doesn’t work, so our only option is to bomb Iran now’ idea, which is what McCain seems to be advocating,” Levy said. “It is too early to give up on the idea of preventing Iran from going nuclear, but what Sen. Clinton is offering is a realistic approach to what is happening.”

But some Jewish leaders are worried that talk about deterrence in the future will be used as an excuse by some to avoid talking about difficult steps now, before Iran goes nuclear.

“It’s premature to talk about deterrence,” said an official with a major pro-Israel group here who asked for anonymity because he is not authorized to speak on the subject. “I think there’s a level of concern that by framing the issue in this way, Sen. Clinton is conceding that we are powerless to stop Iran, which I think is untrue.”

Shoshana Bryen, security policy director for the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), said Clinton’s focus on deterrence reinforces the impression that its nuclear weapons program is the only danger posed by Iran.

But a nuclear attack on Israel is the least likely scenario, Bryen said. “The real problem is all the other things Iran can and will do, long before they think about shooting off a nuke,” she said.

That includes its ongoing support for terrorism and for the insurgency in Iraq and its efforts to export its Islamic revolution. Achieving a nuclear capability will increase Iran’s ability to pursue those goals without a single mushroom cloud, she said.

Sen. Barack Obama, in a Tuesday ABC interview, suggested that it was too early to start talking about deterrence.

Asked a similar question about what he would do if Israel were attacked, he said, “In some ways, this hypothetical presupposes a failure to begin with. We shouldn’t allow Iran to have nuclear weapons, period.”

While he has urged renewed diplomacy with Iran, Obama said, “I have consistently said that I will do everything in my power to prevent them from having it, and I have not ruled out military force as an option.”

Obama rejected Clinton’s language about “obliteration” as “saber rattling.”

David Harris, executive director of the American Jewish Committee, cast the tough campaign talk in a positive light.

“As one who has complained that too little attention has been paid to Iran in the election to date, I am at least pleased to see the issue rising to the surface now,” Harris said.

He said the renewed Iran debate would be heard in Tehran.

“All the reports we’ve received suggest the Iranians believed they should wait out this administration in the expectation the next might offer a better deal,” he said. “As the candidates present their views on Iran, it may lead to some rethinking on the part of those officials.”

Robert Lieber, a professor of government at Georgetown University, said that Sen. Clinton’s growing focus on deterrence could signal a shift in the debate over Iran options, but warned “it’s too early to really tell. Campaigns rarely provide an edifying debate over foreign policy.

There is an element of shadow boxing in this, in which the candidates are signaling their own views and perspectives, but also seeking ways to differentiate themselves from the other candidates.”

A leading Jewish activist who supports engagement with Iran said that from a narrow political perspective, Clinton’s turn to deterrence may be smart politics as she seeks to cement Jewish support.

“The Jewish community is not interested in war with Iran,” this activist said. “Sen. Clinton has raised the issue in a different and interesting way. She’s talking not about preemptive war, but about protecting Israel through deterrence. That could prove a more attractive proposition to Jewish voters.”

But her aggressive rhetoric — and the increasingly tough talk of her remaining rivals — could have a negative impact in Iran, this observer said.

“There’s a danger that Iranians who may be thinking about ways in which they can engage a new administration will now believe that nothing is going to change — that U.S. policy will be just as hostile as it is with Bush.”

Westchester Jewish Conference

Westchester’s Jewish Community Relations Organization