Daily Kos

Ummm...Hillary. Israel Has Its Own Nukes.

by Hesiod

Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:29:45 AM PDT

I'm pretty sure that Israel would probably turn Iran into a sheet of glass if they launch a nuclear strike on Israel.

So, I'm not sure what the logic behind your ranting and raving "massive retaliation" claims are. At least your "nuclear umbrella" proposal had some logic too it.

Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, etc. don't have nuclear weapons. So a deterrent umbrella over them would actually be relevant to their security -- and would take away an incentive for them to develop their own nuclear arsenals. Whether it's advisable to extend a nuclear deterrent umbrella to these countries or not, is a separate question. [i.e. -- What if the Saudis are attacked By Israel after a mass causalty terrorist attack by a Saudi funded Al Qaeda network? Do we nuke Israel?!?]

But, if Hillary wants to pretend she's Rhianna to these countries, then so be it.

But why is Israel part of this umbrella as well? They have their own nukes. In fact, one of the major reasons Iran wants nukes in the first place is BECAUSE Israel had nukes -- and THEY want to deter an attack from Israel!

As for Israel, they are quite capable of their own deterrence posture.

Tags: Israel, Iran, Umbrella, Nuclear Weapons, Deterrence (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 41 comments

  •  "Deter an attack from Israel?" (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Drgrishka1, Doodad, Anjana

    Israeli fear of Iran getting (and using) WMD apart, what evidence is there to think that Israel might attack Iran?

    Please read President Obama, American Jews, and Israel

    by another American on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:34:07 AM PDT

  •  Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes.... (4+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    corvo, Tanya, James Kroeger, Shhs

    Finally someone says it. Yes. I can scream. Her statement drives me crazy. It is an intentional distortion: Israel is a small, defenceless country, suffering and victimized, surrounded by monsters, absolute rabid fools on all sides. Only the wide, chaste skirts of the U.S. can rescue it from them.

    by Quentin on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:36:23 AM PDT

  •  Hey, if Israel were to attack Iran (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Belvedere Come Here Boy

    the whole of the USA (suitably primed by the MSM) would clamor for us to nuke Iran so as to defend "defenseless little Israel" (aka the only nuclear power in the Middle East).

    We're shocked by a naked nipple, but not by naked aggression.

    by Lepanto on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:43:20 AM PDT

  •  LMAO (0+ / 0-)

    But, if Hillary wants to pretend she's Rhianna to these countries, then so be it.

    That's fucking hilarious.  

    by michlawa2 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:45:18 AM PDT

  •  Israel (0+ / 0-)

    Israel has no natural resources,are not a big trading partner,  they beg us for money, we dont need its bases as we have a ton in the region now, to be quite frank, Israel is not important to our national interest at all.  They seem to cause more problems than they are worth.

    So as an american citizen, why should I care about this country at all?  It no more or less important than any other small worth nothing to us democracy around the world.

    by dark daze on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:56:01 AM PDT

    •  I wouldn't go that far... (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Drgrishka1

      Israel is vital intelligence partner (yes, yes - we also spy on each other, but still).

      Israel is likewise a democratic nation, situated amongst a number of rogue states.  It's not necessarily neoconish to recognize that Syria and Iran in particular are hardly members in good standing of the international community.

      To a great extent, Israel actually serves US interests simply as regional military powerhouse -- if the last 60 years did not contain a strong Israel in the middle of the region, one cannot know exactly what the map would look like.... Iraqi hegemony had Israel not taken out Iraq's nuclear facilities in the early 80s?      An Egypt ascendant in the region, rather than a relatively peaceful nation?

      Israel is a strong US ally - and one that is our interests to stand by, not just because it is the right thing to do, but because it IS in our interests.

      That does not mean, however, one can just so blithely rewrite US policy with a decidedly interventionist tilt because it is politically expedient to do so.

      I guess everyone's got their own blog now.

      by zonk on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:10:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I would say a reluctant and distrustful ally (0+ / 0-)

        on both sides. Britain or Canada, for example, don't spy on the US, not attack America spy ships.
            Whether Israel's existence has served to stabilize the Middle East or not, both the US and Israel are stuck with each other now. Any kind of upset in existing power structures in that region is dangerous, as Bush has shown us in Iraq. So, ANY American president will defend Israel if it proves necessary, and would defend Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia...
           Of course, if it weren't for all that oil, the US would be as minimally interested in the Middle East as we are in Africa. None of the  deaths in Darfur, Rwanda or Zaire got much attention from the US government under either party.

        by Valatius on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:47:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  It's (0+ / 0-)

        Syria and Iran in particular are hardly members in good standing of the international community.

        the International community's standing that is not that good and not the other way around.

        "It takes two to lie. One to lie, one to hear it." Homer Simpson

        by Euroliberal on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 12:13:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I have to disagree (0+ / 0-)

          Whatever's one's view of Israeli policy towards Palestine, that doesn't give Iran license for its own human rights violations nor does it excuse various statements that verge on, if not extend into -- holocaust denial.

          As for Syria, the Syrians have long used Lebanon as their personal plaything, they've spent nearly 3 decades murdering opposition, propping up friendly parties that aren't above using terrorist tactics, etc.

          That doesn't mean I wish for any repercussions against the common Iranian or Syrian citizen -- but to simply ignore the black marks against the two regimes strains credibility.

          I guess everyone's got their own blog now.

          by zonk on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 12:24:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  STILL FAIL (0+ / 0-)

        You still fail to show why Israel is so important to our national interest.  The simple fact is IT ISNT.

        Israel helps us spy? huh we have had the worst intelligence concerning that part of the world for decades,  gee Israel thanks a pantload.

        Its a democracy? so is Palenstine and Hamas, so are many other countries, if we didnt pick and choose what democracies to defend you would have a point, but in reality democracies mean little to us.

        As for where would the mid east be without Israel,  how could it be any worse? 125 buck oil WTF.

        as for a mid east powerhouse, what good is it if it never fucking HELPS.  We have been in 2 wars over the last decade, Israel cant do a fucking thing,

        Fuck them.

        by dark daze on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 01:57:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  my thoughts exactly.also, israel won't allow IEAE (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      distraught, dark daze

      inspections of their nuclear facilities... i guess we don't care about that.

      62169 - which apparently means A LOT.

      by jj24 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:29:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm feeling an even larger difference in voter... (0+ / 0-)

    Preference in the Gallup daily tracking polls coming up.  There's definitely a bunch of buyer's remorse out there for Clinton supporters in states that have already voted.

    ... false hope. But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope. Obama 2008

    by BasharH on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:58:04 AM PDT

  •  Exactly (0+ / 0-)

    HRC is suggesting a radical change in US foreign policy.

    It does NOT undercut the US-Israeli alliance to suggest that our response to an Iranian attack on Israel would be 'appropriate' rather than 'massive', to say nothing of this NATO-like umbrella over the world nonsense that Clinton proposes.

    The closest the US ever came to direct intervention was probably the USS Liberty debacle, almost certainly an accident, but there also exists slim evidence that the intention was a USS Maine-esque carrot to draw the US into the 1967 war (which the Israeli military quickly ended in any case).

    Even in the first Persian Gulf war- with full international backing, and an uninvolved Israel on the receiving end of Iraqi SCUD attacks -- the US response was measured, mainly defensive, and when it came to direct attacks on Iraq, geared towards taking out launchers.

    With the fall of the Iron curtain and the dissolution of the USSR, the rise of China as a global (nuclear armed power), and regional nuclear powers (Pakistan, India, probably Israel) -- this is not the time to be advocating a Ms. Toad's Wild Ride doctrine of foreign policy.

    What Clinton has said over the past week is nothing less than Wolfowitzian and Yooian wet dreams about a  President that would be less a President, and more a Napolean figure.

    She's gone too far - further even than Bush II, who at least feigned interest in an international backing and congressional approval, regardless of what John Yoo's memos say.

    She's advocating not just a massive change to the terms of US interventionism, but seems content to blithely do it off the cuff.

    One does not just rewrite doctrine in such an offhand way.

    If this primary continues past tonight, Hillary Clinton has some substantial questions to answer about her would-be foreign policy and military doctrine.

    As of now - it sounds like Clinton intends to make the US the mad dog bouncer of the world, an ill-tempered cop walking the the world beat, indiscriminately swinging the nuclear billy club whenever, however, and at whomever she damn well pleases.

    I guess everyone's got their own blog now.

    by zonk on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:02:25 AM PDT

  •  she didnt really mean it. (0+ / 0-)

    she is in campaign mode.  her mouth opens.  she lies.

    Mrs. Teasdale: I held him in my arms and kissed him. Rufus T. Firefly: Oh, I see, then it was murder!

    by ratador on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:07:17 AM PDT

  •  Ummm... because being able (0+ / 0-)

    to protect oneself from a nuke is better than retaliating?!

    by Drgrishka1 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:11:34 AM PDT

  •  Why this needed to be said. (0+ / 0-)

    In order for deterrence to work there has to be an iron clad guarantee of mutually assured destruction.  

    This is not about reasonable response.  During the cold war (And perhaps even today - I'm not sure) U.S. Policy was that for every nuke sent to us with love from Russia we would present them with no less than SEVEN in return.  

    This is why the arms race existed - we had to have enough to live up to our promise.

    In the case of Iran and Israel - ONE Iranian nuke can take out 15% to 20% of the population of the whole country.

    EVEN IF Tehran were hit and four times as many iranians were killed you would still have a country,  and the entire population of Tehran would first of all be considered martyrs, and Israel would be branded as a savage and unhinged country.

    Whether this is the case or not, in order for Iran's inevitable nuclear abilities are to be contained according to the only anti nuclear conflict  strategy to have ever worked, they NEED  to know that not only would an attack on israel yeild an immediate and non-negotiated response -- but that IT WOULD BE OF SUCH OVERWHELMING POWER AND DESTRUCTION -  that the nation of Iran would cease to exist.  

    This would do three things:  

    1. Make support for such an aggressive act virtually vanish as people who do not live in urban centers realize their nuts are on the block as well as their more liberal city-dwellers'
    1.  Engage and create pressure from neighbors to act more peaceably as they do not want the nuclear fallout crossing their borders on the trade winds.  and
    1.  Create pressure from nations like China who rely on Iran for oil - keeping in mind that oil fields and reserves can be terminally hit - as no one will buy oil that will spread deadly radiation throughout their urban centers and essentially kill off their entire population through birth defect and cancer.

    Look - We are all liberal here, and we all detest war and the ugly aspects of it...  I am an Obama supporter, and I dislike Hillary - but she is 100% right on this.  If we pussy foot around on this the way the Bush Administration has and does we will end up in an era of small scale nuclear conflict, which benefits no one and could spell the demise of civilization and a descent into a second dark age.

    by Jebediah on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:12:00 AM PDT

    •  Israel has a substantial nuclear arsenal. (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Euroliberal

      In hardened silos out in the desert.

      Trust me. They would aned could massively retaliate if they wanted to.

      I know this will get me flamed by some foks, but I do not believe the Iranians want a nuclear weapons for offensive purposes. They want it to deter both nuclear, but more importantly, conventional attacks by both Israel and the US.

      And, BTW, I would not rule out an intent to deter the Russians either. I wouldn't trust Putin if I were them.

      by Hesiod on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:19:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  True - and I agree... (0+ / 0-)

        I don't know how many and what size Nukes Israel has, but the game for them until recently has been deniability - they keep the warheads and the missiles separate so they can truthfully say they don't have nuclear armed missiles.  The thing about this possible policy is that it puts no doubt or ambiguity to the idea that attacking Israel with nuclear weapons will result in total and absolute destruction.  

        With this, The Mullahs and Ahmedinejad can't convince their people that either Israel doesn't have enough nukes to harm them to that degree or that they could somehow take out Israel's arsenal with surgical strikes.  

        This would provide that certainty for the Mullahs, for Ahmedinejad, and anyone else who wants to scare up some conflict.

        by Jebediah on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:28:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  submarines R the 2nd strike threat (0+ / 0-)

        from 2003: http://www.guardian.co.uk/...

        Israeli and American officials have admitted collaborating to deploy US-supplied Harpoon cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads in Israel's fleet of Dolphin-class submarines, giving the Middle East's only nuclear power the ability to strike at any of its Arab neighbours.

        and from just now: http://www.boston.com/...

        Israel has three Dolphins, with two more on order from Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft, a German shipyard custom-building them at a steep discount as part of Berlin's bid to shore up a Jewish state founded in the wake of the Nazi Holocaust.

        The submarines are a subject of deepest secrecy given speculation that they carry nuclear-tipped cruise missiles.

        Many analysts believe the Dolphins are Israel's "second strike" weapons, referring to the Cold War theory that a country can deter foes from launching nuclear attacks by maintaining the ability to retaliate, even after its own territory has been laid waste. A nuclear "platform" out at sea is the best guarantee.

        Relax, donations to Obama can NOT pay off Hillary's debt. See this diary

        by distraught on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 12:06:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  The danger of the Israeli nuclear arsenal (0+ / 0-)

    is that Isreal would certainly use nuclear weapons if the nation was in danger of being destroyed, and that reality gives Israel enormous leverage on American Mideast policy, no matter who is president. If at some hard-to-imagine date, Hamas and its friends gained the upper hand in Israel, ANY US president would use any and all means to save Israel.
      This is simply reality, but Hillary only fans Muslim anxieties by explicitly announcing the policy.

    by Valatius on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:34:10 AM PDT

Permalink | 41 comments