Clinton on The Nuclear Umbrella and Nuking Iran

The real policy story that comes from this debate will be about the extension of our nuclear umbrella, by Sen. Clinton, and our military protection to Saudi Arabia and the UAE as well as the Kuwaitis. This is a huge deal. It may seem innocuous because we have already committed forces in defense of the Kuwaitis once but it has very big policy implications vis-à-vis our diplomatic position with Iran. It also goes directly to the heart of Sen. Clinton’s style of foreign policy.

The extension of our protection of these states came as a result of the continued attacks against Sen. Obama for some apparent lack of commitment to Israel. Personally, I feel like he is incredibly pro Israel. I have never seen anything that would cause me to believe that he would not be fully in the Israeli’s corner on any topic. However, it may be because of Reverend Wright or something else an apparent lack of support for Israel is being perceived or created in the media. Sen. Obama was given a chance to display just how much he loves Israel and to articulate his position on Iran. He came down firmly on the side of defending Israel and made the prevention of Iranian nuclear weapons a priority. Imo he came across as very hawkish on this topic and his comments could easily lead to some intense confrontation with Iran. Here is his answer on Iran gaining nukes

Well, our first step should be to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of the Iranians. And that has to be one of our top priorities, and I will make it one of our top priorities when I'm president of the United States.

I have said I will do whatever is required to prevent the Iranians from obtaining nuclear weapons.

I believe that that includes direct talks with the Iranians, where we are laying out very clearly for them: 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 toward Israel.

I believe that we can offer them carrots and sticks, but we've got to directly engage and make absolutely clear to them what our posture is. Now, my belief is that they should also know that I will take no options off the table when it comes to preventing them from using nuclear weapons or obtaining nuclear weapons.

And that would include any threats directed at Israel, or any of our allies.

The statement that he will do whatever is required to prevent iran from gaining nuclear weapons is actually pretty scary to me but might make some segment of our population happy. He is then pressed about extending our nuclear umbrella over Israel. This is a major extension and not something to be taken lightly. The idea of ending the world in nuclear war is serious and promising nuclear retaliation against Iran is serious.  His answer is very diplomatic and no where near as hawkish as his answer on the question of Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons.

As I said before, I think it is very important that Iran understands that an attack on Israel, is an attack on our strongest ally in the region, one that we -- one whose security, we consider paramount. And that would be an act of aggression that we would -- that I would consider an attack that is unacceptable. And the United States would take appropriate action.

The commitment here is vague. I think this was a good answer, it does not lock him into any policy commitment. The definition of what constitutes and attack is still open for debate as is the level of response. What follows though is very interesting stuff and something that Clinton needs to be pressed on. To give you an idea of how important a nuclear umbrella is, our threats to use nuclear weapons against China during the Taiwan straits crisis resulted in China backing down after the Soviets refused to back them with nuclear weapons.  Here is Senator Clinton’s response to the question of expanding our umbrella:

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.

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.

Another problem with what Clinton is asserting is that it cannot occur in a vacuum. Iraq is still ongoing and will be for at least two years into the next presidency. Iran will more than likely respond to this increased tension and pressure by exerting its influence in Iraq. All of this instability would not have a positive effect on the price of oil.

Sen. Clinton has advanced an interesting new security arrangement for the middle east. The confrontational nature of this proposal though is in keeping with her history of votes like AUMF and Kyl-Lieberman. The question of extending a nuclear umbrella is a serious one and Senator Clinton needs to be asked exactly what her plan is here.