'Retribution,
swift vengeance, eternal malice were in her whole
aspect, and
spite of all mortal men could do - the said solid white
buttress of her
forehead smite the ship's starboard bow.'
(apologies to
Moby Dick)[The
Telegraph, U.K.]
The Daily Star, Lebanon
Hillary Exposes
'Weak Link' in Democratic Government
... the inclination of candidates
running for public office to pander to the basest prejudices, sentiments and
fears of the voting public. … Clinton has been a particularly dynamic panderer
this year… she exhibits the tendency of desperate politicians to risk reckless
foreign military adventures for the sake of a few votes. "
In the coming days
or weeks, Hillary Clinton's fate as a presidential hopeful will be decided. But
whatever she does in the future, nothing will erase her demonstration of the
worst aspects of American politics - particularly her recent statement that she
would "obliterate" Iran if it ever threatened Israel with nuclear
weapons. The substance of the New York senator's words are hard to evaluate due
to the hypothetical nature of the damage she threatens to impose. Were she ever
to become president and order such an attack, many other Americans would have
to agree with the decision in order for it to be implemented, particularly the
top military brass.
The Shah of Iran: Re-installed in 1958 after a CIA coup
against a democratically-elected government, Iranians have never forgiven
us. A fact that the Tehran regime uses to great effect.
The context of her
threatening statement is telling, in that it exposes the weak link in America's
democratic system - or any democratic system: the inclination of candidates
running for public office to pander to the basest prejudices, sentiments and
fears of the voting public. Clinton has been a particularly dynamic panderer
this year, jumping on every opportunity to make her appear to be a woman of the
people, whether drinking shots of whisky or calling for gas-tax holidays. In
this case, she chose to play on widespread American opposition to Iran, which
is in turn a function of several factors. In American politics these days, Iran
is the bad guy par excellence, whether for its role in Iraq, its
strategic ambitions in the Middle East, its nuclear policy, its rhetorical
threats against Israel, or to its a general assertion of Islamist identity and
politics. Americans also remain angry at Iranians for overthrowing the Shah in
1979 and then taking and holding Americans hostages for many months.
Posted by WORLDMEETS.US
The United States
and Iran may disagree about many things, but for one to use threats of
obliteration as a policy toward the other strikes us as a rather crude and
offensive strategy, especially for a world power. Whether in Clinton's mind
this is a real policy option or simply just desperate electioneering is
something Americans have to ponder. But seen from abroad, it seems like just
another example of how in a world in which they are singularly powerful,
American officials have difficulty understanding how to best use that power.
Just as it's a world in which regional powers like Iran and even small
countries are increasingly prepared to resist the United States, refusing to
cower before its threats or its military deployments. Making a policy option
out of the obliteration of another nation that hasn't attacked anyone tells
others that in American domestic politics, macho rhetoric is more important
than sensible policymaking, which should be based on rational options that
adhere to international legal and moral norms.
Can these
incidents be written off as insignificant excesses of the election process?
Perhaps. But they might also represent something so dangerous, that we need to
acknowledge and oppose at its inception: the tendency by desperate politicians
to risk reckless foreign military adventures for the sake of a few votes. If
this is the sort of democracy that United States wants to spread, we are not
surprised that the resistance to it remains so high.
