If there is one thing that the U.S. has proven in Iraq and Israel has proven in Lebanon is that obliterating an enemy whether through threats or even attacks just doesn’t work anymore. It might sound counter-intuitive, but major military powers like the U.S. or Israel have not been successful in their wars against low budget foes. As a matter of fact, these two military and political fiascos have really put into question whether a superior power can ever actually invade a foreign country and come out victorious.
If you believe Seymour Hersh that the U.S. supported the Summer 2006 war in Lebanon to potentially test later shifting targets from Iraq to Iran, then it’s hard to imagine why threatening Iran now would yield any positive results. U.S. threats, occupations, and attempts at obliteration are counter productive. George W. Bush has proven this more than any other president in U.S. history.
Thus, I have no idea what Hillary thought she was trying to prove — other than that she too can sound like a McCainian “War-Monger Wanted for President” t-shirt — when she said on ABC’s Good Morning America that,
I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran (if it attacks Israel) . . . we would be able to totally obliterate them . . . That’s a terrible thing to say but those people who run Iran need to understand that because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic.
Deterrence, eh? That sure worked with Sadam and Hezbollah. Are we sure that what the U.S. needs is to perpetuate a foreign policy based on scaring and intimidating other nations and making their citizens hate us? Does she even know what the word obliteration means? Did she mean that the U.S. should threaten Iran with genocide?