A US President for Nuclear War?
As the results of Pennsylvania´s primary propel the Democratic campaign into the elections in Indiana and North Carolina, Americans have got to seriously think whether they are going to allow a dangerous person for US national security to claim the Democratic nomination.
It would rather appear odd to portray Senator Hillary Clinton as perilous for US security, but few can suggest that her previous role of America´s First Lady enabled her to demonstrate what her presidential caliber might ever be.
Due to America´s destination as envisioned by the Founding Fathers, and because of the position of post-WW II America in the world politics, a US president´s talent is principally revealed in the sphere of foreign policy, an area constitutionally reserved mainly for the US president to decide.
Irrelevant, inconsistent and utterly disastrous President Hillary Clinton
As the ongoing campaign brings issues to surface, we start getting an idea about how irrelevant, inconsistent and utterly disastrous for America an eventual President Hillary Clinton might be.
Perhaps Clinton´s Persian deviation has not been noticed by many people in America, as the subprime mortgage crisis, the rising Oil prices, a great number of environmental issues, and the economic outlook monopolize the local interest to great extent. Even fewer can understand how easily a statement like that can make all the US economic parameters collapse. It would however be rather advisable to focus on her answer, as her words augur nothing positive for the US and the entire world.
When closely examining presidential candidate Clinton´s answer, we are stunned by her ignorance of international politics, over-simplicity when dealing with complex issues, and – above all – a state of mind and a way of thinking that are not permissible to a tribal chieftain, let alone the US president.
At this point, it is necessary to quote Hillary Clinton´s words: "I want the Iranians to know that if I´m the president, we will attack Iran. In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."
Despite the fact that Clinton´s campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson insisted that she was not alluding to a nuclear strike, she did not hesitate to reaffirm the earlier reference during a later interview with MSNBC's Keith Olbermann (click here She specified: "We used (deterrence) very well during the Cold War when we had a bipolar world and what I think the president should do and what our policy should be is to make it very clear to the Iranians that they would be risking massive retaliation were they to launch a nuclear attack on Israel".
Although many commentators attempted to interpret her possible intentions and evaluate whether she intends to be presiding the US during a nuclear war, I believe it would be rather beneficial to highlight the following points.
The Iranians will never attack Israel with nuclear weapons, except we refer to the eventual use of micro-nuclear bombs and devices that, used by suicide bombers in Haifa and Tel Aviv, will create a havoc necessary for a most drastic Palestinian uprising. This certainly remains a possibility, but in this case Iran will not fire any missile, and the inconsiderate US presidential candidate will find no proof to possibly substantiate her allegations.
However, imagining a nuclear Iranian attack against Israel is a matter of sheer ignorance for anyone, let alone a US presidential candidate. The Iranian leadership certainly want collectively to totally exterminate the state of Israel, and in their determination they are joined by the great majority of all the Muslims of the world, who– right or wrong – never accepted the fact ´Eretz Israel´. But neither Iran nor any other Muslim / Islamic country will ever attempt to fire a nuclear missile on Israel. The reason is very simple.