May 11, 2008 10:56

James Rubin: "Obliterate" in Context

Posted by Scott MacLeod | Comments (10) | Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email This

James Rubin, State Department spokesman in Bill Clinton's second term, emails to argue that some of the reporting on Hillary Clinton's remark about obliterating Iran has been out of context and has contributed to an ill-informed discussion. Here's what Rubin has to say:

For those who have focused on the "obliterate" controversy, two points seem relevant. First, Senator Clinton was responding to a hypothetical question about what the United States should do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons, which would mean the probable destruction of Israel.

Second, for those of you who may remember the Cold War, we talked a lot in those days about mutual assured destruction which is pretty much the same as mutual obliteration. Those kinds of things were commonly said as part of deterrence.

More important, if you read the entire quote you will see that she is saying we are able to obliterate, which is a statement about capabilities analagous to many things said during the Cold War. When describing this, she went on to point out that such a thing is terrible to think about, a comment that I don't remember made all that often by the eight American presidents who regularly discussed America's capability to completely destroy the Soviet Union.

Both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton chose to respond to a hypothetical question about an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel. In doing so, there was inevitably going to be misinterpretation. The Iranian government has chosen to misinterpret the remarks in order to play the victim. I don't think they should be encouraged in their diplomatic games.

Rubin calls attention what Clinton's said in the Democratic candidates' debate in Philadelphia on April 16. A reporter set the stage by asking the candidates whether the U.S. should consider an Iranian attack on Israel as if it were an attack on the U.S. Here's how Clinton responded:

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. We are at a very dangerous point with Iran. The Bush policy has failed. Iran has not been deterred. They continue to try to not only obtain the fissile material for nuclear weapons, but they are intent upon using their efforts to intimidate the region and to have their way when it comes to the support of terrorism in Lebanon and elsewhere.

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.

It would give us three tools we now don't have. Number one, we've got to begin diplomatic engagement with Iran. And we want the region and the world to understand how serious we are about it. I would begin those discussions at a low level. I certainly would not meet with Ahmadinejad because even again today he made light of 9/11, and said that he's not even sure it happened and that people actually died.

He's not someone who would have an opportunity to meet with me in the White House. But I would have a diplomatic process that would engage him. And secondly, we've got to deter other countries from feeling 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 the security umbrella and forswear their own nuclear ambitions. And finally, we cannot permit Iran to become a nuclear weapons power. And this administration has failed in our efforts to convince the rest of the world that that is a danger, not only to us, and not just to Israel but to the region and beyond.

Therefore, we have not to have this process that reaches out beyond even who we would put under the security umbrella, to get the rest of the world on our side to try to impose the kind of sanctions and diplomatic efforts that might prevent this from occurring.

--By Scott MacLeod/Dubai

Sphere Related Blogs & Articles

Reader Comments (10)

nk+:

"The Iranian government has chosen to misinterpret the remarks in order to play the victim. I don't think they should be encouraged in their diplomatic games."

I would ask James Rubin how this is any different from the Israeli government's acts of wringing their panties over a speech by Ahmadinejad they purposely misinterpreted (playing on people's inabilities to speak to Farsi), and took out of context, and continue to do so despite the truth being evidenced, in order to play the "victim"?

This just goes to show that the media cannot be trusted. We seek a separation of church and state here in America. It's time to separate the news from the politics. Let's just say William Randolph Hearst is probably not partying it up in heaven...

Posted by nk+ | May 12, 2008 12:14 AM

Gabistan:

only Obama had the intelligence to realize that hypothetical questions such as this one are ridiculous.. and said so.

and nk+, nice answer!

Posted by Gabistan | May 12, 2008 4:06 AM

Malcolm:

During the Cold War the US was confronted with an enemy that already had nuclear weapons and could "obliterate" it, so that sort of rhetoric may have been useful to maintain the peace (but was it really?). But in this case Iran does not pose such a threat in the present or near future, so the focus is on avoiding that situation from arising in the first place. Making such threats, that we may obliterate them, is unlikely to help in the negotiations - if anything, it would make them more likely to seek to obtain nuclear weapons, for defense. Obama seemed to recognize this, whereas Clinton has not demonstrated that she does.

A good analogy might be that of North Korea. They routinely issue threats to lay waste to Japan, the US, and South Korea if they are attacked. I don't see this as conducive to achieving a successful conclusion to the 6-party negotiations.

Posted by Malcolm | May 12, 2008 4:29 AM

Nathan W.:

Senator Clinton's suggestion that she will somehow be "tougher" on Iran than the Bush Administration is nonsense. Let's not forget the Bush Administration's approach towards Iran: labels Iran part of the axis of evil, routinely references Ahmadinejad's militant speeches, ferried three rounds of sanctions through the UN security council, continually maintains the presence of at lease one carrier in the gulf, sells weapons and war planes to the Saudis in order to counter Iran, implicates Iran in fermenting turmoil in Iraq, restricts Iranian diplomat entry into the United States, and labels the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.

Short of military action against Iran, how much tougher can Senator Clinton really be? Her answer suggests she wants to form an alliance against Iran to further isolate it. Isn't this the philosophy behind the Bush approach that she herself admits has failed so miserably?

Clearly she can carry the stick, but she has completely forgotten about the carrot.

Posted by Nathan W. | May 12, 2008 5:14 AM

blackjack:

Hey nk you keep on repeating that you hate the Iranian regime, but love the people.Why then do you constantly try to rectify the vomit that comes out of Ahmadinejad's mouth. nk you get a award for exposing the great hoax that the the media has been perpetuating on the people.By the way I thing there are enough capable people in the Iranian regime who can cover his behind for him with out the great nk coming to the rescue they heard what Ahmadinejad's said in FARSI and said nothing. Why did they not inform the world press of the great Zionist conspiracy trying to undermine there benevolent leader, I wonder if they know what he said and know what he meant.

This just goes to show that the media cannot be trusted.

Your a real clown the media is as pro Muslim as it gets, what's the matter you don't like the 5% of coverage that the media gives Israel that comes out positive, hey some crumbs for Israel would be nice.

Posted by blackjack | May 13, 2008 3:06 AM

blackjack:

As Israel celebrated its 60th anniversary on Thursday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad branded the Jewish state a "stinking corpse," doomed to disappear. "Those who think they can revive the stinking corpse of the usurping and fake Israeli regime by throwing a birthday party are seriously mistaken," Ahmadinejad said. "Today the reason for the Zionist regime's existence is questioned, and this regime is on its way to annihilation."

nk can you translate this in FARSI for me, so we don't get the wrong idea and have the Israelis wringing their panties over a speech they purposely misinterpreted.

What Eric Hoffer wrote in 1968 seems even truer today: “I have a premonition that will not leave me; as it goes with Israel, so will it go with all of us. Should Israel perish, the holocaust will be upon us.”

Posted by blackjack | May 13, 2008 6:51 AM

Nathan W.:

Hugo Chavez is as animated as it gets, but I don't hear any calls to invade Venezuela.

Posted by Nathan W. | May 13, 2008 7:07 AM

Malcolm:

@Nathan,
"Hugo Chavez is as animated as it gets, but I don't hear any calls to invade Venezuela."

You (and I) might not, but Chavez is hearing those calls all the time.

Posted by Malcolm | May 13, 2008 8:06 AM

nk+:

"Your a real clown the media is as pro Muslim as it gets, what's the matter you don't like the 5% of coverage that the media gives Israel that comes out positive, hey some crumbs for Israel would be nice."

Blackjack,

I like the good news coverage Israel gets, but to play victim in a game of war by taking a quote not only out of context, but also inaccurately is a game played by both sides. The media seems to be the modus operandi of both the Iranian regime and the Israeli regime.

Sincerely,
Bobo the Clown

Posted by nk+ | May 13, 2008 10:00 AM

Capt. America 01752:

NK Why do you bother writing this??

"This just goes to show that the media cannot be trusted. We seek a separation of church and state here in America. It's time to separate the news from the politics. Let's just say William Randolph Hearst is probably not partying it up in heaven..."

and

"I like the good news coverage Israel gets, but to play victim in a game of war by taking a quote not only out of context, but also inaccurately is a game played by both sides. The media seems to be the modus operandi of both the Iranian regime and the Israeli regime."

All your comments are the same and can be plugged into any topic, you spend so much time trying to come off with a literal superiority over another's post that you lose track of what the topic is. "the modus operandi of both the Iranian regime and the Israeli regime."

You really are a clown......

Posted by Capt. America 01752 | May 15, 2008 3:00 AM