RECENT POSTS
- Oprah, Health Care Lobbyists, Among Recent Visitors to White House
- An Obama Thanksgiving Menu, with an Extra Serving of Pie
- White House Thanksgiving Traditions: Broken and Observed
- Obama, GOP Air Differences Over Jobs, Economy In Thanksgiving Addresses
- White House State Dinner Party Crashers
- Obama to Lay Out Emissions Goals in Copenhagen
- Free Bird
- The "Good" War
- The Presidential Planner
- Under the Stars, Obama Toasts India’s Prime Minister
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Clinton's "Umbrella of Deterrence" for Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE
April 17, 2008 6:23 PM
At last night's debate, George Stephanopoulos asked the candidates if U.S. policy should be to treat an Iranian attack on Israel as if it were an attack on the United States.
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, said that he would work to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of the Iranians but that he would "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 in the region."
Iran need understand, he said, "that an attack on Israel is an attack on our strongest ally in the region, ...one whose security we consider paramount, and ...that would be an act of aggression that...I would consider an attack that is unacceptable, and the United States would take appropriate action."
Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, said that the U.S. "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."
(The headline in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz: "Clinton vows 'massive' U.S. retaliation if Iran attacks Israel.")
But more on that umbrella...
That umbrella of deterrence would be offered, Clinton suggested, in order to deter other nations in the region "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."
This is a rather bold proposal. Washington Post columnist Jim Hoagland proposed something similar in January 2007 when he wrote:
"The United States should also be prepared to extend guarantees of territorial security for Arab states in the Gulf region. Bush should announce that he wants consultations with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, Jordan and other Arab states -- as well as principal U.S. allies in Europe -- on extending a U.S. or NATO nuclear umbrella over friendly states in the Gulf. This would be a direct defensive response to Iran's destructive drive for a nuclear program that can produce atomic weapons. U.S. guarantees would enable Arab states to forgo developing their own nuclear arsenals, just as the U.S.-Japan bilateral security treaty is intended to keep Japan nuclear-free."
But Doug Bandow, a former special assistant to President Reagan, says this proposal is a dangerous one.
"It’s one thing to promise to respond to a nuclear attack by a potential global hegemon, the Soviet Union, against a major ally, such as Germany or Japan, especially when Washington has deliberately disarmed them," he wrote last year in The National Interest. "Very different is to promise to protect Jordan or Kuwait, friendly countries, true, but neither historic nor important allies, against an attack by Iran, a regional power without global reach. The latter is an extraordinary extension of a doctrine fraught with danger."
That's because, he wrote, such an umbrella "makes conflict more likely in other ways. First, if the U.S. commitment is not credible, there is no deterrent effect. ...Second, if war erupts, U.S. involvement (assuming America makes good on its promise) is automatic. Washington loses the ability to weigh costs and benefits in the particular case at the particular time...Third, offering to lend America’s military to a friendly nation reduces the latter’s need to develop its own defense and foster its own alliances. This perverse impact of U.S. defense promises and deployments is evident in East Asia today. The primary example is Japan, which only now, six decades after the end of World War II, is debating a more active defense and foreign policy that is commensurate with its abilities and interests."
He calls the policy "reckless."
What say you?
- jpt
April 17, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (65)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Israel has done it before.
They have no problem doing it again.
Posted by: s.b. | Apr 17, 2008 8:39:05 PM
I think this is a brilliant idea from Hillary. We need a leader like her to be our president not a radical minded person.
Posted by: JACK | Apr 17, 2008 8:26:03 PM
Obama said: Iran need understand, he said, "that an attack on Israel is an attack on our strongest ally in the region, ...one whose security we consider paramount, and ...that would be an act of aggression that...I would consider an attack that is unacceptable, and the United States would take appropriate action."
Can we trust him for Israel, when him and , Ayers and had teamed up for three years on the board of the Woods Fund, a Chicago charitable organization. Together, they voted to donate $75,000 of the largesse they controlled to the Arab American Action Network. The AAAN was co-founded by Rashid Khalidi, a longtime supporter of Palestinian “resistance” attacks against Israel, which he openly regards as a racist, apartheid state. Despite considerable evidence to the contrary, Khalidi peremptorily denies having been a PLO operative or having directed its official press agency for six years (from 1976 to 1982).
Posted by: Skerry | Apr 17, 2008 8:25:20 PM
Which would make Israel part of the MAD compact.
And your point is?
Posted by: len | Apr 17, 2008 8:20:58 PM
Iran will NEVER have a nuclear bomb.
Trust me, and that's not an anti-semitic joke. Israel will bomb any nuclear capable facilities Iran develops, without permission, without concern, without hesitiation.
They will have the intelligence. They will execute the strike. That's what the Mossad does and they do it well.
Hillary knows this.
Posted by: s.b. | Apr 17, 2008 8:19:04 PM
It is what will work. It makes Iran part of the Mutually Assured Destruction umbrella. Use it an lose it all.
Iran WILL build nuclear weapons.
The question is will their neighbors?
Guarantee the results of the deployment and ensure all parties understand the expense. It means commitment to deploy after first strike.
The problem is a rogue tactical nuke. Same answer: where there is a guaranteed response, the obligation to consider ensuring that DOESN'T happen is shared.
Is that smart? It is MAD. So far, it works.
Posted by: len | Apr 17, 2008 8:13:02 PM
so we sit back and let iran with the bomb threaten the whole region and play nuclear blackmail,or come up with a concise deterant plan for the region.sounds like the second one makes sense.also what your candidate should never be held to account for having his first political eposure at ayers house or continued to appear publically with him after 9/11 when ayers recent statement about not setting enough bombs became public.so if i follow all of the obamaites logic then it doesnt matter that he has numerous marxist connections and thus if he harbors any of thease ideas in private no harm will come of it.malarkey.
Posted by: don tufts | Apr 17, 2008 8:10:09 PM
My, "I may have had too much wine with dinner" qualification is because unfortunately, the notion that other states in the region would defend Israel as an umbrella alliance in the event of an atttack by Iran is, "feeling the love' to say the least.
However, when I'm not feeling the love, I am aware, as is Hillary, that Israel will bomb any nuclear facilites that Iran develops.
End of story.
Posted by: s.b. | Apr 17, 2008 8:08:08 PM
BKMC,
Can you rap that out for us? There's not a single person on this blog that has the sufficient depth to evaluate this proposal.
========================================
Obama and Bittergate, lest we forget.
========================================
Posted by: WestCoastMessenger | Apr 17, 2008 8:05:03 PM
eyes open, remeber that if it is about character assassination, Obama's campaign is not about that low politics. The real issue is what is the difference between making sure that Iran will not possess nuclear bombs as said Obama or build an "Umbrella of Deterrence" against a nuclear bomb as Hillary has said. It does not take to understand that Hill's judgement is a good question to be asked. Because it is not thinkable to build an Umbrella against a nuclear bomb. That is why Hill the Bosnian General is unelectable. God bless America and God bless Obama.OBAMA08.
Posted by: BKMC | Apr 17, 2008 8:03:52 PM
An Umbrella of Deterance is not the solution rather make sure that Iran will not possess the nuclear arm, that is the correct way to make that region and the midleast safer as Obama has said it. Hill wants an umbrella against a nuclear bomb, that is amateurism at it best. Hill the Bosnian General has missed the point again, that is why she is unelectable, her good military experience was in Bosnia when she landed under snipers' fire in 1996. God bless America and God bless Obama.OBAMA08.
Posted by: BKMC | Apr 17, 2008 7:58:00 PM
it as a something she tossed out for consideration..... a viable I D E A; a S U G G E S T I O N.
This was supposed to be a debate.
Obama just stood there with his arms dangling....
Posted by: eyes open | Apr 17, 2008 7:56:48 PM
It was a "bold proposal". In order to form the coalition America would be increasing their ties and friendships within the region...and moderate Arab states would become at least in the "umbrella" allied with isreal in a positive way.
This is not reckless at all....it represents a change in attitude and a targeted diplomacy that Bush has never been able to acheive...and Obama is not capable of...not sure about McCain.
By the way...is the critic of the "Isreal community umbrella" a current Obama policy adviser? Because I doubt that this is a dangerous policy at all,,,,the coalition would take long term negotiating and would allow enemies to focus on common interests. Actually it is like many of Hillary's policies the "brave" road that would get America back on track in a region that continues to be unsable.
Especially with Hamas getting involved in American politics...meeting with ex-presidents and endorsing Obama.
Posted by: Jackie | Apr 17, 2008 7:54:27 PM
When the country is already stretched to the limit with current commitments, an umbrella - and have no doubts that would require an alliance similar to NATO - is quite costly. It is also perhaps not the right solution for the Middle East as there is no "consensus" as in Europe.
Nice sound byte but with big repercussions.
Posted by: Sara | Apr 17, 2008 7:53:17 PM
BEWARE! OBAMA is the wolf in sheep"s clothing, "
Posted by: Skerry | Apr 17, 2008 7:51:12 PM
Vanessa,
Please shut up!
Thank you, dear.
Posted by: eyes open | Apr 17, 2008 7:50:14 PM
Clinton's right. That's why the US and others helped Kuwait in 1991. Of course it is a two way street and there would be conditions.
Posted by: geevill | Apr 17, 2008 7:48:01 PM
Okay you are now my favorite reporter lol... even when we disagree... finally someone starts asking what this answer meant...
I have been asking people this question all day.
Posted by: dl | Apr 17, 2008 7:35:37 PM
Well thank You CD. Of course, since I blog, no one employs me to have such opinions and I may have had a little too much wine with dinner; but both arguements can be combined into one that works in MHO.
Posted by: s.b. | Apr 17, 2008 7:34:57 PM
Obozo blew it and now his supports attack ABC.
Clinton showed an understanding of mid eastern politics and Obozo just gave the generic answer that he'd leave everything on the table.
Shallow Obozo, shallow.
Posted by: S | Apr 17, 2008 7:31:03 PM
Post a comment
