« Points from the blogs | Main | Miliband père et fils »

May 06, 2008


David Lindsay

Clinton has pledged to nuke Iran if it threatens Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or the United Arab Emirates, which first alone has given the Clintons eighteen million dollars and counting. Yet these are the countries that are holding the West to ransom by means of oil prices.

Where nuclear matters are concerned, our response to them should be our own civil nuclear power programme, not providing them with a shield of nuclear weapons against a country which not only has none of its own, but has no cause or desire to attack Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or the United Arab Emirates. Clinton is despicably putting into people's heads the idea that Iran might wish to do such a thing, on absolutely no basis whatever.

Obama has serious flaws. But Americans, if Clinton is the nominee, then please vote for McCain.

Barry Larking

"Clinton has pledged to nuke Iran ..." – David Lindsay.

Senator Clinton did not say she would 'nuke' Iran. There would be no need to do so. Conventional means would suffice to bring Iran to a stand still. The facility at Natanz is probably only susceptible to nuclear weapons but without national infrastructure what good would it do for Iran? Alternatively, an Iranian nuclear strike on say, Tel Aviv, would bring down the curtain on Persian civilisation for good. The mullahs are not mad and they must be able to see this spectre before their eyes. Senator Clinton was correct to place it there.

Mr Lindsay has not grasped what Clinton meant by her remarks, in my view an import Mr Kamm correctly divines: An Iranian bomb will not advance Iran's demonstrable ideological hostility towards the existence of the State of Israel nor Iran's ambitions in the Gulf region. Think again.

Anthony Painter


I hope you will allow me a right of reply. My response to your comments above is on my blog:


I have linked to your comments above in the post.

Very best wishes,

Anthony Painter

Snorri Godhi

Oliver makes good points, but ultimately they are about a side issue. There is no need to bring in more facts, when the internal logic of Anthony Painter's contribution is faulty. Hillary threatened to obliterate Iran if Iran launches a nuclear attack on Israel. If Iran launches such an attack, then the NIE becomes irrelevant. Vice versa, if Anthony's interpretation of the NIE is correct, then the Iranian regime could and would ignore Hillary's threat; therefore, Anthony's alarmism contradicts his own interpretation.

Anthony goes on in his own blog to argue that threatening nuclear retaliation for an Iranian attack on Israel makes an Iranian attack on Israel more likely. I'd like him to describe in more details the thought process that he ascribes to the mullahs.


"Iran is an extremist regime but not a totalitarian one. It responds to pressure."

Yes, Oliver. But you are strictly working outside of the post 911 chronology:

Interestingly little game it feels. You first threaten a couple of countries via axis of evil rhetorics and if this shows results you turn around and say: Look what they are doing.


What is the point of this argument?

Everyone knows that if Iran ever got a nuke and launched it at Israel, then it would be instantly nuked into a heap of ashes by Israel. The US would only find out about it afterwards.

This being indisputably so, and as well known to Iran as to everyone else, how is it all relevant what Hillary or Barack Obama say they would do?


You seem to be clueless. If American policy was not hostage to Saudi oil interests, they would be encouraging Iran to attack Saudi Arabia, rather than threatening war with Iran. Iran is a far more palatable state than many of the sunni arab states (most prominently Saudi Arabia), and is also a somewhat more civilized society than Saudi society.
If the USG and its allies are really serious about going after terrorism and "9/11", they would be trying to destroy and dismantle Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Instead they go after Iran (and Iraq).

The comments to this entry are closed.