Sunday, April 10, 2016

Hillary On Iran – Candidate Hillary Supports The Deal. Will President Hillary Invade?

Image Source: Reuters/Gary Cameron
Brandon Turbeville
April 7, 2016

While Hillary has come out publicly and endorsed the Iran nuclear deal clenched by Barack Obama, Republicans were probably too busy calling for nuclear world war three to have noticed. Democrats, for their part, were too busy kneeling at the feet of Obama to pay too much attention to Clinton’s statement. However, for a few observers who were of the mistaken belief that Clinton’s past rhetoric is to be believed more than her behavior and track record, her statements may have come as a bit of a shock.

This is because Hillary’s past statements were much more pro-war and hawkish than her tepid endorsement of the Obama deal, itself nothing more than theatre to set the Iranians up for an eventual US invasion once NATO is done with Syria.

Michael Crowley of TIME writes,

Clinton brought a hard-line background to the topic of Iran. In April 2008 she warned that the U.S. could “totally obliterate” Iran in retaliation for a nuclear attack on Israel—prompting Obama to chastise her for using “language that’s reflective of George Bush.”[1] 
In Obama administration debates about Tehran’s nuclear program, Clinton opposed talk of ‘containment,’ a policy option that plans for a world in which Iran possesses a nuclear weapon. Preparing for containment implies a decision not to use military force to prevent an Iranian bomb in the event that diplomacy fails.[2]

Indeed, Clinton’s statements would (and probably did) make war-obsessed psychopaths like Lindsey Graham gleam with pride. In 2008, she stated to Good Morning America,

I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran (if it attacks Israel).

In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on 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.[3]

In an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic, she stated brashly,

I’ve always been in the camp that held that they did not have a right to enrichment. Contrary to their claim, there is no such thing as a right to enrich. This is absolutely unfounded. There is no such right. I am well aware that I am not at the negotiating table anymore, but I think it’s important to send a signal to everybody who is there that there cannot be a deal unless there is a clear set of restrictions on Iran. The preference would be no enrichment. The potential fallback position would be such little enrichment that they could not break out.”[4]

Of course, there is a right to enrich. There is a right to enrich up to the levels that would indeed allow for the capability to create a nuclear weapon but stopping short of actually doing so. In other words, since Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, it is entitled all avenues of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, including uranium enrichment.[5]

Obviously, judging by her track record, Clinton is anything but anti-war. Going from “totally obliterate” to “willing to work with” is quite the turnaround. Indeed, only last year, Clinton was boasting that “I voted for every sanction that came down the pike against Iran.”

As a Senator in 2007, she backed a resolution to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization.[6]

In February, 2007 Clinton had proclaimed, that “You don’t refuse to talk to bad people. I think life is filled with uncomfortable situations where you have to deal with people you might not like. I’m sort of an expert on that. I have consistently urged the president to talk to Iran and talk to Syria. I think it’s a sign of strength, not weakness.”

However, after Obama proclaimed that he would do just that if elected President, Clinton responded “I thought that was irresponsible and frankly naïve.”

When asked in a later debate if she would do the same, Clinton responded negatively stating that “I don’t want to be used for propaganda purposes.”[7]

Clinton has shifted back and forth on the Iranian issue but only in the directions in which the winds tend to be blowing. Overall, considering her track record with Syria, Iraq, Libya, and any other possible war she can support, it’s doubtful that her endorsement of the recent deal is genuine in any way.

Even her endorsement of the deal was made with fingers crossed, intimating that, just because a deal is clinched, does not mean that America’s imperialist and aggressive stance toward Tehran could or should be eased.

As Jon Ward wrote for Yahoo! News in an article entitled “Nuclear Deal Won’t Solve ‘Major Problems From Iran,’ Hillary Warns,

Hillary Clinton warned voters here ahead of the Fourth of July weekend that even if President Obama reaches a deal with the Iranian government over its nuclear program, the regime in Tehran will still pose a major threat to the United States. 
“I so hope that we are able to get a deal in the next week that puts a lid on Iran’s nuclear weapons program, because that is going to be a singular step in the right direction,” Clinton, the former secretary of state who is now running for president as a Democrat, told about 850 spectators in an outdoor amphitheater on the Dartmouth College campus.
But Clinton, despite her words of encouragement for Obama’s efforts to reach a deal with Iran, did not wholeheartedly endorse the process. 
“We don’t know yet. It’s too soon. These things always go down to the wire,” she said.
And she quickly positioned herself in a more neutral way toward the entire process, saying that even if a deal is reached, it will not reduce the need to be vigilant against Tehran. 
“But even if we do get such a deal, we will still have major problems from Iran,” she said. “They are the world’s chief sponsor of terrorism. They use proxies like Hezbollah to sow discord and to create insurgencies, to destabilize governments. They are taking more and more control of a number of nations in the region and they pose an existential threat to Israel.”

“So even if we are successful on the nuclear front, we still are going to have to turn our attention to working with our partners to try to rein in and prevent this continuing Iranian aggressiveness,” Clinton said.[8]

As is typically the case with Anglo-American pro-war propaganda efforts, it cannot go unnoticed that Clinton couched Iran’s willingness to negotiate and subsequently bend over backwards to ensure peace as “aggressiveness.” We have seen this distortion of facts many times in the past. It would be foolish to allow this altered perception of ongoing events to precipitate yet another foreign adventure.

Brandon Turbeville’s new book, The Difference It Makes: 36 Reasons Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President is available in three different formats: Hardcopy (available here), Amazon Kindle for only .99 (available here), and a Free PDF Format (accessible free from his website,
Image Source

[1] Morgan, David. “Clinton Says U.S. Could ‘Totally Obliterate’ Iran.” Reuters. April 22, 2008. Accessed on September 4, 2015.

[2] Crowley, Michael. “Hillary Clinton’s Unapologetically Hawkish Record Faces 2016 Test.” TIME. January 14, 2014. Accessed on September 4, 2015.

[3] Morgan, David. “Clinton Says U.S. Could ‘Totally Obliterate’ Iran.” Reuters. April 22, 2008. Accessed on September 4, 2015.

[4] Goldberg, Jeffrey. “Hillary Clinton: ‘Failure’ To Help Syrian Rebels Led To The Rise Of ISIS.” The Atlantic. August 10, 2014. Accessed on September 4, 2015.

[5] Sahimi, Muhammad. “Iran Has A Right To Enrich – And America Already Recognized It.” The National Interest. November 19, 2013. Accessed on September 4, 2015.

[6] Crowley, Michael. “Hillary Endorses Nuclear Deal.” Politico. July 14, 2015. Accessed on September 4, 2015.

[7] “Clinton: Obama Is ‘Naïve’ On Foreign Policy.” NBC. July 24, 2007. Accessed on September 4, 2015.

[8] Ward, Jon. “Nuclear Won’t Solve ‘Major Problems From Iran,’ Hillary Warns.” Yahoo. July 3, 2015. Accessed on September 7, 2015.

Brandon Turbeville – article archive here – is the author of seven books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 andvolume 2, The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria, and The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President. Turbeville has published over 650 articles on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s radio show Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. His website is He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at)

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.