Hillary's Foreign Policy Hawkishness

The slight truism that there is a virtual policy consensus between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama has morphed into a convenient excuse not to engage with the areas of difference, which in the foreign policy arena are considerable. After calling Barack Obama rash and naive to telegraph intentions with regard to Pakistan and Al Qaeda, Clinton now has completely telegraphed Iran policy and raised the spectre of a nuclear attack.

Clinton further displayed tough talk in an interview airing on "Good Morning America" Tuesday. ABC News' Chris Cuomo asked Clinton what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons.

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton said. "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

This is an expansion of the idea that came up in the debate in a rare moment of non-trivia, that we should place a "nuclear umbrella" over Israel and the greater Middle East with respect to Iran. This is a classic model of deterrance of the kind that prevented a nuclear attack with the Soviet Union. But first off, it presumes that the enemy has nuclear weapons, which is quite a presumption when it comes to Iran. This gets more complicated based on the known issue that Israel has their own nuclear weapons and doesn't need American overwatch to defend themselves. Further, it is hypocritical of her to admit nuclear policy about Iran and charge that we should never admit such things when it comes to the Al Qaeda factions in the FATA regions in Pakistan. AND, Al Qaeda is at least broadly unpopular in the Islamic world (really, they are, check the polling). Calling for nuclear deterrance on a sovereign Islamic nation like Iran, which is not nearly as unpopular, just furthers the impression that the United States is interested in a clash of civilizations on a global scale.

Now, the Clinton camp is backtracking on this, but there's no denying that on substantive foreign policy issues, Clinton is more of a hawk than Obama. That's just undeniable. She has refused to apologize for her vote to go to war with Iraq, and her policy on Iran, while muddled by repeated denials from her staff, appears to rest on a concept of mutually assured destruction. These are belligerent stances that do not represent any kind of break with the recent past. Add in the fact that supporters like Michael O'Hanlon are calling for pretend diplomacy with Iran to prove that such negotiations are impossible and only military action can solve the problem, and you have a foreign policy vision that is disturbingly tilted to the right. Clearly Hillary Clinton has given up on the antiwar faction on the left (which represents 60-65% of the country, so you see what a spot she's in), and I think she's telling you WHO SHE IS by these statements.

These are not little policy differences. They are immense and speak to a difference in foreign policy mindset. It remains the main reason why I'm supporting Sen. Obama.