Unfortunately, DUs copyright standards don't allow me to quote any more than I have below. There is far more at the Q & A of the interview. Reading it in its entirety is highly recommended.
To read the Atlantic interview on which the article in the OP is based: the Atlantic interview
-----------------------------
From the article in the OP:
On Iran's Nuclear Program
"Contrary to <Iran's> claim, there is no such thing as a right to enrich. This is absolutely unfounded. There is no such right."
-------------------------
From the Atlantic interview:
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: It’s a consistent line. 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. So, little or no enrichment has always been my position.
(a couple more paragraphs back and forth at the link)
===============================
From the article in the OP:
On Arming the Syrian Rebels
“The failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against Assad…left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled."
-------------------------------------
From the interview:
JG: Do you think we’d be where we are with ISIS right now if the U.S. had done more three years ago to build up a moderate Syrian opposition?
HRC: Well, I don’t know the answer to that. I know that the failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against Assad—there were Islamists, there were secularists, there was everything in the middle—the failure to do that left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled.
(It's a little tougher here as there are several paragraphs throughout the interview regarding this issue)
====================
From the article in the OP:
On the War in Gaza
"I think Israel did what it had to do to respond to the rockets. Israel has a right to defend itself."
----------------------------
From the Atlantic interview:
JG: So, Gaza. As you write in your book, you negotiated the last long-term ceasefire in 2012. Are you surprised at all that it didn’t hold?
HRC: I’m surprised that it held as long as it did. But given the changes in the region, the fall of {former Egyptian President Mohamed} Morsi, his replacement by {Abdel Fattah} al-Sisi, the corner that Hamas felt itself in, I’m not surprised that Hamas provoked another attack.
JG: The Israeli response, was it disproportionate?
HRC: Israel was attacked by rockets from Gaza. Israel has a right to defend itself. The steps Hamas has taken to embed rockets and command-and-control facilities and tunnel entrances in civilian areas, this makes a response by Israel difficult. Of course Israel, just like the United States, or any other democratic country, should do everything they can possibly do to limit civilian casualties.
(again, several paragraphs back and forth with more specific information available)
=============================
From the article in the OP:
Asked about the president's unofficial motto for foreign interventions—"Don't do stupid stuff"—Clinton did not mince words: "Great nations need organizing principles, and 'Don't do stupid stuff' is not an organizing principle."
--------------------------------------
From the Atlantic interview:
HRC: Great nations need organizing principles, and “Don’t do stupid stuff” is not an organizing principle. It may be a necessary brake on the actions you might take in order to promote a vision.
JG: So why do you think the president went out of his way to suggest recently that that this is his foreign policy in a nutshell?
HRC: I think he was trying to communicate to the American people that he’s not going to do something crazy. I’ve sat in too many rooms with the president. He’s thoughtful, he’s incredibly smart, and able to analyze a lot of different factors that are all moving at the same time. I think he is cautious because he knows what he inherited, both the two wars and the economic front, and he has expended a lot of capital and energy trying to pull us out of the hole we’re in.
So I think that that’s a political message. It’s not his worldview, if that makes sense to you.
(again, more at link)
==========================
From the article in the OP:
"...chalked up civilian casualties in that conflict to "the fog of war,"
----------------------------------
From the Atlantic interview:
JG: Who do you hold responsible for those deaths? How do you parcel out blame?
HRC: I’m not sure it’s possible to parcel out blame because it’s impossible to know what happens in the fog of war. Some reports say, maybe it wasn’t the exact UN school that was bombed, but it was the annex to the school next door where they were firing the rockets. And I do think oftentimes that the anguish you are privy to because of the coverage, and the women and the children and all the rest of that, makes it very difficult to sort through to get to the truth.
(again, much more in the back and forth paragraphs)
==================================
= new reply since forum marked as read
- Hmmm? Howzzat? Or, we can just put our hands over our eyes and bendover and pretend it doesn't hurt like hell when they shove it in again. When more of our neighbors and son/sisters are killed or maimed for Exxon's profit margins. When more baby corpses clinging to their dead mothers from our dronestrikes, flashes through the Internets in videos like just more of yesterday's news. Who cares? And finally we hope that the pain of all this and of our meaningless existence doesn't force us to realize that it's us who has done this we are the ones responsible for all the shit that we're in.
