Bernie Sanders
Related: About this forumAfter Obama: Clinton vs. Sanders
http://www.nationofchange.org/2015/09/21/after-obama-clinton-vs-sanders/After giving the Iran deal some cautious praise, Hillary Clinton hastened to emphasize that the United States should treat Iran like a juvenile delinquent that is genetically disposed to engage in bad behavior.
We need to be prepared for three scenarios, Clinton said. First, Iran tries to cheat, something its been quite willing to do in the past; second, Iran tries to wait us out perhaps it waits to move for 15 years when some, but not all, restrictions expire; and, third, Iran ramps up its dangerous behavior in the region, including its support for terrorist groups, like Hamas and Hezbollah.
For these and other reasons, Clinton concluded, I dont see Iran as our partner in implementing the agreement. This is a curious formulation for a former diplomat to make.
Contrast Clintons approach with the EUs response.
Coincidentally, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini gave a speech on Iran at the European Parliament on the same day that Clinton was speaking to the foreign policy establishment at Brookings. Mogherini laid out the post-deal tasks for the EU including economic cooperation, addressing environmental issues, and dealing with drugs and terrorism that treat Iran precisely as a partner.
As Eldar Mamedov, who works in the European Parliament on inter-parliamentary relations with Iran, points out in LobeLog:
This is a much more promising approach than Hillary´s tough talk. Based on past experiences, Iran is more likely to respond to incentives than coercion. Thats why it is pointless to guess whether Iran will or will not cheat on the deal. Rather, conditions should be created to make Iran want to respect the deal. If Clinton assumes that Iran will cheat, then her threats of using a military option could make this a self-fulfilling prophecy. Rather than cow Iran into compliance, such talk is only likely to reinforce the positions of those in Iran who are deeply skeptical or hostile about American intentions.
Clintons tough talk at Brookings wasnt confined to Iran. She promised to bulk up Israels military, including selling the country the most expensive piece of military hardware ever, the F-35. She also assured the audience that she would stand toe to toe with Putin: We have to do more to get back talking about how we try to confine, contain, deter Russian aggression in Europe and beyond, and try to figure out what are the best tools for doing that.
Theres a whiff of the Cold War to Clintons posturing. Still, for all of her muscle flexing, Clinton at least understands the importance of diplomacy, which is more than can be said about the Republican presidential hopefuls. Yes, Clinton can sound depressingly 20th-century in her approach. But thats still a big improvement over the medieval perspectives of her potential challengers, including the purported moderate, John Kasich, who all view the rest of the world as a big nail that needs repeated hammering.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Being "strong on defense" has long been considered a strength of the Republican Party. I am not sure why that is so. Democrats were in office when World War I began. Also World War II, which Republicans resisted. Also the Korean "Police Action." Also the Vietnam "Era." (What a bizarre name that was.)
Nonetheless, the book was that Republicans were strong on (snort) defense, while Americans are weak. Bubba and other Democratic Presidents have appointed Republicans as Secretaries of Defense, which is annoying, as it plays into the political stereotype.
Anyway, Democrats feel they have to convince American voters that they are just as tough on "defense" or more so than Republicans.
Heads of state all over the world, I am sure, cut each other slack for public statements. Still, I cannot help but feel that scolding other nations publicly doesn't help anything at home or abroad. I mean, how many fucking undeclared wars are we going to fight?