Reply #20: Several reasons [View All]

[Tom Rinaldo]

Some strategic, some political. In my opinion political reasons are justified if the strategic justification for a political statement is sound.

Actually it makes sense to lay out a strong deterrent position early enough that it might actually influence decision making in the manner desired. All leading politicians in America, Obama included, are on record saying that it would be dangerous "to allow" Iran to gain nuclear weapons. All experts agree that Iran does not have nukes now, though many feel that Iran has positioned itself to be able to get them relatively soon if they decide they want them. Iran potentially gains 4 things out of getting nukes: 1) Pride 2) A deterrent against the U.S. attacking them 3) An ability to threaten Israel 4) An ability to intimidate Sunni Arab States in the Persian Gulf.

Clinton's comment doesn't touch reasons 1) and 2) but it does have bearing on reasons 3) and 4). From all I can tell, there are splits inside of Iran about the advantages of going for nuclear weapons, with some hardliners tempted to do so. Clinton thinks the U.S. should clearly be on record now establishing that Iran will not gain the strategic advantages that some there may hope for should they acquire nuclear weapons.

What many fail to notice in Clinton's comment is an implicit acknowledgment that the U.S. may need to adapt a policy of containment and deterrence regarding an Iranian nuclear weapons program should Iran get the bomb. This is progress in my opinion from the often repeated phrase so many American politicians have uttered that "Under no circumstances can the U.S. allow Iran to gain nuclear weapons." The latter statement strongly implied that the U.S. should attack Iran BEFORE it even got nuclear weapons. Clinton's statement strongly implied that the U.S. should not attack Iran UNLESS Iran USED nuclear weapons.