Hillary Clinton Said It: Any Iranian Threat To Israel Will Lead To Military Action, Already The Obama Administration Policy!

Two days ago, Hillary Clinton gave a speech on the Iran Deal, endorsing it, and she explicitly said that when she is President, any Iranian threat to Israel will lead to military action!

This is precisely the Obama Administration’s policy, and therefore, it is worth the possibility to avoid war by making this deal, which now has been finalized, with 42 Democratic Senators insuring that the Republican majority in Congress cannot stop the agreement.

Many want us to forget that it was Obama who gave the greatest support to Israel of any American President, with the IRON DOME system of missiles that have protected Israel very effectively.

Just because our government and that of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu disagree about the Iran deal does NOT mean that America will abandon Israel.

In the long run of history, Obama will go down as pursuing a policy that makes total common sense, and one can be assured that Hillary Clinton, or possibly Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders, will come to the defense of Israel, if necessary!

11 comments on “Hillary Clinton Said It: Any Iranian Threat To Israel Will Lead To Military Action, Already The Obama Administration Policy!

  1. Ariel Leis September 11, 2015 11:01 am

    As usual the Republican leadership has paved the way again for Obama and it is now evident that they struck a deal with him a few months ago when they passed this disastrous Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 which effectively turned the Treaty Clause of the US Constitution on its head. By doing so they guaranteed Obama, the Democrats and the theological genocidal regime in Iran a “victory.” So in bed with Obama is the Republican leadership that first they blocked any amendment that would put teeth into this stupid Act and now, when the fix came in that 41 Democrats could filibuster the debate so none of their names would be on the record voting for yes on this deal, the Republican leadership in the Senate refused to change the filibuster rules for this issue, just as the Democrats changed the rule for the process of consenting federal judges. So the Republicans have a majority in both houses yet it does not change a thing. So Democrats still control everything and call the shots even with a minority of seats. Now of course McConnell, Corker , McCain and Lindsey Graham will make the rounds on the networks and complain about the deal and Obama, but that is all for show. They facilitated this disaster and they are just as responsible as Obama and the Democrats for the war that is to come. As a matter of fact they could have just invoked the Treaty clause of the US constitution, treat this deal as what it really is, a Treaty, and called on a vote! The Obama administration was nowhere near to having 3/4 of the senators to confirm the Treaty. But they didn’t. Why? Because when push comes to shove, the Republican leadership agrees with Obama and the Democrats. They all belong to the same party, the big party of the Washington beltway, the party of big government, the party of lobbyist, the party of corporate welfare and crony capitalism. That’s the party these politicians, of both parties really belong to. And now, there are I assure you, a bunch of businesses that also pressured them because they see deals that can make in Iran once sanctions are lifted and Iran becomes stronger. Is this the Iran Hillary wants to engage in military action if it threatens Israel? A much stronger Iran? As we speak there are Iranian generals in Syria near the Golan Heights! Are we now taking any action against them? Are we going to take actions just as we are taking with North Korea that threatens South Korea , Japan and US every day? How did the deal with North Korea end up? The deal that Clinton assured us would put a lid on their nuclear ambitions? We know these type of regimes lie and cheat yet we pave the way for their survival and make them stronger? This, on the day before another anniversary of 9-11, is truly a sad day. I just hope our kids, those that will go and fight will someday forgive us, the ruling generation , for destroying their lives and future.

  2. Ronald September 11, 2015 11:21 am

    Ariel, it is clear that you are a right wing troll, and that this BS below has been produced elsewhere and copied by you on here.

    I guess you think Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld handled Iraq very well, when it cost us trillions, and actually emboldened Iran, making it the monster it now is, and you wish to now to want, quick and easy, another war and have more Americans killed!

    If this does not work out, we will have to go that course, but the neocons have polluted us with their propaganda, and of course, they are all “chicken hawks” who would make money off a war and have no sons, or make sure their sons and daughters do not fight!

    Instead, send the minorities and white poor to fight wars so Cheney et al can get ever wealthier!

  3. Ronald September 11, 2015 11:24 am

    And, Ariel, of course, the Republicans are “cooperating” with Obama, really?

    What planet are you on, when the opposition to Obama is the most complete and massive of any opposition to any President in modern times, and even going further back than that?

    Pure propaganda but it reveals itself very clearly to any intelligent reader!

  4. Princess Leia September 11, 2015 12:11 pm

    Told you he was a troll!

  5. Pragmatic Progressive September 11, 2015 12:12 pm

    Probably the same old one, just keeps changing his name.

  6. Ariel Leis September 11, 2015 12:34 pm

    Ronald. Why are you bringing up race? Why are you accusing me of being a troll? Just because I do not agree with Obama and the Republican leadership? And what makes you think I somehow supported Bush? All I am trying to do is have a civilized conversation in this blog. Have you reached a point in this country in which that is impossible?
    Anyway the alternative “Deal or War” is a false alternative. President Obama knows there has always been an alternative to his diplomacy of concessions because many critics have suggested it. It’s called coercive diplomacy, and it might have worked to get a better deal if Obama had tried it. Take the sanctions regime, which finally started to get tough in December 2011. By 2013 Iran had an official inflation rate of some 35%, its currency was falling, and its dollar reserves were estimated to be down to $20 billion. President Obama had resisted those sanctions, only to take credit for them when Congress insisted and they began to show results in Tehran.
    Yet President Obama still resisted calls to put maximum pressure on Iran. He gave waivers to countries like Japan to import Iranian oil. He was reluctant to impose sanctions on global financial institutions that did business with Iran (especially Chinese banks that offered Tehran access to foreign currency). The U.S. could have gone much further to blacklist parts of Iran’s economy run by the Revolutionary Guard Corps. A bipartisan majority in Congress was prepared to impose more sanctions this year, but President Obama refused as he rushed for a second-term deal.
    President Obama now argues that the sanctions could not have been maintained, and that they are sure to collapse if Congress scuttles his deal. But there was no sign sanctions were collapsing as long as the U.S. continued to keep the pressure on. And to the extent support did weaken, one reason was the momentum of President Obama’s negotiations. The more the U.S. gave the impression that it desperately wanted a deal, the more other countries and businesses began to maneuver for post-sanctions opportunities.
    This is the opposite of coercive diplomacy, which shows determination so an adversary under pressure concludes that it must make more concessions. President Obama could also have pressured Iran on other fronts. The U.S. could have armed the Free Syrian Army to defeat Iran’s allied Assad regime in Damascus, and it could have helped Israel enforce U.N. Resolution 1701 that imposes an arms embargo on Hezbollah in Lebanon.
    Back in July President Obama conceded that Iran supplies Hezbollah and Assad, while implying he could do nothing about it. The truth is that he chose to do nothing because he didn’t want to offend Iran and jeopardize his nuclear talks. Instead he should have increased the pressure across the board to assist the negotiations and get a better deal.
    As for Mr. Obama’s false choice of war and diplomacy, the truth is that war becomes less likely when diplomacy is accompanied by the credible threat of war. The President removed that credible threat from Iran by insisting war was the only (bad) alternative to his diplomacy, as well as by threatening force against Syria only to erase his own “red line.” In May Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei boasted that the U.S. military “can’t do a damn thing” against Iran. He understood his negotiating partner all too well.
    Unfortunately this deal will make war inevitable, and it will be a war against a stronger Iran. I have family in Israel and believe me this is terrible. That is why I am so worried.

  7. Rustbelt Democrat September 11, 2015 12:55 pm

    Yep Pragmatic. That wouldn’t surprise me at all.

  8. Ronald September 11, 2015 2:56 pm

    Ariel, I can sympathize with your concern for relatives in Israel.

    I am Jewish and care about Israel, but the war footing of Netanyahu went too far, and he has been predicting war with Iran for decades, as he is always looking for war over peace.

    Again, IF Iran is a threat, we will react and defend Israel at all costs, and Obama and Clinton and Biden have a record of such support.

  9. Ariel Leis September 12, 2015 9:12 am

    Ronald, thanks for understanding. But do not get me wrong, I do not doubt that when push comes to shove the USA will help Israel in case of war. That is not the point. The point is not to arrive at such instance, war. And historically war has always occurred because of miscalculations or mistaken beliefs of the aggressor, when the aggressor mistakenly believes it has the upper hand or that there will be no response on behalf of others. This deal makes Iran believe exactly that. They will come out stronger, have an influx of billions of dollars, their influence in the middle east will grow exponentially and they see no will whatsoever in the US in seriously opposing them (even though eventually we will even if it means war). And that is when war becomes more likely than not. This is exactly what I as well as the Israeli’s do not want. We don’t want Iran ever to think it can get away with it because once they are convinced they can, then war becomes inevitable. How do we know that? Because the Iranians said so. And this deal makes war more likely than not.

  10. Ronald September 12, 2015 9:38 am

    Ariel, I disagree, as Iran is not that nuts, and its supreme leader will be dead and gone in the near future, and more moderate forces will take over. Democracy will triumph eventually in Iran, as long as we have patience, but do not act like war is the only alternative, a la our relations with the Soviet Union under Nixon and Reagan.

    The purpose is to, eventually, bring Iran into the group of “civilized” nations, and this agreement promotes that potential!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.