[THS] The Guardian: Behind Clinton`s Tough Talk on Iran

[Peter Webster]

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24803.htm

Behind Clinton's Tough Talk on Iran

The goal of Hillary Clinton's rhetoric Seems to be to promote conflict and convince
Americans Iran is a threat to their security

By Mark Weisbrot

February 19, 2010 "The Guardian" -- In a visit to Qatar and Saudi Arabia this week,
Hillary Clinton said that Iran "is moving toward a military dictatorship," and continued
the administration's campaign for tougher sanctions against that country.

What could America's top diplomat hope to accomplish with this kind of inflammatory
rhetoric? It seems unlikely that the goal was to support human rights in Iran.
Because of the United States' history in Iran and in the region, it tends to give
legitimacy to repression. The more that any opposition can be linked to the United
States' actions, words, or support, the harder time they will have.

Second, it is tough for anyone – especially in the region – to believe that the US is
really concerned about human rights abuses. In addition to supporting Israel's
collective punishment of the Palestinians in Gaza, Washington has been remarkably
quiet as the most important opposition leaders in Egypt were arrested as part of the
government's preparations for October elections. Amnesty International stated that
the arrestees were "prisoners of conscience, detained solely for their peaceful political
activities".

So what is the purpose of a speech like this? The most obvious conclusion is that it is
to promote conflict, and to convince Americans that Iran is an actual threat to their
security. Americans generally have to be prepared and persuaded for years if they
are to accept that they must go to war. The groundwork for the Iraq war was laid
during the Clinton presidency. President Clinton imposed sanctions on the country
that devastated the civilian population, carried out bombings, and publicly declared
that Washington's intention was to overthrow the government. Although, as we now
know, Iraq never posed any significant security threat to the US, President Clinton
spent years trying to convince Americans that it did.

President Bush picked up where President Clinton left off; and President Clinton
publicly supported his campaign for the war. So did Hillary, and she defended her
decision in 2008 even as it looked like it might cost her the presidency.

President Obama is unlikely to start a war with Iran – which would likely begin as an
air war, not a ground war – not least because he already has two wars to deal with.
But, as in the case of the Iraq war, his secretary of state is preparing the ground for
the next president that may have a stronger desire or better opportunity to do so.
There is a strong faction of our foreign policy establishment that believes it has the
right and obligation to bomb Iran in order to curtail its nuclear programme, and they
have a long-term strategy.

The public relations campaign is working. A new Gallup poll finds that 61% of
Americans see Iran as "as a critical threat to US vital interests," with an additional
29% believing that it is "an important threat". It is not clear why anyone would
believe this; even if Iran did obtain a nuclear weapon, which is still a way off, they
would not have the capacity to deliver it as far as the US. Nor is it likely that they
would want to commit national suicide, any more than a number of other countries
that currently have nuclear weapons.

The Obama team's messaging is not nearly so successful with regard to the issues
that the vast majority of the electorate will base their votes on in this year's elections:
the most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll finds that 53% disapprove of his
handling of the economy.

For the immediate future, foreign policy concerns will likely rank low, far behind the
economy, for the electorate. But the Obama team's foreign policy will hurt Democrats
in the future. If I believed what Hillary Clinton and the Democratic leadership are
telling me, I would have to consider voting Republican. If it's really true that all these
people just want to kill us for no reason; that it has nothing to do with our foreign
policy or wars; that we can effectively reduce terrorism by bombing and occupying
Muslim countries; and that terrorism is the country's most urgent security threat –
then why not vote for the party that looks tougher? This will inevitably come back to
haunt the Democratic party, as it did in the 2002 and 2004 elections.

Meanwhile, US military spending – by the Congressional Budget Office's relatively
narrow definition of the department of defence budget – reached 5.6% of GDP in
2009. Just before September 11, 2001, the Congressional Budget Office projected
this spending for 2009 at 2.4% of GDP.

The difference, over 10 years, is more than four times the ten-year cost of proposed
healthcare reform.

© Guardian News and Media Limited 2010