Last Friday, we detailed a hilarious unsettling string of diplomatic gaffes–by far the most of any 2008 presidential candidate–that sort of, like, contradicted Hillary Clinton’s reputation as a steady hand on foreign policy. There was the whole “calling the current prime minister of New Zealand the former prime minister of New Zealand while comparing her to a cockroach” thing. And the “claiming Vladimir Putin doesn’t have a soul” thing. And the “mispronouncing the name of Putin’s successor” thing. And the “speculating that Pervez Musharraf had Benazir Bhutto assassinated” thing. And the “embarrassing Gordon Brown by wrongly praising him for boycotting the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics” thing. And the “smearing Italians as ‘garlic noses’” thing. Oh wait. Nevermind the last one–only Jeremiah Wright would go that far.
Still, for all the fuss over Obama’s “Bubba Gap,” we couldn’t help but wonder whether “the international community will have concerns other than bowling scores and arugula come next January”–and whether Clinton’s proclivity for causing controversy on the global stage says more about her ability to lead than Obama’s relationship with Wright says about his. Echoing our concerns, readers pointed to Clinton’s recent remarks about “totally obliterat[ing]” Iran as further evidence. “Hillary threatened to obliterate Iran just to win a few more votes in PA,” wrote reader MShawn. “It’s despicable that someone would make such statements just to appear tough.” But we were reluctant to include Iran our on list because, unlike Clinton’s other comments, her saber-rattling hadn’t yet provoked a pissed-off retort from overseas.
Apparently, things change. In a letter sent this morning to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, Mehdi Danesh-Yazdi, Iran’s deputy ambassador to the UN, writes that Clinton’s words were “provocative and irresponsible” and represent “a flagrant violation” of the UN Charter. " According to Tehran, Clinton “unwarrantedly and under erroneous and false pretexts threatened to use force against the Islamic Republic of Iran.” Do we sense a little tension?
Of course, it’s important to consider Clinton’s comments in their original context. Appearing on Good Morning America on the eve of the Pennsylvania primary, she didn’t exactly threaten to “totally obliterate” Iran without provocation–as some of her bloodthirstiest critics would have you believe. Instead, she responded to question from ABC News’ Chris Cuomo, who asked what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons. “I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran [if it attacks Israel],” Clinton said. “In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them. That’s a terrible thing to say but those people who run Iran need to understand that because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic.” As the New Republic’s Michael Crowley put it, Clinton wasn’t “revealing some warmongerish desire to capriciously destroy Iran.” Instead, she was making a point about the realities of deterrence: that Tehran “need[s] to understand” that “we would be able to” retaliate so that they don’t “reckless[ly], foolish[ly] and tragic[ally]” drop a bomb on Israel. Nothing particularly controversial there; we do, after all, have more than 2,000 operational warheads ready to go.
But politics is all about perception, and it’s clear from Clinton’s timing and belligerent choice of words–Iran is already well aware that we can “totally obliterate” them, thank you very much–that the New York senator had something other than diplomacy on her mind: namely, looking tougher than the “effete” Obama as voters in Pennsylvania went to the polls. Understandably, Tehran also picked up on her needlessly aggressive tone–and took offense. Now, it’s not like the former First Lady would bomb Iran at the drop of a hat; she’s established a lot of credibility on the Senate Armed Services committee and maintains a strong relationship with the Pentagon. But the problem is, Clinton’s need to look tough isn’t new. It’s what generated the Putin gaffe–and arguably her vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq. In light of this pattern, it’s worth wondering whether Clinton’s instinct for political grandstanding at home–her desire to flex her muscles for domestic political gain–clouds her otherwise good judgment and (at the very least) increases her chances of stirring up unnecessary tensions abroad.
But hey, at least her pastor hasn’t called anyone a “garlic nose.”
