MyDD :: Clinton and the Iran Question

Clinton and the Iran Question

by Natasha Chart, Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 04:36:38 AM EST

It may come up in a discussion near you that Hillary Clinton is being offered the position of Secretary of State, and that you should be particularly alarmed about this because she voted to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. In a standalone resolution.

I didn't like that vote at all and was angry about it at the time, but it isn't clear to me that this is a policy difference between Clinton and Obama.

I don't want to underplay the significance of this resolution. It seemed, at the time, when the Bush administration was even rattling other people's sabers at Iran, like a good pretext to launch air strikes bombing civilian areas. The IRG controls about a third of Iran's economy through one means or another, operate Tehran's international airport and control a citizen militia, the Basij, whose main function is to suppress internal dissent. When you read about incidents where widespread protest has broken out and been suppressed by the regime, the Basiji forces are usually involved.

These things are easy to discover, and it was additionally the first vote ever to brand another country's official military apparatus as a terrorist organization. It was shocking and unprecedented.

Nonetheless, it was very popular in the Senate garnering 76 votes, Barack Obama's not among them because ... he didn't vote on it.* Neither did John McCain. Which is funny, because McCain later used Obama's non-vote to claim that Obama was insufficiently hostile to Iran, when in fact he'd cosponsored an earlier piece of legislation that contained the following wording, according to Newsweek:

The Secretary of State should designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a Foreign Terrorist Organization ... and the Secretary of the Treasury should place the Iranian Revolutionary Guards on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists under Executive Order 13224.

So it isn't clear to me at all that this is a policy difference between Clinton and Obama. Considering that he sponsored a similar bill and didn't show up to vote on the standalone amendment, I don't understand the assumption that Obama would have voted differently than she did.

That's reading something that isn't there into something that he didn't do.

As far as having Clinton as SoS, I figure she'd do a good job. I also believe that she'd be willing to do what she was asked to do or she wouldn't accept it, because that's how these positions go. She should do what she feels is best for her career as a public servant, which I hope will be long.

Further, I'm sure Clinton remembers what happened to Christie Todd Whitman, one of the most promising Republican politicians on the scene in 2000. She joined Bush's cabinet as head of the EPA and her national career basically ended when she tried to protect the environment somewhat.

Rogue cabinet secretaries don't last.

Lastly, as a point massively in her favor, she's a strong advocate for women's rights. The former Canadian ambassador to the UN, Stephen Lewis, has declared the war on women in Africa, and gender equality issues worldwide, to be a major international security issue. I expect she'd continue to be a strong advocate for resolving these concerns.

I've heard it suggested that all she did when she was traveling the world as First Lady was have tea with people. Well, she also met with a lot of women; normal, everyday women, all over the world. I know that sounds very unimportant. However, as Lewis says (and you should really click on the link above and read the whole thing), you can't have stable societies where women can't be treated well. If you can't have stable societies, you can't have a proper economy and you can't help but be a security risk.

With Obama's stated goal of eliminating the global primary education gap and her on the ground experience with societies around the world, I think she could be effective at helping reduce the primary risk factors of instability, failed states and terrorism.

* List of Senators voting no on this popular resolution: Biden (D-DE), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Brown (D-OH), Byrd (B-WV), Cantwell** (D-WA), Dodd (D-CT), Feingold (D-WI), Hagel (R-NE), Harkin (D-IA), Inouye (D-HI), Kennedy (D-MA), Kerry (D-MA), Klobuchar (D-MN), Leahy (D-VT), Lincoln (D-AR), Lugar (R-IN), McCaskill (D-MO), Sanders (I-VT), Tester (D-MT), Webb (D-VA), Wyden (D-OR)

** Maria Cantwell is somewhat of a surprise on this list. She's usually the more hawkish of Washington's Senators, having voted for the Iraq resolution, unlike fellow WA Sen. Patty Murray, whose name I was also surprised to find in the yes votes. I guess people can change.

Tags: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Iranian Revolutionary Guard (all tags)

Permalink :: 20 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Clinton and the Iran Question (2.00 / 2)

You are referring, it seems, to Obama's co-sponsorship of S.970 in March 2007? Lanny Davis' fulminations on the subject make a reasonable point about the text regarding the listing of the Revolutionary Guard but are otherwise couched in a 'weight of numbers' argument on the ticklish point of whether the allegedly 'reckless' Kyl/Lieberman amendment could be construed as enabling military action against Iran in those apparently risky times last year.

S.970 never passed out of committee, to my knowledge, but in the final analysis I would credit Secretary of Defense Gates with keeping us from the brink earlier that year, given the dynamics of the National Command Authority and the revised SIOP which embraced pre-emptive strikes against emerging nuclear 'rogue states.'

But the policy regarding engagement with Iran without the 'preconditions' insisted on by the Bush/Cheney administration seems a more significant distinction and directly led to the 'irresponsible and frankly naïve' narrative which was so widely perceived as a distinction between their candidacies that it still hangs in the air, don't you think? And was endlessly reiterated by her campaign and surrogates, from memory, at the time. In spite of the smokescreen laid since in the light of our obvious need to drop the preconditions which would have won our diplomatic advantage before a word was spoken by either party and which were intentionally unacceptable to Iran it remains an unresolved issue between them, leaving Hillary, curiously, to the right of the current administration insofar as anyone cares about campaign issues any longer.

If you are further attempting to square the circle of Hillary's clearly hawkish posture, which it seems to me she had adopted for poorly timed and clearly domestic political motivations, in the interests of having an advocate for gender equality issues worldwide, I think you are missing the point of the serious dilemma we find ourselves in globally on far more serious issues.

I am certainly not trying to diminish the human and womens' rights issues demanding our attention, to be sure, but it seems there are far more compelling challenges in global security, nuclear proliferation, dynamically shifting alliances and competition for energy resources confronting us.

by Shaun Appleby on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 05:29:26 AM EST

Shaun, that post deserves its own diary. (2.00 / 1)

Obviously you have thought about this a long time.

Back to the Iran Terrorism vote, which I believe was in November. What was most distinctive about that vote, in comparison to the s.970 vote, is THE TIMING. There was a growing and very ominous drumbeat for war with Iran at the time, and some people, like Seymour Hersh, were saying that it was inevitable, that Bush had even already put US Special Forces on the ground in Iran, as he did in Iraq before the Iraq War. And it was at THIS time, when people were pulling their hair out in expectation of another foolish widening of the war that the vote took place. Also, this vote took place at a particularly vulnerable time in the primary season, so close to the coming first caucus in Iowa, that it was seen by many (by me, certainly) as a clear Fuck-You to the anti-war Democrats.

And that's why, if you go to the blog postings of that time, you will see a great deal of fury directed at Hillary (and Bill, too) over this vote.

The only thing that may have saved us from war with Iran was the leaking in early December of the August NIE which stated that Iran had not had a nuclear weapons program since 2003. Two thousand fucking three. And the Bush administration knew this, while they were becoming more apocalyptic in their public rhetoric. But for the brave heroes who leaked that NIE, thousands, maybe millions might have died.

And we have few Democrats to thank for this. This is not just a condemnation of Hillary Clinton, but many of the Democrats, in fact, the whole culture they created in Washington, which saw servile acquiescence to Bush's megalomania with being STRONG ON DEFENSE.

And that is one reason I have been baffled every time somebody brings up Hillary Clinton's foreign policy credentials. She definitely has a resume, but it's not a good one, not a brave one, and it is disturbing to me that we may not be making a change with the coming Obama administration.

Honestly, I don't know whether or not Obama deserves our trust when it comes to foreign policy. He may be just as bad as Hillary and the rest of the pro-war DLC type Democrats, that whole culture that worries more about appearing weak than about preventing needless wars. This is, I guess, where hope comes in.

by Dumbo on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 07:21:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Shaun, that post deserves its own diary. (none / 0)

You didn't seriously believe that the US was prepared to go to war with Iran at that time, or at any time in the near future. Put simply, there are not enough boots to be deployed elsewhere.

With an unpopular president, an overstretched military, and Iran as big a quagmire as Iraq, who seriously thought that we would actually launch a war, without any explicit 9/11 type provocation?

Sabre-rattling, yes. Real preparations for war? Unlikely.

by Sieglinde on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 07:44:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Shaun, that post deserves its own diary. (2.00 / 1)

I don't think we're going to run out of missiles anytime soon.

When you start out making the "slippery slope" argument, where do you draw the line?

by Jess81 on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 10:32:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Shaun, that post deserves its own diary. (none / 0)

Oh right, I forgot all about those missiles that were so effective in shocking and aweing Iraq.

Get real.

by Sieglinde on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 12:15:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Shaun, that post deserves its own diary. (none / 0)

It was missiles we were threatening Iran with. Remember the 'leaked' story that we were about to test a bunker buster bomb in Nevada? While in my opinion it was all just posturing, the rhetoric was that we were developing some kind of missile that would take out Iran's supposed underground nuclear facilities. I don't believe a ground game in Iran was ever put forward at the time.

That One is the Right One for 2008.

by GFORD on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 01:04:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Shaun, that post deserves its own diary. (none / 0)

"With an unpopular president, an overstretched military, and Iran as big a quagmire as Iraq, who seriously thought that we would actually launch a war, without any explicit 9/11 type provocation?"

The fact that he was unpopular only made war more likely, not less likely. The quagmire in Iraq, too, made it more likely from a purely cynical electoral calculation viewpoint. But would it have been a foreign policy blunder? Absolutely!

But the neocons were besides themselves with the idea of the coming war with Iran. It would have started with a missile and air raid on specific targets in Iran, probably a well-timed prime-time speech by The Decider in Chief about how they were a grave danger to the world. And the subsequent and predictable retaliation by Iran against American soldiers in Iraq and against international shipping in the Gulf would have been claimed by the right as proof that Bush was right, they are our enemies and we were right to bomb them.

Don't believe it? Go back and look at the insurance rates for international oil shipping in the Gulf at the time. It was spiking.

by Dumbo on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 08:50:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Shaun, that post deserves its own diary. (none / 0)

this iis, simply, silly hyperventilating. the u.s. was never goign to go to war in Iran, and the NIE was released by the administration for just that reason.

hersh does some great reporting, but he also has a batting average on his scoops that is good for a baseball player, not so great that one should take his word for things. his Iran story had obvious holes from the start, and the web you weave on the assumption it was correct is faulty.

the differenes between Clinton and Obama are miniscule.

by CalDem on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 08:37:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Well put... (2.00 / 1)

Shaun Appleby:

If you are further attempting to square the circle of Hillary's clearly hawkish posture, which it seems to me she had adopted for poorly timed and clearly domestic political motivations, in the interests of having an advocate for gender equality issues worldwide, I think you are missing the point of the serious dilemma we find ourselves in globally on far more serious issues.

and Dumbo:

Honestly, I don't know whether or not Obama deserves our trust when it comes to foreign policy. He may be just as bad as Hillary and the rest of the pro-war DLC type Democrats, that whole culture that worries more about appearing weak than about preventing needless wars.

The choices for State and Defense are (IMHO) ENTIRELY about pro-war and anti-war positions. If one accepts that the liberal/progressive position is the anti-war position, I cannot understand the support for pro-war SOS candidates by liberals/progressives.

An inglorious peace is better than a dishonorable war.

- Mark Twain, Glances at History

by Sully Fick on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 02:18:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It is Obama's non-vote which is more of a concern (none / 0)

Because he is going to be the President. Since he did not unequivocally say no, there exists a chance he would hvae said yes. Last time I checked, it is the President who has the authority to order the troops into combat (Congress can authorize it, but President may choose not to exercise the authority). A SOS cannot declare war.

by ann0nymous on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 05:46:37 AM EST

Re: Clinton and the Iran Question (none / 0)

I think part of Hillary's stances in the past were her wanting to appease AIPAC type interests in the past and wanting to appear tough to build a resume for her Presidency. I don't think she is looking to be President in 2016.
Plus she will have to serve Obama's agenda and I do not get the feeling she will feel that strongly towards Iran.

I think either Bill Richardson or Hillary will be fine choices. Wes Clark is my first choice for Defense or SOS. But that will probably not happen. Seriously, she can be at least as good as Albright and easily better than Powell or Rice.

by Pravin on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 06:46:58 AM EST

Re: Clinton and the Iran Question (none / 0)

AIPAC appeaser Hillary is.

Not only did she vote for Kly-Lieberman, but she sponsored the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act, and never spoke publically about Israeli-Palestinian peace, the two states solution, as Bush did after the Annapolis Conference. If permitted to do so, she will obviously continue her dual loyalties and double standards, as did Bill, who along with Dennis Ross, was nothing less than duplicitous during the 2000 Camp David/Taba negotiations. Hillary has never criticized Israel's occupation of the Palestinians or its colonization of the Palestinian territories.

Given that Dennis Ross now expects to be offered a cabinet or high level position as a foreign policy adviser, in the Obama administration, Hillary as SoS will be a catastrophe for Middle East peace.

by MainStreet on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 08:51:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Wrong. (none / 0)

"I don't think she is looking to be President in 2016." (IMHO) If we assume you are wrong, then this is probably not a good appointment.

by Dumbo on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 07:24:57 AM EST

if she doesn't want to be president (2.00 / 1)

she should definitely keep her Senate seat for life. She can be in the majority and get things done for a long time.

Taking this job only makes sense if she wants to run for president again someday.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

by desmoinesdem on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 07:36:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

a more valid concern (none / 0)

was raised by Bleeding Heartland commenter riverdog9 last night:

http://www.bleedingheartland.com/showDia ry.do?diaryId=2206

What about Bill? (0.00 / 0) [delete comment]

Is he going to give up the Global Initiative, which accepts money from all over the world? Is he exempt from the vetting that everyone else will have to undergo? What about those uranium mines in Uzbekistan or wherever they were? Bill is a walking conflict of interest, on days he isn't dressed up as a loose cannon.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

by desmoinesdem on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 07:37:51 AM EST

Re: a more valid concern (none / 0)

That's a good point, hadn't thought about the CGI. But otoh, he isn't the one being considered for the position. Spouses are their own persons and I don't think they're usually considered a drag unless perhaps they were a criminal or something.

As a former president, I think Bill gets to do mostly what he wants. Seems to anyway.

by Natasha Chart on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 02:14:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton and the Iran Question (none / 0)

You're leaving out the fact that Obama stated his opposition to the bill at the time. So there's nothing ambiguous about it.

When you start out making the "slippery slope" argument, where do you draw the line?

by Jess81 on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 10:30:47 AM EST

Re: Clinton and the Iran Question (none / 0)

Why didn't he vote against it, then?

Blogging politics and life in general at jimmy.bouma-holtrop.com

by forecaster15 on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 03:28:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton and the Iran Question (none / 0)

I don't think this really is about foreign policy, I think it is a way to reward New Yorkers for all they did to elect Obama.

by Bob Brigham on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 11:06:36 AM EST

Re: Clinton and the Iran Question (none / 0)

I think Clinton would be a great SOS. She has international respect going in which helps a lot.

That One is the Right One for 2008.

by GFORD on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 01:19:50 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.