SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: JohnM who wrote (61079)4/23/2008 1:49:08 PM
From: Mary Cluney  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 542058
 
<<<her foreign policy advisers are, as a group, more hawkish than Obama's, >>>

Obama is more like Adlai Stevenson and Hillary is more like, uh, Machiavelli?



To: JohnM who wrote (61079)4/23/2008 2:57:11 PM
From: Katelew  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 542058
 
I haven't taken the time to read up on it yet, but her Iran deterrence comments are a reflection of some of the thinking of her military advisor group. It's been written about before.

It has to do with the fear that Iranian and Iraqi shia will coalesce and present a threat to both Israel and the sunni nations. They were looking down the road at what could happen after the collapse of Iraq.

The basic idea is to present some kind of united front involving other sunni nations that would balkanize and intimidate Iran. It's a deterrence plan based on the assumption that Iran will go nuclear at some point.

It doesn't replace pushing diplomatic relations, though, in the meantime.....and probably was offered up in the debate as a sop to Israel. But it wasn't a new thing thrown out in the debate.

The whole thing rings dollar signs up in my mind....but might have some merit if I looked at it in detail. It doesn't worry me though as being militaristic. Just like M. Albright, Hillary knows the history of Iran and our meddling role in things and that the US should make some reasonable overtures and mend some fences.