Behind Clinton's tough talk on Iran

[CHIMO]

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.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/feb/18/hillary-clinton-iran

[Don Caballero]

1. What about the inflammatory rhetoric of Iran?

They state they will pursue nuclear power regardless of the objections of the international community. They repeatedly threaten Israel and her people. They bankroll Shiite militias all over the ME. I support Madame Clinton in her goal for a nuclear free Iran.

[quickesst]

2. some people simply do not understand.....

...that it is not that the red flag has been raised, but the reasons they have been raised. Jebus. Just think about it for a second. The continual attack on the Clintons will not cease any time soon. It is one of the topics known to some of us as "common ground" that has tied the hands of the Democrats and the left for so long, giving the right-wingers something else to point out, and laud as "See, even the left hates the left!" Finding a democrat/lefty who sees the Clintons as enemies of the "cause"(that means, and I hate it that I'm having to break this down in it's simplest terms, are the ideals of the right-wing-religio-nutbag-self-righteous bullshit-infested idiots, and the maniacal Utopia they envision) is like finding a diamond in the rough for right-wing nutters. Pointing out how many progressives hate the Clintons is as close as they will come to expriencing a genuine aphrodesiac. How many bullet holes can fit into one foot before the left becomes aware? Apparently, more than a Saturday Night Special can hold. Thanks.
quickesst

[amborin]

3. reading the ny times these past few wks,

i'd say we're gearing up to attack militarily