Clinton has some wise words on Iran:
He called Iran a far more formidable foe than Saddam Hussein's Iraq and a "perplexing" country split between "two governments": a hard-core minority that controls security forces and a reformist, pro-Western majority. A hasty and bloody military strike might alienate that majority, he said.
"We ought not to do any [military action] until we have exhausted all reasonable diplomatic efforts," Clinton said, describing the main danger of a nuclear Iran as the potential transfer of nuclear materials to terrorists.
"Deterrence still works, just like it did between us and the Soviet Union. So if Iran had a nuclear weapon, the main thing it would do is cast a pall over the Middle East. But they'd have to think a long time before they used it, because they'd be toast if they used it."
Sadly, we've already alienated that majority, and most others, with a hasty and bloody military strike in Iraq. But Bill's right, we'd be better off not doing it twice.
You need to be logged in to comment.
(If there's one thing we know about comment trolls, it's that they're lazy)