Strategic Ambiguity Isn't All That

Our SecState Hillary Clinton tells us that "there would be retaliation" if Iran attacks Israel with a nuclear weapon, but she won't say exactly how. Does anyone question that the US government would at least prepare nuclear weapons for use against Iran if Israel's nukes didn't destroy Tehran and several other cities first?

Clinton was asked whether her statement as a presidential candidate that Iran would “incur massive retaliation” for attacking Israel is now official U.S. policy. “I think it is U.S. policy to the extent that we have alliances and understandings with a number of nations,” Clinton said. “I think there would be retaliation.”

Clinton said the U.S. needs to make clear to Iran that pursuing nuclear weapons will undermine peace and security for Iran and the entire region. With Arab states and Israel anxious about Iran’s intentions, there’s danger of “a Middle East arms race which leads to nuclear weapons being in the possession of other countries,” she said.

Asked whether she was skeptical that President Barack Obama’s policy of engagement can succeed in forestalling Iran’s nuclear ambitions, Clinton replied, “Well, I am someone who is going to wait and see.”

While dialogue would give both sides better information about one another, the U.S. has “to be willing to sit and listen and evaluate without giving up what we view as a primary objective of the engagement, which is to do everything we can to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state.”

I hate this game the politicians play - "we will retaliate and it will be massive," but we're not going to tell you if it's coming by cruise missile with a nuclear or conventional warhead. For some reason that I don't fathom, this "strategic ambiguity" is supposed to be the preferred diplomatic response. I suppose "civilized" nations aren't supposed to openly discuss the potential of nuclear warfare, except behind closed doors. It might offend the senses.

So, what happens if Israel attacks Iran with nuclear weapons in a preventive strike against Iran's hardened "nuclear energy" infrastructure? Would our response still be "massive?"

Comments

[Kilo]

Someone should have asked her if that's the case shouldn't she be pressing for disarmament of Israel.

You know they're the primary driver in the region for other nations' nuclear programs. You know Israel can handle itself in any non-nuclear engagement.
You know the US is gonna step in and provide a nuclear deterrent far in excess of what Israel can.

So WTF is the benefit of Israel having nukes Hillary? Seems like it's just all downside.

Come to think of it, WTF was the upside of your speech other than to undermine the brige-building Obama's did, you moron ?

It wasn't like there's some nation out there who wasn't aware that the US would respond to a nuclear attack on Israel.

[Cheryl Rofer]

I think that the ambiguity thing is a holdover from the Cold War. We didn't want to tempt the Soviet Union into a nuclear war by threatening nuclear retaliation against one of their clients every time their client threatened our client.

But, of course, their clients tended not to threaten our clients (and vice versa) because they didn't want a nuclear incineration either and because they were being urged against such adventurism by their, er, big brothers.

Now, however, Israel has a nuclear umbrella from the United States, and Iran has no nuclear umbrella from anyone. So Israel can threaten Iran and vice versa, because Iran can be pretty sure that nobody's going to nuke them just for words, although Israel feels the necessity to raise uncertainties on that point.

I suspect that Hillary is trying to raise just enough uncertainties to keep either one from attacking the other. She's using the rhetoric of the nuclear umbrella for Israel, which too many people still believe in.

During the Cold War, questions were asked like whether the United States would put New York at risk if London were attacked by the Soviet Union. It's a good question, and I believe that most people concluded that if London were nuked, US retaliation would not be automatic, although there seemed to be promises in that direction.

So we may ask a similar question about Tel Aviv, although it's pretty theoretical at this point. And chances are that if Iran ever comes to that capability, it won't be able to hit New York.

I suspect that the folks in Tehran can do this calculation.

But the confusion we see in the apparent conflict between Clinton's and Obama's statments points up that we still really don't understand deterrence in today's world.

[Ray]

Difficult to estimate whether Iran (unless from a clinically insane group or individual)would launch a nuclear attack on Israel when such a move would also be catastrophic for Palestine, and effect it for decades. There would be no room for contention politically, or significant fighting, between the two countries in the aftermath; the priorities would be forced on everyone.
On the other point- America would be unlikely to go to nuclear retaliation if London ( or UK) were hit, unless the US was sure that it would also be so attacked. Presumably there would be a telephone call from the belligerent, to the US President: "Of course we do not intend attacking the United States or any other of it's allies, Mr President".
The President would have only the belligerents' word for it.
Treaties are precarious things; and I have much faith in America's support on wide areas of defence- I am biased however, my being a staunch ally ( but significantly and unavoidably, and mercifully, for everyone,microscopic in stature).
However, if we picture the actuality, the news that a nuclear bomb or device had been used from whatever quarter, from that moment some very quick thinking and decisions would have to be made- in seconds- so that the risk of nuclear weapons being launched confetti-like, would be very likely. It would effectively be over within 30 minutes or so. Those left to look at their (now luminous) watches could assess this.
I wish politicians would cease making these silly declarations. Do they have concrete assurances (no pun intended) that they will be around afterwards? A lot of very optimistic assumptions there.
R.

[Kilo]

"So we may ask a similar question about Tel Aviv"

I don't know why. It's not exactly a challenging question, nor in any way comparable to the cold war.

We are talking about Iran -- with no capability to retaliate against the US and no nuclear protectors of their own to do this for them -- right ?

[J.]

Kilo - I think Cheryl may be suggesting that our national leadership might waiver in actually nuking the capital (or any major city) of Iran in response to a nuclear attack on Israel if only because of the 2d and 3rd order effects of the fallout (no pun intended). Do we really want a billion Muslims united for American (and Israeli) blood because we retaliated against Iran? I don't think it's a reflexive "yes" to the question, especially given that Israel has its own nukes.