Obama Picks Up On Hillary's Suggestion (Updated)

Obama wants to reassure Israel:

U.S. President-elect Barack Obama's administration will offer Israel a "nuclear umbrella" against the threat of a nuclear attack by Iran, a well-placed American source said earlier this week. The source, who is close to the new administration, said the U.S. will declare that an attack on Israel by Tehran would result in a devastating U.S. nuclear response against Iran. [emphasis added]

Sound familiar?
It should.

Secretary of state-designate Hillary Clinton had raised the idea of a nuclear guarantee to Israel during her campaign for the Democratic Party's nomination for the presidency. During a debate with Obama in April, Clinton said that Israel and Arab countries must be given "deterrent backing." She added, "Iran must know that an attack on Israel will draw a massive response."

ABC News has an even stronger quote:

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton said. "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

The problem with the assurances of both Clinton and Obama is the underlying assumption of such a guarantee:

Granting Israel a nuclear guarantee essentially suggests the U.S. is willing to come to terms with a nuclear Iran. For its part, Israel opposes any such development and similar opposition was voiced by officials in the outgoing Bush administration. 

The article quotes a Israeli security source that makes 2 points about the weakness of the US implied in the bellicose threat:

1. The implication of talk about a nuclear Iran is that the US is in fact prepared for the eventuality of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons--which undermines the very attempt to dissuade Iran from proceeding with their nuclear program.

2. If the US has thus far been ineffective in dealing with a non-nuclear Iran, why should anyone take seriously the ability of the US to deal with a nuclear Iran.

Even if there were a chance that the threat would be taken seriously, that would be more likely be possible with Hillary Clinton as president than Obama. 

Of course, as Obama slowly morphs from a left-winger into whatever he will end up as, maybe such threats could eventually be taken seriously.

UPDATE: There seems to be a growing concensus that Obama's 'threat' to respond to an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel actually gives Iran to be less concerned for the consequences. From Mark Steyn:

implicit in such a "pledge" is that the United States now accepts that Iran's going nuclear and there's nothing anyone can (or will) do about it. That's a significant shift.

As to whether such a pledge will deter Tehran, I mentioned in this NR column that Hashemi Rafsanjani, one of those famously "moderate" types compared to President Ahmadinejad, described Israel as "the most hideous occurrence in history" which the Muslim world "will vomit out from its midst" with "a single atomic bomb." That last bit is worth quoting more fully. Rafsanjani said:

A single atomic bomb has the power to completely destroy Israel, while an Israeli counter-strike can only cause partial damage to the Islamic world.

If they were thus calibrating the risks a few years ago, I wonder what they make of this new "pledge". Richard Fernandez writes:

A combination of tacitly accepting an nuclear-armed Iran and reposing deterrence in Washington could make the Ayatollahs more willing to run the risk. What are the odds that the West can bring itself to enter into a nuclear exchange with Iran if it could not muster the will to prevent Teheran’s acquisition of those weapons in the first place?  The Ayatollahs may interpret this proposal as meaning that the West will be a party to any Israeli decision to retaliate for an nuclear attack on its soil, undertaking to attack in lieu or veto the retaliation. It adds one more step in the process of pulling the retaliatory trigger. That can only reduce the certainty of retribution in Teheran’s eyes.

Quoting an unnamed American source close to Obama's administration, the Haaretz daily said Washington would pledge under the proposed "nuclear umbrella" to respond to any Iranian nuclear strike against Israel with a U.S. retaliation in kind. 

I don't recall this kind of analysis when Hillary Clinton first made this suggestion. Of course, deserved or not she had a certain gravitas. For all of his 'aura,' gravitas is something that Obama at this point lacks--and current events this week do not promise any change in this area.

UPDATE II: Allahpundit makes an interesting point--

How is this policy preferable to helping Israel boost its second-strike capabilities? It already has enough firepower to“completely and utterly obliterate” Iran. Outfit its submarines with nuclear CBMs, upgrade its defensive anti-ballistic missile systems, and and let it take care of business. The “umbrella” route only really makes sense for countries with no weapons, to deter regional nuclear powers from bullying them and to deter those under the umbrella from being spooked into building nukes of their own. 

Another point he makes also requires an answer:

Is The One prepared to bring Arab countries under the umbrella too? If not, how will that affect the image he’s trying to build as an honest broker between Israel and Muslims? 

Just how well thought out was this new policy of Obama's?

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Obama and Israel.