Iran Lodges U.N. Protest Against Hillary Clinton
A little over a week ago, you may recall that Hillary Clinton stated that she would “obliterate” Iran if it ever attacked Israel with nuclear weapons. It now appears that the Iranian government has lodged a formal protest in the U.N. about her remarks.
Iran has lodged a formal protest at the United Nations about comments by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton that the United States would “totally obliterate” Iran if it attacked Israel with nuclear weapons, the state-run news agency, IRNA, reported Thursday.
Iran’s deputy ambassador to the United Nations, Mehdi Danesh-Yazdi, sent a letter of protest on Wednesday to the United Nations secretary general and the United Nations Security Council denouncing the remarks, according to IRNA.
[…]
Mr. Danesh-Yazdi wrote in the letter that Mrs. Clinton’s comments were “provocative, unwarranted and irresponsible” and “a flagrant violation” of the United Nations charter, IRNA reported.
“I wish to reiterate my government’s position that the Islamic Republic of Iran has no intention to attack any other nation,” the letter said.
As I have stated in the past, like it or not, we’re going to have to work with the government of Iran if we want to advance our interests in the Middle East, and I have said that bullying rhetoric is only going to heighten tensions between our countries. It now appears that Hillary Clinton has proved me right. Lovely.
(link via Marc Ambinder)
Considering the number of warheads Israel is suspected of possessing, I do not think it would be necessary for the United States to deplete, by one MX missle, for Iran to be incinerated should they foolishly launch a nuclear attack on Israel. It does have a nice ring to it though. My answer to both the UN and Iran would be, if you are not developing nukes, you have nothing to be concerned about. If you are, you now know what will happen.
Didn’t Iran say something about obliterating Israel. I would love to hear the argument that it is okay for Iran’s president to threaten to obliterate Israel, but not for Hillary as presidential candidate to propose the reverse.
I’m certain they have an apology in the mail right now after hearing her puffball interview on O’Reilly saying effectively that she supports getting the troops out and letting Iraq and Iran work it out for themselves. I suspect she may even get some roses from FTD of Tehran, with a free burka and a matching prayer mat to follow.
While I agree that Sen. Clinton’s statements were “provocative, unwarranted and irresponsible†I’d like to hear the argument that they were against the UN charter.
The only argument that I can think of is that, while the Charter recognizes the right to self-defense, it recognizes no right to intervene on behalf of another nation without Security Council approval. That would be an interesting argument and the same thing could be said of various NATO interventions that have no UNSC approval.
I wonder if the argument extends to supporting NGO’s that attack other countries?
So does that mean that you agree it was wrong for Hillary to propose obliterating Iran?
Michael,
What I was pointing out was the hypocrisy of Iran for complaining about others doing what they have done. Both have a right to say what they said and others can evaluate both based on what they said.
In all honesty, she said it like I wanted to hear. If a country starts a nuclear war, we need to stop them so fast they won’t know what hit them. Like Iran’s such a happy sunshiney place, anyway – talk about Human Rights Violations. If anything I like Hillary more – if that were even possible.
Again, “because Iran is despicable”, isn’t a defensible response.
Y’all are missing the point. Iran said nothing of substance. THEY DO NOT RECOGNIZE ISRAEL, ANYWAY. So, of course, Iran would never think of attacking another nation with nukes. To them, Israel isn’t a nation, just a scourge to be wiped off the map.
Sorry, I do not like Sen. Clinton, but I fully and completely agree with this remark of hers.