Last week, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton told an interviewer that under her Presidency, the United States would "obliterate" Iran if that country were to "foolishly consider" a nuclear attack on Israel. Cynematic from Momocrats takes us to the videotape:

Cynematic also offers this comment:

Do we really need a president who'll speak irresponsibly
about "obliterating" another country--before even preventative
diplomacy or other multilateral tactics to safeguard the region have
been applied?

Clinton said her tough talk was intended to warn Iran against recklessness, but criticism was widespread. The LA Times' Babylon & Beyond blog catalogued the brickbats from US allies and adversaries alike. The Boston Globe dubbed Clinton "Hillary Strangelove" for her "foolish and dangerous threat," adding:

Rambo rhetoric like Clinton's only plays into the hands of Iranian
hard-liners who want to plow ahead with efforts to attain a nuclear
weapons capability.

Clinton's critics say her latest statement reinforces the anxieties that even some of her supporters have about the likelihood that her stance on military intervention might not be that much different from the current administration's. They point, for example, to her September, 2007 vote in favor of the Lieberman-Kyl resolution, which designates Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. Last fall, BlogHer CE Morra Aarons called Clinton's vote one of the "crazy things" she does, and cited blogger Taylor Marsh's observation that "[E]vidently [Hillary] still doesn't get how much her Lieberman-Kyl vote worried people, including myself."

Clinton penned an extensive article on her foreign policy outlook for the Dec. 2007 issue of Foreign Affairs that included this statement about Iran:

Iran poses a long-term strategic challenge to
the United States, our NATO allies, and Israel. It is the country that
most practices state-sponsored terrorism, and it uses its surrogates to
supply explosives that kill U.S. troops in Iraq. The Bush
administration refuses to talk to Iran about its nuclear program,
preferring to ignore bad behavior rather than challenge it. Meanwhile,
Iran has enhanced its nuclear-enrichment capabilities, armed Iraqi
Shiite militias, funneled arms to Hezbollah, and subsidized Hamas, even
as the government continues to hurt its own citizens by mismanaging the
economy and increasing political and social repression.

As
a result, we have lost precious time. Iran must conform to its
nonproliferation obligations and must not be permitted to build or
acquire nuclear weapons. If Iran does not comply with its own
commitments and the will of the international community, all options
must remain on the table.

On the other hand,
if Iran is in fact willing to end its nuclear weapons program, renounce
sponsorship of terrorism, support Middle East peace, and play a
constructive role in stabilizing Iraq, the United States should be
prepared to offer Iran a carefully calibrated package of incentives.
This will let the Iranian people know that our quarrel is not with them
but with their government and show the world that the United States is
prepared to pursue every diplomatic option.

Of course, this essay was written before the release of the Dec. 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) which reported that Iran's nuclear weapons program appears to have been suspended since 2003, most likely as a result of international pressure. The NIE also said that it is unlikely that Iran would be able to produce enough enriched uranium for an atomic weapon before 2015.

The editor of the conservative Jerusalem Post, David Horovitz reports that Israeli officials convinced that Iran is still pursuing its nuclear ambitions fear that the NIE has robbed the US of the political cover it might have used to take military action against Iran. Alternatively, he said, some Israeli officials think making peace with Syria might be a way to blunt the Iran threat, because it would interfere with the alliance between Damascus and Teheran. Those officials have been frustrated by the Bush administration's unwillingness to negotiate with Syria because of its support to Hizbollah guerillas, Horovitz said.

It's possible that Clinton's tough language was a reaction to recent bellicose exchanges between Israeli and Iranian officials. According to an April 15 article from Reuters.com, an Iranian senior Army officer pledged to destroy Israel if it attacked Iraq. However, Iranian officials also agreed to a new round of meetings with the UN watchdog agency that monitors compliance with nuclear non-proliferation agreements.

Iranian officials also reportedly say they think the US is too bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan to attempt a strike on Iran. Veteran journalist Stephen Kinzer isn't so convinced. In 2003, Kinzer published a book that argued that the 1953 CIA-orchestrated coup that ended the Iran's constitutional monarchy sowed the seeds of the 1979 hostage crisis and subsequent sour relations between Iran and the West. In a March, 2008 interview with Democracy Now! Kinzer worried that some members of the Bush administration still want to see military action against Iran.

The Foreign Affairs article, as well as her explanation of her comments, leads me to believe that Sen. Clinton thinks an aggressive posture is the best way to avoid a military conflict. It will be up to voters to decide whether that posture should be so aggressive as to threaten the destruction of an entire nation.