În discursul ținut pentru Goldman Sachs din 4 iunie 2013 (tab-ul attachments), Hillary Clinton justifica cu nonșalanță bombardarea Iranului. “Tentativa de asasinat” de care vorbește e într-adevăr ridicolă, dar pare mai degrabă un casus belli american decât un plan iranian.
MR. BLANKFEIN: What do you — I’ve always assumed we’re not going to go to war, a real war, for a hypothetical. So I just assumed that we would just back ourselves into some mutually assured destruction kind of — you know, we get
used to it. That it’s hard to imagine going to war over that principle when you’re not otherwise being threatened. So I don’t see the outcome. The rhetoric is there, prevention, but I can’t see us paying that kind of a price, especially what the president has shown. We’re essentially withdrawing from Iraq and withdrawing from Afghanistan. It’s hard to imagine going into something as open ended and uncontainable as the occupation of Iran. How else can you stop them from doing something they committed to doing?
MS. CLINTON: Well, you up the pain that they have to endure by not in any way occupying or invading them but by bombing their facilities. I mean, that is the option. It is not as, we like to say these days, boots on the ground.
MR. BLANKFEIN: Has it ever worked in the history of a war? Did it work in London during the blitz or —
MS. CLINTON: No. It didn’t work to break the spirit of the people of London, but London was a democracy. London was a free country. London was united in their opposition to Nazi Germany and was willing to bear what was a terrible price for so long with the blitz and the bombings. Everybody says that Iran, you know, has united —
MR. BLANKFEIN: Many — they held out for an awful —
MS. CLINTON: They wanted — yeah. But I mean, people will fight for themselves. They will fight for themselves, but this is fighting for a program. I mean, the calculation is exactly as you described it. It’s a very hard one, which is why when people just pontificate that, you know, we have no choice. We have to bomb the facilities.
They act as though there would be no consequences either predicted or unpredicted. Of course there would be, and you already are dealing with a regime that is the principal funder and supplier of terrorism in the world today. If we had a map up behind us you would be able to see Iranian sponsored terrorism directly delivered by Iranians themselves, mostly through the Revolutionary Guard Corps, the operatives, or through Islah or other proxies from to Latin American to Southeast Asia. They were caught in Bulgaria. They were caught in Cyprus. They were caught in Thailand. They were caught in Kenya. So it’s not just against the United States, although they did have that ridiculous plot of finding what they thought was a drug dealer to murder the Saudi ambassador. They really are after the sort of targets of anyone they believe they can terrorize or sort of make pay a price because of policies.
So the fact is that there is no good alternative. I mean, people will say, as you do, mutually assured destruction, but that will require the gulf states doing something that so far they’ve been unwilling to do, which is being part of a missile defense umbrella and being willing to share their defense so that if the best place for radar is somewhere that can then protect the Saudis and the Emirates, the Saudis would have to accept that. That is not likely to happen. So mutually assured destruction as we had with Europe in the ’40s, ’50s, ’60s, ’70s, ’80s until the fall of the Soviet Union is much harder to do with the gulf states and it will be unlikely to occur because they will think that they have to defend themselves.
And they will get into the business of nuclear weapons, and these are — the Saudis in particular are not necessarily the stablest regimes that you can find on the planet. So it’s fraught with all kinds of problems. Now, the Israelis, as you know, have looked at this very closely for a number of years. The Israelis’ estimate is even if we set their program back for just a couple of years it’s worth doing and whatever their reaction might be is absorbable. That has been up until this recent government, the prior government, their position. But they couldn’t do much damage themselves.
We now have a weapon that is quite a serious one, and it can do a lot of damage and damage that would —
MR. BLANKFEIN: Two miles before it blows up or something?
MS. CLINTON: Yes. It’s a penetrator. Because if you can’t get through the hardened covering over these plants into where the
centrifuges are you can’t set them back. So you have to be able to drop what is a very large precision-guided weapon. Nobody wants either of these outcomes. That’s the problem. And the supreme leader, Khamenei, keeps going around saying: We don’t believe in nuclear weapons. We think they are anti-Islam. But the fine print is: We may not assemble them, but we’ll have the parts to them. That’s why we keep testing missiles. That’s why we keep spinning centrifuges. That’s why we are constantly looking on the open market to steal or buy what we need to keep our process going. So that’s what you get paid all these big bucks for being in positions like I was just in trying to sort it out and figure out what is the smartest approach for the United States and our allies can take that would result in the least amount of danger to ourselves and our allies going forward, a contained Iran or an attacked Iran in the name of prevention? And if it were easy somebody else would have figured it out, but it’s not. It’s a very tough question.