While not necessarily speaking softly, Hilary is certainly showing that she’s not scared to wield the weapons of words with Iran.
“In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them,” she said. “That’s a terrible thing to say but those people who run Iran need to understand that because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic.”
While the war of deterrence worked during the Cold War, it was only because the Soviet Union was doomed to failure of its own accord, and deterrence merely gave the world time for the collapse to occur.
That aside, a policy of deterrence may work in this case. There are several comparisons out there that show the similarities between the Bush Administration’s treatment of Iran and the Johnson treatment of China. Both regimes were/are seen as “rogue states” with leaders that make slightly outlandish claims regarding their policy towards conflict with the United States and its allies.
If history holds true, if/when Iran acquires nuclear capability, they will become an international player (which is the main goal), and assure their own security (which is essential for a country that is surrounded by US forces in the region, and squarely on the administration’s hit-list).
Regardless of the existing rhetoric, it doesn’t hold that Iran, despite assistance to Hamas and Hezbollah, would actually give nuclear weapons to these groups. Their leadership, like all other nuclear powers, knows that the weapons would be traced back to them, and therefore they risk national suicide by giving their mega-super soaker to the neighborhood bullies.
I’m not saying the world needs another nuclear arms race, but deterrence is an interesting path to walk..