Let’s say for argument sake that we take her at her word. Hillary Clinton wants strong sanctions. So what? First, she may not have the full support of the administration. Especially given President Obama made nicey-nice with a message to Iran for their New Year’s celebration just a few short days ago.
Then there is the “small” problem that China and Russia, both countries that have veto power over any UN Security Council resolutions, have no interest in further sanctions against Tehran. Not to mention Clinton’s failed effort to enlist Brazil, which currently holds a seat on the Council, to support further sanctions.
So even if the United States manages to get the Security Council to pass some kind of new sanctions resolution, it is unlikely to get a unanimous vote and it may even face a veto.
And then, sanctions have failed to deter Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons until now, so why would a new round make any difference? Tehran just ignores UN resolutions they don’t like so why would sanctions that will inevitably get watered down in order to get the broadest base for support, make any difference to the Mullahs nuclear ambitions?
But here’s another concern, just as Iran is pursuing these arms of massive destruction, so is the United States trying to ignore its responsibilities as a responsible nuclear power. We are allowing our arsenal to get old and useless and President Obama is doing what he can to get us to a nuclear stockpile of ‘zero.’
So the President doesn’t want us to have any nukes, he’s doing nothing to stop the Iranian from getting theirs and the international community does not even agree that Iranian nukes is such a bad idea. Hillary Clinton may speak forcefully at AIPAC today about the threat of a nuclear Iran, but so what?