HILLARY CLINTON'S statement about "obliterating" Iran that the Globe finds so objectionable did not come out of the blue, although a casual reader might think so from the way the editorial took it out of context. Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has made plain his desire to wipe Israel off the map. On the day of the Pennsylvania primary, Chris Cuomo of ABC News asked Clinton what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons, and she gave a clear, pointed answer.
Days earlier during the ABC News-sponsored debate in Philadelphia, Barack Obama was asked a similarly direct question: "Should it be US policy now to treat an Iranian attack on Israel as if it were an attack on the United States?" His response was halting and tepid: "I think it is very important that Iran understands that an attack on Israel is an attack on our strongest ally in the region, one that we - one whose security we consider paramount, and that - that would be an act of aggression that we - that I would - that I would consider an attack that is unacceptable, and the United States would take appropriate action."
What would be an appropriate response to Iran's unprovoked first-strike nuclear obliteration of Haifa or Tel Aviv? Does Obama, or the Globe, believe that it is necessary to convince the Iranian regime that we are prepared to take military action against them in the defense of Israel should Iran ever launch such an attack? If so, how?
ROGER BRUCE FEINMAN
Briarwood, N.Y.
