Hillary Favors Aggressively Interventionist Foreign Policy
by Stephen Lendman
The first Bill and Hillary Clinton co-presidency included eight years of Balkan and other wars of aggression. Bush/Cheney exceeded their lawlessness.
Obama outdid the worst of both previous administrations – attacking seven countries, destabilizing others, orchestrating coups in Honduras, Paraguay and Brazil, threatening Venezuelan democracy, enforcing puppet rule in Haiti, continuing Plan Colombia aid, responsible for massacres, disappearances and torture of regime opponents, along with instituting increasingly anti-Sino/Russia policies, risking confrontation with both countries.
On October 27, the Wall Street Journal said 2016 electoral politics “scrambled traditional positions on foreign policy and international intervention, obliterating many of the usual partisan distinctions and presenting political challenges for whoever wins in November.”
Hillary will likely exceed the worst of Obama’s aggressiveness “on the international stage, according to her public statements and (what) top aides” say.
She’ll be more hardline on Russia, China and Iran, risking direct confrontation. Earlier she said “I think I’ve been very clear that my position is in favor of what I called smart power…that uses all the tools at our disposal, and military power always should be a last resort.”
Her views as first lady, US senator and secretary of state show how often she favors it aggressively, her rage for wars insatiable. As president and commander-in-chief, she’ll likely circumvent international and constitutional law like her predecessors, waging war on any nation she chooses.
Former acting CIA director Michael Morell, a likely Hillary administration appointee, urges a more muscular US geopolitical role, including new sanctions on Russia and Iran, earlier saying:
“Ships leave Iran on a regular basis carrying arms to the Houthis in Yemen. I would have no problem from a policy perspective of having the US Navy boarding their ships and if there are weapons on them to turn those ships around.”
This type aggressiveness would risk greater Middle East war than already, maybe involving Russia and China, challenging US interventionism – knowing their nations are next if it’s not stopped.
Earlier, Hillary’s top national security advisor Jake Sullivan said “(w)e need to be raising the costs to Iran for its destabilizing behavior, and we need to be raising the confidence of our Sunni partners.”
Last year’s nuclear deal failed to change overall US policy toward Iran – wanting pro-Western puppet governance replacing its sovereign independence.
Instead of cooperating with Iran in furthering regional peace and stability, a Hillary administration appears planning to challenge it confrontationally – perhaps with another war in mind, a far greater challenge than against other Middle East states, especially with Russia likely to intervene if asked.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at email@example.com.
His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.
Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.