Taking Offense

Fresh from her latest, insufficient explanation regarding the classified information that was sent through her private system, Hillary Clinton desperately tried to change the subject this morning.

Hoping to avoid more talk about her little security breach, Mrs. Clinton shifted gears and announced she was "offended" by GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee's comments on the recently-concluded Iran nuclear deal.  In an interview with Brietbart Radio over the weekend, the former Arkansas governor said the agreement with Tehran "leads Israel to the door of the oven," an obvious reference to the Holocaust.

In response, the former Secretary of State offered the usual, predictable blather:

“Comments like these are offensive and they have no place in our political dialogue. I am disappointed and I’m really offended personally. I know Governor Huckabee. I have a cordial relationship with him. He served as the Governor of Arkansas. But I find this kind of inflammatory rhetoric totally unacceptable.”

The MSM was in high dungeon as well.  One host on MSNBC said Huckabee was "finished" after his remarks.  

But what is more offensive?  Mr. Huckabee's analogy (which might have been cast in a slightly more tasteful light), or the government of the United States entering into a nuclear weapons agreement with a country that has continuously vowed to wipe Israel off the map.  The Huckabee campaign quickly offered quotes from Iranian leaders--and their proxies--which prove that point:

“We have manufactured missiles that allow us…to replace Israel…with a big holocaust,” stated Mohammad Hassan Rahimian, an Iranian Martyr Foundation Representative.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has said: “It is the mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to erase Israel from the map of the region.”

Also, Hassan Hasrallah, Hezbollah leader, said, “If they [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.”

Fact is, Mr. Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry are urging the Senate to approve the worst agreement since Neville Chamberlain flew to Munich in 1938.  At best, it keeps Iran on the precipice of obtaining nuclear weapons.  At worst, Tehran may already have the bomb, developed through a covert program that has gone undetected by western intelligence.  And, given the proposed inspection regimen (three weeks notice for most visits; military sites are off-limits, and Iran will provide soil samples from one of its most important facilities), the odds of uncovering illegal activity are decidedly slim.  

Beyond that, there's the $150 billion windfall Iran will get, thanks to economic sanctions relief.  You don't need to be an intelligence analyst to know that some of that money will wind up with Hizballah and other terror groups sponsored by Iran, posing a direct threat to the security of Israel.  

Tehran will pour more money into its ballistic missile program as well.  While Iran already has several missiles capable of reaching targets in Israel (including the Shahab-3 and BM-24), they need to improve their accuracy and modify those systems to carry a nuclear warhead.  Tehran will also fund efforts to develop a crude ICBM that can hit targets in the United States.  American intelligence agencies believe Iran is on the verge of testing a long-range missile, with operational deployment two or three years after that.  

While such weapons cannot match U.S. or Russian ballistic missiles, a nuclear-tipped Shahab-3 or BM-23 could unleash a modern holocaust on Israel.  There are a number of on-line simulators which depict the effect of a nuclear blast on a selected target; utilizing the tools at nuclearsecrecy.com, we simulated the results of a first-generation Iranian warhead, with a yield of 10kt, detonated over Tel Aviv.  If the link doesn't work, you can input the data and run your own simulation.  We chose 10kt because it is believed Iran's first missile warheads would be relatively low-yield weapons, unlike the more advanced devices in the American and Russian arsenals, which have yields ranging from 50kt to more than one megaton.  

The results would be horrifying.  An airburst centered in a triangle between the Rokach Interchange, the HaShalom Interchange and the marina would kill between 75,000-92,000 people, and injure almost 200,000 more.  That total would include Jews, Arabs, Christians and anyone else near ground zero on that terrible day.  Almost 300,000 victims dead or maimed in a single, horrifying flash.  By any definition, that would be a holocaust.  

And the threat will only grow.  Thanks in part to sanctions relief--and the fatally-flawed nuclear deal--Iran will field new generations of more powerful warheads and more accurate missiles.  At some point, they will have enough nuclear-tipped, medium and long-range missiles to saturate Israeli defenses.  If one airburst over Tel Aviv could create such carnage, imagine the impact of multiple warheads, targeting all of Israel's major population centers.  

Someone might ask Mrs. Clinton which is more offensive: Governor Huckabee's comments, or an agreement (forged by her former boss and her successor) which brings Israel to the verge of a new holocaust.  Not that we're expecting an honest answer.