Why Clinton's nuclear gambit will backfire

Last night on Countdown and this morning on Good Morning America, Clinton took the extra-ordinary measure of insisting on her willingness to "obliterate Iran" if Iran was ever to attack Israel with nuclear weapons and to provide a nuclear umbrella to other Middle Eastern countries.

Promising an ally our intention to retaliate against a nuclear attack is not  really anything new.  On its face Charlie Gibson's question was a ludicrous future scenario that is unlikely to be a real decision the next President will have to make.  Many intelligence experts recognize that Iran is probably 5 to 10 years away from nuclear weapons in the best of circumstances.

It is apparent, however, that Clinton feels the need to express how strong she will be as a leader to capture conservative democratic and independent voters to ensure her victory in Pennsylvania today.  This effort could backfire.  Though it might be a smart gambit in the general election, the voters in a Democratic primary do not enthusiastically embrace such statements of Bravado.

In December 2006, WorldPublicOpinion.org did a bi-national study of American and Iranian attitudes.  In the study, they covered such topics as Iran's nuclear fuel program, nuclear weapons, terrorism and each country's assessment of world and regional leaders in the Middle East.

One finding that leaped out at me was a question asked only of Americans:

How do you think the US should deal with the government of Iran?

A) Try to build better relations or
B) Pressuring it with implied threats that the US may use military force against it.

Clinton's Bravado answer was more equivalent to "pressuring Iran with implied threats".  Granted it was a hypothetical question, and Hillary's answer was consistent with America's stated foreign policy in regards to our commitments to our allies.  However, unlike Obama, Clinton did not even entertain the prospect of preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons first.  Instead, she embraced a position laced with implied threats.

We all know that many Republicans will embrace the frame of implied threats, but what about the rest of the country?

Interestingly, no one in this country really embraces the necessity of implied threats.  Remember, Reagan was soundly rebuked for his glib joke about attacking the Soviet Union.  Though Regan was clearly joking, many Americans thought it sent the wrong message to Russia.

As for the above question, it might surprise many to know that 75% of Americans agree that the US should try to build better relations.  Only 22% of Americans think the US should pressure Iran with implied threats of military force.  Among those who favor building better relations, an amazing 56% of Republicans agreed as did, wait for it, 88% of Democrats and 80% of Independents.

Among those who like implied threats, a larger minority (40%) of Republicans agree, but only 11% of Democrats and 16% of Independents concur.  So, if this is aimed at shoring up her macho creds with Independents and Conservative Democrats, it probably failed.  Granted, I have no idea how this would play out in Pennsylvania, but it may not have been the wisest approach by Clinton.  In fact, it may will backfire.