One Middle East but two very different views on the way to deal with its problems, one from an ex-President and one from a Presidential pretender.
Jimmy Carter flew out to the area to sit down with the main players and actively seeks bringing peace to the region while Hillary is pledging to obliterate a large part of it.
Ex-President Carter has been given a rough ride for his trip to the Middle East where he has met with Hamas leaders to try and broker some kind of peace in the conflict between Palestine and Israel that has dragged on for over 40 years. As the only other alternative is a continuation of the killing, i cannot give the man enough credit for trying and shake my head in confusion at anyone who attacks him for it.
While Carter was speaking of being encouraged by his talks with Hamas leaders, crass and idiotic statements like those that issued from Hillary Clinton today just make us realise how important this upcoming US election is for all of us.
When asked in an interview with ABC News what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons Clinton responded "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran. In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."
Am i the only one that finds her words chilling and very disturbing?
Despite no evidence whatsoever that Iran has any intention of attacking Israel or possesses nuclear weapons, a potential President of a nuclear power threatens to obliterate an entire nation and it 70 million inhabitants.
I realise that this is meant for home consumption but does she really think that considering the current debacle in the Middle East by the current President, she will gather votes from the Democratic voters with more of the same hyperbole?
What if Israel attacks Iran first and Iran retaliates? Israeli government ministers have already threatened a pre-emptive attack on Iran and Israel have an excellent previous record of attacking its neighbours pre-emptively. Would Clinton then be bound by her words to retaliate massively against Iran though Israel was the aggressor? How more of a green light would they need to stoke it up?
During a debate last week Obama was asked about Iran's nuclear ambitions and his plans for dealing with them.
His reply was "I have said I will do whatever is required to prevent the Iranians from obtaining nuclear weapons. I believe that that includes direct talks with the Iranians where we are laying out very clearly for them, here are the issues that we find unacceptable. I believe that we can offer them carrots and sticks, but we've got to directly engage and make absolutely clear to them what our posture is."
It is clear to me which one should be kept as far away as possible from red phones in the Oval Office no matter what time of the day or night it was.