Hillary Clinton is trying to impress voters that she’s a true friend of Israel, which is odd given that relations with the Jewish state reached a low point while she was secretary of State. The Post reports: “Hillary Rodham Clinton cast doubt on the interim nuclear agreement with Iran, saying in a muscular policy speech [in New York] Wednesday night that she is ‘personally skeptical’ that Iran’s leaders will follow through on a comprehensive agreement to end their march toward nuclear weapons. Still, the former secretary of state and potential 2016 Democratic presidential candidate told a pro-Israel audience in New York that she stands behind the Obama administration’s negotiations with Iran, and she commended the work of her successor, John F. Kerry.”

NEW YORK, NY - MARCH 07: Former United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton attends the event "Equality for Women is Progress for All" at the United Nations on March 7, 2014 in New York City. The event was part of the United Nations International Women's Day, which is celebrated tomorrow, March 8. (Photo by Andrew Burton/Getty Images)
Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton attends the event “Equality for Women is Progress for All” at the United Nations. (Photo by Andrew Burton/Getty Images)

Hmm. That raises a bunch of questions.

If she is personally skeptical of a negotiated deal with Iran, sought to slow down sanctions when in office and now opposes new sanctions, how does she propose to get a deal?

If she was skeptical that this entire approach would work, what was her back up plan?

Does she agree with the president that Iran can be a threshold nuclear state so long as it doesn’t possess a nuclear weapon?

Does she think President Obama’s New Year’s greeting to Iran praising its presidential election, as if it were free and fair, and ignoring its atrocious human rights record was something she’d deliver?

Why do Israel, Iran, our Gulf allies and Congress not think Obama would use military force? How did we lose credibility on that?

Was it a masterstroke to let Syrian President Bashar al-Assad stay in power, give up only a fraction of his WMD’s and continue to slaughter innocents? Does she think the president’s Syria policy was a success? Has it made Hezbollah stronger?

Was it a mistake to stiff arm the Green Revolutionary dissidents? Did she place too high a premium on useless engagement with Iran?

If she was such a good friend to Israel why did she continually berate the Jewish state for building in its capital while ignoring the exchange of letters between Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and President George W. Bush setting out the parameters of acceptable building?

Did our renewed participation in the United Nations Human Rights Council achieve anything?

Why did she ambush the Israeli prime minister with the “1967 borders” announcement?

What did she do for the oppressed women of Gaza and the West Bank who suffer grave discrimination and are subject to honor killings?

Is the president right that Mahmoud Abbas is a man of peace? Is there anything to talk about so long as the Palestinian Authority won’t give up the right of return? Why then does the president keep publically haranguing Israel?

What was her policy on the Arab Spring? Did she have one? What did she do to further women’s rights in these countries?

Was it foolish to send then-Senator John Kerry to sweet talk Assad? Did she actually think Assad could have been helpful in the peace process?

If and when she ever agrees to let the press ask questions there is a lot there to explore. And if she in fact runs for president, the GOP had better have a nominee who knows enough to take her on and show just how fraudulent is her reputation as a great friend of Israel.

Jennifer Rubin writes the Right Turn blog for The Post, offering reported opinion from a conservative perspective.