Hillary Clinton issued a written statement last week praising the Iran framework as a step in the process of reaching a final deal but was purposefully noncommittal on the details. There are a host of questions that the media and voters should demand she answer:

Is the relationship between Israel and the United States better or worse than it was when President Obama entered office? Why? How would you be any different with regard to U.S. policy toward Israel?
Since Israel has previously pulled back from territory, frozen settlements and extended the freeze, how can you say settlements are an impediment to peace?
Why did you not recognize the agreement between President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon regarding settlement building? Wouldn’t that have avoided a major confrontation between the two countries?
A high percentage of Israelis don’t trust Obama. Why should they trust you?
Would you have agreed to let Iran keep thousands of centrifuges and keep Fordow? Would you have insisted on go-anywhere/anytime inspections? Would you have excluded Iran’s intercontinental ballistic missile program from talks? Would you have allowed the United Nations Security Council to be the arbiter of claims of Iranian violations?
How did we allow Iran to seize substantial influence in Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and Iraq while engaging in nuclear talks? Doesn’t that signal the administration’s acquiescence to Iran’s hegemonic conduct?
How did Iran get to be two to three months from breakout on the Obama administration’s watch?
When the president said the only alternative to this deal is war, do you agree? Isn’t a better deal obtainable with more pressure?
Israel wants a deal that requires Fordow to be closed, enriched material to be shipped out, go-anywhere inspections and an end to advanced centrifuge research. Weren’t these also our positions? Why did we give in?
The president says he will stand by Israel if anyone “messes” with it. How does a threat not to veto one-sided resolutions at the U.N. aimed at Israel square with that? How does that square with condemning Israel for civilian casualties when forced to defend itself against Hamas rockets?

Hillary Clinton can’t have it both ways. She can either side with the president and defend their joint record or she can repudiate it and pledge to do better. Politically she seems fearful to do the latter, and she therefore must be held fully accountable for her decisions and support of the president. Former deputy national security adviser Elliott Abrams does a fine job dissecting the president’s empty promises to Israel, but it is equally applicable to her. When we add Clinton’s name in brackets, it reveals just how lacking in pro-Israel bona fides she really is:

[T]he deeper problem is that the reassurances the President [and Clinton] offering to Israel … are simply not reassuring. Iran is already, right now, while under sanctions that are badly hurting its economy, spending vast amounts of money and effort to “mess with Israel.” This administration’s reaction has been to seek a nuclear deal that will give Iran more economic resources to dedicate to its hatred and violence against Israel, but will in no way whatsoever limit Iran’s conventional weapons and its support for terrorism. . . . The words he [and Clinton have] used are sufficiently vague to undermine their value as well. It is hard to believe that many Israelis will be reassured . . . especially not if they read the Iranian press and see what, in their own interviews, Iranian officials are claiming they got out of the new nuclear agreement.

To be blunt, Clinton has had multiple opportunities as secretary of state and since leaving office to object to the president’s treatment of Israel, to accurately point the finger at the Palestinians for refusing to engage in good-faith talks, to criticize a blatantly horrible “framework,” to disagree with serial concessions and to advocate a tougher stance against Iran. She never did so. Who honestly thinks she’d be any different from Obama if she got into office?

AD
AD