I often get very interesting emails from my readers and friends. This morning, I got this from ‘G’ (emphasis in red added):

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24246275/

I just cannot believe how outrageous statements like these go unquestioned. Instead of being questioned regarding her sanity–she is after all committing America’s nuclear forces to the defense of a country with which we have no treaty obligations to and is of absolutely no strategic importance in the defense of the US–she is allowed to go and make even more ridiculous assertions about how Iran acquiring nukes will destabilize the middle east as other countries might then want nukes and things will get crazy. Well, what about Israel’s nukes? They are what? A “stabilizing” influence? Are the others not supposed to want nukes? Why wouldn’t they want a deterrence against Israel’s nukes?

Why doesn’t anyone question her assertions and the premise that Israel is somehow important to the US?

Commentary: This is baffling indeed. ‘Mind-boggling’ is an even better description. See, when a country is willing to use nuclear weapons against another country this *by definition* means that is is willing to take the risk, however small, of being itself destroyed by a retaliatory nuclear strike. Now, it is rather clear that Iran does not have nukes at all, that it has no intention of ever getting them, that if it had them it would not use them against Israel (or any other country) since they would clearly be only useful as a deterrent, and that if the USA was to nuke Iran the latter would not have the delivery systems to retaliate against the US. Would that mean that the USA would be safe?

No.

Again *by definition* using nuclear weapons against a country with nukes necessarily implies that the targeted country will do anything to defend itself or to retaliate. This could include the Iranians using a re-flagged cargo ship or a civilian airliner to bring a nuke inside the USA. They could even have a nuclear device in their UN mission in New York. However unlikely any of that would be, this is a risk which a President ordering the nuking of Iran would have to consider before giving the go ahead. And that clearly shows one thing: Hillary is willing to risk literally *anything* for Israel. She even wants *NATO* to join in the nuclear war. Why would that be?

The reason is painfully simple: this is what the Israel Lobby demands before allowing somebody to become President and that, in turns, proves that the Israel Lobby will only allow a traitor to the USA (somebody who puts the interests of Israel above the interests of his/her own country) to get into the White House.

The USA has allowed itself to become hijacked by a foreign power which cares very little about American national interests; all it wants is the use the USA for its own national interests (however mistakenly identified). The crazies in power in Israel will defend their interests to the last drop of American blood and the entire political elite in Washington has signed off on this.