How Democratic Presidential Candidates Would React to an Iranian General Attack: Hypocrisy and History

The debate over the potential actions of current Democratic presidential candidates in response to an Iranian general attack has sparked intense discussions both on and off the campaign trail. With the claim from the White House that they have substantial intelligence justifying the killing of Soleimani, the question remains: what information do we have and how would Democratic candidates have acted?

The White House's Claims and Doubts

The White House has stated that they have intelligence justifying the action taken against the Iranian general. However, this claim has raised significant questions and doubts. Historically, intelligence claims made by the current administration have often been questioned, particularly after the invasion of Iraq, where intelligence on weapons of mass destruction was found to be faulty. This leaves many skeptical about the veracity and reliability of the current intelligence claims.

Democratic Candidates and the Iran-Nuclear Agreement

One critical point of discussion is the stance of Democratic candidates on the Iran-Nuclear Agreement. Unlike the current administration, which has withdrawn from the agreement, none of the current Democratic candidates would have taken this action. They argue that maintaining the agreement is crucial for regional stability and preventing a nuclear-armed Iran. This difference in stance would have significantly impacted the approach to the Iranian general's actions and the potential consequences of such actions.

Previous Hypocritical Actions: The Case of Benghazi

The case of the Benghazi attack in 2012 serves as a stark example of how some Democratic candidates would handle similar situations. The incident, where the U.S. Embassy in Libya was attacked, resulting in the deaths of four Americans including the Ambassador, including one of Barack Obama's key foreign policy advisors, raised serious questions about the security and response measures taken by the administration.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, both members of the Democratic Party, were criticized for not only doing nothing to prevent the attack but also for ordering military forces to stand down.

This action and inaction during the Benghazi attack exemplifies the potential reaction of current Democratic candidates, who would likely react in a similar manner in the face of an Iranian general strike. The lack of decisive action would embolden both the enemy and adversaries, further complicating the situation and the ability to respond effectively.

Impact of Changing the President and Party

Changing the president and the party in power could have significant implications on international relations. While the exact nature of these changes is speculative, it is likely that relations with Iran would improve, as a Democratic administration would not push for regime change or military strikes against Iran as had been the case under the current regime.

Given Democratic views on diplomacy and non-military interventions, it is probable that an attack on an Iranian general by the current administration would not have occurred. Relations would be more stable, and the risk of conflict would be significantly reduced.

TDS on Steroids: Hypocrisy in Action

The consistent pattern of backing down in the face of national security threats, as seen with the Benghazi attack, raises questions about the reliability and moral consistency of Democratic candidates. The complaint here is not merely about a hypothetical scenario but about a history of inaction and a failure of leadership under Democratic administrations.

This criticism highlights a broader issue within the Democratic Party, one of past actions and current rhetoric. The claims of inaction during the Benghazi attack are often met with praise from fellow Democrats, highlighting a double standard and a lack of accountability for past actions.

Despite potential differences in rhetoric, the consistent approach to national security and regional stability under Democratic administrations suggests a pattern of timidity and a failure to take firm and decisive action.

The Case of Libya: A Warning from the Past

Barack Obama's admission that the failure to plan for the aftermath of the fall of Muammar Gaddafi was the worst mistake of his presidency serves as a cautionary tale. The lack of a clear post-conflict strategy and the subsequent chaos and instability in Libya serve as a warning of the risks of hasty interventions without a comprehensive plan.

The actions taken in Libya highlight the importance of a well-thought-out strategy and the risks of overpromising and under-delivering in the pursuit of regime change.

While some argue that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama may have acted responsibly in the face of the Benghazi attack, the history of their administrations' handling of foreign policy issues, like the situation in Libya, suggests a different story. The inconsistency in their actions raises questions about their leadership and the potential actions they might take in a similar scenario.

Conclusion

The debate over how current Democratic presidential candidates would react to an Iranian general attack is not merely a hypothetical exercise. It reflects a deeper issue of leadership, accountability, and the inconsistencies in a party's policies and actions. The historical context of the Benghazi attack and the cautionary tale of Libya underscore the need for clear, decisive, and responsible leadership in the face of national security threats. The potential actions of future Democratic leaders will be closely watched, and their decisions will have far-reaching consequences for both domestic and international affairs.