Now it's Hillary who can't find the WMD

During an interview yesterday with Keith Olbermann, Hillary Clinton provided this analysis of why it would be dangerous for Iran to develop a nuclear weapons capability:

. . . if Iran were to become a nuclear power it could set off an arms race that would be incredibly dangerous and destabilizing because the countries in the region are not going to want Iran to be the only nuclear power so I could imagine that they would be rushing to obtain nuclear weapons themselves.  [Transcript at MSNBC]

This is not only wrong, it's a deliberate lie.

Iran would not, of course, be the only nuclear power in the region.  Although Israel has never acknowledged possessing nuclear weapons and maintains a policy of strategic ambiguity, there is no doubt within the US government nor other nations that Israel does indeed have a substantial nuclear arsenal -- perhaps 200 to 300 warheads.

Now, Israel's strategy of strategic ambiguity may make some kind of sense, who knows?  If you're going to muck about in the geopolitics of nuclear deterrence, certain things might make sense.  It's a strange world.

For the most part, US political leaders have echoed Israel's ambiguous position.  They shouldn't.

We're in the middle of a presidential election, potentially the most powerful expression of one of our basic rights -- voting. 

A possible attack on Iran keeps popping up as a policy issue.  The candidates, Congress, and we the people need to discuss this possibility of another war.  For that conversation to happen honestly, a candidate for president should be utterly honest with the American people about the true nature of the situation in the region.

Pretending that Israel does not have nuclear weapons is not strategic ambiguity. It's a lie.