LobeLog on Facebook   LobeLog on Facebook

Iran Doesn’t Have a Nuclear Weapons Program. Why Do Media Keep Saying It Does?

by Adam Johnson When it comes to Iran, do basic facts matter? Evidently not,...

Message no image

Published on December 14th, 2010 | by Eli Clifton


Clinton Endorses “Linkage” in Major Policy Address

It’s worth noting that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s Middle East policy address on Friday contained yet another explicit endorsement of the concept of ‘linkage‘ between resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the long-term strategic interests of the United States in the Middle East.

She said:

… Iran and its proxies are not the only threat to regional stability or to Israel’s long-term security. The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians and between Israel and Arab neighbors is a source of tension and an obstacle to prosperity and opportunity for all the people of the region. It denies the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people and it poses a threat to Israel’s future security. It is at odds also with the interests of the United States.

This notion tracks, nearly verbatim, with statements by diplomats from the UAE, Egypt, Jordan and Qatar, according to WikiLeaks cables. While this type of reasoning seems well grounded in facts, hawkish pundits, like Jennifer Rubin and David Frum; right wing think-tanks, like the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (see their Friday report); and Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu continue to deny the existence of ‘linkage.’

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

2 Responses to Clinton Endorses “Linkage” in Major Policy Address

Show Comments >

  1. avatar Jon Harrison says:

    Clinton’s words here reflect American interests; Rubin, Frum, et al reflect perceived Israeli interests. Between American and Israeli interests there is a great gap fixed, though whether Secy. Clinton realizes this is a matter of considerable doubt.

  2. avatar BiBiJon says:

    Eli, It’s time to tweek the definition of ‘linkage’

    With reference to Daniel Brumberg and Barry Blechman’s piece yesterday


    is it not more sensible to be ‘linking’ a US-Iran detente with a solution to the I/P problem, among a host of other regional issues.

    This is in contrast to the the way ‘linkage’ is misused to denote a scheduling conflict. The problem is being defined as: shall we do in Iran first, or should we do it in as the second item on the agenda. I guess the assuption on the left and right is that Iran, and other regional stake holders are potted plants just watching to see if and when the scheduling conflict is resolved.

About the Author


Eli Clifton reports on money in politics and US foreign policy. Eli previously reported for the American Independent News Network, ThinkProgress, and Inter Press Service.

Back to Top ↑
  • Named after veteran journalist Jim Lobe, LobeLog provides daily expert perspectives on US foreign policy toward the Middle East through investigative reports and analyses from Washington to Tehran and beyond. It became the first weblog to receive the Arthur Ross Award for Distinguished Reporting and Analysis of Foreign Affairs from the American Academy of Diplomacy in 2015.

  • Categories

  • Subscribe

    Enter your email address to subscribe to our site and receive notifications of new posts by email.

  • Popular Posts

  • Comments Policy

    We value your opinion and encourage you to comment on our postings. To ensure a safe environment we will not publish comments that involve ad hominem attacks, racist, sexist or otherwise discriminatory language, or anything that is written solely for the purpose of slandering a person or subject.

    Excessively long comments may not be published due to their length. All comments are moderated. LobeLog does not publish comments with links.

    Thanks for reading and we look forward to hearing from you!