It is possible that Iran is developing the technology which could, one day, allow it to deploy nuclear weapons, writes Tony Kinsella
IF EASTER came unseasonably early this year, April Fool's day was running 21 days late. Something disturbed election candidates on both sides of the Atlantic, causing them to rush in where fools normally fear to tread.
Senator Hilary Clinton used an appearance on ABC's Good Morning America on April 22nd to brighten up viewers' days with talk of nuclear Armageddon. She warned Iranians that if they "foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would . . . totally obliterate them".
This insight into Clinton's morning character was as chilling as it was inexplicable. She and Senator Obama were locked in battle in Pennsylvania - hardly the US Jewish heartland. It is possible that Iran is developing the technology which could, one day, allow it to deploy nuclear weapons but most observers see that unhappy day as being some time in the future.
Senator Clinton was, hopefully and awkwardly, seeking to emphasise how tough and experienced she is. Her twin assertions that the US has a significant nuclear arsenal and views Israel as a close ally added nothing to our geopolitical understanding.
She actually echoed two other world leaders, Iran's Mahmoud Ahmandiejad and former French president Jacques Chirac. President Ahmadinejad threatened in 2005 that "Israel would be wiped off the map". Fighting words indeed from a man the Ayatollahs would never let near the button should Iran ever achieve the worrying distinction of joining the nuclear club.
In January 2007 Chirac had observed that "Having one or perhaps a second bomb a little later, well, that's not very dangerous. But what is very dangerous is proliferation. Where will it drop it, this bomb? On Israel? It would not have gone 200 meters into the atmosphere before Tehran would be razed."
Chirac was universally criticised, not least from Washington, for pointing out the uncomfortable truth - nuclear weapons are deadly but unusable.
Every nation that has decided to equip itself with these expensive monstrosities, has had to, instantly, learn the rules of deterrence. More than likely Senator Clinton was not trying to identify herself with Messrs Ahmandiejad and Chirac in the minds of Pennsylvanian voters. It was a risk the US media saved her from, as her remarks were far more prominently covered on our side of the Atlantic. A similar risky rush for fame affected two French politicians trying to outmanoeuvre each other for the 2012 Socialist presidential nomination.
China's repression of Tibetan protest offered Ségolène Royal, last year's loser, an opportunity to demonstrate her international acumen and embarrass President Sarkozy. An opportunity she found just too good to miss. On April 21st Royal called for France to threaten a total boycott of the Beijing Olympic Games.
This considerably raised the stakes in a debate hitherto focused on France's participation in the opening ceremonies, and launched a demand the Dalai Lama himself has gone to great pains to squash.
Royal's 2008 campaign suffered from both her occasional belief in her own infallibility and her unwillingness to admit mistakes.
One of the gaffes that helped her to lose was when she favourably compared Chinese commercial courts with their French counterparts.
Bertrand Delanoë, Mayor of Paris and Socialist arch-rival, was not going to be outdone. The Paris city council made the Dalai Lama a citoyen d'honneur on April 21st. Delanoë's defenders were quick to point out that the mayor and the Dalai Lama had met back in 2003 and that Delanoë had a great respect for Tibet's spiritual leader.
More cynical minds saw a sharp move to outclass Royal while neatly dropping blame for the chaos of the Olympic torch's Paris passage on the French president's doorstep.
Damaging two political rivals with one resolution can be seen as a neat campaigning trick. Undermining attempts to persuade Beijing to open a peaceful dialogue with Tibetan representatives does not, however, enhance the stature of a would-be president.
As April madness and irresponsibility was striking candidates, statesmanship was being practiced by former US president and Nobel peace laureate Jimmy Carter.
Despite hostility, even obstruction, from Jerusalem and Washington, President Carter rolled up his sleeves and brokered the outlines of a peace deal with the Middle East's untouchables. He met the elected Hamas Gaza administration in Egypt before travelling on to Damascus to meet the movement's exiled leadership. In Damascus he also met Syrian President Bashar al Assad.
Hamas, demonstrating the angels-on-heads-of-pins posturing that such movements are obliged to perform as they metamorphose from terrorists to elected leaders, maintained its refusal to recognise Israel. It did agree to be bound by any negotiated settlement with the state-it-refuses-to-recognise provided the Palestinian people approve it by referendum.
Israel is talking to Hamas by means of quiet negotiations via Egypt. The Syrian-Israeli dialogue is being assured by the Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Erdogan. All parties are bashful about admitting these contacts, yet none deny them. President Carter's courage helps make them respectable.
Election candidates need the courage to affirm their beliefs, and the dedication to explain and defend their vision of solutions to major problems. The temptation of headline grabbing populism is a trial of passage all candidates need to undergo - with graduation being conditional on their ability to resist.
Opinion polls show that a clear majority of US voters favourably disposed to Israel want Washington to facilitate negotiations with Israel's enemies, including Teheran.
French public opinion is undoubtedly sympathetic to the plight of Tibetans, but a country with a grandstanding president has no need, and little use for, grandstanding challengers. Obliterate, boycott, shun, exclude, are not terms of governance and leadership, something candidates and voters would do well to remember.