This is coolbert:
Back to the subject of diplomatic gaffes. Loose, inadvertent, perhaps even intemperate "wording", mis-perceived in certain quarters, the result being - - WAR!!
"Hillary Clinton's loose talk on Iran"
"Her idea of a US ‘defense umbrella’ against Iranian nukes may only trigger war."
"Last week, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton suggested the US may extend a 'defense umbrella' over friendly nations in the Middle East 'once' Iran has a nuclear weapon.'"
"Oops. She didn't really mean it exactly that way, her aides said. But the comment nonetheless suggests President Obama may be ready to accept a nuclear-armed Iran."
Again, it is not so much the reality that counts but the perception of reality that counts. Israeli policy makers can reasonably infer that U.S. diplomats have decided that in the eventuality that Iran DOES acquire nuclear weapons, an "acceptance" can be tolerated, contingencies having already been explored and decided upon!?
"Israel isn't ready to accept an Iran with nuclear capability,"
A message is being sent here that is inadvertent - - but nonetheless being sent and received - - that will persuade the Israeli that the U.S. is not so resolute as is claimed regarding the acquisition by Iran of atomic weaponry?
Israel will feel compelled to act - - sooner than later - - to take various "measures" and "steps" - - preventing the Iranian from bringing to fruition their nuclear weapons program? A lack of "perceived" American resolve will ONLY hasten a greater degree of resolve on the part of the Israeli? This "resolve" will have as a consequence - - WAR!
"She didn't really mean it exactly that way". NO, she probably really did mean it that way. Merely stating what is undeclared policy that has been decided upon?
"One loose lip can sink a ship" - - OR start a war?