Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton greets supporters during a voter registration event at Johnson C. Smith University on September 8, 2016 in Charlotte, North Carolina. (AFP)
Recent remarks by Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton about boosting the Israeli regime’s “qualitative military edge” could hit the Middle East and the rest of the world like a “thunder signaling that a huge storm is on its way.”
In an interview with Channel 2 News Israel aired on Thursday, Clinton spoke of expanding ties with the Israeli regime, adding that she would invite Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “shortly after being inaugurated” as the president of the United States following the November 8 election.
"What we need to do first and foremost (is) to be sure that (Israel’s) qualitative military edge is unmatched," said the former secretary of state, while making a case against her rival, GOP nominee Donald Trump.
According to Idaho-based political commentator, Mark Glenn, such statements bring “all sorts of alarm.”
“We don’t see the candidate for the Democratic ticket talking about maintaining good relations with Iceland, Italy, Ireland, Indonesia or any other nation; it’s really only Israel that receives this kind of attention,” he told Press TV in a phone interview on Saturday.
He further noted that the former secretary of state’s ties with Zionist organizations dates back to decades ago, predicting closer ties with Tel Aviv under her presidency.
Like candidates running in the previous presidential races, the Clinton and Trump campaigns are appealing to Israeli leaders to guarantee their presidency in the country’s pro-Israel political system.
In her remarks on the Israeli TV station, Clinton questioned Trump’s commitment to friendship with the regime, saying, “The best I can tell, his only experience is marching in the Fifth Avenue Israel Day parade.”
Madam President
Being the first woman president in US history is another detrimental factor used by the Clinton campaign in the run-up to the 2016 race, Glenn suggested.
“This is something that is being used in gaining a qualitative psychological edge,” he said.
“What we have here is a supremely ambitious woman, who literally would be willing to do anything that was demanded of her, in return for which she would be able to put that trophy on the mantle as the first woman president of the United States.”