Verbatim Mac

Elections DA

1NC

Clinton holds a narrow lead against Trump but it’s close

Salvanto, 6/26 – (Anthony Salvanto, CBS News head elections leader and director, “Poll: Donald Trump, Hilary Clinton in tight races in battleground states,” CBS News, 6/26/16, “http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-poll-florida-north-carolina-wisconsin-colorado-battleground-states/, accessed 7/15/16, AG)

Battleground states are called battlegrounds for a reason: They're often close, and 2016 looks like no exception. Hillary Clinton holds narrow leads over Donald Trump across a number of key states of Florida (up three points, 44 to 41 percent); Colorado (Clinton 40 percent, Trump 39 percent); Wisconsin (Clinton up 41 percent to 36 percent) and North Carolina, which have flipped back and forth between the parties in the last two elections, where it's Clinton 44 percent and Trump 42 percent. In the wake of the Brexit referendum in the United Kingdom this week, many wondered if the same sentiments that drove voters to leave the UK, such as voter unease about the economic and cultural effects of globalization, were at work in the U.S. presidential election, too. Similar sentiments underpin Donald Trump's general election vote, though there is not yet enough for him to surpass Clinton. Trump is also competitive in large part because of partisanship, as rank-and file Republicans continue to get behind him, even as Republican leaders have been more lukewarm toward the way Trump is running his campaign. About one-third of voters in these states feel the U.S. has done too much in trying to become part of the global economy; too much to make changes to its culture and values, and encouraged too much diversity of people from different backgrounds. Those sentiments are especially pronounced among Republicans and conservatives in these battleground states, majorities of whom feel that way. And those voters are overwhelmingly supporting Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton. Partisanship is driving much of these horse races too. Despite the hard-fought primary contests on both sides, Democrats in these states are now lining up behind Hillary Clinton and Republicans behind Trump--each garnering around eight in ten from their respective camps. And much of the vote appears locked in already: the bulk of those not voting for Clinton say they will not consider her, and the bulk of those not voting for Trump say they will not consider him. In Florida, sizable numbers of voters are voting in opposition to a candidate they don't like: Forty-eight percent of Trump's voters are backing him mainly to oppose Hillary Clinton, and 32 percent of Clinton's voters are with Clinton in order to oppose Trump. That opposition effect works for both candidates, but voters say each party may have lost opportunities. Fifty percent of those not backing Clinton say they might have considered a Democrat this year had the party not been selecting Clinton as its nominee, and 47 percent of those not for Trump say they might have considered a Republican, but won't support Trump. Voters see many themes in this election, though partisans have very different views on which of them are the most important. Most feel the election is a lot about the safety and security of the country (in Florida, 74 percent say so, as do 70 percent in North Carolina) and most say it's also about what it means to be an American (59 percent say so in Florida) and about whether or not the economy works fairly (53 percent say so in Wisconsin, for example.) Trump voters and Republicans are more apt to say it's about what it means to be American, and also about changing Washington. Clinton voters in these states are less likely to say it's about changing Washington, and more apt to say this race is about making the economy work, and about security the rights of people who deserve them. While some Republican leaders are at best lukewarm about how Trump is running his campaign, rank-and-file Republicans in these states are largely okay with it, and many don't care whether or not Trump listens to party leaders. This was an anti-establishment sentiment we saw repeatedly through the primary season, too. However for the larger electorate, and especially among independents, this campaign is leaving them a bit distant. Independents say that the Democrats nominating Clinton hasn't made them think better of the Democratic party, and that the Republicans nominating Trump hasn't made them think better of the Republicans.

Trump’s economic populism appeals to voters in swing states—Democratic weakness on trade and China could swing the election

Scheiber, 16 – senior editor at The New Republic, writing about politics and Obama administration economic policy (Noam, 1/29. “Unions Lean Democratic, but Donald Trump Gets Members’ Attention.” http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/30/business/donald-trump-unions.html)

WASHINGTON — Of all the voters who might be expected to resist the charms of Donald J. Trump, the two million members of the Service Employees International Union would most likely be near the top of the list. The union, which endorsed Hillary Clinton in November, is widely regarded as one of the more progressive in the labor movement. It skews female and racially diverse — roughly the opposite of a Trump rally, in other words. But the union’s president, Mary Kay Henry, acknowledged that Mr. Trump holds appeal even for some of her members. “There is deep economic anxiety among our members and the people we’re trying to organize that I believe Donald Trump’s message is tapping into,” Ms. Henry said. In expressing her concern, Ms. Henry reflected a different form of anxiety that is weighing on some union leaders and Democratic operatives: their fear that Mr. Trump, if not effectively countered, may draw an unusually large number of union voters in a possible general election matchup. This could, in turn, bolster Republicans in swing states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, all of which President Obama won twice. The source of the attraction to Mr. Trump, say union members and leaders, is manifold: the candidate’s unapologetically populist positions on certain economic issues, particularly trade; a frustration with the impotence of conventional politicians; and above all, a sense that he rejects the norms of Washington discourse. “They feel he’s the one guy who’s saying what’s on people’s minds,” Thomas Hanify, the president of the Indiana state firefighters union, said of his rank and file. Mr. Hanify said that Mr. Trump has so far dominated the “firehouse chatter” in his state. While he allowed that his members tilt Republican, he estimated that most followed the lead of the union’s international leadership and supported Mr. Obama in 2008 and 2012. Ms. Henry and other labor leaders remain confident that they can keep their members in the fold by making a case that the Republicans’ economic agenda, including Mr. Trump’s, runs counter to the interests of working people. But they also see Mr. Trump as posing particular risks. “Anyone who talks about dividing people in the country as a solution is a threat to the country, to democracy, the economy, and to working people, and we take every one of those seriously,” said Richard L. Trumka, the president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O. The potential pairing of Mr. Trump and union members could be helped along by a sense that Mr. Trump, unlike more conventional Republicans, has historically enjoyed a cordial relationship with labor on many of his real estate projects. “He has put his fair share into hiring union people,” said Richard Sabato, the president of a building and construction trades council in northern New Jersey. “He’s done that in Manhattan, in New Jersey.” But that is not always the case. The owners of Trump International Hotel Las Vegas filed objections to a recent vote by roughly 500 of its workers to unionize, and the National Labor Relations Board has found merit to the claims that the hotel violated workers’ labor rights. (The Trump campaign did not respond to requests for comment.) Mr. Sabato said that his members, who lean Republican but in many cases voted for Mr. Obama, would “march behind” Mr. Trump on the issue of illegal immigration. Even more important for many union members has been the issue of economic globalization. Mr. Trump has railed against the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the 12-country trade deal the administration finished negotiating last year. And he has bemoaned the administration’s failure to stand up to what he and many union members see as China’s mercantilist policies. He has also fulminated against plans by the company that owns Nabisco to shift some production to Mexico — “I love Oreos,” he said, “I will never eat them again” — and vowed to impose a punishing tariff on imports of Ford cars unless the company canceled a $2.5 billion investment in plants in that country. “We like that he does not support TPP, that he has taken the position that there should be trade tariffs for a company that moves jobs overseas,” said Ryan Leenders, 30, a member of the International Association of Machinists in Washington State. Mr. Leenders, who estimated that one-quarter to one-third of his factory’s union workers were Trump supporters, said he voted for Mr. Obama in 2008 and wrote in Ron Paul in 2012. Reflecting the anti-establishment mood that has engulfed parts of the labor movement, Mr. Leenders said he believed that more than half of his union’s workers support Senator Bernie Sanders, while very few support Mrs. Clinton, despite the fact that the machinists union endorsed her last summer. (A machinists spokesman said that, “At this point, any estimates of support for a candidate are more a passing snapshot of popularity.”) Many union officials are grappling with a similar dynamic, including the Teamsters, whose members have a “Teamsters for Trump” Facebook page, with more than 650 likes. John Bulgaro, the president of Teamsters Local 294 in Albany, said that Mr. Trump had generated excitement among his members, but that “a lot of people like Bernie Sanders.” He cautioned that they would need to hear more about Mr. Trump’s position on labor rights. To be sure, polling of union voters shows that Mrs. Clinton remains broadly popular and would carry most Sanders supporters in a matchup against Mr. Trump. But the same polling suggests that Mr. Trump could perform unusually well among these voters for a Republican nominee. Christopher M. Shelton, the president of the Communications Workers of America, which endorsed Mr. Sanders in December, said that while polling of his members showed Mr. Trump’s support lagging far behind support for Mr. Sanders and Mrs. Clinton, it was higher than Republican presidential candidates typically net. Despite Mr. Trump’s appeal, particularly among white working-class men, longtime labor officials and political operatives point out that Mr. Trump’s popularity before a single primary vote has been cast is a vastly different proposition than whether he would be able to retain that support in the fall. “In every election around this time there are stories suggesting that union members will defect — ‘Oh, white union men won’t vote for Obama,’” Steve Rosenthal, a former political director of the A.F.L.-C.I.O. and progressive political organizer, wrote in an email response to questions. In the end, Mr. Rosenthal said, union voters almost always end up voting overwhelmingly Democratic in presidential elections. White male union members favored Mr. Obama in 2008, and John Kerry in 2004, by roughly 20 percentage points, according to polling commissioned by the A.F.L.-C.I.O., even as white men over all favored the Republican candidate by a large margin. Mr. Rosenthal said that unions have proved adept at building support among their members for Democratic nominees who generally embrace their economic agenda and at undermining support for Republicans. In a recent study of working-class voters in Ohio and Pennsylvania based on over 1,500 interviews, Working America, a labor-affiliated group, found genuine support for Mr. Trump among Democrats. But Matt Morrison, the group’s deputy director, said that many Trump supporters were receptive to information that suggested a gap between the candidate’s words and deeds. “Just delivering a little bit of new information, we could see that his brand takes a hit,” Mr. Morrison said, referring to reports that Mr. Trump may have used undocumented workers on some of his development projects. Other experts cautioned that even if Mr. Trump were to retain substantial support among white male union members without college degrees, that would not necessarily yield him an electoral advantage in November if he became the Republican nominee. The voters whom labor unions must typically work the hardest to turn out, like younger voters and Latinos, “are groups that will be highly motivated” against Mr. Trump, said Guy Molyneux, a pollster who has surveyed union voters extensively over the years. Mr. Molyneux also said that many of the union voters attracted by Mr. Trump were among the 30 percent of union voters who already vote reliably Republican. Still, unlike most other Republicans, whose appeal to union voters rarely extends beyond cultural issues like gun rights, Mr. Trump’s economic pronouncements have a greater potential to scramble the standard political calculus. “I do think that Trump is a threat,” said Mike Lux, a progressive activist who is a former labor official and veteran of President Bill Clinton’s administration. “If the Democratic nominee is Hillary, and she’s mushy at all on the trade issue, Trump will take that issue and drive it and drive it and drive it.”

Increased China tech trade hurts US jobs and markets--causes public dislike for Obama administration and helps Trump

Josh Barro 2016 (1/16 Josh Barro is a domestic correspondent for The New York Times, where he writes for The Upshot, a Times politics and policy site. He writes mostly about economic issues, from fiscal policy and labor markets to rent control and ride-sharing; “So What Would It Mean to ‘Beat China’ on Trade?”; New York Times; http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/28/upshot/so-what-would-it-mean-to-beat-china-on-trade.html?_r=0)

A new working paper from the economists David Autor, David Dorn and Gordon Hanson argues that trade with China is having persistent, negative effects on parts of the American labor market. Research from the same authors, published in 2013, found that the American workers most exposed to Chinese trade have experienced material declines in wages, higher unemployment and an increased likelihood of receiving government benefits like disability payments. “The idea that trade competition with China has hurt various workers and communities is nothing new and extremely well known to people and voters in those communities,” said Jared Bernstein, an economist at the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. “Just because Donald Trump says it doesn’t mean it isn’t true.”

Approval of Obama’s administration key to Clinton’s chances

Stanage, 16 – contributor to The Hill (Niall, 5/29. “Clinton's ace in the hole: Obama.” http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/281575-hillary-clintons-ace-in-the-hole-obama)

Hillary Clinton will have a not-so-secret weapon in her quest for the White House: President Obama. Obama’s approval ratings have been marching upward since the start of the year. He retains immense popularity with the Democratic base, including vital groups such as young people, with whom Clinton has struggled. And experts also say that there is no one better positioned to unify the party behind the former secretary of State as her long and sometimes bitter struggle with primary rival Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) draws to a close. If Obama could run for a third-term, “he’d be reelected in a walk,” said New York-based Democratic strategist Jonathan Rosen. “He can play a huge role in bringing the Democratic base and independents, together to unite behind her candidacy.” That could be particularly important given evidence from the primary season that suggests Clinton has failed to thrill some parts of the Obama coalition, even while she has drawn strong support from other blocs. She has struggled mightily among younger voters, for example, even while beating Sanders by huge margins among African-American Democrats. The political relationship between Obama and Clinton is a long and knotty one. Distrust still festers among some of the aides who worked for each candidate during their titanic 2008 primary struggle. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton rallied support for Obama in the general election that year, even coming to the Democratic National Convention floor to move a motion for the then-Illinois senator to become the nominee. In 2012, former President Bill Clinton — whose role in the 2008 primary was contentious — gave a famously effective speech lauding Obama’s economic record. Before Hillary Clinton began her quest for the presidency this time around, she seemed to distance herself from the man whom she served as secretary of State. Back in August 2014, she critiqued a foreign-policy view synonymous with Obama saying, “Great nations need organizing principles and ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle.” That attitude carried through into the early months of the campaign. Last fall, according to NPR, she told voters in Davenport, Iowa, “I am not running for my husband’s third term of President Obama’s third term. I am running for my first term.” Clinton’s rhetoric shifted as the challenge from Sanders became more serious, however. On healthcare, she cast herself as the protector of Obama’s signature domestic achievement, the Affordable Care Act. A Clinton ad on gun control featured the candidate saying, of the president, “I’m with him.” Part of Clinton’s pivot was clearly aimed at stopping the Sanders insurgency in its tracks. But Clinton’s political proximity to Obama could pay dividends in the general election, too. Gallup’s daily tracking poll at the end of last week showed 52 percent of adults approv[e]ing of Obama’s job performance and 44 percent disapproving. At the beginning of the year, Obama won approval from just 45 percent of adults in the equivalent poll, while 51 percent disapproved. Some independent experts believe that the feverish tone of the primary season in both parties has fueled Obama’s climb. “As the conflicts got more into the gutter during the primary season, President Obama looks much better by comparison,” said Grant Reeher, a professor of political science at Syracuse University. “I think that he personally has been helped by what has happened in both primaries — but particularly the Republican one — which reminded people why they liked the guy eight years ago.” Experts like Reeher noted that traditionally it has been difficult for a candidate to win the White House after his or her party has held the presidency for the preceding eight years. Only once since 1948 has someone pulled off that feat. President George H.W. Bush succeeded his fellow Republican President Reagan by winning the 1988 election. But 2016 could be exceptional. The polarizing nature of the presumptive Republican nominee could leave some voters seeking a “safe haven” with a known quantity such as Clinton, experts say. That dynamic could be enough to counteract Clinton’s own lowly favorability numbers, as well as the traditional reluctance to give a party three successive White House terms. “It is obviously a challenge to win the White House for three straight elections and as a candidate, as a front-runner, everyone takes shots at you. But that challenge can be overcome when you have a popular sitting president,” said Democratic strategist Evan Stavisky.

Any policy perceived as accommodating China gets spun as soft line and tied to Clinton—causes Trump win

Glaser 15 - Senior Adviser for Asia in the Freeman Chair in China Studies, where she works on issues related to Chinese foreign and security policy. She is concomitantly a senior associate with CSIS Pacific Forum and a consultant for the US government on East Asia (Bonnie, 8/25. "China bashing: American campaign ritual or harbinger of tougher policy?," http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2015/08/25/China-bashing-American-campaign-ritual-or-harbinger-of-tougher-policy.aspx)

China-bashing in the 2016 presidential election has begun in earnest. In past campaigns, many of the attacks on China were forgotten as candidates dropped out of the race or were defeated. In 2012, for example, Mitt Romney pledged to declare China a currency manipulator on his first day in office. He never got the chance, of course, and Obama's policies were unaffected by Romney's campaign rhetoric. Sometimes, promises to 'get tough' with China during the campaign simply became irrelevant as presidents, once in power, confront the demands of real-world policy challenges. When George W Bush ran for president in 2000, he criticised his predecessor Bill Clinton for calling China a strategic partner, and instead said China should be viewed as a 'strategic competitor.' After becoming president, however, Bush dropped that label. When a Chinese jet collided with a US surveillance plane over the South China Sea, Bush worked hard to avert a US-China political crisis, and after the September 11 attacks, he welcomed Beijing's proposal to fight together against terrorism. This time may be different, however. China's repressive policies at home, combined with its transgressions in the South China Sea and massive cyber attacks on US companies and the Federal Government, make it an easy target. Moreover, criticism of China likely resonates with most Americans. Republican candidates will accuse Obama of being too soft on China and vow that if elected, they will stand up for American interests. Democrats, including Obama's former secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, are more likely to find fault with than defend the current Administration's approach to managing US-China relations. Regardless of who is elected president in November 2016, he or she is likely to adopt a firmer approach to China on a litany of issues. So what are the candidates saying about China so far? GOP candidate Donald Trump condemned China's recent currency devaluation as 'the greatest theft in the history of the United States.' If elected president, Trump said, 'Oh would China be in trouble!' Carly Fiorina, another GOP contender, criticised China's cyber hacks on federal databases as an 'act of aggression' against America. She also warned against allowing the Chinese to control trade routes in the South China Sea and pledged she would be 'more aggressive in helping our allies...push back against new Chinese aggression.' In a lengthy critique of Obama Administration policies published in Foreign Affairs, GOP candidate Marco Rubio lambasted Obama's 'willingness to ignore human rights violations in the hope of appeasing the Chinese leadership.' He also accused China of pursuing 'increasingly aggressive regional expansionism.' Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton has joined the fray in an effort to shield herself from the accusation that she was complicit in the implementation of a policy that accommodated China and failed to sufficiently stand up for American interests. Clinton acknowledges that as secretary of state she worked hard to build a better relationship with China and says she would continue to do so as president. But she also warns about the dangers posed by China's militarisation of the South China Sea and condemns China's 'stealing commercial secrets, blueprints from defense contractors' and 'huge amounts of government information' in its quest for an advantage over other nations. The presidential campaign is just starting to heat up. The torrent of China-bashing in the remaining 15 months before the general election is likely to have a profoundly negative effect on China's image in the US, which is already unfavourable. In a 2014 poll by the Pew Research Center, only 35% of Americans had a positive view of China, while 55% had a negative one. China's image in the US has tilted in a more negative direction in recent years – as recently as 2011 half of Americans gave China a positive rating. The negative public mood will likely align with harsher attitudes in Congress, reinforcing the proclivities of the next US president to adopt a tougher stance against Chinese trade policies, human rights violations, cyber intrusions, and assertiveness in the South China Sea. Despite a sincere desire for a positive bilateral relationship with the US, Xi Jinping is likely to prioritise the preservation of domestic stability, defence of sovereignty, and pursuit of the Chinese Dream

If elected, Trump has promised to tear apart the Iran nuclear deal that was negotiated by Obama, which could have adverse effects on the stability of the Iranian region

Smith and Borger, 4/28 (David Smith and Julian Borger, chief Washington correspondent, world affairs editor, former correspondent in the US, the Middle East, eastern Europe and the Balkans, 4-28-16, “President Trump fills world leaders with fear: 'It's gone from funny to really scary,” The Guardian, “https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/28/donald-trump-president-world-leaders-foreign-relations” accessed 7-13-16, AG)

A European diplomat said the same air of disbelief permeated Brussels. “I think everyone would be utterly incredulous if he did win. No one is expecting it to happen. Call it denial, I suppose.” He contemplated the prospect of a victorious Trump in November tentatively. “It would be incredibly damaging to transatlantic relations, I suppose, though we would hope that a President Trump would not be quite as extreme as presidential candidate Trump.” Then he banished the thought. “I don’t really think it can happen – do you?” It was among officials specialising in nuclear diplomacy that anxiety took its most solid form. They had something very concrete at stake, in the shape of an international nuclear deal with Iran concluded in the Austrian capital last July after years of negotiations. Under the agreement, Tehran will abstain from a broad range of nuclear activities and limit others in return for relief from sanctions. Trump has portrayed as it as an Obama authored American capitulation to the Islamic Republic. “My big concern is that he has said he will tear up the nuclear deal with Iran. That would be catastrophic,” said a senior diplomat in Vienna. “It was the biggest step forward in decades towards peace and stability in the Middle East and in counter-proliferation. The idea that he would just destroy all that, is simply terrifying. It is also deeply concerning in general that he is clearly not a multilateralist. He would be more single-minded in pursuing purely American interests.” Barack Obama has commented more than once on how he is getting questions “constantly” from foreign leaders about Trump and his proposals. In the UK, “Trump” has become an epithet to be hurled back and forth in the increasingly acerbic battle over the country’s future in the European Union. Boris Johnson, the London mayor and the leading advocate of a British exit from the EU (known as Brexit), has tried to fight off comparisons with the Republican frontrunner for his populist style, bulky frame and unruly mop of hair. But that has only redoubled the determination of his critics to make the parallels stick.

That causes nuclear war

Michael Mandelbaum 15, Christian A. Herter Professor of American Foreign Policy at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, “How to Prevent an Iranian Bomb: The Case for Deterrence,” Foreign Affairs, November/December 2015, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/iran/how-prevent-iranian-bomb

The American political conflict will come to a head in September, when Congress gets the chance to register its disapproval of the accord—although the president has promised to veto a disapproval resolution if it passes and has enough support among Democrats to uphold the veto and perhaps even to prevent a vote on such a resolution in the first place. Still, however the domestic politics play out, both the deal’s supporters and its critics agree that the United States should prevent Iran from getting a bomb. This raises the question of how to do so—whether without the deal, after the deal expires, or if the Iranians decide to cheat. Stopping Iranian nuclear proliferation in all three situations will require Washington to update and adapt its Cold War policy of deterrence, making Tehran understand clearly in advance that the United States is determined to prevent, by force if necessary, Iranian nuclearization.¶ A CREDIBLE THREAT¶ The English political philosopher Thomas Hobbes noted in Leviathan that “covenants, without the sword, are but words.” Any agreement requires a mechanism for enforcing it, and the Iranian agreement does include such a mechanism: in theory, if Iran violates the agreement’s terms, the economic sanctions that the accord removes will “snap back” into place. By itself, however, this provision is unlikely to prevent Iranian cheating. The procedures for reimposing the sanctions are complicated and unreliable; even if imposed, the renewed sanctions would not cancel contracts already signed; and even as the sanctions have been in place, Iran’s progress toward a bomb has continued. To keep nuclear weapons out of Tehran’s hands will thus require something stronger—namely, a credible threat by the United States to respond to significant cheating by using force to destroy Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. ¶ The term for an effort to prevent something by threatening forceful punishment in response is “deterrence.” It is hardly a novel policy for Washington: deterring a Soviet attack on the United States and its allies was central to the American conduct of the Cold War. Deterring Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons now and in the future will have some similarities to that earlier task, but one difference is obvious: Cold War deterrence was aimed at preventing the use of the adversary’s arsenal, including nuclear weapons, while in the case of Iran, deterrence would be designed to prevent the acquisition of those weapons. With the arguable exception of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, the United States has not previously threatened war for this purpose and has in fact allowed a number of other countries to go nuclear, including the Soviet Union, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea. Does the Iranian case differ from previous ones in ways that justify threatening force to keep Iran out of the nuclear club?¶ It does. An Iranian bomb would be more dangerous, and stopping it is more feasible. The Soviet Union and China were continent-sized countries that crossed the nuclear threshold before the U.S. military had the capacity for precision air strikes that could destroy nuclear infrastructure with minimal collateral damage. Israel and India, like the United Kingdom and France before them, were friendly democracies whose possession of nuclear armaments did not threaten American interests. Pakistan is occasionally friendly, is a putative democracy, and crossed the nuclear threshold in direct response to India’s having done so. The United States is hardly comfortable with the Pakistani nuclear arsenal, but the greatest danger it poses is the possibility that after a domestic upheaval, it could fall into the hands of religious extremists—precisely the kind of people who control Iran now.¶ North Korea presents the closest parallel. In the early 1990s, the Clinton administration was ready to go to war to stop Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons program, before signing an agreement that the administration said would guarantee that the communist regime would dismantle its nuclear program. North Korea continued its nuclear efforts, however, and eventually succeeded in testing a nuclear weapon during the presidency of George W. Bush. Since then, North Korea has continued to work on miniaturizing its bombs and improving its missiles, presumably with the ultimate aim of being able to threaten attacks on North America. It is worth noting that in 2006, two experienced national security officials wrote in The Washington Post that if Pyongyang were ever to achieve such a capability, Washington should launch a military strike to destroy it. One of the authors was William Perry, who served as secretary of defense in the Clinton administration; the other was Ashton Carter, who holds that position today.¶ Bad as the North Korean bomb is, an Iranian one would be even worse. For in the case of North Korea, a long-standing policy of deterrence was already in place before it acquired nuclear weapons, with the United States maintaining a strong peacetime military presence on the Korean Peninsula after the end of the Korean War in 1953. For this reason, in the years since Pyongyang got the bomb, its neighbors have not felt an urgent need to acquire nuclear armaments of their own—something that would be likely in the case of Iranian proliferation. ¶ Nor would the Iranian case benefit from the conditions that helped stabilize the nuclear standoff between the United States and the Soviet Union. A Middle East with multiple nuclear-armed states, all having small and relatively insecure arsenals, would be dangerously unstable. In a crisis, each country would have a powerful incentive to launch a nuclear attack in order to avoid losing its nuclear arsenal to a first strike by one of its neighbors. Accordingly, the chances of a nuclear war in the region would skyrocket. Such a war would likely kill millions of people and could deal a devastating blow to the global economy by interrupting the flow of crucial supplies of oil from the region.¶