In her speech in Georgetown University in Washington, Mrs. Clinton said “America should 'empathize' and 'show respect' for its enemies”

Who is the enemy that Mrs. Clinton is referring to, in Iran? The small group of Islamic dictators who are not only the enemies of United States, but the enemies of the people that they rule with iron fist? The people whom Mrs. Clinton ignores as if they do not exist.

The former American Secretary of State must know that Iran is made up of people who are peaceful and want to be the friends with America. Yet she ignores the fact that empathizing with the enemies and showing respect for them also means throwing 75 million friends under the bus. Will this be a great foreign policy for a woman in charge?

Here are some objections to her uninformed and purely ideological statement that empowers a group of medieval “men” who hate the American culture of freedom because it is a “bad influence” on the Iranian people they are holding hostage.

Does Mrs. Clinton know that the same people whom she calls the enemies of the United States are also the enemies of humanity, the gross violators of the rights of women and abusers of children? Yet she wants to empathize and show respect for their crimes against humanity. As a feminist, she must be aware of the fact that these American enemies who practice gender apartheid and slavery are the worst kind of dictators.

Mrs. Clinton's speech also attempted to promote female leadership in foreign affairs. As a woman, I was wondering how Mrs. Clinton can advocate power for the women of the Western world while advocating “empathy” for the men who consider women and children as their property? 

The former Secretary of State believes that women can be more effective in creating a peaceful world. I agree, but the women who can be the most effective in keeping peace are slaves under the rule of the same people that she advocates respect for. It is obvious that by women she means only Western women, not the women living under 21st-century gender apartheid who if freed they would be  effective in creating peace.

“This approach means 'showing respect, even for one's enemies; trying to understand and, insofar as psychologically possible, empathize with their perspective and point of view,” said Mrs. Clinton.

Here is your answer Hillary: the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini summed it up for the world, when he took over Iran in 1979; “Iran is only a platform and a tool for us to expand Islam throughout the world”. 

That simple, short sentence should be enough for any American man or woman in power to understand this enemy of the United States. They want total power in order to use the wealth of Iran, to continue their tyranny inside Iran and promote terrorism around the world. Their perspective and point of view is not so complicated. They hate the “American culture” of open and free society, equal rights, prosperity, love of life, pursuit of happiness, and above all accountability of the government to the govern. None of which are a good influence on the people they are abusing.

The former Secretary of State suggested 'smart power' -- and urged Americans to use 'every possible tool and partner' to advance peace. If Mrs. Clinton is really advocating the “use of every tool and partner to advocate peace”,

Here is a challenge for Mrs. Clinton: with respect I suggest that she and the rest of the women in power get out of their boxes of preconceived opinion that all the Moslem societies and women are the same. That being slaves is their religion and culture and they do not want to be free and equal. The next step is to listen to a different group of secular Moslem women who may not agree with their boxes but desperately want a peaceful world for everyone, not only for the West.

Mrs. Clinton advocates that the nations themselves do not matter, only the America-hating Islamist rulers matter. That is a policy that discriminates against Iranian women, one that empowers the Khamenei regime against them. What she is advocating is a policy of supporting fanatic fascism by drawing a line between the West and the East as the British did in the 19th and 20th centuries, to advance the Western societies at the expense of keeping the Eastern societies backward.

This is how America loses real friends.