Secretary of State Clinton’s statement earlier today that the U.S. would consider extending a “defense umbrella” over the Middle East if Iran continues down the path toward developing a nuclear capability were met with unhappiness in Israel:

Dan Meridor, Israel’s minister for secret services, told Army Radio that the comments imply a willingness to reconcile with the eventuality of a nuclear-armed Iran.

“I heard, unenthusiastically, the Americans’ statement that they will defend their allies in the event that Iran arms itself with an atomic bomb, as if they have already reconciled with this possibility, and this is a mistake,” Meridor told Army Radio. “Now, we don’t need to deal with the assumption that Iran will attain nuclear weapons but to prevent this.”

Interesting that Meridor was upset by Clinton’s language, given that Israel’s entire Iran policy seems to be based around the idea of assuming, and preparing for, the worst. But there’s no reason to think that Clinton is changing policy here — she’s acknowledging the possibility of a bad outcome, and letting Iran, and U.S. allies, know that the U.S. prepared for that eventuality. Certainly, language and signaling matters in politics, especially in international politics, but it seems pretty silly to insist that U.S. government officials simply refrain from publicly addressing the possibility that Iran continues down it’s current uncooperative course.

The New York Times reports Clinton as saying “We want Iran to calculate what I think is a fair assessment that if the U.S. extends a defense umbrella over the region, if we do even more to support the military capacity of those in the Gulf, it’s unlikely that Iran will be any stronger or safer, because they won’t be able to intimidate and dominate, as they apparently believe they can, once they have a nuclear weapon.”

“[Iran] faces the prospect, if it pursues nuclear weapons, of sparking an arms race in the region,” Mrs. Clinton said. “That should affect the calculation of what Iran intends to do, and what it believes is in its national security interest.”

Clinton was making clear that, whatever benefits the Iranian regime hopes to realize from the development of a nuclear weapons capability, the United States is prepared to make sure the costs will be far higher.

Meanwhile, the offer of engagement remains on the table, and it can’t be stressed enough that President Obama’s outreach to the Middle East, and to Iran specifically, has been essential to making clear that it is not the U.S. that is the recalcitrant party, and making stark the choice that faces the Iranian government right now.

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) set off an alarm this morning, warning that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates indicate that 5,600,000 “illegal aliens” may be covered under “Obamacare.” King’s office didn’t do much number-crunching to come up with that big, scary figure. Instead, they relied on sheer inference to reach the nitwit conclusion that millions of undocumented immigrants will be covered by a health care bill that explicitly excludes them.

King’s primitive logic is as follows:

14.1 million “illegal aliens” will make up the 2019 non-Medicare population.

If America’s Affordable Health Choices Act is passed, 17 million U.S. residents will still be uninsured in 2019 — nearly half of whom would be undocumented immigrants.

That must mean that up to 8.5 million “illegal aliens” will not have health insurance by 2019.

14.1 million “illegal aliens” – 8.5 million uninsured “illegal aliens” = 5.6 million “illegal aliens” covered by America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009

However, none of the figures that King cites — including the 5.6 million number that he uses to strike fear in xenophobic hearts — are included in the CBO’s infamous health care bill projections. The CBO’s analysis does not reference the undocumented population other than to point out that the percentage of the uninsured population increases if undocumented immigrants are included in its estimates. There is no reference as to how many undocumented immigrants would be covered by the proposed health care bill because the entire CBO analysis was essentially written under the assumption that undocumented immigrants will not be eligible.

In a press release distributed this morning, King warns:

“Taxpaying families, already weighed down by bailouts and massive spending bills, cannot afford to pay for health insurance for millions of illegal aliens. Hard and smart working Iowans should not be forced [typo included] pay for illegal aliens to obtain health benefits under any health care reform plan. It is wrong to reward law breakers. The American people are speaking loud and clear and saying, ‘No health care for illegal aliens.’”

Hard and smart working Iowans rest assured, there is explicit language in the bill exempting undocumented immigrants from its coverage. Sec. 242. of America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 explicitly states:

“For purposes of this division, the term ‘affordable credit eligible individual’ means, subject to subsection (b), an individual who is lawfully present in a State in the United States.”

And if there is still doubt in anyone’s mind, President Obama told Katie Couric last night that “Obamacare” should not include undocumented immigrants. Instead, Obama indicated that we need to pass comprehensive immigration reform so that the country doesn’t have an undocumented population to begin with. Watch it:

Around noon today, the Senate is expected to take up and vote on an amendment sponsored by Sen. John Thune (R-SD) to allow individuals “who have concealed carry permits from the State in which they reside to carry concealed firearms in another State that grants concealed carry permits.”

This amendment would, in effect, mean that states with the weakest laws will set the law for all other states. In so doing, it would strip each state’s power to enact its own public safety laws. For instance, 31 states currently prohibit “habitual drunkards” from carrying guns. The Thune amendment would render these provisions useless.

Thune has long claimed to be a supporter of “states’ rights”:

“Republican Rep. John Thune found himself in the minority last week when he voted against a five-year extension of a ban on Internet taxes. … ‘I think this is partly an attack on states’ rights.’” [AP, 5/13/00]

“Decisions about South Dakota values should be made by local and state officials – not federal bureaucrats,” Thune said. “My amendment will protect states’ rights and guarantee that Washington bureaucrats do not dictate our values.” [4/29/05]

But, as USA Today notes, Thune’s gun amendment — which is supported by the gun lobby — “shoots holes in state sovereignty.” When asked for comment by ThinkProgress, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg provided us with this statement:

This legislation is impractical for communities and police departments across this country and tramples on states rights. Under current law in most states, if you have certain misdemeanor convictions, are an alcohol abuser, or haven’t completed a gun safety training program, you cannot carry a concealed weapon. This bill would effectively erase those rules. We can’t destroy the common sense safeguards states across the country have put in place. There has been no hearing on this Amendment, which has been tacked onto a defense appropriations bill. Laws should not be passed this way, and I am proud to stand with 450 mayors to try and put a stop to it.

50 mayors in Ohio are running an ad today urging Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) to vote no. Eight North Carolina mayors are doing the same with Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC). Cliff Schecter highlights some more Senators “whose minds need to be changed.”