News

‘Powerful lobby is hellbent’ for US to go to war w Iran

Great piece by MJ Rosenberg at Huffpo on who is pushing for war against Iran– the lobby. Rosenberg says Israel’s sabre-rattling is just that. But it’s intended to jack up U.S. foreign policy yet again and send us to war. Imagine if we had had this kind of incisive commentary fingering the neocons before the Iraq debacle? Here is Rosenberg’s first third. Read the rest (including quote in my headline) at the link:

Wasting no time after its success in getting the administration to oppose Palestinian statehood at the United Nations, and still celebrating the UNESCO funding cut-off, AIPAC has returned to its #1 priority: pushing for war with Iran.

The Israelis have, of course, played their own part in the big show. In the last few weeks, it has been sending out signals that it is getting ready to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities (and embroil the United States in its most calamitous Middle East war yet).

But most observers do not believe an Israeli attack is imminent. (If it was, would Israel telegraph it in advance?) The point of the Israeli threats is to get the United States and the world community to increase pressure on Iran with the justification that unless it does, Israel will attack.

Naturally, the United States Congress, which gets its marching orders on Middle East policy from the lobby which, in turn, gets its marching orders from Binyamin Netanyahu, is rushing to do what it is told.

(If only Congress addressed joblessness at home with the same alacrity and enthusiasm.)

Accordingly the House Foreign Affairs Committee hurriedly convened this week to consider a new “crippling sanctions” bill that seems less designed to deter an Iran nuclear weapon than to lay the groundwork for war.

The clearest evidence that war is the intention of the bill’s supporters comes in Section 601 which should be quoted in full. (It is so incredible that paraphrasing would invite the charge of distorting through selective quotation.)

It reads:

(c) RESTRICTION ON CONTACT. — No person employed with the United States Government may contact in an official or unofficial capacity any person that — (1) is an agent, instrumentality, or official of, is affiliated with, or is serving as a representative of the Government of Iran; and (2) presents a threat to the United States or is affiliated with terrorist organizations. (d) WAIVER. — The President may waive the requirements of subsection (c) if the President determines and so reports to the appropriate congressional committees 15 days prior to the exercise of waiver authority that failure to exercise such waiver authority would pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the vital national security interests of the United States.

What does this mean?

26 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

A house committee is not law.

It should motivate you to the third power to compile and communicate the better argument.

This “blame the arguer/messenger” emphasis ALLOWS the proposal, rather than actively opposes it.

The paragraph cited is important, but less important than putting your weight (or encouraging others) on the argument itself.

If an Iran War causes the catastrophic collapse of the American economy, guess who is going to be blamed for the mess.

1. It does not declare Iran or any part thereof a terrorist.
2. It leaves dangerously in the air what “presents a threat to the United States or is affiliated with terrorist organizations” means as applied to any person that “is an agent, instrumentality, or official of, is affiliated with, or is serving as a representative of the Government of Iran; ”
3. It is not clear who is a person “employed with the United States Government” [with, not by] :: does this include contractors?
4. It does not prohibit contacts by folks not employed “with” USG, thus does not prohibit contact via some third parties.
5. IT APPEARS TO PROHIBIT DIPLOMACY conducted by DoS personnel — who are surely employed with USG — IF such diplomacy would be with a representative (etc) of Iran who was also a terrorist or a threat to USA :: but who is that?
6. Seems to suggest that Secretary Clinton may not talk to the guy who gave money to the Mexican drug cartel to assassinate the Saudi unless he is non-Iran-gov’t.
7. Seems to sanction USG, not Iran (except for cutting off some contacts).
8. Might prohibit a USG policeman from arresting one of these folks (if an arrest is a “contact”).

Rather confused in purpose and in provision. If I worked for or with the USG, I’d be careful if this becomes law.

Sanctions aren’t going to work. If Americans and Europeans won’t trade with Iran, China and Russia and the rest of Asia will. Iran is a long term growth prospect. Israel isn’t. And business is business.

No doubt there were will be more planted ‘media scare stories’, like the ridiculous Mexican assassination farce. We saw plenty of it before the Iraq fiasco, now history is being repeated, by the same warmongering, unrepresentative, lying scumbags, many of whom are dual citizens or just worship at the altar of AIPAC, and their generous pork barrel.