M.J. Rosenberg reports on his site on a scary piece of legislation coming up in the House tomorrow. At the behest of AIPAC; and you know it will go through overwhelmingly, because of the power of campaign contributions:
On Tuesday, the House of Representatives is slated to vote on a resolution designed to tie the president’s hands on Iran policy. The resolution, which is coming up under an expedited House procedure, was the centerpiece of AIPAC’s recent conference. In fact, 13,000 AIPAC delegates were dispatched to Capitol Hill, on the last day of the conference, with instructions to tell the senators and representatives whom they met that supporting this resolution was #1 on AIPAC’s election year agenda.
Accordingly, it is not particularly surprising that the resolution is being rushed to the House floor for a vote, nor that it is expected to pass with very little opposition. Those voting “no” on this one will pay a price in campaign contributions (the ones they won’t receive) and, very likely, will be smeared as “anti-Israel.” That is how it works.
Most of the language in H. Res.568 is unremarkable, the usual boilerplate (some of it factual) denouncing the Islamic Republic of Iran as a “state sponsor of terrorism” that is on the road to nuclear weapons capability.
The resolution’s overarching message is that Iran must be deterred from developing weapons, a position the White House (and our allies share). That is why the sanctions regime is in place and also why negotiations with Iran have resumed (the next session is May 23).
But the resolution does not stop with urging the president to use his authority to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. If it did, the resolution would be uncontroversial .
But there is also this: The House “urges the President to reaffirm the unacceptability of an Iran with nuclear-weapons capability and opposition to any policy that would rely on containment as an option in response to the Iranian nuclear threat.”
Think about that.
The resolution, which almost surely will pass on Tuesday, is telling the president that he may not “rely on containment” in response to “the Iranian nuclear threat.”...
[T]he “no containment” idea is absurd and reckless.
Imagine if President Kennedy had been told by the Congress back in 1962 that if the Soviet Union placed missiles in Cuba, he would have no choice but to attack Cuba or the USSR. If it had, it is likely none of us would be around today.
I think you took a bad call here Philip with JFK comparison.
JFK did not need the Congress to tie his hands on that matter AFAIK.
He did attack Cuba by imposing a naval blockade which is a clear and direct act of war.
For him containment was not an option hence the blockade and the willingness (or such an appearance ) to follow through on it and all that followed…
He did attack Cuba by imposing a naval blockade which is a clear and direct act of war.
The fact is that Kennedy imposed a “quarantine”, instead of a blockade, for that very reason. FYI, he only stopped Soviet block ships carrying offensive military equipment, while all others were allowed to reach the coasts of Cuba. Compare that with Israel’s blockade of Gaza.
He worked in consultation with the Organization of American States under the auspices of it’s own Charter and the Monroe Doctrine. Cuba and the US were both members of the OAS. The Monroe Doctrine had been recognized by Cuba as a regional understanding for securing the maintenance of peace, when it became one of the State Parties to The Covenant of the League of Nations. The Monroe Doctrine was enshrined in Article 21, but had been a recognized principle of international law since the 19th Century. link to avalon.law.yale.edu.
According to the US Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations (2007):
4.4.8 Maritime Quarantine
Maritime quarantine was invoked for the first and only time by the United States as a means of interdicting the flow of Soviet strategic offensive weapons (primarily missiles) into Cuba in 1962 involving a limited coercive measure on the high seas applicable only to ships carrying offensive weaponry to Cuba and utilizing minimum force required to achieve its purpose. The quarantine was an action by the United States, which dealt with the need to act in defense of western hemisphere interests and security while, to the greatest degree possible, maintaining the rights of freedom of navigation in what was otherwise a peacetime environment.
Although it has been compared to and used synonymously with blockade, quarantine is a peacetime military action that bears little resemblance to a true blockade. (For an in-depth discussion of blockade, see paragraph 7.7). Quarantine is distinguished from blockade, in that:
1. Quarantine is a measured response to a threat to national security or an international crisis; blockade is an act of war against an identified belligerent.
2. The goal of quarantine is de-escalation and return to the status quo ante or other stabilizing arrangement; the goal of a blockade is denial and degradation of an enemy’s capability with the ultimate end-state being capitulation in armed conflict.
3. Quarantine is selective in proportional response to the perceived threat; blockade requires impartial application to all nations—discrimination by a blockading belligerent renders the blockade legally invalid. Maritime quarantine is an action designed to address crisis-level confrontations during peacetime that present extreme threats to U.S. forces or security interests, with the ultimate goal of returning conditions to a stable status quo. link to usnwc.edu
Hostage as informative as you message it’s pointless and diversive
Kennedy imposed a naval blockade which is and act of war
under international law.
Th USSR called it an “Act of Piracy” (that rings quite a bell if you want to compare)
I any case Kennedy’s police towards Cuba was not of containment
but of direct military action that thankfully for all did not escalate
(but had the full potential) to fire exchanges.
The Soviets in spite of rhetoric did not dare to call Kennedy’s bluff
(probably because he was not bluffing) and the history unfolded as it did.
Now if you want to talk about the Gaza blockade or make some comparisons to Cuban missile crisis find someone who is interested in that conversation .
Insane, that’s all I can say.
Congress absolutely is pushing a war for Israel.
Boggles the mind doesn’t it..that the US congress works for a foreign power and a fifth column in the US in exchange for money. No denying it.
Just boggles the mind.
If it weren’t for all innocent dead that would occur in this I’d say go ahead…bring us Americans to our knees for Israel, destroy the economy, put us in debt for centuries, make it so bad we have no recourse but to burn this corrupt government to the ground, make an example of these traitors and start over.
That would be better than a slow death Palestine style.
It’s a Jewish lobby screaming for war against one of the most important Muslim nations. And history goes on forever.
Insane. Imagine if Israel believed in diplomacy instead of war. I guess if the hotheads hadn’t been running Zionism from the get go they never would have ethnically cleansed Palestine – they probably wouldn’t even have gone there- and they wouldn’t have felt the need to continually build on the carnage. Maybe they’d feel safe now. But that would have needed a parallel world.
“It’s a Jewish lobby screaming for war against one of the most important Muslim nations.”
Again, the policy promoted in this legislation is supported by the American people, who believe that if Iran gets an actual nuke, we should attack. Yet, you blame the Jews.
There’s some truth to that. Attacking the Moslems is – to borrow a term recently used by Mitt Romney – a Judeo-Christian enterprise. The Jews of AIPAC may be sitting in the driver’s seat but the Christians are eager to head in the same direction too. Not just for the money.
Do you see any Catholic think tanks talking about war with Iran, hophmi? Oh, how about Muslim lobbyists?
“Again, the policy promoted in this legislation is supported by the American people”..hoppie
Evidently you don’t read the polls…the American people are very much against attacking Iran and getting involved in the ME…they want out of it all.
Yea, I know you want to pretend the American people support you. Every population has it’s share of raving fanatics and retards, don’t mistake those for the majority.
Again, the policy promoted in this legislation is supported by the American people, who believe that if Iran gets an actual nuke, we should attack. Yet, you blame the Jews.
Our country’s leadership have never advocated that we initiate a nuclear war before. Frankly the only thing that could account for such a level of stupidity is a sustained misinformation campaign about the consequences. FYI, you’re such a pin head. Blaming AIPAC isn’t “blaming the Jews”, its blaming the Israel Lobby.
And Iran as a signatory to the NPT has the right to enrich uranium up to 20%. While Israel continues to refuse to sign the NPT and has massive stockpiles of nuclear biological and chemical weapons that continue to be a threat to peace in the middle east. People around the world are sick and tired of these huge double standards. And the US congress will roll over to Israel and the I lobby and bark while undermining US national security via inflammatory legislation like this
On “barking” Mika and Joe Scarborough were “barking” for Israel this morning on Morning Joe. They had the mayor of Jerusalem on. No mention of E Jerusalem belonging to the Palestinians and illegal housing. Mika and Joe got on bended knees barked and kissed the Mayor of Jerusalem right on his behind.
Is AIPAC good for the Jews?
No.
Of course the President Of The United States will not stand for this and will quickly dismiss this unacceptable proposal.
exactamente
much hyperventilating over some lobbyists on the east coast who think they have the inside track…AIPAC and ADL are just bogus BS Artists…
Foreign Policy ain’t set in the Legislative Branch…and that Branch includes a lower and upper house who BOTH must pass any legislation which if it would happen (NEVER) has absolutely NO MEANING as has been demonstrated by LBJ and GW Bush’s Foreign Policy…Legislature has the power of the purse and for declaration or War (hardeeharhar) only…
The Military has spoken on Iran…the US Military is BROKEN…the exit (retreat) from Afghanistan is on…engaging a country like Iran with a very large and educated population would mean increasing the Military to the size of Vietnam (both 100,000 million more or less…500,000 soldiers AT THE SCENE which would mean the DRAFT (current active duty is around 500,000 or less for Army)…and look up Country Joe at Woodstock on youtube for what that means link to youtube.com)
See what Jim Jones had to say (Marine General and National Security Advisor)…
“The US should approach the conflict (Palestine) in a much more even handed manner; the long term consequences of partisan support for Israel are not worth the short term gains.” LT Col Schweitzer, Army War College, Carlisle Barracks 7 April 2003
Foreign Policy ain’t set in the Legislative Branch…
Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution is not limited to the power of the purse. It grants Congress the specific powers:
*To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
*To raise and support Armies,
*To provide and maintain a Navy;
*To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
*To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
You really can’t argue that Congress hasn’t been delegated the key war powers associated with foreign policy, or that it must consult the executive.
Its amazing how much sloppy thinking pervades this issue.
All Obama has to do when push comes to shove with the bought whores on capital hill is demand they pass a ‘declaration of war,’ per their obligations and duties under that same constitution.
That of course will be a whole different ballgame. Though there is no anti-war movement, the US voting public is definitely war weary and sick to death of overseas adventures. By demanding a formal ‘declaration of war’ by Congress, Obama makes this a fight between AIPAC and the American People, not him.
The maniacal Zionists here in the US are just as stupid as their maniacal brethren in Israel. They don’t foresee the traps and dead-ends they are manufacturing for themselves.
i think we are closer to the beginning here, rather than the end. iranian society has not yet been destroyed, and uncle sam usually makes sure to do that before any military action takes place. all these resolutions are just part of the background, the as it were foundation for future military actions.
lets not be naive and think that Barry and the O’s DONT want israel and the lobby doing exactly what they are doing – barry wants to be seen as the guy holding the leash on these crazies, that gives his positions in negotiations all the more credibility.
Of course, now that Barry and the O’s support gay marriage, he can pretty much do what he wants, Im half expecting the Maddow’s of the world to come out and give full throated support to O’s foreign policy in its entirety.
Dan,
What’s the benefit to Obama, or what benefit does he see for the US, in bombing Iran.
In the list of pros and cons there are about 100 cons and only one pro…that single pro being if Iran gets nukes it will start nuking Israel and then the world.
And no serious, sane and knowledge person within or without the US agencies even believes that one.
So where’s the benefit Obama sees?
Pure speculation on my part:
I don’t think Obama necessarily sees a benefit to bombing Iran.
However, being the spineless excuse for a president that he is, he probably expects that his hand will be forced via a false-flag, followed by clamoring from congress to attack. Instead of telling congress and Israel to stfu, he is instead creating the backdrop against which his capitulation will be justified.
No evidence of this, but it is plausible.
“So where’s the benefit Obama sees?”
Donations to his campaign and non-opposition by congress-criters who toe the israeli line.
I dont know that obama sees a benefit in bombing iran (right now) – but I do think Obama sees a benefit in a neutered Iran, and if he thinks threatening all out war and crippling the country through sanctions will help in creating the conditions for regime change, thats what hes gonna do. and if he thinks bombing iran will lead to regime change, i suppose thats what hes gonna do – but that isnt feasible as of now, because, as i said, the country hasnt been ruined yet – there is still a functioning society.
Dan Crowther
Neutering Iran is a dead option once Iran attained the capability to enrich uranium to 20%. The p5+1 recognize this by acquiescing to the Iranian demand that the NPT is the framework for present and future negotiations.
The best outcome the west can play for is limiting Iranian enrichment to 2.5% to to 5% enrichment. Ruining Iran as you envision it as a precursor to war and regime change is not going to happen.
American, your dead right. Obama and practically everyone else on the planet, sans the maniacal factions of Zionists, sees no benefit to “bombing Iran” today or tomorrow.
RE: “The resolution, which almost surely will pass on Tuesday, is telling the president that he may not ‘rely on containment” in response to “the Iranian nuclear threat.’…[T]he “no containment” idea is absurd and reckless.” ~ M.J. Rosenberg
MY COMMENT: It smells an awful lot like “Team B”. Quite malodorous!
FROM WIKIPEDIA [Team B]:
SOURCE – link to en.wikipedia.org
P.S. “Sticks and stones may break our bones, but facts will never sway us.” ~ Neocon Creed (This creed also works for Team B, Republicans, Fox News, Fundies, etc.)
P.P.S. ALSO SEE: Why is there so little accountability in foreign policymaking? ~ by Stephen M. Walt, foreignpolicy.com, 5/15/12
Entire commentary – link to walt.foreignpolicy.com
The Independent yesterday looked at the opinions of Mr. Mofaz, who seems to be the new number 2 in Israel, saying that he is of the opinion that the Palestinians are more of a problem than the Iranians and he thinks Obama can be trusted to deal with the Iranian problem. This may be news of mixed welcome, since I think Mofaz is has been one of the most outspoken transferists in the past.
The Congressional rhetoric could be a song of war or else it could be bluster covering a retreat.
To Annie,
If this resolution passes, then the sabotage is complete and the upcoming talks are pre-ordained to fail and I will have won our bet, whether the talks take place or not. After all, if containment is no longer permissible, what is left to negotiate? Total capitulation by Iran, or nothing? Who would agree to that?
All joking aside about Congressional corruption and being bought/paid by the Israeli lobby, with every passing day they are becoming my primary concern. It’s not a joke, whatever their job is supposed to be they aren’t doing it. Lobbying money put them in front of the masses to vote for out of foolishness. They don’t represent the majority of Americans, they represent corporations and Israel. They are no longer needed now that you can fly from LA to DC in the time it used to take in the 18th century to get there from Baltimore. The people need to know they need to go. It’s closer to home than the I/P conflict or the influence of the Zionist lobbies. All relative though. The military is the world police and the Congress and the world’s law makers. So it seems. They don’t care about Americans. How can they sleep at night? To be fair, there is about four or five good guys. The rest are treasonous pigs
Charon
If you dig deep into US history you’ll find that the corruptive influence of lobbying has always been a huge factor in Congressional immorality, perversion and depravity since nearly day one. Its how Congress works and always worked.
All these resolutions AIPAC has passed and attempting to pass are flawed legislative vehicles. Senators and Representatives know full well the defects in these legal documents (precedent and S/C judgments), which will render such legislation invalid in curtailing Executive branch authority should Congress press the issue.
This game can only work as cover for a President whose already fired up in attacking another country, like Bush 43. Its not going to work with a President opposed to war. The big sucker and loser in this game is AIPAC, while Congressmen are whistling ‘I’m in the money’ and taking their free loot to the bank.
You have to see this. New film on the Christian Zio Evangelicals. Between the Zionist and the Evangelicals we may have the perfect storm that ignites an armageddon. Consider we have a AIPAC congress and all it would take is a lunatic religious or Evangelical type to get elected US President and we’re in serious, serious trouble. O.K. this is scary, I ‘m gonna have to get out and support Obama.
link to waitingforarmageddon.com
Christian Zionists are solidly in the republican party and have been ever since the mid 1990′s. None of these lunatics are voting for Obama, never have and never will. The problem for Democrats is mobilizing their base to vote. The only reason Republicans did well in the 2010 midterms is because the whining, cry baby left did not come out and support their guy.
Republicans are deeply divided over Romney, but if he’s the standard bearer they will swallow their pride, rally and support the party nominee. And if he’s the winner November next the culprits for that fiasco will be the Democrat left that sat on their hands, not independents or even Republicans who number fewer than Democrats.
American wrote:
“Insane, that’s all I can say.
Congress absolutely is pushing a war for Israel.”
Insane *and* bizarre given that in their heart of hearts the vast majority of those Congressmen and women know that no war is necessary for the U.S. and most of those Congressmen and women probably *don’t* want war.
Hostage wrote:
“You really can’t argue that Congress hasn’t been delegated the key war powers associated with foreign policy, or that it must consult the executive.”
Well theoretically it doesn’t have to consult with the Pres. to declare war or not, but it’s in a pickle if it were do declare a war and the Commander-in-Chief were to tell the troops to sit on their hands.
Just one of those separated powers the Framers liked to manufacture to deprive any one branch of all powers in certain things. On the other hand the Supreme Court has said and there’s almost no dispute about it that the President is the sole U.S. voice in terms of articulating U.S. foreign policy and speaking for the U.S. in foreign affairs. Once again though, just like the power to declare war sounds total, a Pres. can announce any foreign policy he or she wishes, and if the Congress refuses to fund it….
It’s a fractured thing for sure, and it’s correct that this new AIPAC thing isn’t the first time the Congress has stuck its nose deep in foreign policy setting.
On the other hand, when it’s clearly done so agitating for war, at the behest of and for the benefit of a foreign power … if *that* isn’t stupifying I don’t know what is.
Hard to think of our government ever having descended so low, manifesting such total degradation.
Well theoretically it doesn’t have to consult with the Pres. to declare war or not, but it’s in a pickle if it were do declare a war and the Commander-in-Chief were to tell the troops to sit on their hands.
True enough, but the Congress has the necessary delegated powers to adopt articles of impeachment and remove the President from office too.
Perhaps the reluctance of President Johnson to pursue Congress-mandated Reconstruction policies, which were a kind of extension of war powers, and the resultant impeachment attempt – or cynical pretence at an impeachment attempt – supply a kind of precedent.
The question Phil raised was not over what Kennedy did without any outside impulse but what might have happened in the barely conceivable event of Congress’s successfully mandating Kennedy not to negotiate. ‘We Now Know’ that there was a negotiated quid pro quo for the removal of Their missiles in Cuba in the form of removal of Our missiles from Turkey. My sense is that no President would accept that sort of Congressional intervention at the height of a crisis and that no impeachment attempt would succeed. Congress is doing things now for show rather than for real – hope I’m right.
I still don’t think I hear the drums of war or the diplomatic thunder of ultimatums.
MHughes976
Agreed.
That too. Each branch can essentially throw sand into the gears of the other.
I think this is *partly* the reason why so many people get frustrated that they don’t see this branch or that battling like crazy between them in down and dirty, all-out fights: It’s because the system makes cooperation between them on damn near *everything* necessary, so that in a knock-down drag-out *neither* side would be likely to get *anything.*
I’m sure this has had its bad aspects, but also it’s good in terms of getting us into horrible gridlocks all the time over relatively “little” issues that could then grown into some sort of civil war even. That’s the sort of scheming and fighting that the Framers saw occurring elsewhere and essentially giving lots of other governments life expectancies of only a decade or so.
Thus our Framers did pretty good in those terms: 200 years and counting.
Approval ratings for Congress are lower than whale shit at 6%, while Obama’s is higher than any politician or institution at 49%. In today’s age of distrust and disillusionment that number is stellar! I believe that’s a fight Obama would be calling…”bring it on!…if Congress and the Israel Lobby were that stupid to try it.
MHUGHES976 wrote:
“I still don’t think I hear the drums of war or the diplomatic thunder of ultimatums.”
My guess: Wait just a little while longer, after one or two more meetings with the Iranians don’t turn out with them pledging allegiance to Hashem, before our elections, and without drums or thunder. Just wake up to find Israel attacking Iran, Iran hitting back and hitting us, and … ta da.
Right now I can almost hear Shaul Mofaz’s bones creaking under all the pressure and promises Netanyahu and Barak are making to him and Kadima.
Sin Nombre my guess is exactly the opposite. These meetings can go on for a long time with the parties expressing satisfaction and optimism that a deal can be attained between the parties. Israel stupidly taught America how to play this song and dance over the Palestinian issue, and are now in the process of getting the favor rammed up their tutu.
ahhiyawa says:
“my guess is exactly the opposite.”
Well of course you might be right, and I didn’t say I’d bet my house on it, and indeed I’d love it if the reason you are right is the reason you give. Sure as hell would be nice seeing us playing the game on Israel it has so perfected on us, wouldn’t it?
Still, to me, Netanyahu’s lining up his ducks for when, after a decent interval, the Iranians in these talks don’t fold completely, and he can then attack before our election so putting Obama up against the initial wall of cheers that always accompany such things. Mofaz may be his big obstacle, but then you gotta wonder why if Mofaz is an obstacle at all Netayahu would have brought him into his government at all.
Of course a large part of my thinking rests on the belief that a re-elected Obama would feel it easy to tell the Israelis where to step off and make it stick, but I’m worried there since that *is* just my hope, and when thinking collides with hope you’re in danger.
Obama has been just so absolutely, totally wet so far; I just don’t know what explains same that doesn’t involve a terrible and even utter lack of backbone. And unfortunately to me again the only things he really seems to get enthused about is ever-more junky, stupid racial-type politics and issues. I.e., rousing the Lefty racial/multi-culti rabble and etc. You can understand it to a small degree given the satisfaction it produced in angering the Righty racial/multi-culti rabble, but in terms of being a governing agenda….
The guy worries me deeply now. I used to like him lots indeed.
I agree 100% that Netanyahu and the Israel Lobby are getting all their “ducks in a row” and gearing up for a big fight. I just don’t accept the common belief that the beating of Likudnik & neocon war drums, or nonbinding congressional resolutions will result in war with Iran as many fear.
Nor do I buy into the argument Israel will attack Iran before the US election. No one knows exactly how the Iranians or Obama for that matter, would respond to an Israeli provocation that several nanoseconds after the event would face instantaneous global outrage & condemnation. Even Shrub 43 put the screws to Israel bombing Iran, a bridge too far even for him.
Capital hill maneuvers by the Israel Lobby are warnings and shots across Obama’s bows, that if he don’t acquiesce, kneel and toe the Zionist line they’ll destroy him. But corralling the second place ‘Greatest Cowards in the Universe’ (capitalists are the first) by threats and money is no great achievement, as this is a state of affairs that happens daily by enumerable lobbies and constituencies on capitol hill. I perceive these political posturings by the lobby as signs of weakness, not strength, impelled by blind visceral hatred and paralytic terror of a 2nd Obama term.
The best Netanyahu and his gang of traitors can do is whine, screech and snivel loud enough in the hopes of sabotaging the negotiations between the p5+1 group and Iran. The fact that the US and the Europeans are willing to accept the NPT as the framework for negotiations was shocking enough, but should a deal ultimately result on that understanding would be disastrous for Israeli hegemony in the region, to say nothing about the actual state of the US/Israeli special relationship.
ahhiyawa wrote:
“The best Netanyahu and his gang of traitors can do is whine, screech and snivel loud enough in the hopes of sabotaging the negotiations between the p5+1 group and Iran.”
No, they *could* just launch a strike on Iran (giving the U.S. some mere hours of formal notice) and then plan on Iran’s retaliation at the very least grazing the U.S. or attacking effective U.S. protectorats in the Gulf to put Obama–before the election—in a position of either piling in against Iran, or looking like he’s a coward or doesn’t support Israel.
And as to the NPT talks, everything I’ve seen suggests that Israel’s red lines are not near what Iran is possible to give, such as Iran totally abandoning enrichment, or closing the Fordow site. And indeed there’s some suggestion that during his recent AIPAC meeting with Obama that Netanyahu got Obama to make these *America’s red lines too, or close to same.
I dunno, ahhiyawa, you may well be right, but I smell something I never smelled before. Notice how the drumbeat for war, going like crazy for awhile, then suddenly let up and got quiet right after those Bibi/Obama talks during the AIPAC conference? Just in advance of the new talks with the Iranians? Smells like setup to me for the Iranians: We send signals of our new flexibility/willingness to talk knowing that after some decent interval of appearing happy to talk we can walk out saying that despite all our good faith the Iranians were playing games and blah blah blah and suddenly Israel has the green light to go ahead.
Maybe not and maybe you’re right though; you certainly make some good points. But *something* happened in those most recent Bibi/Obama talks. Things changed alot since then, much of same being things getting quieter, and I’m suspicious of quiet.
And what about Israel’s perception of its position post-American election? They gotta admit to a lot of chance of Obama getting re-elected, at which point admit to a lot of chance he’ll be far less subject to pressure then.
Bibi, I think, feels he’s gotta have a big war to put him into the jewish hall of historical fame, and what would be bigger than Iran?
Gonna be interesting to watch at least….
The House “urges the President to reaffirm the unacceptability of an Iran with nuclear-weapons capability and opposition to any policy that would rely on containment as an option in response to the Iranian nuclear threat.”
This is meaningless. If President affirmed something, what good does it make to reaffirm? “Daily Affirmation With Stuart Smalley”? I am good enough, I am bright enough, and doggone, I will respond to the Iranian nuclear threat?
The bottom line is that as the West tries to change regimes, the reaction increases, and attempts in the core area of Eurasia will have Eurasian response, meaning Russia, China and bunch of other countries. Iran is not isolated. If USA engages directly, the response will also be direct, and because the stakes are small, USA will fold.
China is a dominant trade power now. Russia has some aces in the sleave, like anti-ship missiles for which USA has no countermeasures and which can reach across Persian Gulf. Iran may have some of them or not, which already makes any attack on Iran very iffy. If Russians officially supply them, this is FUBAR. If we attack Russians, even personel in Iran, they can respond with nukes, say, evaporate our base at Diego Garcia.
Not to mention a tiny problem that evacuation of our troops from Afganistan may become both urgent and damn difficult.
The key is that the phrase “nuclear capability” is either viewed narrowly, and the current negotiations may do the job, or widely, and then nothing can address that. If you want to achieve 5% more than possible, you fail. Say, if you want to make a turn 5% faster than possible, you fly out of the road.
About being certain about nuclear capability: there was an article in Technology Review that there exists a technology to separate isotopes which is orders of magnitude more efficient, less space and energy, than centrifuges. The idea is that with laser light of exactly proper frequency you ionize only the molecules that contain the target isotope and you collect ions with electrodes. Iranian labs are familiar with the principles, and without “regime change” you cannot remove knowledge. And Iran has many deep mines, so hiding a program as a mine expansion should be quite possible.
Congressional Quarterly: Reid’s Effort to Pass Revised Iran Sanctions Bill Blocked by GOP (requires subscription):