Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is planning to press the Senate next month to pledge U.S. troops, money, and political support to Israel should Bibi Netanyahu launch a preventive war on Iran.
Graham claims his effort would merely make explicit that the U.S. has Israel's back. But when your friend is drunk, you don't hand them the keys. If Graham has his way, he will hand Bibi the keys and lend him our car, while the rest of us ride shotgun.
Graham's planned measure would outsource the decision about whether the U.S. goes to war to the Israeli prime minister, pledging that if Bibi decides to act -- regardless of the consequences and our own calculations -- the U.S. will provide money, troops, and political leverage (presumably at the UN and IAEA where there will be a push to shred the sanctions and the Non-Proliferation Treaty).
Those who support the measure will likely claim that a "credible threat" of war must be issued in order to prevent an actual war. But U.S. military leaders understand the difference between a credible threat, which is already very much on the table given the U.S. presence in the Persian Gulf, and outsourcing the decision of whether the U.S. goes to war to Bibi Netanyahu.
As chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey pointedly said just weeks ago about potential Israeli strikes on Iran, "I don't want to be complicit if they decide to do it." Graham's resolution is about as clear a signal of complicity as you can get.
Graham's mendacity on Iran policy should by now be notorious. His most recent victory was to convince Congress to endorse Netanayhu's redline for war with Iran instead of the redline laid out by the president. The trick was that, in pushing that measure, Graham disingenuously claimed that Obama's redline was nuclear weapons "capability." And Congress bought it. In reality, the president very clearly rejected that redline and said the U.S redline was to prevent Iran from actually getting the bomb, not getting an amorphous "capability."
But Graham (and Bibi) won the battle on the Hill. Both the House and the Senate voted to endorse Netanyahu's redline, not Obama's. To be fair, many in the House and Senate who supported the resolution still have no idea that there is a difference. They read the talking points circulated by Graham and AIPAC (the measure's chief advocates), and to this day think they were simply voting to endorse what Obama had already said.
Now, Graham is herding his willfully ignorant colleagues to support another incremental step towards war with Iran, under the guise of being "pro-Israel" and supporting the president. His new resolution would twist Obama's words that the U.S. "has Israel's back" to mean the U.S. is on call to jump into war with Iran if and when Netanyahu decides it's go time.
According to CQ, Graham said having Israel's back means, "if you get into a fight, I'm coming to help you." He continued:
"There are two different clocks here, the Washington clock and the Tel Aviv clock," he said. "The Israelis are not going to let the window close on their ability to slow down this program. They're going to act... They're going to control their own destiny."
Graham's resolution would make it clear that the United States would provide assistance to Israel "if they have to go because they've decided they are not going to turn their window over to us or anybody else."
Sorry, but there is a difference between not getting in Israel's way and actively supporting a disastrous decision with American servicemembers, money, and international political leverage. Graham is hoping that, yet again, no one notices the difference.
Having Israel's back does not mean supporting preventive war that the entire national security establishment says would be a disaster for everyone involved and could guarantee an Iranian nuclear weapon. Having Israel's back does not mean goading them into making stupid decisions and pledging to bail them out unconditionally.
The Senate should not be handing out promises to enable foreign leaders to decide whether and when the U.S. goes to war. This would not be a mutual defense pact -- it would be a suicide pact.
Follow Jamal Abdi on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jabdi
New Senate Push to Pledge Unconditional Support for Israeli Preventive War on Iran
Israel is not interested in peace.
It also makes a lot of money selling weapons.
It needs to test its weapons on somebody... then they use the Palestinians as targets.
There's also the religion factor.
Some cuckoos believe they are the chosen ones. So it can do whatever it wants.
The right wing are the Hop Heads of War
What is that?
"Roughly a month ago, infrastructure work began in one of the house-trailer neighborhoods in the West Bank settlement of Ofra. Brown soil was needed to cover the foundations. In properly functioning places, such soil is bought and paid for, but not in Ofra. Tzvi, a local farmer, nicknamed “Kishu,” found an alternative: He sent a rented tractor and truck to the outskirts of the settlement, next to the Palestinian villages of Silwad and Deir Dibwan, where they simply stole dirt. Tzvi claims that the land belongs to him. The theft was made possible – even easy – by the fact that wide expanses of land belonging to Deir Dibwan and Silwad are enclosed within Ofra’s security fence, and the villages’ residents do not have free access to their own fields. Entry into Ofra requires coordination with the Israel Defense Forces and a constant security escort. The fence, like many parts of Ofra, was built without any permits."
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/west-bank-settlers-stealing-tons-of-soil-from-palestinian-land.premium-1.469522#
Evidence which is very useful for a possible future trial at the Hague or a new Nuremberg equivalent court.
versus whether we will help israel if it is attacked.
assisting in israel's defense should preclude so-called, claimed "preventive attacks".
wrt iran, if israeli leaders want war with iran, they should be replaced. it would be better for the usa to
have detente and rapprochement with iran than to have a war with them.
the underlying problem continues to be that western banks depend on the petrodollar to secure their currencies and enforce their monopolies. in contrast, iran violates the petrodollar paradigm by selling oil in return for payment in currencies other than the dollar (unlike other countries). it is this, not some fantasized nuclear threat that is at the root of the hostilities between the west and iran. western leaders, sponsored and installed for the most part by the banks are merely doing the banks bidding by applying sanctions and threatening war. the banks are in the way of financial reform. if the citizens of the usa still have enough power to influence legislation (a questionable qualifier), the monopoly status of the banks should become the point of impact for piercing their shields.
the banks are the enemy of peace. the iranians are not. politicians in the thrall of bankers should be replaced. that is the perspective of a working, tax-paying, american citizen.
I think you also bring up a good point. Most of Iran's money comes directly from China and so they have no need for the Dollar or Euro. Therefore, they don't seem to bow down to the US and EU (which is one reason those two were so quick to levy sanctions and why the Chinese are getting upset). Also consider that the Chinese currency is gaining strength against both the Dollar and the Euro (both of which are dipping quite a bit).
However, if you feel so strongly about Israels un- warrented defense, please be sure it is your love ones that are first to step off the aircrafts onto Palestine and in harms way. Perhaps you your self may want to stand a post or write a check to Israel. The American tax payer will pass. Americans are sick of war mongers. Epecially, for other nations. Not to mention illegally gained entities that stole from a defensless people.
Your energies could best be used finding ways to feed our people or educate our children. Keeping our people safe is paramount, and making new enemies in the world is not the way to acheive this.
I feel a shamed to call myself a Republican with your thoughts on this issue, and that of Romney. You need to come about and open your eyes and stop the AIPAC dictation.
What the above means is not that Graham is going to let Israel decide if we go to war with Iran. He has decided it is in our best interests to go to war with Iran, and is trying to have the Senate set the table for that to occur. That may be good policy or bad policy, but either way, it will be the Senate deciding that policy, not Israel.
Yet you can easily find a video of Adelson saying he REGRETS being
an American !
So Sheldon.....get the Heck out of OUR election !
These chicken hawk neocon warmonger's must be defeated !
If a positive vibe about a new Iran Pres is felt that he would step back from the edge then things could be fine. If the analysis of the next potential Iranian leader seems to inidicate a continued sprint to the cliff, taking action to restrain and prevent this dangerous action may be indicated.
Just as vaccines are used as a defensive medical measure to limit the potential for future illness, in a similar way a vaccine may need to be administered to Iran's nuclear weapons program. This defensive vaccine could help prevent much more wide spread damage to Iran's population and infrastructure in the future.