Senate Urges Bush to Attack Iran

Yesterday, Democratic Senators Hillary Clinton (NY), Chuck Schumer (NY), Bob Menendez (NJ), Barbara Mikulski (MD), and Ben Cardin (MD) all voted in favor of the "Kyl-Lieberman Iran Amendment." This piece of legislation actually encourages the practitioner of cowboy diplomacy, George W. Bush, to be even more belligerent in his foreign policy. The Kyl-Lieberman Amendment passed by a vote of 76 to 22. Chris Dodd and Joe Biden voted against it, and Barack Obama missed the vote.

The amendment states: "The United State should designate Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization . . . and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists."

Kyl-Lieberman is the first step in providing Congressional legitimacy for military action against Iran. The 76 to 22 vote, which also had the support of Majority Leader Harry Reid, codifies U.S. Iran policy and comes very close to sounding like a declaration of war. Designating a four decades old military branch of a sovereign state a "foreign terrorist organization" is an extreme step that is only necessary or useful if there are plans "on the table" to do something about it.

The U.S. troops in Iraq are not considered "foreign." The U.S. calls those Iraqis who are resisting occupation "terrorists." Now a segment of the Iranian armed forces is being labeled a terrorist organization. Such a step is tantamount to a foreign government designating the U.S. Marines a "foreign terrorist organization."

The Democratic Senate is playing right into the hands of those neo-cons and crazies who think a military strike against Iran will improve the situation in the Middle East. On the contrary, it will magnify the current disaster in Iraq tenfold.

If the Senate and the Neo-Cons convince Bush to strike Iran they will be sparking a real war with a nation that can fight back. With its 70 million people, high literacy rate, key geographic location, level of economic development, and its control of a significant share of the world's oil production, Iran is a nation that could cause quite a stir if Bush is dim-witted enough to go down that terrible road.

I can envision a scenario where the United States launches a sustained set of air raids against most of the infrastructure of Iran, specifically targeting the "nuclear facilities" that are widely dispersed throughout the country. The Democrats in Congress will be jumping through hoops like well-trained circus dogs as they vote for resolutions and give speeches validating the aggression. And then we're off to the races in another illegal war against a nation that has not attacked us.

Iran accounts for about 4 percent of the world's daily oil production, and will surely shut off the spigots if it is attacked sending the price of oil skyward. (Iran's ally Venezuela might follow suit.) Petroleum analysts estimate that the world runs only about a 2 percent excess capacity of oil production, which could mean an instant drop to a negative world supply if Iran chooses to stop pumping. This reduction in output alone could wreak havoc with global energy markets.

Iran might also take the step of disrupting the oil production of neighboring Gulf States through missile attacks on their oil infrastructure and sabotage. The world production of oil could then drop to a negative 10 percent or more, and the price could shoot up even higher. The American people, who consume more oil per capita than any people on earth, will be waiting in long lines to fill up our tanks as we did during the Iranian revolution in 1978-79. Ordinary Americans don't only get the privilege of paying for the costs of the missiles and ordnance Bush will throw at Iran, but we also get the honor of paying triple the amount for a gallon of gas while we are queued up at the pump.

The Iranian silkworm missiles, supplied by China, (which recently signed a $100 billion oil and gas deal with Iran), will rip through the shipping of the Persian Gulf. Explosions of undetermined origin will rake through the oil platforms and infrastructure of the Gulf States. Iraq's civil war will reach a new intensity. And bombs will go off throughout the region wreaking havoc with the smooth transport of oil.

The Iranians and their allies in the Gulf will cause trouble in the Straights of Hormuz where 40 percent of the world's oil passes. They will turn the Gulf into a garbage dump of damaged ships and flaming oil dereks. Russia and China will supply arms to Iran and the conflict will continue, like Iraq, for as long as the United States tries to impose its will on the region through brute force.

They will also probably have agents blow up U.S. embassies and other targets all over the world. The war will be the most destabilizing the Persian Gulf has ever seen.
Compounded with the financial strains of the $600 billion Iraq occupation, the new war with Iran will run the risk of bankrupting the United States. China might cash in some of its $1 trillion in U.S. treasury bonds and exchange them for Euros. The value of the dollar could then be suddenly devalued. The life savings of millions of Americans could be threatened as the dollar tanks, and interest rates shoot up when the central banks try to entice foreigners' to hang on to their dollars to stop the hemorrhaging. And this devaluing of the dollar could occur in an environment of hyperinflation because the high price of oil will drive up the costs of everything.

So let's not let those narrow interests who seek another wider war in the Middle East prevail. They don't really know what they're getting themselves into.

Comments

[Canaan]

"Designating a four decades old military branch of a sovereign state a "foreign terrorist organization" is an extreme step that is only necessary or useful if there are plans "on the table" to do something about it."

No, it's useful if it empowers the Treasury Dept to interrupt Iran's access to finances. Diplomacy doesn't mean having a meet 'n greet. It means offering Iran a sweetheart deal if they back down, economic warfare if they don't. We want inspections to be a 'no-brainer' for Iran. This article doesn't even mention the Treasury Dept's anti-terrorism powers.

I understand the alarm, given Bush's record. War with Iran would be a disaster. Iranian nukes do not directly threaten the U.S. The problem is Israel is in full-on 'Missile Crisis' mode.

There are only three possibilities: Iran concedes so Israel can stop hyperventilating. (2) The U.S. will attack Iran if diplomacy fails. (3) Israel will attack Iran if the U.S. doesn't (the worst case scenario).

No way Israel accepts Iranian nukes, so Iran must back down. They won't back down unless they can save face, and that means a sweetheart deal - buying them off, letting Iran claim victory in the negotiations. My question is does K-L cut off the sweetheart deal? K-L doesn't lead to an American attack--the Joint Chiefs would drag Bush out and ---- him on the White House lawn. K-L leads to an Israeli attack if it undermines the sweetheart deal.

[StMTraveler]

What kind of Middle East do we want?
Iranian potential to develop nuclear arsenals would be of minimum consequence to our national defense; after all we faced Soviet"s fully developed nuclear arsenals. Iran is more of nuisance than a real threat. Iran could be a threat to our satellite nations by defying our policy. The administration finds it much easier to deal with Shah than to deal with Iran. We just pretend to desire the concept of messy democracy for these nations, knowing well the hostility of the regional population to our American foreign policy.

Are we trying to make an example of Iran? Iran under Shah was incapable to produce a sewing needle; in contrast, Iran today is developing a strong population of educated men and women, a solid industrial base and national pride. Iranian democracy must develop from the Iranian base, a brand of democracy suited to the historical and cultural sense of the population. Like our American Republic, democracy in Iran will nurture with time, experiencing up and down until the Bill of Rights of Iran will be established.

What do we, the people of this great Republic, demand from our Administration for the Middle East? If it is not about domination of the Persian Gulf countries, and exploitation of their natural resources, then what is that we want? Tell the truth!

[LeanLeftAmerica]

Watching my fellow dems implode over the reprehensible albeit strategic plays of a democratically lead congress has left me looking for a silver lining. The sooner we enter into a war with Iran the sooner our resources will run out. Oil will no longer be a profitable source of energy (if the Chinese can ride their bikes to work, so can we).
Halliburton will own a worthless commodity and its power will be null and void. Out of anarchy we will find the opportunity to rebuild as our founding fathers did. So smile the next time republicans take control... our republic will not fall completely, only the superfluous will fade away. And do not mistake me for an Anarchist. I simply see that we are no longer in control and the sooner Halliburton crumbles, the sooner we can rebuild. My choice is that Iran not pay for our stupidity, but if our (dems) voice and votes fall short, a greater good may still yet prevail. I am smiling. You should be too!

[varpsonic]

Iranian Sunburner cruis missile info:http://www.rense.com/general59/theSunburniransawesome.htmc

[SamThornton]

Reportedly, Iran also has stockpiles of the submarine-launched Russian Sizzler anti-ship missile, as well as more extensive stocks of the French Exocet anti-ship missile.

While the Exocet is an older technology presumably able to be countered by Navy defenses, little information is available publicly on how many simultaneous incoming Exocets can be successfully engaged.

Sizzler and Sunburns are threats of a different magnitude. In a Sept. 8, 2006 memo quoted at Bloomberg.com, Ken Krieg, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, saw the threat as so serious that he said that unless the Sizzler threat was addressed, his office wouldn't approve test plans necessary for production to begin on several other projects. At that time, the Navy had no program or plans for determining how to counter these threats.

It's likely there are currently two study-group exercises going on in the Administration: a military side emphasizing the high risks of engaging Iran with a military strike, and a political side citing contrary formulations. Which one is fact-based and which one is not I leave to the imagination.

[darker]

Oh yes, the GOD OF GREED, corruption, Big Oil's oil field takeovers, war-profiteer corporations --THAT god's been taking to Bush, again.

Bush is listening to THAT "god" again.

[Stevelagain]

Well, they are terrorists so I don't see this as much news. Any day now we can expect Columbia to ask the leaders of the Iranian guard to come and speak to their students to "educate them".

[FlowerGirl]

People are not XXX merely because a proven liar says so!
By the way, why is that elephant in the room beiong ignored? The only reason Bush or anyone else wants to make war on Iran is that ISRAEL demands it. It is not smart. It is not legal or justified. It is simply evil,like the ones who demand it. Why not bomb the nation in the Middle East which occupies land of other peoples, constantly violates the human rights of those people (as well as its own citizens who have the wrong ethnicity), and has one of the world's largest arsenals of all kinds of WMDs?

[varpsonic]

Iran has a stock of Russian cruise missiles that are indefensible. Our military is fully aware of the folly of engaging with Iran. Watch the military try to hold back the Chicken hawks.

[BillZBubb]

You are being too pessimistic. The neocons know that once Iran is attacked, the Iranian people will rise up and throw out the Ayatollahs. They will greet the American bombers and cruise missles with flowers and candy. They will thank us for bombing them. Then, a new fully functioning democracy will florish in Iran overnight! And best of all, the Iranian oil will pay for it!!!!

That's why we need another tax cut for the top wage earners as soon as possible. See, it's so simple.

[peaceandfreedom]

That is too good. Keep posting.

[Liberterna]

Rome was not defeated by another great empire. Rome was defeated from within and finished off by Gothic "barbarians" who were in every way inferior to the Romans.

Do not let history repeat itself. Love America, love the republic, resist the empire.

[Sprinkle]

I basicaslly agree that America needs to move away from imperialism, however as a sidenote.

Most of what is known about the "Gothic Barbarians" comes from Roman sources and thus can hardly be viewed as impartial.

Newer research into the so-called barbarians has shown that they were in many ways far more sophisticated and technologically advanced than has been previously believed.

Apologies for being a picky bastard. Sometimes i can't help myself.

[backhandpath]

Actually you're quite correct in your comparison. However who's to say that Rome falling was a bad thing but the Romans themselves. Ha! Sour grapes if you ask me.

I like the idea of destroying an empire from within, just as we did in 1776 and just as we are capable of doing now through National Initiative.

[OldKnute]

Well,, The Vandals were kinda a clustering. Mixed with the Carthaginians and Moroccans.

We all twist our stories a bit to justify things. Gorge Bush is telling the story now, as some Master speaks to him. Have you ever noticed how BUSH never mentions the name of Jesus?????

Oh, like the English and Ole Knut.

To hear the English story, Knut went to the waters edge after being crowned King and forbade the tide to rise. Oh, of course, the Angel-sos and Isaac-sons, start laughing about this point in the story.

Well,,,,,, they don"t quite tell the whole story.

See,,, in order for Knut to be crowned, he had to go see the Pope.

Benedict I think.

Anyway,,,, Benidict said it was OK and gave his blessing and Knut returned to England. Well, everyone was in a twitter over a Barbarian being crowned King. Actually, Knut was ELECTED King, bringer of the Dane Law. Well, they all said Knut was now a God among men, Knut was Christian by then and this did not sit well with his concepts of the Divine and reverence of Jesus

Sooooo,,,,, Knut challenged the Court and Nobles and questioned their reasoning. If he were in fact a god, would he not be able to command the stars, the winds and the sea?

**Oh yes, your majesty you certainly may, you are anointed and approved.***

So Knut had his throne carried out at low tide, and forbade the tide to rise. Well,,, the tide rise, so Knut trudged up through knee deep water to the Nobles and declared,,,, WE ARE MEN,,, and we will RULE AS MEN, with Gods will, grace and honor, not false superstitions but by the light of the Prince of PEACE.

So there you have it.

And Pope Benedict never complained. Knut ruled for 21 years of peace.

Go figure! Now Iran is on the chopping block?

PEACE?

Do we even know the meaning of the word?

All the best

Knute (Neo-LIB)

[wldnswmmr]

It's like Buck Turgidson said: "I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I am saying not more than 10 or 20 million dead, depending on the breaks." So look on the bright side. Sure it sounds a lot like World War III, but maybe our usually completely lousy intelligence will be about 5% right and we'll actually destroy a commercial nukular reactor. That's a fair trade, right, for ruining the US economy and setting fire to the Middle East? It seems to me that we can get ourselves worked into any kind of frenzy we want, but it's obvious that the Psycho in the West Wing has only enablers over at Congress, and they want war, war and more war, and if they want it, they'll get it.

[JohnCitizen]

WAR WITH IRAN " BRING IT ON!

GOOD NEWS... God is speaking directly to George Bush (again) and telling him to go to war with Iran. This new war should go as well as the strategically-brainless Iraq war (the last guidance from a higher authority, another Father than Bush41) and further help over one billion Muslims in their decision to fight America in a mutual holy war. When the President finally increases the level of hatred against the United States to where it engulfs Pakistan, then we face nuclear terror, and Biblical Armageddon becomes real and a self-fulfilling prophecy. Oh, the joy, the Rapture!

Right now roiled Pakistan is just one assassin"s bullet away from going under, and still jihad recruitment is only in its infancy. The Crusades of long ago are living history in the Middle East, so Muslims are already primed for another war with Christian invaders; and our "bring it on" cowboy President is only rekindling and fueling this centuries-old fire.

Our brave, innocent young men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan are fighting for a better world, but a leader ignorant of history and cultures can easily cause the opposite. The stupidity of World War I and of Wilson, Lloyd George and Clemenceau caused terrible consequences for another 70 years after the end of that war, including Hilter and Communism. Afghanistan is the right war, certainly a just war and the whole world agreed and was on our side, and if we would have concentrated our efforts there we probably would have wiped out Bin Laden and those responsible for 9-11 by now. Iraq is a strategic disaster, and Iran will be even worse. Face it, all George Bush knows is how to start wars. Our mentally unbalanced, messianic President needs to provoke a war, and Senate just gave him a green light.

Historical footnote: Thank Providence George Bush was not President during the Cuban Missile Crisis. For those of us who lived through that experience, it took a President with brains to survive. God, help us!