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."
Since the resolution, and U.S. policy itself defines Iranian possession of nuclear weapons as, ipso facto, a threat, Congress would be telling the president that any U.S. response to that threat other than war is unacceptable. In fact, it goes farther than that, not only ruling out containment of a nuclear armed Iran but also containment of an Iran that has a "nuclear weapons capability."
That means that the only acceptable response to a nuclear armed or nuclear capable Iran is not containment but its opposite: war.
Any doubt that this is the intention of the backers of this approach was removed back in March, when the Senate was considering new Iran sanctions. Senators Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Bob Casey (D-PA) offered their own "no containment" language to the sanctions bill and the Senate moved to quickly to accept it.
However, amending a bill once it is already on the Senate floor requires unanimous consent and one, and only one, senator objected. Rand Paul (R-KY) said that he would oppose the containment clause unless a provision was added specifying that "nothing in the Act shall be construed as a declaration of war or an authorization of the use of force against Iran..."
That did it.
Neither the Democratic or Republican leadership would accept that (knowing that AIPAC wouldn't) and Paul's objection killed the bill, for the time being. In other words, the purpose of "no containment" language is precisely to make war virtually automatic. Because Paul's provision would thwart that goal, it was unacceptable.
So now it's the House's turn.
On the substance, the "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.
Presidents need latitude to make decisions affecting matters of national security and, until now, all presidents have been afforded it, as provided for in the United States Constitution. But, in the case of Iran, the cheerleaders for war are trying to change the rules. They are doing that because they understand that after almost a decade of war, the last thing Americans want is another one.
No president is going to ask Congress to declare war, or even to authorize it. Making war against Iran automatic would eliminate that problem. (That is precisely Sen. Paul's objection; he believes that backing into war is unconstitutional. He recalls the Gulf of Tonkin resolution of 1964 which led to ten years of war in Vietnam and 50,000 American dead without a declaration of war or even a specific authorization for war).
So why would the House vote for a resolution like this? The main reason is AIPAC. It may be the only lobby pushing for war with Iran but it also, by far, the most powerful foreign policy lobby and also the one that sees to it that those who play ball with it are rewarded and those who don't are punished.
The other reason is that the resolution is non-binding. Voting for it is good politics but does not affect policy.
Believing that is a mistake. An overwhelming vote for "no containment" may not tie the president's hands legally, but it does go a long way to tying his hands politically. After all, Congress will be expressing its clear (bipartisan) intent. A president cannot easily ignore that.
Moreover, the lobby is unlikely to stop with a non-binding resolution. Once the House and Senate have passed that, the lobby will look for an opportunity to make it binding. The goal is to take the president's discretion away from him because this president is unlikely to choose war when there are other options available.
It is those options that the lobby is determined to block. It remains hell-bent for war.
Follow MJ Rosenberg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mjayrosenberg
Overt genocidial intentions + nuclear weapons = something to be avoided
Iranian leaders, inc. Ahmadinejad, chant "Death to Israel" such as on August 2nd 2006:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FckLO8HcNyo
This speech was broadcast on IRINN TV, an official Iranian TV station.
Iranian leaders, such as "Supreme Leader" Khamenei, explain why it is fit and proper to chant "Death to America".
Such as here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OIUieD2KN4
Iranian leaders, inc. Khamenei, refer to Israel as a "cancerous tumor that should be cut and will be cut". See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/9059179/Iran-We-will-help-cut-out-the-cancer-of-Israel.html
FYI, the Palestinian population in increasing far faster than the Jewish Israeli population, and the US population.
Since 1967 when Israel took control of the West Bank, the Muslim population there has more than TRIPLED!
Since 1967, the Muslim population of the Gaza Strip has QUADRUPLED - a 300% increase!
See
http://www.arabamericannews.com/news/index.php?mod=comment&article=2547
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Palestinian_territories#Population
Between 1967 and 2010, the USA population increased by a mere 58%.
So the Palestinian population, under Israeli control, grew over 5 times faster than the US population during the same period. So much for Palestinians being "wiped out" ........
President Obama has ALREADY SAID, many times, than containing a nuclear-armed Iran is not an option.
"The president stated his policy was not containment of a nuclear Iran, but preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon." CNN, March 5, 2012
I'm curious MJ - do you OPPOSE the president on this? Are you content to allow Iran to complete its project and to HAVE nuclear weapons?
Obama's position merely echoes that of his Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta.
“We know that they’re [Iranians] trying to develop a nuclear capability, and that’s what concerns us,” Panetta said.
See http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=66712
January 8, 2012, interviewed on CBS's Face the Nation, seen by millions.
And Admiral Mike Mullen was very clear about the Administration's opinion of Iran's nuclear program back in September 2011, on his official government website:
"Iran is attempting to develop nuclear weapons and wants regional hegemony in the Middle East, Mullen said."
See http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=65334
BTW why dosen'tm Israel allow the IEA in to inspect it's nukes???
Might as well just go back to calling "Israel-firster", MJ.
He can win, he just can't win by using strategies like these.
http://mycatbirdseat.com/2012/05/a-tipping-point-for-israel/
I might be missing something, but a bill passed in the Republican held House of Representatives would still need to go to the Democrat held Senate...correct?
So in reality this bill is more symbol than anything? And making an issue of it seems more like another attack on AIPAC, for the sake of attacking AIPAC than anything else...isn't that correct?
No one wants war - but if Iran knows that there is no chance that the US will either support nor assist in an attempt to stop them from arming - doesn't that give them the ability to do whatever they want?
Funny to imagine Obama having to go to the Supreme Court and have them declare this unconstitutional after smacking them over Obama Care - that alone will be worth the price of admission.
I would be sad also, but fortunately, I don't believe that the Jews control the media, the government, the banks. So when our democratically elected congress does something that a strong majority of voters agree with, I don't need to get worked up.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/107/hconres454/text
These resolutions happen all the time. It's just no one seems to care unless Israel seems to be involved. Even then no one cares except people who make their living off of bashing Israel and those that follow them.
I don’t remember resolutions about going to war over Lumber. Do you? I don’t remember Congress so openly accepting Bribes just to go to war. Do you?
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FC31Aa01.html
Read a Clean break and you will understand who controls America's foreign policy. I know you are Hasbara and not an American, so this is not really for you, but for others that may be reading your post.
Then Zeliow didn't know what he was talking about. I prefer to listen to Colin Powel's Chief of Staff Lawrence Wilkerson who says something very different
"WASHINGTON, Aug 28, 2007 (IPS) - Israeli officials warned the George W. Bush administration that an invasion of Iraq would be destabilising to the region and urged the United States to instead target Iran as the primary enemy, according to former administration official Lawrence Wilkerson."
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39051
The neo-cons wish to rule out diplomacy and get on with the ignorant and ruinous march to a war with Iran. The Republicans want to have another tragic war with the move to strengthen the hands of the Iranian hardliners and give me more reason than ever to support Obama's measured restraints.
No war with Iran!
Have you noticed the change in Obama's speaches concerning Iran? This started AFTER he met and gave a speach at a Jewish"convention". You should also note the important members of congess that attened !!
1) a nuclear Iran is not in America's best interests any more than it is in the interest of Israel, Saudi Arabia, France or Germany.
2) if in fact this bill is unconstitutional, it would be struck down.
Nuch ado about nothing. Purely symbolic.
Well at that point, you've gone to war -- the only question left is, "Will they fight back?"
Iran is an industrial nation of 80 million people who don't deserve to be attacked. Iran controls Hormuz whether we admit it or not, and sits next-door to both of our current wars.
As for Pakistan. To describe a nation where the Army supported the Taliban and Al-Q and funds Kashmiri terrorists, where home-grown terrorism is rife, where a whole chunk of the nation is not under even the flimsiest state authority and which has been described as a "failed state" by the US State Dept. as "stable" is completely ludicrous. In fact it's completely divorced from reality.
The US Intelligence Services, the Israeli Intelligence Services all the experts say Iran has not decided to make nuclear weapons. Even the enriched uranium they have isn't even suitable for that purpose as to make weapons from it they'd irradiate all their equipment to the point where it couldn't be used to make the weapons.
And you condemn them for funding terrorists, well fair enough, but so does Israel, so does the USA and most certainly so does Pakistan. Of the nations more likely to give terrorists the bomb, Pakistan is a LOT higher on the list. I'd say it tops it, with Israel coming a close 2nd (Israel LOVES false-flag ops).
So fine, prevent Iran getting nukes (which it isn't building) but get Israel and Pakistan to give up theirs too.