The New York Times reports today that, "American officials who have assessed the likely Iranian responses to any attack by Israel on its nuclear program believe that Iran would retaliate by launching missiles on Israel and terrorist-style attacks on United States civilian and military personnel overseas."
Just what we need. According to the front page piece, Israelis might have to endure a missile onslaught from Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon while we could see car bombs exploding in our cities and our troops coming under renewed terror attacks in Afghanistan and throughout the Middle East.
The Times:
An increase in car bombs set off against civilian targets in world capitals would also be possible. And Iran would almost certainly smuggle high-powered explosives across its border into Afghanistan, where they could be planted along roadways and set off by surrogate forces to kill and maim American and NATO troops -- much as it did in Iraq during the peak of violence there.
Nonetheless, according to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA), AIPAC has decided to make the Lieberman-Graham-Casey resolution that would ban containment of Iran in favor of attacking its nuclear sites the centerpiece of its Washington conference, which starts Sunday. JTA reports that the "resolution, which now has 35 co-sponsors, is expected to top the agenda of items that AIPAC activists will take with them to Capitol Hill on March 6, the conference's last day."
There has been some speculation that AIPAC's inability to attract more than 35 co-sponsors on the resolution is a sign of weakness. I doubt it. I think it wants to start with a low number and then, following its conference, trumpet the spike in sponsorship from 35 to 80 or 90.
The resolution is an unprecedented infringement on President Obama's power to make peace rather than war. Although it's only a resolution, it is expected that its sponsors will convert it into binding legislative language later. After all, once a Senator has endorsed the non-binding version, how does he or she bail when the lobby re-introduces it as a proposed law.
Just to recap:
According to its sponsors, the resolution rejects "any United States policy that would rely on efforts to contain a nuclear weapons-capable Iran; and urges the President to reaffirm the unacceptability of an Iran with nuclear weapons-capability and oppose any policy that would rely on containment as an option in response to the Iranian nuclear threat."
The sponsors made their intent clear: "All options must be on the table when it comes to Iran -- except for one, and that is containment." They added that "the consequences of a nuclear-armed Iran cannot be 'contained' like the threat of the Soviet Union" -- or China, or North Korea, or Pakistan.
The senators are telling the president that if Iran develops "nuclear weapons capability," we must go to war.
The good news is that it is now beginning to look like President Obama has no intention of going to war with Iran, nor of letting Israel bomb first and drag us in later. And there is also some significant congressional pushback.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee favors Iran diplomacy and opposes the resolution, saying that "I really believe that negotiations should proceed without any resolutions from us right now. This is a very sensitive time. Candidly, I think diplomacy should have an opportunity to work without getting involved in political discussions about a resolution."
And in the House, a conservative Republican, Walter Jones of North Carolina, and a liberal Democrat, Keith Ellison of Minnesota, also have written a letter to the president urging that he reject the AIPAC approach in favor of negotiation (they are seeking co-signers).
The letter concludes:
A military strike against Iran could lead to a regional war in the Middle East and attacks against U.S. interests. Even worse, such a strike would likely compel Iran to abandon the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, eject international inspectors, and rapidly pursue a nuclear deterrent.
Top military and civilian leaders have repeatedly issued warnings about the consequences of a military strike on Iran. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta cautioned that the United States "could possibly be the target of retaliation from Iran, sinking our ships, striking our military bases," and that "would not only involve many lives, but I think could consume the Middle East in a confrontation and a conflict that we would regret."
Former Israeli Mossad chief Meir Dagan made a similar prediction when he said that attacking Iran "would mean regional war, and in that case you would have given Iran the best possible reason to continue the nuclear program."
Retired General Anthony Zinni said, "If you follow this all the way down, eventually I'm putting boots on the ground somewhere. And, like I tell my friends, if you like Iraq and Afghanistan, you'll love Iran."
To avoid war, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, called for the United States to utilize "any channel that's open" for engagement with Iran, noting, "Even in the darkest days of the Cold War, we had links to the Soviet Union."
We strongly encourage your Administration to pursue bilateral and multilateral engagement with Iran. While we acknowledge that progress will be difficult, we believe that robust, sustained diplomacy is the best option to resolve our serious concerns about Iran's nuclear program, and to prevent a costly war that would be devastating for the United States and our allies in the region.
Those who ask what they can do to prevent another horrific Middle Eastern war should ask their senators not to cosponsor the Lieberman-Casey-Graham resolution and ask their representatives to sign the Jones-Ellison letter.
Obviously these efforts are uphill battles. Having worked on Capitol Hill for 20 years, I can tell you that saying no to the lobby is a very difficult proposition. Unless the legislator has a totally safe seat, the lobby will make the legislator and his or her staffs miserable until they sign. He is forced to ask himself: is it really worth it to say "no" to a lobby that can make my life so miserable, and maybe even defeat me. The answer is usually: no.
A better question a legislator can ask himself is whether it is worth losing American lives in an unnecessary war because a president is constrained from utilizing diplomacy to prevent it? Is it worth it to even consider another Iraq when we are just wrapping the first one up? Is it worth it to get into another war without knowing how it will end or how much it will cost? And if it is, precisely how many American lives is it worth.
Similarly, I would ask how many Israeli lives is a strike on Iran worth. Given that no one knows if Iran is actually pursuing a nuclear weapon, with the U.S. government clearly of the belief that it isn't, why would Israeli leaders even consider attacking Iran when an attack would rain missiles down on Haifa, Tel Aviv and more. How many kids would die in a move that would evoke the old adage "we destroyed the village in order to save it."
As for us.
Last night on the Washington metro, I saw a young man, maybe just beyond teenage, with a prosthesis below one knee. I wanted to thank him for his service but I wasn't sure he actually was a veteran. The only indication was his camoflauge shorts.
I asked, "were you in the war?"
He said that he was: Afghanistan. We talked a little and I did thank him for his service. He said: "There is no need to thank me, sir. I didn't have a bad war, except for this. It still hurts some but I've only had it a month."
I was awe-struck as I invariably am by these heroic soldiers. But most of all, I felt determined to do whatever I can to prevent another Middle East war. I can't see how anything we can possibly achieve in Iran through war, rather than diplomacy, is worth a brave kid's leg. Let alone his life.
Follow MJ Rosenberg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mjayrosenberg
Qasim Rashid: Israel and Iran Need Diplomacy, Not Destruction
Jordan has never breached its peace treaty with Israel. Jordan's government isn't endorsing Iran's nuclear program.There is no widespread call for Hussain's downfall. Jordan's military isn't out slaughtering its own citizens. Annan has issued no hostile or threatening remarks against Israel in regard to Israel's plans to strike at Iran's nuclear facilities. How much more stable can Jordan possibly be?
It has been shown beyond doubt that both the Allies and Germany each possessed stockpiles of mustard gas during WWII, none of which was ever used. Even Hitler, the madman mass murderer that he was, realized that as many German as Allied soldiers would die if gas warfare were unleashed. Dittto for civilians.
I mention this only because the radical clerics who really run Iran are religious fanatics rather than political or military ones. They have said, on the record, that they would trade 50 million Iranian deaths in exchange for destroying Israel. Not to mention the Muslims living in Israel, Syria, Lebanon, and elsewhere in the Middle East, especially those located downwind from the massive radiation.
I can assure you these proxy wars will cease and desist.
Someone needs to read it to these "so called US Senators" and remind them who they need to be loyal to.
Good For Obama! Another reason to get him another 4 years!
If Israel wants to fight a war, they should start and fight it themselves.
"Between 1990 and 2004, pro-Israel groups contributed nearly $57 million to candidates and parties while Arab American and Muslim Political Action Committees contributed slightly less than $800,000." Money buys influence which is why there was such a backlash with Citizens United.
Most Americans are indifferent on the topic of Israel, only a small amount have very strong feelings, so politically it's safe to appease that small minority who have raised millions of dollars. It's a win win which is why both parties try to out do each other in their "support" of Israel.
http://www.amazon.com/Israel-Lobby-U-S-Foreign-Policy/dp/0374177724
Unfortunately it was not a win win for our troops that died by the thousands because of this influence and corruption.
This is a list of the ten countries with the highest defense budgets for the year 2010, which is $1.22 trillion or 76% of total world expenditures. The information is from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.[7][8] Total world spending amounted to $1.63 trillion USD in 2010.
Rank Country Spending ($ b.) World Share (%) % of GDP, 2010
— World Total 1630 100 —
1 United States 698.0 42.8 4.8
but I would point out that a Chinese soldier costs what,
maybe 5-10% if that compared to one for the US....
and similar things that screw with a comparison....
The revolt in Arab world is not merely against a resident dictator but worldwide economic tyranny designed by the US Treasury and imposed by the US Agency for International Development, the IMF and World Bank, which have ensured that rich countries like Egypt are reduced to vast sweatshops, with half the population earning less than $2 a day.
“It is necessary to destroy hope, idealism, solidarity, and concern for the poor and oppressed,” observed Noam Chomsky a generation ago, “[and] to replace these dangerous feelings with self-centred egoism, a pervasive cynicism that holds that [an order of] inequities and oppression is the best that can be achieved. In fact, a great international propaganda campaign is under way to convince people – particularly young people – that this not only is what they should feel but that it’s what they do feel.” More: http://www.johnpilger.com/articles/behind-the-arab-revolt-is-a-word-we-dare-not-speak
We are comfortable here in the US. Far removed from the pain and suffering US policy causes abroad. Only now, we are seeing more and more suffering here reminding us, if we choose to listen, that we are not exceptional, meaning we are as human and weak as any other. The truth has been there all along really, but we've been blind to it, seeking instead our own comfort --fancy toys, cars, homes and vacations, the so-called "American" dream (which is really the dream of our entire species, but not as we now define it, however)-- regardless of the cost to our neighbors domestically or internationally...more than that, having the media and politicians constantly reinforce that it is OK.
The peoples of the world deserve better than they are currently receiving. We deserve better than childish games, bitter rhetoric, hate bred in ignorance, rampant violence and warfare.
It may not seem so, but I do hope for better... =)
Our entertainment, our food, our leaders, our education and our entire lifestyle aims towards the lowest common denominator. Thus, our leaders can sell out to the highest bidder by feeding the masses, bread, circuses and fear. The masses do not know any better nor do they care.
Edmund Burke also makes a great observation: "A great empire and little minds go ill together".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6KLFrye9Xk
... More Chomsky here: Arab opinion is so hostile to Washington's policies that a majority (57%) think regional security would be enhanced if Iran had nuclear weapons. The dictators support us. Their subjects can be ignored -- unless they break their chains, and then policy must be adjusted.
MORE:http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20110204.htm
TODAY they are doing it ALL AGAIN..do we not have any shame? The lies being perpetrated are so wrong. the truth is out there but no one wants to hear it...USA, USA.
Readers of N. Chomsky a person of great knowledge has professed that Iran is only a threat to World peace by 10%- Israel 78% and America 88%...He goes on to say that since World War 2 the USA has designs on controlling all of the Middle East countries for OIL AMERICA modus operandi is to intially create INSTABILITY so that later they can show the World its new FACE by bringing Stability, remember Chile?
This is the first real existential threat to the Israelis since 1967, and I believe they mean to permanently cripple the Iranian nuclear program as well as the Iranian military and government removing them as an existential threat.Nothing else makes any sense. Why take the risks, why chance the fallout otherwise.
Netanyahu's upcoming visit to the United States will be acrimonious. Israel will take action within two - three weeks after his return from Washington, D.C
He will get nothing from Obama whom he doesn't trust in the first place
They want to destroy the region's hegemony.
We don't have one of the biggest deparments in the CIA dedicated to Israeli spying on our country because Israel loves us. On the contrary, Israel is more than willing to fight until the last American soldier is dead.
We need a divorce... and no child support!!