No one knows if President Obama intends to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, give Israel the go-ahead to do it, continue to rely on sanctions, or turn to comprehensive negotiations to resolve the escalating conflict.
The decision to go to war is the most difficult one a president can make because no one can foresee a war's outcome. Even if it is Israel that attacks rather than the United States, the consequences for us are likely to be the same. That is because the entire world knows that the United States and Israel are linked by means of strategic cooperation agreements which prevent Israel from acting without, at least, tacit U.S. approval. If Israel is "in," so are we.
It is safe to assume that Obama wants to avoid war. Having just come out of the disastrous Iraq experience which cost 4,500 American lives and severely damaged our interests in the Middle East (and beyond), the president wants to keep his options open. If he can prevent war (i.e., Americans dying and other vital U.S. interests being attacked), he will.
But while the president needs his options open, the United States Congress, under intense pressure from pro-war lobbyists, is determined to shut them down.
That is the meaning of the legislation introduced this month by senators Bob Casey (D-PA), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT).
The legislation:
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 senators' intent was made clear by Lieberman: "All options must be on the table when it comes to Iran -- except for one, and that is containment." He 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 goes nuclear, he must go to war.
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 go to war. If it had, I wouldn't be here writing this column today and you wouldn't be reading it.
Presidents need latitude to make decisions affecting matters of national security (another name for matters of life and death) and, until now, all presidents have been afforded it, as provided for in the United States Constitution. But, in the case of Iran, the rules are changing.
Here is more evidence.
On Sunday, General Martin Dempsey, head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told interviewer Fareed Zakaria that he does not think the U.S. should rush to war. He was speaking after a visit to Israel and long consultations with its leaders.
Dempsey said that it was not "prudent at this point to decide to attack Iran... A strike at this time would be destabilizing and wouldn't achieve their [Israel's] long-term objectives." He also said that he did not believe that the Iranian regime was insane but was rather a "rational actor" not prone to national suicide
General Dempsey's remarks outraged Prime Minister Netanyahu, whose office put out a statement saying that Dempsey, and other U.S. officials who questioned the rationale for war, were "serving Iran's interests."
Had another foreign leader implied that the head of the joint chiefs was some kind of Iranian agent, he would have been smacked down. But that is not how it works with Netanyahu.
It turns out that Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) were in Israel at the time Netanyahu attacked Dempsey. Rather than defend the American general as these uber-nationalists would do in any other similar situation, they joined the Israeli government in bashing the general -- and war hero. (The old adage about government officials not criticizing U.S. policies when in a foreign country has not applied to Israel for years).
Check out this Jerusalem Post story on McCain's reaction which the Post correctly characterized as "siding with Jerusalem in the debate" over how to deal with Iran. As for Graham, he said, "I admire General Dempsey." But, he added, "People are giving Israel a lot of advice here lately from America. I just want to tell our Israeli friends that my advice to you is never lose control of your destiny. Never allow a situation to develop that would destroy the Jewish state."
In other words, American advice to think long and hard about the consequences of war with Iran is tantamount to allowing "a situation to develop that would destroy the Jewish state."
The most appalling aspect of the senators' remarks is that their zeal to please Netanyahu and his backers in America has overridden their constitutional responsibility to put the security of the United States above all other considerations. An Israeli decision to attack Iran affects Americans, including their constituents in uniform and, perhaps, just walking down the streets of New York, Washington, or anywhere else here at home.
As noble as their professed concern for Israel is, America is supposed to come first for United States senators. McCain and Graham ought to be ashamed for standing in a foreign country and blatantly putting the interests of that government before their own. Rest assured, they aren't. They are thinking about the next election and that is what always comes first.
Follow MJ Rosenberg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mjayrosenberg
Bill Schneider: The Republican Demolition Derby
Alon Ben-Meir: Syria: The Lynchpin to Breaking the Shiite Crescent
Senators Promise War With 'Nuclear Capable' Iran, Don't ... - TPMDC
Fear of Israel War With Iran Grows Amid Heightened Nuke Concerns ...
This is not an Israeli war, this is an international effort to suppress Iran's illegal covert nuclear activities. Israel just happens to be the nosiest actor who can't live with a nuclear Iran. Iran continues to violate the NPT, refuses to cohere to six UNSC resolution, Refuse to cooperate with IAEA officials and all the reconciliatory proposals that were made to them by the P5+1.
Iran is a sponsor of terrorism worldwide. Iran has been funding, arming, and exporting terrorism against Israel through Hezzbollah, Hamas, and the Islamic Jihad of Palestine for years. Iran continues in the direction of building nuclear warheads and long range ballistic missiles, which could offset the military of power of the US and Israel. Iran thus would use this capabilities to influence the Gulf Region which would inevitably control the exports of oil in the region. Iran could also potentially start a nuclear arms race in the middle east, provide technology to unstable terror groups, threatened the existence of Israel and continue its hegemonic goals in the middle east.
watch?v=D61uriEGsIM
How about the USA sits this one out. Iran is NO threat to the USA!!
All cars in the USA should be running on natural gas by now - it's clean, works fine in existing engines, and we have all we need in the USA and Canada for 100+ years.
Then we could tell Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc where they could put their oil.
As for your claim that Iran is not a threat to the USA, I bet you thought that about al-Qaeda on Sept. 10, 2001 - and they weren't developing nuclear weapons and long-range missiles ......
A proper, enforcable, voluntary end to Iran's nuclear program would be preferable to war, but Iran won't agree to that.
Just stop already. Find a cat to kick, as I am sure you do. Iran is a threat and 911 happened. Jews did not cause that.
As of 1700 on Friday 24 Feb oil and gasoline are ...
- WTI oil (US and some other oil producers) = USD 108/bbl
- Brent oil (UK and the rest of the producers) = USD 124/bbl
- US Wholesale gasoline = USD 3.12/gal (yields retail over USD 4/gal)
Maybe Obama needs to make it plain to the US public that they have a choice of ...
- dying for Israel and having a collapsed economy, or
- accepting that Iran may get a nuclear bomb (they are currently NOT trying to get one) and that it will not make any difference to the US.
Since oil global oil production is only slightly more than global demand, all talk of war is just going to make oi prices increase.
Right now on InTrade there is a 50% chance of war by the end of 2012 - not a good sign for anyone that wants a robust US economy.”
- dying for Israel and having a collapsed economy, or..."
Okay, we now know that your analysis is racist and therefore worthless.
Obama the man is probably smarter and has more integrity than Bush. but each President has to play the cards he is dealt and I don't think Obama has the qualifications and experience to deal with the current situation. do the republicans have a better candidate? No, their candidates suck pretty much. This is a national leadership crisis. But the point is that congress is still part of this government, and it can has its own way (and diversity) that defers from the executive and it is still legitimate--in contrast to Rosenberg's argument.
An attack on Iran would be stupid, reckless, and will cause incredible amounts of instability within the region for years, if not decades, to come.
So we should expect a strike within the next year or so..
But we can surly trust they woudl not do that, since that madman Iran calls President has informed us teh Holocaust never happened and we know that is so. yea he is trustable to tell it as it is. Wait, he openly says he wasts to nuke Israel. But hey we are not Israel. I sthat the argument?