For all it has done to promote confrontation between the United States and Iran, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee has worked to avoid the public perception that AIPAC is openly promoting war. In AIPAC's public documents, the emphasis has always been on tougher sanctions. (If you make sanctions "tough" enough -- an effective embargo -- that is an act of war, but it is still at one remove from saying that the U.S. should start bombing.)
But a new Senate effort to move the goalposts of U.S. policy to declare it "unacceptable" for Iran to develop a nuclear weapons capability -- not a nuclear weapon, but the technical capacity to create one -- gives AIPAC the opportunity to make a choice which all can observe. If the Lieberman resolution becomes an ask for AIPAC lobbyists at the March AIPAC policy conference, then the world will know: AIPAC is lobbying Congress for war with Iran.
Sponsors of the Lieberman resolution deny that it is an "authorization for military force," and in a legal, technical sense, they are absolutely correct: it is not a legal authorization for military force. But it is an attempt to enact a political authorization for military force. It is an attempt to pressure the administration politically to move forward the tripwire for war, to a place indistinguishable from the status quo that exists today. If successful, this political move would make it impossible for the administration to pursue meaningful diplomatic engagement with Iran, shutting down the most plausible alternative to war.
The first "resolved" paragraph of the Lieberman resolution affirms that it is a "vital national interest" of the United States to prevent Iran from acquiring a "nuclear weapons capability."
The phrase "vital national interest" is a "term of art." It means something that the U.S. should be willing to go to war for. Recall the debate over whether the U.S. military intervention in Libya was a "vital national interest" of the United States (which Defense Secretary Robert Gates said it wasn't.) It was a debate over whether the bar was met to justify the United States going to war.
The resolution seeks to establish it as U.S. policy that a nuclear weapons capability -- not acquisition of a nuclear weapon, but the technical capacity to create one -- is a "red line" for the United States. If the U.S. were to announce to Iran that achieving "nuclear weapons capability" is a red line for the U.S., the U.S. would be saying that it is ready to attack Iran with military force in order to try to prevent Iran from crossing this "line" to achieve "nuclear weapons capability."
And this is reportedly being openly discussed by the bill's sponsors.
Senators from both parties said Thursday that a diplomatic solution was still the goal and they believed the sanctions on Iran were working, but that a containment strategy was less preferable than a military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities if all else fails.
So, what the Senators are reportedly saying is that if "all else fails" -- that is, if diplomacy and sanctions appear to be "failing" to prevent Iran from achieving a nuclear weapons capability -- according to these Senators, that's what "failure" would be -- then they want war. That's not a legal "authorization of force," but it is a political one.
And it is not a political authorization of force in some far-off future. It is a political authorization of force today.
"Nuclear weapons capability" is a fuzzy term with no legal definition. But Joe Lieberman, a principal author of the bill, has said what he thinks this term means:
"To me, nuclear weapons capability means that they are capable of breaking out and producing a nuclear weapon -- in other words, that they have all the components necessary to do that," Lieberman said. "It's a standard that is higher than saying 'The red line is when they actually have nuclear weapons.'"
But many experts think that Iran already has the "components" necessary for "breaking out."
On Thursday, Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies was quoted saying that the November report from the International Atomic Energy Agency "basically laid out the fact that Iran now has every element of technology needed to make a fission weapon."
On January 24, Helene Cooper reported in the New York Times:
Several American and European officials say privately that the most attainable outcome for the West could be for Iran to maintain the knowledge and technology necessary to build a nuclear weapon while stopping short of doing so.
This suggests two things. One, these U.S. and European officials believe that Iran already has "the knowledge and technology necessary to build a nuclear weapon"; two, these U.S. and European officials believe that inducing Iran not to use this knowledge and technology to build a nuclear weapon is the best outcome that the West can achieve.
If the experts and Western officials who believe that Iran already has "the knowledge and technology necessary to build a nuclear weapon" are right, then what that says is that Iran has already crossed the "red line" of the Lieberman bill. And therefore, the supporters of the Lieberman bill are saying that they are ready for war today. Or they are ready for war any time that they decide to join the experts and officials who say that Iran has already crossed the Lieberman "red line," which of course is something that the Lieberman supporters can do anytime they want.
It's as if someone wearing a bag over their head says, "I'm ready for war whenever I see light." All they have to do to see light is take the bag off their head, so they are saying that they are ready for war whenever it is convenient for them to say that they are.
Anyone who supports the Lieberman bill is declaring themselves for war. If AIPAC makes the Lieberman bill an ask for its March policy conference, then at least we'll be done with the pretense that AIPAC is doing anything besides trying to get the U.S. into another Middle East war.
Follow Robert Naiman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/naiman
Jayshree Bajoria: The Iran Diplomacy Puzzle
Will the “Anything for Israel” faction be able to get the Republicans to agree that even if it is not in our best interest, we should still act?
I’m watching Newt; his one donor has made support of Israel his only issue and given Newt $20 million. So now will Newt do the bidding of his donor? And if elected will the same be true?
You throw out this malicious conspiracy theory without offering any evidence to support it.
It's like saying that thermite brought down the Twin Towers, painted on the beams in the 1970's ..... anyone can say it, but it's still total nonsense.
Everything that everyone sees in the press regarding military action against Iran is nothing but political theatre and most of it is promoted by the media. What's really going on isn't being discussed publicly. When stuff like this is discussed so openly just assume that nothing is going to happen because if it were imminent nobody would know about it.
Will Iran seek nukes? Well unless your clueless the answer is yes. All they have to do is look around and see what happened in Iraq when they gave up their nuclear ambition or look at Libya and see what happened as they gave up their nuclear ambition and then look at North Korea who didn't give up their nuclear ambition and the roadmap is quite clear.
The Arabs attacked Israel and Israel won and the Arabs lost. Get used the the Jewish State of Israel in the Middle East regardless of all your hate and rage.
As long as we are taking our orders from a foreign special interest group, OUR best interests will not be included in our policies; only THEIRS. No matter what it costs us, or how wrong it is to do.
We are supporting the ongoing Israeli oppression of millions of people; and isn't THAT wrong, per the American Principles of Justice for ALL? Of course it is. But, in for a dime, in for a dollar, as they say.....”
The red line is already crossed by definition.
1.) In 2003, it made no sense to remove Saddam, who represented a threat to Iran without regime change in Iran that would eliminate the benefit from Saddam's removal. That had to be apparent to the neocons/PNAC that championed war with Iraq. Unfortunately, the war in Iraq took longer than the 6 days, 6 weeks and longer than 6 months, so Iran couldn't be dealt with back in 2004 (which I think the timetable called for).
2.) The role of being the world's policeman requires a world class army, navy, air force, and an economy to pay for this. Unfortunately, since "free trade" started, our government has been busily working on building up the economies of China, India and the other countries that has been benefiting from the off-shoring of industries that would otherwise be generating income taxes here in the United States that pay for being the world's policeman.
3.) As a result of this free trade policy, China has the money to pay to be the world's policeman. China needs to be the designated world's policeman going forward. If China finds Iran to be a threat, I wish China the best in dealing with the situation.
4.) If #3 is ignored, then legislation authorizing war with Iran needs to include the means for paying for the war. We need to tell our legislators: THERE WILL BE NO MORE WARS OF CHOICE ON THE CREDIT CARD.
1. It was not a cake walk. Iraqi oil money did not pay for the war
2. It also requires a invasion of over 1/2 Million troops and a draft in our country. Neocons and pro war hypocrites are not standing in line to join the military or donate their sons to die for the cause.
To 3 and 4 no more to add you said it all.