Israel

Don't Let Other Countries Declare War For America

The American people should know that a pending bill could commit the United States to go to war against Iran.

|

The American people should know that pending right now in Congress is a bipartisan bill that would virtually commit the United States to go to war against Iran if Israel attacks the Islamic Republic. "The bill outsources any decision about resort to military action to the government of Israel," Columbia University Iran expert Gary Sick wrote to Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) in protest, one of the bill's principal sponsors.

The mind boggles at the thought that Congress would let a foreign government decide when America goes to war, so here is the language (PDF):

If the government of Israel is compelled to take military action in legitimate self-defense against Iran's nuclear weapon program, the United States Government should stand with Israel and provide, in accordance with the law of the United States and the constitutional responsibility of Congress to authorize the use of military force, diplomatic, military and economic support to the Government of Israel in its defense of its territory, people and existence.

This section is legally nonbinding, but given the clout of the bill's chief supporter outside of Congress — the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC [PDF]), leader of the pro-Israel lobby — that is a mere formality.

Since AIPAC wants this bill passed, it follows that so does the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who opposes American negotiations with Iran and has repeatedly threatened to attack the Islamic Republic. Against all evidence, Netanyahu insists the purpose of Iran's nuclear program is to build a weapon with which to attack Israel. Iran says its facilities, which are routinely inspected, are for peaceful civilian purposes: the generation of electricity and the production of medical isotopes.

The bill, whose other principal sponsors are Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL), has a total of 26 Senate cosponsors. If it passes when the Senate reconvenes in January, it could provoke a historic conflict between Congress and President Obama, whose administration is engaged in negotiations with Iran at this time. Aside from declaring that the U.S. government should assist Israel if it attacks Iran, the bill would also impose new economic sanctions on the Iranian people. Obama has asked the Senate not to impose additional sanctions while his administration and five other governments are negotiating with Iran on a permanent settlement of the nuclear issue.

A six-month interim agreement is now in force, one provision of which prohibits new sanctions on Iran. "The [Menendez-Schumer-Kirk] bill allows Obama to waive the new sanctions during the current talks by certifying every 30 days that Iran is complying with the Geneva deal and negotiating in good faith on a final agreement," Ali Gharib writes at Foreign Policy magazine. That would effectively give Congress the power to undermine negotiations. As Iran's foreign minister, Javad Zarif, told Time magazine, if Congress imposes new sanctions, even if they are delayed for six months, "The entire deal is dead. We do not like to negotiate under duress."

Clearly, the bill is designed to destroy the talks with Iran, which is bending over backward to demonstrate that its nuclear program has no military aims.

Netanyahu and Israel's American supporters in and out of Congress loathe the prospect of an American-Iranian rapprochement after 34 years of U.S.-Israeli covert and proxy war against Iran, whose 1979 Islamic revolution followed a quarter-century of brutality at the hands of a U.S.-backed monarch. The Israeli government, AIPAC, and the Republicans and Democrats who do their bidding in Congress are on record opposing any agreement that would leave intact Iran's ability to enrich uranium, even at low levels for peaceful civilian purposes. But insisting that Iran cease all enrichment of uranium is equivalent to obliterating any chance of a peaceful settlement with Iran and making war more likely. That's what this bill is all about.

Americans should refuse to let Congress give Israel the power to drag the United States into war. American and Israeli intelligence agencies say repeatedly that Iran has no nuclear-weapons program. Though Iran champions the Palestinians, who live under Israeli occupation, it has not threatened Israel, which, remember, is itself a nuclear power.

But even if Iran were a threat to Israel, that would not warrant letting any foreign government dictate when we go to war.

This column originally appeared on the Future of Freedom Foundation. 

NEXT: American Held Hostage By Al Qaeda Makes Plea to Obama

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. We already have this in NATO. If one of the NATO countries is attacked then the US is obligated to go to war.

    Sounds like a good reason to leave NATO.

    1. But then who’d host our missile defense against the soviets?

      I still find it hilarious that we want to keep missile defense installations in poland when canada is better positioned against leftover cold war ICBMs (not counting the submarine launched ones which pop up off the coast). If Germany and France were really worried about being shot at from the urals, I’m sure we can sell them the hardware. (just about the only thing we make anymore is weapons systems).

      1. I never understood that either. We’ve already got interceptors in Alaska for the polar/pacific shots and CA for central pacific shots (i.e. Norks) and our Canadian friends already help out with the BMEWS or whatever it’s called now. Missile defense in Europe is to protect Europe. They can pay for their own.

      2. The Soviets are back? I seem to miss a lot of memos these days.

        1. Yeah, really. NATO blows?.but will exist no matter?.

      3. Boost phase vs. post-MIRV, silly man. Point defense ABM is virtually pointless. 🙂

    2. During the Kosovo thing, I heard it said that the NATO bureaucracy makes the UN look efficient by comparison.

    3. —“commit the United States to go to war against Iran if Israel attacks the Islamic Republic”—

      Mutual defense pacts are not quite the same as an obligation to support an offensive war. That said, I still wouldn’t support this “bipartisan” bill.

      1. That’s not offensive war! That’s pre-emptive defensive strike! What, are you anti-semitic?

        1. Change anti-semitic to anti-Asian and that works for the Pearl Harbor apologists too.

    4. Um…do the USA and Israel have a self-defense treaty signed and ratified? I didn’t think so.

      As you said, within NATO, the “obligation” only applies when a member country is attacked (which requires a fair amount of pride-swallowing and which is why the self-defense provisions have been so rarely invoked); the provision does not apply when the member country does the attacking, which is what the resolution demands.

  2. Just because we don’t want to go to war with Iran, doesn’t mean we need to pretend certain realities aren’t so.

    “As Iran’s foreign minister, Javad Zarif, told Time magazine, if Congress imposes new sanctions, even if they are delayed for six months, “The entire deal is dead. We do not like to negotiate under duress.”

    Taking this seriously would be like taking Baghdad Bob’s word for it.

    The only reason Iran is at the negotiating table is because they are under duress.

    Iran was in a precarious position because of the rate at which it was burning through its foreign reserves, and the sanctions forced Iran to burn through the rest of what they had.

    In January, Iran had about $90 billion. Now they have access to about $15 billion, and once that goes, Iran’s economy goes into free fall.

    This was all a race to see if the sanctions would make Iran burn through its foreign reserves–and drive it to the negotiating table–before it could test a nuclear device. If Iran had managed to test a nuclear device before it burned through its foreign reserves, support for the sanctions would have eroded in Europe and elsewhere.

    1. In other words, the ONLY reason Iran is at the negotiating table is because of the sanctions. The Iranians are simply trying to avoid making concessions. And now that we have them by the balls, threatening them with further sanctions is an excellent negotiating strategy.

      Considering their position, we shouldn’t settle for anything less than total capitulation on nuclear enrichment. I’m sure Russia would be more than happy to do their energy related enrichment for them.

      1. Which is kinda the point. Why does it matter if they make it themselves or get it from Russia? If they have a nuke there is balance in the region. How is that bad? Better yet, give every country in the world one nuke. Tell me what happens next that is bad for us?

        1. If Iran got nukes, there would not be balance in the region. Quite the opposite.

          Balance would only come to the region when the Saudis (among others) got nukes. The Egyptians would want nukes, too. If Syria could get ’em, then they’d want nukes, too. Everybody in the region and into North Africa is going to want them.

          We started putting bases in the Saudi Arabian desert long before Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. We put those ready to go bases in the Saudi desert because we (and the Saudis) were afraid Iran was going to invade the Saudi oil fields.

          Iran presents a security threat to more than just the United States and Israel, and if Iran developed nukes, it would throw everything out of whatever balance there is over there.

  3. “Clearly, the bill is designed to destroy the talks with Iran, which is bending over backward to demonstrate that its nuclear program has no military aims.”

    Then why did they violate the Non-Proliferation Treaty–which they both signed and ratified–specifically in regards to failing to report their enrichment activities as required by the treaty?

    Again, just because I don’t want to go to war with Iran is no reason to pretend the facts are other than what they are.

    1. “The Israeli government, AIPAC, and the Republicans and Democrats who do their bidding in Congress are on record opposing any agreement that would leave intact Iran’s ability to enrich uranium, even at low levels for peaceful civilian purposes.”

      They violated the treaty!

      “Iran is a party to the NPT but was found in non-compliance with its NPT safeguards agreement and the status of its nuclear program remains in dispute. In November 2003 IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei reported that Iran had repeatedly and over an extended period failed to meet its safeguards obligations, including by failing to declare its uranium enrichment program.[21] After about two years of EU3-led diplomatic efforts and Iran temporarily suspending its enrichment program,[67] the IAEA Board of Governors, acting under Article XII.C of the IAEA Statute, found in a rare non-consensus decision with 12 abstentions that these failures constituted non-compliance with the IAEA safeguards agreement.[22] This was reported to the UN Security Council in 2006,[68] after which the Security Council passed a resolution demanding that Iran suspend its enrichment.[69] Instead, Iran resumed its enrichment program.[70]”

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T…..apons#Iran

      1. There is no reason why Russia can’t provide them with the enriched uranium they need for energy.

        This is like saying that even though some security guard was convicted of shooting a bunch of children, he should still be allowed to keep his gun–and his job at the elementary school!

        Turns out there are consequences to violating the treaty.

        No really.

        And if you can’t be trusted to use your gun responsibly–guess what?

        You lose your job.

        Why would we trust the Iranians to do the right thing now?

        Oh, this time we really, really, promise to be good?!

        Am I supposed to pretend this makes sense just because I don’t want to go to war with Iran?

        1. The problem comes in where you and the Govt want to use my ability to buy goods from a foreign nation as leverage to force them to do what you want.

          If you don’t like their behavior you are free to boycott them on your own.

          1. I see national defense as one of the few legitimate purposes of government.

            The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect our rights.

            We have a criminal justice system for the legitimate purpose of protecting our rights from criminals–and to protect the rights of the accused.

            We have a civil justice system to protect our rights from other people.

            We have a national defense for the legitimate purpose of protecting our rights from foreign threats, and I believe Iran represents a foreign threat.

            I also believe that standing firm on this sanctions regime, made useful because of a rather unique opportunity involving Iran’s foreign account problems, is the least invasive and most effective means of protecting our rights from this threat.

            If it’s any consolation, I think we should also offer Iran a free trade agreement. I wish our relationship with Iran were based on trade, like our relationship with China.

            1. You believe Iran represents a foreign threat. To the USA? To Israel, maybe, not to us. A nuclear Iran is a threat to the US ability to dictate mid-east policy, hardly a threat to the American people.

              1. Iran’s long range missile program is real. They’ve already launched a satellite.

                I’ve read estimates suggesting that Iran should have an ICBM by 2015. I’ve read reports skeptical of that, too, suggesting that Iran won’t have an ICBM until after 2020.

                Either way, it’s going to be a whole new negotiation once they have the capability to hit us with an ICBM–since, you know, contentious negotiations are all about leverage. We have all of it right now. They’ll have a lot more if they can demonstrate an ICBM.

                That’s the Cold War scenario all over again–except this time with religious fanatics. No reason to think it will be so cold this time, either. If Iran gets one, Saudi Arabia will definitely want one, too. For sure.

                Much, much better for American security and the world if they don’t enrich their own uranium. They’ve flaunted the treaty for ten years now. Why would anybody trust them? And once the sanctions go, why wouldn’t they go back to doing things the way they were before?

              2. Exactly. So why are we even in the conversation?! Global policemen?! The moral superior?! Oh, Pleeeeeeze?..

              3. The US dollar is oil based. Instability in this region can and will destroy the US economy. The pain and strife felt at home would pale in comparison to any war we would fight over there.

                Sad but true… If you want to change it, support offshore drilling, the Keystone Pipeline, and especially support natural gas.

  4. I have an honest question for anyone in the commentariat who may have a professional background in geology: considering this seismic hazard map, where could Iran safely test a nuclear device?

    1. I’m not a geologist or a geotechnical engineer, but as a developer, I’ve dealt with a seismic hazard map or two.

      Those percentages you see are typically the percent likelihood that a seismic event above a certain threshold will occur sometime over the next 50 years.

      I don’t know what the effect of testing a nuclear device would have on that. But I do not know that testing a device underground would touch off an earthquake.

      I would also point out that, given the logic of your question, if detonating a device is somehow dangerous from a seismic standpoint, then where is it safe for Iran to put a civilian nuclear reactor?

      One solution might be testing in relatively unpopulated areas, where if there is an earthquake, it won’t damage much.

      Overarching all of this, of course, is the assumption that Iran cares more about seismic safety than it does about developing a nuclear weapon. Even if weapons testing can set off an earthquake, why assume that the government of Iran cares more about that?

      1. Well, reactors aren’t made to detonate, of course, and I’m pretty sure they’re not using the General Electric design that was in place at Fukushima.

        Some otherwise well-meaning people may honestly believe that the ruling regime would care less about the safety of its constituents than the advancement of a nuclear weapons program. I, personally, am very wary of such talk, and I don’t think the parties advancing such ideas really have our own best interests in mind.

        1. Well, I think I have our own best interests in mind, and unnecessarily capitulating to Iran now that we have them by the balls is not in our best interests.

          Again, I think they would probably test in an unpopulated area, and I’m not sure how much danger there is of nuclear tests setting off earthquakes anyway.

          And, incidentally, there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that the Iranian government doesn’t care about the safety of its constituents people in the same way you or I might think of caring about the safety of its people.

          Its kind of a brutal regime, and they’re a state sponsor of terror. Hezbollah and Iran have their fingers all over the targeting of civilians in neighboring countries–and they’re deep into Syria. It wouldn’t be the first time the Iranian regime brutalized civilians for its own purposes.

          1. I’d take life in Iran over Saudi Arabia any day.

            1. Well, the bigger question isn’t just about who has the nicest government.

              The big question is about which country presents a security threat to the United States and our allies.

              And, please, let’s not forget that Iran also has a long range missile program. Reports I’ve read suggest that Iran is a few years away from achieving an ICBM, but whittling this opportunity to do away with their enrichment program–knowing that they have a long range missile program seems…ahem…not to be in the best interests of American security.

              1. Sorry Ken.. I know you are beating the drums for more sanctions for Iran but can you tell me why Israel has nukes when they aren’t supposed to have them?

                1. I’m not beating the drum for more sanctions; I’m beating the drum for a dose of reality in this blog post.

                  Pretending things are other than the way they are because some people like the consequences of people believing certain things that aren’t true isn’t something I’m just going to whistle by. There’s a name for that; they’re called noble lies.

                  Some people perpetrate them because they want us to do something:

                  http://usatoday30.usatoday.com…..iraq_x.htm

                  Some people perpetuate them because they really want/hope for them to be true for good reasons. In this case, I think what they’re trying to get us to do, however, is bad for America’s security interests: appeasement now may guarantee that we enter into another nuclear standoff/Cold War situation, this time with the Middle East.

                  I’d rather nip it in the bud–by standing hard on enrichment. They had a right to enrich, and they blew it.

                  Anyway, I was arguing for the sanctions that drove Iran to the negotiating table–back in 2012.

                  I wasn’t the only one:

                  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/…..ution.html

                  “Can you tell me why Israel has nukes when they aren’t supposed to have them?”

                  1) Israel is not a signer of the Non Proliferation Treaty. (Neither is Pakistan nor is India).

                  2) Israel was our ally in the region during the Cold War, and Israel is not a security threat to the United States.

                  1. Israel is not a security threat to the United States.

                    You can’t be serious. Israel has, to the knowledge of the best experts, stolen more US secrets than any other foreign country. Jonathan Pollard completely eviscerated the US satellite program. Israel has sold/traded at least some of this information to the former USSR for relaxed emigration. Israel attacked the USS Liberty. Israel traded US missile technology to China. Israel intelligence runs prostitution/slavery rings from eastern Europe into Israel, and various pills, most notably MDMA, into the US and Europe. Do a search on “Israeli art students”, or “Israeli spy mega”.

                    It has been argued by none other than Martin Van Crevald, the only non-American on the required reading list at the US Army War College, and the only one with more than one book on that list, that the US invasion of Iraq was the greatest strategic blunder recorded in 2000 years. Who are the “neoconservatives” that bamboozled America and railroaded this policy? They are Likudniks, many with dual US/Israeli citizenship, champions of the State of Israel. Is there any question that Israels leaders collaborated on and managed this moral disaster?

                    The War Nerd said it best: “Who won the Iraq war? Anyone that stayed out.”

                    1. Hit & Run has been online since 2003. Just about every day since it came online, at least during the Bush Administration, I’ve got a post in the archives blasting the Bush Administration for the Iraq War.

                      I don’t know why people seem to think that if you recognize certain facts, then you must fit into some category they’re familiar with. I’ve had the privilege, more than once, of being denounced as a neoconservative and a paleoconservative–in the same thread!

                      I’m neither one. Just a libertarian. But just because I’m a libertarian doesn’t mean I have to pretend certain facts are false. And recognizing certain facts as facts doesn’t lead to any particular conclusion.

                      Just because I think Iran’s nuclear and long range missile program is a threat to American security doesn’t mean you know anything about what I think we should do about it. And I’m certainly not going to pretend something isn’t a threat to American security just because so many of us are worried what some president might do if we don’t ignore the facts.

                    2. “Israel is not a security threat to the United States.”

                      Anybody who’s genuinely concerned about Israel turning its nuclear weapons on the United States needs more glue.

                    3. Ever heard of “false flag”? If a nuke were to detonate on American soil, I’m sure that Israel would certainly NOT be blamed for it by the US govt.

                      And I didn’t mention nukes. There are other threats besides nukes.

                    4. “And I didn’t mention nukes. There are other threats besides nukes.”

                      This is a thread about nukes.

                      The question was asked why our policy towards Israel is different from out policy towards Iran–in regards to nukes.

                      The questions you’ve been raising were about my answer to that question–about Israel’s nukes.

                    5. Anybody who’s genuinely concerned about Israel turning its nuclear weapons on the United States needs more glue.

                      Bear in mind that Kyfho is a full-on Loose Change 9/11 Truther, so…

                2. Not an NPT signatory.

                  1. Sorry, Ken.

    2. considering this seismic hazard map, where could Iran safely test a nuclear device?

      Israel. All this other stuff is so much talk and if they attack Israel, nobody is coming in to assist. Of course, it will be blamed on Israel anyway.

  5. Iran champions the Palestinians, who live under Israeli occupation, it has not threatened Israel

    Lawl. Richman goes full Poe’s Law.

    j0000000000000s

  6. “The Israeli government, AIPAC, and the Republicans and Democrats who do their bidding in Congress”

    I’m starting to react to this the way I react to stuff people say about The Bilderberg Group.

    “But insisting that Iran cease all enrichment of uranium is equivalent to obliterating any chance of a peaceful settlement with Iran and making war more likely. That’s what this bill is all about.”

    I wouldn’t say that opposing this bill is all about appeasement. I’m sure there are plenty of well meaning people out there who are just genuinely confused.

    That being said, capitulating to Iran on enrichment might as well be appeasement. Did I already mention that there’s no reason why we can’t arrange to let Iran get its enriched uranium from Russia?

    Why, yes I did!

    Maybe someone can explain that to me: if Iran’s nuclear program is only for civilian purposes, then why can’t Iran just get its enriched uranium from Russia?

    Why would they rather suffer brutal sanctions than get their enriched uranium from their friends in Russia?

    1. Who made this the Ken Shultz thread? And who is paying Ken to troll here?

      1. If you think arguing on topic is trolling then…you might be a troll.

        1. …and you’re making an awful lot of sense, unlike the original article.

    2. Why would they rather suffer brutal sanctions than get their enriched uranium from their friends in Russia?

      Off the top of my head:

      1) That would give Putin a new form of leverage over Iranians.

      2) That would be seen by the populace as the Iranian leaders caving in to the thuggish US fed govt, aka The Great Satan. Ask yourself: would any American politician want to be known as the guy or gal who caved in to someone considered as evil as Satan, say, Kim Jong-Il?

      3) The interests of the Iranian leaders are separate and different from the interests of the people who would bear the brunt of the sanctions.

      1. I agree with some of those.

        I don’t think they explain why all the other non-Security Council member signatories somehow manage to announce it when they’re enriching uranium–as the treaty specifically requires.

        You know, this wasn’t just a one time breach of etiquette. It was announced to the world that they were out of compliance with the treaty ten years ago. They’ve been officially out of compliance for ten years.

        In fact, they first did it when we were bogged down in Iraq. They knew we couldn’t do anything about it since their own favorite party had recently won the first elections in Iraq, and the last thing we needed at the time was a confrontation with Shia Iran.

        They caught us with our pants down ten years ago–or rather Bush stupidly put us in that position with Iran holding a flame to the powder keg the US was sitting on…

        Opposing the Iraq invasion because it strengthened Iran’s hand in the region was the second best reason to oppose the Iraq War. Iran actually was a state sponsor of terror and really did have an active WMD program, but Iraq’s another thread!

  7. Meh. It’s legally non-binding. Just a way for Congressthugs to signal “hey, I want Jewish votes too!”

    1. as we have seen, giving them cover and discretion means they will power grab.

      the last thing USA needs is more ambiguous language and discretionary spending, executive orders, and media spun emergencies.

      if they pretend its a law, even if it isnt, they will use it like a law when its not in our interest, and use it like a decoration when it could be of use.

      its a game to create a framework of entirely subjective criteria on how to proceed.

      the whole point is to make double standards that cater to media driven perception.

      im pretty sure this is all in 1984.

      1. ^THIS!^

    2. Yes, that huge Jewish voting bloc is a tempting target. They might be 2% of the population, and maybe 0.5% of the population outside of a few districts.

      Sheesh.

      1. Charlie Wilson said it was significant to him. Maybe not the votes as much as the donations from the Los Angeles Jewish community.

      2. And how much campaign money? And in what fields are Jews over-represented? Hollywood, maybe? The story tellers, the narrative makers, hmm?

        1. I don’t remember, go look it up yourself in his biography. It’s called “Charlie Wilson’s War” just in case your research skills truly are as bad as they sound. He was the Charlie Wilson from Texas. Yes, the one that is not in Los Angeles.

  8. my best friend’s half-sister got paid $13253 a week ago. she is making money on the computer and moved in a $315200 house. All she did was get blessed and apply the information explained on this web page

    ????????????

  9. No doubt in my mind that millions of right wing Christian religious fanatics are pushing any bill whatsoever that gets us into a gigantic Middle East war so their f—ing fantasies regarding the so called “Holy Land” and the end of the world will come true. The only thing that will come true is that more American tax payer dollars will be pumped into yet another no win war, in the armpit area of the world. All this will leave more dead and untold numbers of people maimed for life. And the end of the f—ing world will still be no where in sight. However, this bullshit is at least consistent and predictable.

    1. Half the bill’s sponsors are Team Blue. Your boy Barry tried his best to meddle in Syria. Both sides like them a good war.

      1. NotAnotherSkippy,

        “Both sides like them a good war” is a correct premise. But it’s still all bullshit don’t you think. And Barry is not my boy! I could give a f— if the war mongers are Blue, or Red, or Polka Dot, or any other ridiculous color to to define and label bullshit political parties, to include libertarians.

  10. The PDF link in the article goes to a copy of the bill that was produced before it had a number. The bill in question is S1811, which you can study and track at thomas.loc.gov.

    I wrote my Senators (Boxer & Feinstein, aka the Duras Sisters) in opposition to this bill today. As Richman said in the article, the provision to assist Israel in a pre-emptive strike isn’t legally binding, but it could embolden Israel to go ahead and then point to the bill’s language in order to play on American guilt and our desire to honor our word. I also think existing sanctions are more than enough.

    1. the provision to assist Israel in a pre-emptive strike isn’t legally binding, but it could embolden Israel to go ahead and then point to the bill’s language in order to play on American guilt and our desire to honor our word

      When Ambassador April Glaspie told Saddam Hussein that the US didn’t have a position on the merits of Iraq’s dispute with Kuwait, she inadvertently gave Saddam what he took as a green light to invade Kuwait. She was widely criticized for not realizing how Saddam was going to take her words. The sponsors of this bill, on the other hand, give every impression of knowing, and intending, this bill to be an encouragement to Israel to launch an attack.

  11. Must be interesting to write foreign policy when you have to work from the assumptions that no middle eastern country can be trusted, and that Europe and America will backstab you at the first opportunity. That’s pretty much the situation Israel finds itself in.

  12. NO MORE WAR!!!

    Write me in, and I’ll call CEASE-FIRE! http://rich_grise.tripod.com

  13. Not really a problem: there is no more dangerous and foolhardy position in the world than depending on US military assistance. A country that goes to war assuming the US will honor its treaty obligations deserves what it gets. In the immortal phrase from “Animal House,” “You f—ed up… you trusted us!”

  14. The link for the support for the assertion that all evidence supports the Iranians only have peaceful intentions for their nuclear program goes to another article by Mr. Richmond. that article contains zero support for the assertion. I also don’t want our nation to be dragged into yet another war. But let’s be real. Iran might be our friend some day. But they don’t need nuclear power plants.

  15. Well, with all due respect, it seems that lies are not unique to printed media. This article is full of lies and misunderstandings or worse, bias on a large scale.
    Iran threatened many times to wipe Israel of the map. I wonder how such a knowledgeable writer knows about what the congress in planning but never hear in the last 8 years even one threat by the Iranian former president. Please Mr. Writer see an ear doctor or better so, an eye doctor since it seems you can?t read or hear.
    As for medical and electricity purposes of the nuclear program in Iran… wow, one has to be indeed very biased even against the US itself to claim such nonsense. Iran has more oil than it could use for hundreds of years. Why nuclear for electricity, because some gullible useful idiots in the west believe it? And if for peaceful purposes why enrich to 20 and more percent-
    So my advice,even if the writer wants to influence the ignorant readers, remember that there are other who know the truth and this type of writing would not contribute well to your credibility.

  16. If the bill does as this article claims, it should not pass, or be vetoed if it does. Israel does not need the USA to attack Iran. Israel has nuclear weapons. Israel should use them, and finish its fight with Iran from the start. If Israel’s Jews are too worried about their “moral image” to make first use of nuclear weapons, then they aren’t worried enough about the Iranian threat to do anything, and they need to shut the hell up. As far as I am concerned, Israel should either blast Iran into a radioactive moonscape, or never speak the word Iran again.

  17. We need to be careful not to apply an isolationist philosophy to all matters of foreign relations. Iran can significantly impact the US. Israel isn’t the only country afraid of a nuclear armed Iran. Saudi Arabia and the UAE (huge oil-produces for the US and other countries) are very concerned about Iran’s potential to disrupt their activities. Iran is already postured to block the straight of Hormuz should they see reason to. This is a shipping channel that handles about 20% of the world’s petroleum supply. It should also be noted that Iran has the largest conventional Army in the middle east. They are not on par with Russia and China, but compare them to Iraq and you’ll see a force which is nothing to take lightly. They have advanced capabilities and a disciplined, well-trained military. They also have advanced air-defense capabilities that make most air-strikes unfeasible until those defenses are neutralized.

    Granted we could easily eliminate a blockade in the strait of Hormuz, but that takes time. This would also, almost certainly, draw us into a larger conflict. Although we could surely win out, Iran could employ chemical weapons, burn oil fields or use other dirty tactics. The conflict would be nasty and the aftermath would be a mess.

  18. It should also be noted that Iran has their own state-funded terror organization, Hezbollah. This organization is used to further Iran’s doctrine through covert channels. They have supported terrorist networks in Afghanistan and Iraq. Imagine if Iran developed nuclear capability and put some small suit-case or vehicle nukes in the hands of Hezbollah agents. Even if they couldn’t get these into the US there are plenty of “softer” targets like Embassies that would be destroyed by these devices.

    Iran’s leadership is driven by ideology not reason. They are calculated, but do not assume they won’t use their extensive capability and network of terrorist cells to take on a super-power even if defeat is certain.


  19. my roomate’s half-sister makes 74 dollars an hour on the laptop. She has been without a job for 7 months but last month her check was 19922 dollars just working on the laptop for a few hours. published here

    http://www.tec30.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.