A Green Light for Israel to Attack Iran: House Resolution 1553

Iran.gif iran image by hall341
Iran.gif iran image by hall341

It’s advisable for most of us to remain focused even when chaos seems to be raging around us.  In war, and I’d consider the political situation in this country as akin to war, the opponent often employs a “shock and awe” strategy to disorient those it seeks to dislodge while masking its true objectives at the same time.  The true objectives of the opposing forces often become apparent later and one just has to observe closely and realize that the real news is often not found in the headlines.

In the midst of several race baited broadsides on the administration over the past few weeks, it appears that the house has been presented with a resolution expressing support for an attack on Iran by Israel.  This is after a new round of economic sanctions having been imposed on that nation recently.  One-third of house republicans have signed off on the resolution; something potentially far more impactful on the lives of citizenry than most of the “news” that was bantered about in the press during the past week.

This is insanity driven entirely by the Israeli lobby and the neocons.  It’s the same insanity that got us ensnared into Iraq and a similar story line is being used about the weapons of mass destruction.  In the case of Iran, the accusation is not the fact that they actually have nuclear weapons, but they have “ambitions” to develop one.  Hence, someone’s ambitions are justification for Israel bringing the world to the brink of World War III.  That possibility can not be dismissed as China and Russia will likely not be sitting this one out.

This is really an effort to force the administration’s and the military’s hand on this.  Both Obama and Gates see an attack by Israel on Iran as greatly complicating our nation’s involvement in the middle east, but the crazies are relentless in their push for war.  The only reason why these sorts of resolutions come about is that our congress has been totally purchased by the Israeli lobby, hence policy initiatives like this arise that don’t benefit Americans but that of a foreign nation and those who stand to benefit economically from such a war. 

Our problems in the middle east arise almost wholly from our one sided support of Israel and our incessant meddling in the affairs of other nations—something we would never ever accept if someone did it to us. But even that only partially explains the drive toward war with Iran. The other force behind this is the on going financial collapse we’re in the midst of.  There have been a number of pundits who’ve suggested that war will be used to divert the attention of the people from their economic challenges along being  an elixir for our economic ills.  Basically, the thought is that both destroying and rebuilding cities and nations generates an economic windfall of sorts.  This is the height of insanity and evil at once.  Unfortunately, there are very few people on either side of the political spectrum who speak out about this. There is an urgent need for folks who agree on this issue to come together and speak with one voice.  I’m not a pacifist, but I don’t believe in wars of conquest which do nothing but kill innocents on both sides while enriching bankers and weapons manufacturers.  Those who benefit from such undertakings find it very easy to expend someone else’s life for their benefit. They’d be singing a far different tune if their lives were personally at risk.

There are reports of several provocations being directed towards Iran in the hopes of creating a false flag event like the Gulf of Tonkin to justify attack.

Here’s a piece from the American Conservative which does speak to the issue forthrightly with a different take than mine: 

One of my commenters alerted me to House Res. 1553, which states:

Expressing support for the State of Israel’s right to defend Israeli sovereignty, to protect the lives and safety of the Israeli people, and to use all means necessary to confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the use of military force if no other peaceful solution can be found within reasonable time to protect against such an immediate and existential threat to the State of Israel.

Naturally, Rep. Jason Chaffetz is among the resolution’s 46 co-sponsors. The National Iranian American Council has called on Minority Leader Boehner to reject the measure, but why would he bother? Two of his leadership colleagues, Mike Pence and Thaddeus McCotter, co-sponsored the resolution, and it has the support of other high-profile Republican members, including Paul Ryan and Dan Burton. That tells me that this is not just a product of hard-liners such as Michelle Bachmann and Peter King, but that it expresses the views of a fairly broad-cross section of the Republican members in the House. I guess I can’t stop “nitpicking,” but this seems like an awfully strange resolution for an “antiwar” Republican to co-sponsor. It is also thoroughly depressing that Paul Ryan, one of the few credible figures in the conference when it comes to fiscal responsibility, is among the supporters of such a ludicrous measure.

Why is it ludicrous? Where do we start? First, Iran poses no nuclear threats of any kind at present, so the threat cannot possibly be immediate and it cannot possibly be existential. When there is no threat to eliminate, this resolution is simply an endorsement of unnecessary aggression by a U.S. ally. That aggression is directed against a regional power that could inflict significant damage on U.S. forces, bases and allies, including Israel, in any retaliatory strikes it would launch in response to an unprovoked attack against its nuclear facilities. That doesn’t begin to cover the harm such a conflict could cause to the global economy and the stability of the broader region. There is obviously no understanding among the resolution’s supporters of what an Israeli attack on Iran would do to American interests in the Near East, and there is apparently no awareness of the escalation by Hizbullah to which Israel would be exposed as a result.

What may be worse still is that Israel has less of a chance of successfully destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities than U.S. forces would have, and it is unlikely that a U.S. attack would do anything more than briefly delay Iran’s nuclear program. Even if we granted that Iran posed a “nuclear threat” to Israel, Israel could not eliminate it if it tried, so the resolution is little more than an invitation to senseless warfare that has no hope of accomplishing its objective. An attack on Iran would be a strategic disaster and it would be grossly unjust whether Israel or the U.S. launched it, but there is something especially unseemly about American hawks backing an Israeli attack. This allows them to pretend that they are “merely” affirming support for an ally and they can try to claim that they are not putting Americans in harm’s way. In reality, they are jeopardizing the safety of U.S. forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Gulf states, and they are risking the security of Israel so that they may be seen as zealously “pro-Israel” here at home.



  • Our problems in the middle east arise almost wholly from our one sided support of Israel

    That is patently false and an excuse that many people like to use because it is a simple explanation. But simple doesn't always mean true and in this case it is not.

    No one talks about the billions of dollars Egypt receives in aid. There is no gratitude from Kuwait for saving them from Iraq. the same Kuwait that expelled a million Palestinians. no one talks about how the majority of the countries in the Middle East are 20th century constructs.

    No one talks about these things because oil dollars squelch those conversations and were it not for oil the world would pay no more attention to the region than it does to Africa.

  • >>That is patently false and an excuse that many people like to use because it is a simple explanation. But simple doesn't always mean true and in this case it is not.<<

    Thanks for commenting, but I noticed that you offered little to support your contention that my statement is patently false. I'd like to know why you think it's false and what you believe is the problem in the middle east. What is simple is to declare a position without a distillation of the facts to back it up.

    There are a growing number of Americans who are questioning this one sided support of Israel and what exactly its gotten us other than grief.

    As for aid, Israel receives more US aid on a per capita basis than any other nation in the world. Moreover, the aid that it receives far outstrips the aid for Egypt, the Saudis and others. ( I'm of the opinion that none of them should get aid and we should just butt out as we can no longer afford it anyway.) As to Kuwait's lack of gratitude, you imply that we did more for them than we did for ourselves in the invasion of Iraq. Clearly, this was not a matter of altruism. We were there for our own interests rather than those of Kuwait. Similarly, the "20th century constructs" that exist are funded by us and are in our interests as well as the frequent incidence of dictatorial rule that exists.

    We do agree that oil is a very important aspect of our involvement.

Page 1 of 11