Senate Iran — now discussing the nuclear deal and Congress

I would say that if we NEED to go to war against Iran, like say if the regime were to start posing an active and immediate threat, then we should do it regardless of how much damage they can inflict. We shouldn't let a bunch of ballistic missiles or naval mines deter us...if that's what needs to be done. The point is that right now there is no need, war is the option of last resort, and we're far from being at the last resort scenario.

 

Pretty much. You have to remember that for all the fanatical bluster and brutal domestic repression, the Iranian leadership is just like any other long-running autocratic oligarchy - quite coldly sane and determined to keep power. This was a bunch that in the 1980s reportedly offered the Israelis emergency landing rights for the Osirak strike and accepted clandestine US and Israeli help against Iraq, and then-President Ali Khamenei (now the Grand Ayatollah) argued in 1982 for ending the Iran-Iraq war via ceasefire rather than attempting a counterinvasion. Does that mean we can resolve the issue peacefully? Unknown, but I think over the past decade we've learned the price of spoiling for a fight.

 

An hour-long debate panel on the consequences of a military strike on Iran. Hosted by the Muslim Public Affairs Council, featuring panelists Heather Hurlburt (Executive Director, National Security Network), Jamal Abdi (Policy Director, NAIC) and Dr. Paul Pillar (former National Intelligence Officer for the Near East and South Asia). I haven't watched it yet myself, but plan to. Just thought I'd give a heads-up to anyone who might be interested.

 

There are a few reports going around that Netanyahu has requested a meeting with Obama, since the U.S. is vowing to block any Israeli attack on Iran, to get us to change our minds.

Well, according to one official, Netanyahu has been denied a White House meeting. Another article calls it an "unusual snub" by Obama to Netanyahu.

Netanyahu is mad, saying the United States has "no moral right" to block Israel from acting against Iran.

Obama and Netanyahu have never had a warm relationship. I remember when the President of France was furious a year or two ago for Netanyahu "lying" to them, to which Obama responded that he had to deal with Netanyahu "every day."

This may be bad politics in the United States, and could lead to Romney's next line of attacks, but it's definitely good policy. Good for Obama for finally ignoring the war troll. Even most Israelis don't want to go to war with Iran. And the consequences would be very bad.

 

I initially thought this wasn't a very good idea. But TBH, when was the last time we got anything out of this relationship; it's about time a President decided to demonstrate who's boss to Israel. Hopefully Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are next.

 

I'm reading an old piece from March on the Mujahedin (MEK / PMOI) in HuffPost, and it amazes me that there is even a discussion on whether they're a terrorist organization or not. As to whether they're supported and viewed as freedom fighters by Iranians, the only thing I can say is that they and the regime are widely viewed as two sides of the same coin, both in the diaspora and inside Iran. The enemy of your enemy can often be your friend, but with the case of the MEK, I'd argue that supporting them would do more harm to American interests than good, if the goal is to bring about pro-Western regime change.

Edit: Al-Jazeera has more.

 

Reading the comments section from op ed pieces on Iran is one of those sure paths toward losing faith in humanity, e.g.

Can we live with a nuclear Iran?

Stuff like:

As Bernard Lewis pithily stated about deterrence on Iran from a threat of mutual assured destruction: For these religiously extremist Mullahs It's not a deterrent but an inducement:

Let's hear it for Peace in Our Time. I see Neville Chamberlain. I see Nazi German being allowed to annex one county after another. I see the fatal decision to sell out the Czechs. I would prefer not to assume that religious or other fanatics will do the rational thing.

Awesome.

Guaranteed what happened in Libya is going to up the anti-Islamic rhetoric to fever pitch ahead of the election. Romney is already working this into his debate prep.

 

Seriously, don't read comments.

Though Keller asks a good question...if Iran does attempt to weaponize its nuclear program, do we opt for war or containment? He says at the end that he'd "swallow hard and take the risks of a nuclear Iran over the gamble of a pre-emptive war". I think I'd swallow hard and then perhaps reach for the other option. The reason being, if Iran were to weaponize its uranium then that strips all legitimacy from its claims of being peaceful, and we can legitimately say that Iran is a threat that needs to be dealt with. If the mullahs decide to weaponize then it could also be viewed by ordinary Iranians as recklessly provoking a military confrontation, as opposed to us looking like aggressors if we attack prematurely. If we do this the right way, then our actions will be viewed by the world as legitimate and maybe even by some Iranians, as opposed to Iraq where Bush rushed to the military option and didn't even bother to build a legitimate case for war.

Iran likes to say that it has an unalienable right to nuclear energy. However because of the threats it has made against another member of the international community, it has forfeit those rights, and the current sanctions we've imposed are the penalty. To put it another way, nuclear energy is a privilege, not a right. If the Iranian leadership chooses to go even further and weaponize however, then the penalty should be increased in severity (i.e. a military strike). I doubt it'll come to that though since the mullahs aren't stupid, and it's more likely they'll remain below the weaponization threshold at what is called "breakout capability".

Addendum: This is the sort of stuff that Obama should be saying, rather than making it look like he's being pushed around by war-happy Republicans and Bibi Netanyahu.

 

I wouldn't hold my breath with the Saudi one.

 

I know. But one can be optimistic.

Although Saudi is going to stop being an oil exporter in about twenty years...so maybe then.

Less oil, war exported from Middle East

 

I'm go with containment. If we can handle a genuinely psychotic and horrifically brutal regime like North Korea having the bomb, we can handle Iran.

 

I agree. We've handled rogue nuke regimes in the past with far more capability than the Iranians are ever likely to possess.
The neocons want full-on nuke rollback and that is just too costly and dangerous.

 

Every time I read one of Trita Parsi's op-eds, I get more and more frustrated with Congress. Because the subject of Parsi's op-eds are always the same:
Sanctions, by themselves, statistically don't work. It has only worked one time in history, and that was with South Africa. The only sensible way to use sanctions are as leverage in negotiations, which Congress won't authorize the administration to do. So basically Obama has to show up to negotiations every time with virtually nothing to offer in return for Iranian concessions, and still somehow expect diplomacy to yield results. It's ridiculous!

He has an excellent quote in the linked editorial:

I mean, what it all boils down to is a very simple question: if you're not going to lift the sanctions in return for compliance, what is the point of sanctions at all?

 

New Senate push for Iran war red lines, as Netanyahu ups pressure.

Rand Paul describes the resolution thus:
“A vote for S.J. Res. 41 is a vote for the concept of pre-emptive war. I know of no other way to interpret the message this resolution sends."

 

This is horrific foreign policy on the parts of Graham, Lieberman, and Casey. Good to see bipartisan stupidity still reigns supreme. It passed the House already, with only 11 no votes, although they came from some familiar names for opposition on something like this.... Pete Stark, Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Justin Amash all in the no's.

 

Congressional pre-approval of an unasked-for war. It's just what this country needs.

 

tl;dr but I did read the thread title and I can't believe that you guys are actually discussing this.

 

Given that it had been happening, what's so hard to believe?

 

Well, they decided to go through with delisting the MEK (aka PMO) from the FTO list. NIAC has a press release on it. I can't say I disagree with their overall assessment.

 

This is really regrettable. I was very deeply disappointed by reports that, in the last decade, the Bush Administration was occasionally collaborating with/supporting MEK's efforts. This is even more disastrous and wrong. They are pretty clearly, in my mind, a terrorist organization, and should continue to be treated as such.

 

To quote The Seventy Maxims of Maximally Effective Mercenaries from Schlock Mercenary, "Maxim 29: The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. No more. No less."

 

Is it possible for Congress to declare war without the president?

We haven't actually discussed the assassinations in maybe a year now. This used to be just the Iran thread, and the topic title would be changed depending on what was currently being discussed. But apparently the person who did the title changes got lazy and it's been stuck on "assassination of Iranian nuclear physicists" ever since.