Friday, 30 July 2010

Who Voted for War With Iran, Mr. Obama?

House of Representatives resolution 1553, introduced by Congressional Republicans, and currently working its way through the system will endorse an Israeli attack on Iran, which would be going to war by proxy as the US would almost immediately be drawn into the conflict when Tehran retaliates. The resolution provides explicit US backing for Israel to bomb Iran, stating that Congress supports Israel’s use of “all means necessary…including the use of military force”.

The resolution is non-binding, but it is dazzling in its disregard for the possible negative consequences that would ensue for the hundreds of thousands of US military and diplomatic personnel currently serving in the Near East region. Even the Pentagon opposes any Israeli action against Iran, knowing that it would mean instant retaliation against US forces in Iraq and also in Afghanistan. The resolution has appeared, not coincidentally, at the same time as major articles by leading neoconservatives Reuel Marc Gerecht and Bill Kristol calling for military action. AIPAC thinks it is wonderful.

http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2010/07/27/who-voted-for-war-with-iran-mr-obama/


[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, July 30th, 2010.]

4 comments:

steven andresen said...

spook,

Suppose Israel bombs Iran. The scope of their bombing could be limited to known military targets. Or, they could include military as well as the head of state kinds of targets which, in Iran, includes Qom and other religious centers. It's a theocracy, more or less. In anticipation of the Iranians trying to mount some resistance, the Israelis might want to also include population centers so to delay that response until after the bodies have been dug out and buried. They may also want to salt the land so the Iranians would generally starve. The expectation would be that no one would give them rice or beans for fear of agrivating the Israelis.

So, I take it the Russians and the Chinese trade with Iran, considering the probability that the Israelis will next bomb the Russians or the Chinese, would it be reasonable to expect the Russians to bomb the Israelis? So, their bombing might be limited to known military sites, including those Isreali nuclear submarines laying off the coast of Russia in anticipation of some such retaliation. Maybe the Russians spare Isreali cities, but, maybe they go for just enough to delay any Israeli response until after the bodies have been dug out and buried.

The question is whether anyone stand up to these guys moving from one country to another bombing and killing as they go? Do the Arabs and Muslim countries just let themnselves be taken down one by one, or do they get together?

I suspoect one of the prime strategies of U.S. and Israeli policy over the last ten-twenty years is to make sure that none of these guys stand together, just to prevent any kind of resistance to what the U.S. or Israelis plan to do.

I guess, as they have let Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Pakistan drop singly, their policy has been a success.

steven andresen said...

spook,

I guess the U.S. opposition to pan-Arabism by Nasser of Egypt was such a policy in action.

steven andresen said...

spook,

f/u,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKfdlC8TUOU&feature=player_embedded

s.

SpookyPunkos said...

Steve,

Great observations.

The US and Israel are pushing things with Iran. They are opening a can of worms. Despite their power they can only go so far until the world starts clamouring for tougher actions against this sort of aggression.

Israel is not completely immune to criticism. There are a mountain of UN resolutions against them. It remains to be seen how far they can push things until a significant reaction occurs (global community/Russia/China etc)

Hey, I have already seen that video link. I have it lined up as the top story for tomorrow's posts !Thanks tho. :)

Spook