A Cakewalk Against Iran - Giraldi

 "A resolution (HR 1553) is making its way through Congress that that would 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."  Giraldi

--------------------------------------------------------

As Phil says, such a resolution means there is little doubt that the US would follow Israel's lead.  pl

http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2010/08/04/a-cakewalk-against-iran/

Comments

[BillWade]

I've called Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter to find out how she's voting on H.R. 1553, her staffer didn't know so I may get a letter reply, I did voice my opposition to this Resolution. Given that she's, only recently, begun taking AIPAC donations, I don't hold out much hope.

[Redhand]

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.

I am truly aghast at the new war drums beating on this front. Didn't we learn our lesson in Iraq? Apparently not.

Our economy is in deep trouble, and our volunteer military can barely cope with the two conflicts we are now "managing." Where would we get the means to do this without a WWII type full mobilization (like that's really possible for this kind of war)? Even if we "bomb em back to the Stone Age," does anyone think that the asymmetric warfare retaliation would be anything less than a horror?

I am not in favor of Iran getting nuclear weapons, but I don't want to see us get involved in a proxy, then direct war with this country because the State of Israel perceives nuclear weapons as an "existential threat" to it.

It is the height of irresponsibility for these Yahoos in Congress to be entertaining these "resolutions." Madness.

[ked]

so, our vaunted ally is end-running the Executive Branch, paying for votes in our Parliment of Whores. what else is new?

[J]

Phil, All,

There is 'confusion' in the Congress, literally -- H.R.1553 and H.RES.1553.

HR1553 is Title: Mutual Savings Association Preservation Act

and

HRES1553 Title: Expressing support for the State of Israel's right....

When voicing our displeasure at your Members of Congress, be sure to cite HRES1553 instead of HR1553.

[J]

Colonel,

An interesting item, seem that the originator of HRES1553 is Rep.Gohmert (R-TX) who according to his bio is a lawyer by trade and attained the rank of Captain in the Army. His bio doesn't say during his Army tour if he was a JAG or what.

http://gohmert.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=2&sectiontree=2

One has to wonder how much $$$s AIPAC paid/agreed to pay Mr. Gohmert under the table in campaign contributions?

[Jake]

You know when I was little I remember my pop building a bomb shelter because the Russians put some nukes onto Cuba.

I wonder what he did with those blue prints? I might need them again today.

We as a Nation are destroying ourselves from within...

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot..Over?

[Steve]

What is the likelihood that after an Israeli attack, Iran refuses to play according to script?

Perhaps Iran might do nothing more than withdraw from the NPT and concentrate on a diplomatic response.

[William R. Cumming]

How does the term "Nation-state" get defined if this resolution passes?

Is any independent foreign policy a factor for such a "nation-state"?

[jr786]

I've asked this question before and do so again in genuine spirit of perplexity.

Given these kinds of manipulations to get our country into yet another war, this one the start of a true civilization conflict, what is the patriotic thing to do?

There is no way I will support this war. Of course, few people will now, but the minute Americans are killed, then what?

[Patrick Lang]

jr786

Jubal Early voted against secession in the Richmond convention in 1861. Just after he lost in the vote, he was approached by Governor John Letcher who asked him what he would do. He said he would do whatever the state's government required of him.

If the US goes to war against Iran, I will stand with my people. pl

[jr786]

Yeah, me, too, Col. Only this time I say it almost with regret. Between now and then I'm going to look for some form of civil disobedience, while I still have a choice.

I'll be back in Oman after eid; just in time, I reckon. Allahu ahlam.

[Margaret Steinfels]

Between the time Israel strikes and our government falls in line, we could all take to the streets (peacefully) and shout: NO!

[asa]

PL says. "I will stand with my people."

Interesting comment Colonel. It sounds like a no brainer to you.

Would you consider the Germans who tried to kill Hitler, traitors? And would you consider the Germans who fought with Nazis, patriots?

[Norbert M. Salamon]

Colonel: a mundane Q:

If USA Government goes to war against IRan and the citizens oppose it, what is the solution for a patriot as yourself?

[Patrick Lang]

asa

You make it sound so easy. I hope you never have to make a choice like that. there were good men on both sides. pl

[Patrick Lang]

NMS

I am still an officer, albeit on the retired list. I am bound by my oath. pl

[Patrick Lang]

Margaret

I am shouting "no" as loudly as I can. pl

[Trent]

Asa, redacto ad hitlerum. More insight please.

[WP]

We all know that Israel has nuclear weapons, but few ask how Israel might use them.

Let us suppose that all that Dr. Silverman outlined in his earlier post and all that is outlined in this post comes true. Israel has attacked Iran, the Hormuz straight is blocked, the remaining troops in Iraq are beset by all of the Shia, including the Iraqi Army and police force we have trained, the West Bank is boiling, thousands of rockets are streaming from Syria, what then?

Would Israel's nuclear weapons be effective if launched against Iran, Lebanon, Syria. They might be militarily effective, but not politically and the fallout would polute Israel itself.

So, now the Islamic hoards are crossing the Jordan, moving on Tel Aviv, who are those Israeli nukes going to be used on? US?

The problem with nuclear weapons in the present world is that, if used, they are Kevorkian assistance weapons only. The sole utility of a nuclear weapon in the long run is as a deterrent threat. If Israel attacks Iran, the reaction in the neighborhood will quickly threaten the existence of the Israeli state itself by invasion.

If the U.S. joins, the disruption of oil supplies will cripple the United States in weeks and the resultant blow-back will undo any hope of recoveing anything we may have accomplished in Iraq and Afghanistan. The U.S. has already lost its reputation for invulnerability. When we invaded Iraq, we proved to the world that we were powerful militarily, but proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that that awesome military power was really impotent to bend the will of Iraq, and now, Afghanistan to our liking. We have military power, but are impotent politically and economically weakened so much that we have little ability to get what we want in the Middle East. It is the politics on the ground that really counts. Our leaders forgot that "it is all politics and economics" and that war is only a subset of politics and economics, not the whole thing. If the U.S. supports Israel in invading Iran, the tribulations we have imposed on so many will likely be suffered in the homeland.

I know that this essay is somewhat "speaking to the choir" who regularly participate in this committee of correspondence and think the U.S.'s actions to be insane, but to some of the readers, I hope it makes them reassess their positions. We need to be promoting peace and political fairness, not more bombing.

Finally, I think that the only effective target of an Israeli nuclear bomb is the U.S. and other major powers, China, Japan, Europe, who together, when blackmailed might, just might, be able to stop the total anililation of Israel if its neighbors ever decide to excise it from the region it once and for all.

Every Israeli who is granted an officer's rank takes the oath at Masada. There is a Masada Plan and it makes spellbinding reading. Perhaps the proponents of H.RES. 1553 should read and think again.

[zanzibar]

Most major world powers through out history have gone down the slope of "has been" primarily through war and imperial over stretch. We seem to be destined to repeat it once again.

We are also I believe the first major world power in history to have voluntarily dismantled our economic base and shipped it overseas to our competitors and then borrowed from them to maintain our standard of living. And of course to provide our rentier class of banksters an unprecedented share of national wealth. Does anyone know of another instance in history where this has happened?

[asa]

pl.

I think we've all had to make choices like this. They were never easy and the consequences were often not pretty.

I agree there were good people on both sides but I've had a difficult time explaining that to some people. Some people seem to live in a black and white world and seem to have an easy time making decisions on life and death issues.

[Castellio]

Given that patriots will stand with the government in a war that should never have been, that doesn't mean that they will, or should, lose an acute consciousness of the reasons for the war, nor to believe that a country that leads another country into an unnecessary war is its ally.

[asa]

Trent.

I apologize for bringing Hitler into it.

My great grand-father fought against the Germans in the First World War as a volunteer. I was fortunate enough to meet him when I was seventeen years old. He seemed like like a good guy. I think he made a mistake to choose to fight in that war. Perhaps, he was the patriot and not me.

[Norbert M. Salamon]

Colonel:

Thank you for your most honorqble reply. I did presume that your aswer would be as noted.

[Margaret Steinfels]

PL: I'm working on it over at dotCommonweal.