Proceed to chapter seven?
John Bolton and the UK’s Emyr Jones Parry seem to be speaking with one voice following today’s IAEA finding that Iran has not even pretended to comply with their month-old demand that Iran stop enriching uranium. Evelyn Leopold and Irwin Arieff report that Britain and the US are pressing for a quick Security Council resolution that would place Iran’s nuclear activity under a legally binding Chapter 7 mandate.
The question is whether or nor China will acquiesce to such a resolution. To woo China demands some deft diplomacy on the part of the US and UK, and presumably requires playing down the potential consequences of invoking Chapter 7. To that end, Arieff and Leopold report that the British draft does not hint at war or sanctions. Of course, one thing that could derail efforts to bring China on board would be a new round of saber rattling by the Bush administration. At this point, should administration officials, including Bolton, publicly hint at possible unilateral military strikes it would not be hard to see why some think that the Bush administration, on its path to war, is setting the Security Council up to fail.
And the runup continues.
Anybody who can't see the clear path to war with Iran at this point needs eye surgery.
Anybody who thinks China (or even Russia) will support Chapter 7 authorization - that will later be used by Bush as justification for a unilateral attack on Iran - is also having serious glaucoma problems. That the draft doesn't mention war or sanctions will be entirely irrelevant to China - they know what's going on, as does Russia AND Iran.
The whole UN involvement in the Iran issue is completely irrelevant. It's a side show as was its involvement in the Iraq situation.
The neocons and Israel (by US proxy) are going to attack Iran as soon as the preparations are complete and the sideshows are over, and the appropriate date - before the US fall elections but also before the consequences of such an attack could effect those elections - is set.
It's that simple. I can't see anything short of a nuclear attack by Russia or China on the US that is going to derail the attack on Iran. Certainly there aren't twenty Democratic Congressmen who will fight it - and only one Republican (Ron Paul) that I know of. And the public is at least fifty percent behind it. And the media are almost totally behind it.
Meanwhile, everybody talks around the consequences with vague references to Iran's ability to "retaliate in various theaters." People need to get a more gruesome, grim picture of just how bad this is going to be. I'd advocate thinking about a Vietnam war that is twice to four times as big as the real Vietnam war - but a lot of people don't remember Vietnam these days.
Try this - Iran is going to hand the US a ten-year Vietnam-style defeat. It's going to cost the US several trillion dollars, at least 100,000 dead US soldiers if not 200,000, massive terrorism inside the US, and the evaporation of people's jobs as the US dollar and economy collapse into a major recession - not to mention that we will end up with a "V for Vendetta" style repressive government at home as a result of its attempts (or rather, excuse) to "stop terrorism". It will cost the Iranians about a million or perhaps two million casualties. If nuclear bunker busters are used, up that figure by a factor of two to four.
Not to mention that even with Chapter 7 authorization, it's fairly clear the UN will have to rule that the US attack is an act of international aggression, an illegal war, and the US as a rogue state.
This is because there is no way the UN can or will rule that the Iranians have in any way violated the terms of the NPT sufficiently to justify a military attack on Iran. Therefore any US attack will, as Zbigniew Brzezinski has pointed out, will be completely illegal, and should result in the impeachment of the President in the US Congress and the declaration of the US as an international war criminal by the UN.
There was some question over the Iraq war legality based on interpretations of prior UN resolutions. There will be NO UN Security Council resolutions in question this time - Russia and China will see to that, if they have to, which they probably won't as the rest of the world doesn't see it the way the US and Britain do.
April 28, 2006 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
And in the end, I seriously wonder if all George wants to do is win the mid-term elections. It worked so well in 2002.
The extra irony is that the only regime change we will accomplish will be one for the worse.
April 29, 2006 4:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dr. Gordon Prather describes one of the points in the Congressional resolution "Iran Freedom Support Act" as follows:
"The efforts of the Government of Iran to acquire weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them and its support of acts of international terrorism endanger the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and those countries with which the United States shares common strategic and foreign policy objectives."
In other words, Israel...
And then:
"The Congress declares that it is the policy of the United States to deny Iran the ability to support acts of international terrorism and to fund the development and acquisition of weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them by limiting the development of Iran's ability to explore for, extract, refine, or transport by pipeline petroleum resources of Iran."
Uhm, just how do you propose to prevent Iran from exploring for its own oil without invading the country?
While the resolution explicitly states that nothing in it authorizes the use of force against Iran, clearly it is setting the stage for another resolution doing so.
Meanwhile, a new Congressional resolution has been drafted by Representative Peter DeFazio, a Democrat from Oregon. It explicitly requires Bush to receive authorization from Congress before initiating any military action against Iran.
This is exactly the sort of thing I've been saying needs to be supported by every anti-war proponent.
DeFazio sent a letter to Bush stating the following:
"We also want to go on record that the Authorization of Force Resolution (Public Law 107-40) approved by Congress to go after those responsible for the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on our country does not, explicitly or implicitly, extend to authorizing military action against Iran over its nuclear program. The legislation specifically says, "The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons." There is no evidence that Iran was involved in the September 11, 2001, attacks. Nor is there any evidence that Iran harbored those who were responsible for the attacks.
Further, the Authorization of Force Resolution (Public Law 107-243) approved by Congress to go to war with Iraq does not extend to military action against Iran over its nuclear program. This resolution only authorized you to "(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." Like P.L. 107-40, there is no explicit or implicit authorization on the part of Congress in P.L. 107-243 that would allow you to attack Iran without first coming to Congress to seek a new authorization.
When asked about reports of your administration planning for war with Iran, you said on April 10, 2006, "It [prevention] doesn't mean force, necessarily. In this case, it means diplomacy." We agree with the focus on diplomacy. But, we want to be clear, should you decide that force is necessary, seeking congressional authority prior to taking military action against Iran is not discretionary. It is legally and constitutionally necessary."
See his letter here.
If you don't want another Vietnam disaster - one that will be two to four times bigger than Vietnam - it is imperative that EVERY Democrat and their Senators and Representatives get behind this resolution NOW.
April 29, 2006 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink