Senate To Pass AIPAC's Iran Sanctions Bill TONIGHT
It appears that the 800 pound gorilla that is AIPAC has been eating regular. The Senate is prepared to vote tonight -- under super expedited procedure -- on AIPAC's legislation that would impose onerous sanction on Iran, cutting the legs out of the President's diplomatic strategy.
Read this analysis by Lara Friedman, Americans for Peace Now's crack legislative director on this potentially disastrous move that would punish the Iranian people while likely doing nothing to deter an Iranian nuclear bomb.
Note. This is being done in the dark of night although, on the good side, it takes only one senator to stop it (and he or she can do it anonymously).
Read Lara's analysis. Plus follow her links to vatious information on this disastrous piece of legislation.
How perfect that it will pass at night. As Steve Rosen, the former espionage indictee put it, "a lobby is a night flower. It thrives in the dark and dies in the sun."
Is there a single senator with a flashlight. Tonight is the night to shine it. Or are there a hundred senators who are ready to fast track a military confrontation with Iran?
Maybe Sanders or the Udalls or Boxer could be persuaded that ghost of Ted Kennedy will haunt them if they don't stop this train wreck. To be sure, sanctions on Iran are looking more or more likely, but they should be imposed on the American Administration's timetable in the interests of America.
December 8, 2009 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
RE: "sanctions on Iran are looking more or more likely, but they should be imposed on the American Administration's timetable in the interests of America" - PTroub
MY COMMENT: The problem is that Netanyahu doesn't want any pantywaist sanctions; he wants Iran BOMBED, goddammit! It has to do with Amalek. The Congress is just doing what it has been instructed to do in order to ensure diplomacy fails.
FOR MORE ON NETANYAHU AND IRAN/AMALEK -
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2009/05/25/bush-had-gog-and-magog-bibi-has-amalek/
December 8, 2009 11:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ, I'm inclined to agree that sanctions often backfire, not only because they wind up hurting the blameless but also, in so doing, they generate more nationalist resentment of those who impose the sanctions than of the regime.
Still, what I think we need here in your post, or your next post is a)a fuller acknowledgment of what went on in Iran yesterday and today -- http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/world/middleeast/09iran.html?_r=1&hp -- and b)a fuller report on whether the Obama administration is scrambling to head off this bill and, if it is, how energetically; c) some notice on whether any other nations might be moving toward stronger sanctions in light of today's developments; and d)some allusion to what kind of strategy might be advisable, in combination with diplomacy. It's not enough to pit AIPAC against Americans For Peace Now and assume that everything is clear. No, we don't want another war for "regime change," least of all in Iraq. But the despicable regime there is something worse than just a foil for neo-cons, right?
December 8, 2009 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops, In the second-to-last sentence, I meant, "least of all, in IraN." Sorry.
December 8, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I despise the Iranian regime and hope it can be overthrown. But gasoline sanctions will make it stronger by hurting the Iranian people.
Additionally, no offer to Iran by the United State, EU or anyone else will be serious until it takes into account Israel's 200 bombs and its refusal to sign the NPT.
We Americans see Israel as unique and somehow exempt from the demands we impose on the rest of the world. But most of the world does not see it that way. A Grand Bargain would include Israel's bombs in the mix.
As to AIPAC, the Iran push to get to sanctions and even war now (rather than keep pursuing diplomacy) comes solely from AIPAC. And its sole concern is Israel. That is why the debate gets framed that way.
Bottom line. I oppose any squeezing of the Iranian people in protest of a regime they despise. It makes as much sense as banning the import of Polish goods to protest the Soviet occupation of Poland. Who are we punishing and why?
I am for serious negotiations with everything on the table, not US demands which Iran will never acquiesce too (hell, even Israel, which we bankroll, ignores us).
December 8, 2009 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have read about what is going on in Guinea these last few months?
"On 28 September 2009, opposition party members demonstrated in the Stade du 28 Septembre in Conakry, demanding that Camara step down. Security forces fired into the crowd, killing 157 people and injuring 1,200. In response to criticism from international human rights organisations, the government has said that only 56 people died and most were trampled by fleeing protesters. Following the event, cell phone photos from anonymous sources circulated on the Internet, showing what appears to be many women being raped by Camara’s soldiers... The International Criminal Court is currently investigating the incident and the African Union has asked for Camara’s resignation.
In response to the incident, the Economic Community of West African States imposed an arms embargo on Guinea. The African Union, the European Union and the United States punished Moussa Dadis Camara and forty-one other junta members in late October 2009. The African Union imposed a travel ban and froze any bank accounts owned by the forty-two. The European Union did the same a day earlier. The United States opted for a travel ban alone."
Where is all the outrage about that in the media? Nothing is more hypocritical than joining the chorus of neocons and their crocodile tears for the Iranian people, when it is obvious a "regime change" in Teheran is all they care about. And I'm not even talking about the "CIA" money funding some of the opponents, since that is a logical consequence of the rest.
December 8, 2009 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ, I find your answers serious and credible, especially if it's true that, as you say, the call for stiff sanctions (and war) is coming exclusively from AIPAC. I was under the impression that Capitol Hill was not so enamored of AIPAC lately, so I had assumed that there are other reasons why the Senate would pass a bill to impose these sanctions.
As for the other replies to my comment, I'm not sure why "Why oh why" is replying to me at all, since I have written three columns on Iran here at TPM, along the lines of the following excerpt from one of them:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/06/19/now_the_crackdown/
"....in their hearts, pious neocon supporters of the street marchers want the regime to crush them, because that would justify another war. They've forgotten that the last one, in Iraq, boosted the Iranian mullahs' power. Even the neocon rhetoric is doing that again right now; the regime in Iran is capitalizing on it."
As for BBayer, who does understand what I am saying (and he objects to it), he probably just needs to go find another site, one where his prejudices will be confirmed.
December 8, 2009 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
You realize that, yet you just have to mention how horrible Iran is in your reply. Don't you understand that is exactly what neocons and various warmongers want, debate endlessly about Iran? To bomb or not to bomb? As long as Iran is in the news (instead of even more nefarious regimes, or American war crimes), that is a win.
Not surprising then that in a recent poll, "a substantial 61%-majority of Americans say that it is more important to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, even if it means taking military action." It means neocons have already won that debate, as your first reply illustrates.
December 8, 2009 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
You need to learn how to hold two contradictory truths in your mind (and in honest public discussion)at the same time. The fact that one of those truths pleases bad people is not a good reason for suppressing it. This is in itself a very basic truth of political discourse, as George Orwell showed brilliantly in Homage to Catalonia and so many others of his writings; but there were always editors who didn't want to publish the harsh truths he was telling about the Stalinist forces in Spain, because they feared that doing so would help the other side. That's not a good way to think politically. It sometimes makes sense temporarily and tactically, but never in discussions like this.
December 8, 2009 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jim:
I agree that it would be appropriate to call this legislation something akin to "AIPAC's bill" if, as you note that Mr. Rosenberg appears to contend, pressure to pass the bill was coming from AIPAC. Just so the record is clear, however, J Street has also endorsed this legislation.
http://www.jstreet.org/blog/?p=750
J Street's release provides in part:
“'J Street has consistently supported President Obama in his efforts to engage Iran diplomatically and to resolve issues relating to its nuclear program through negotiations,” said Jeremy Ben-Ami, J Street’s Executive Director. “However, in the face of Iran’s continued defiance of the international community and its rejection of the most recent diplomatic offer on nuclear enrichment, we believe the time has come to pass the Iran sanctions legislation currently pending in the House of Representatives.
“'Passage of this bill by Congress will highlight for the Iranian Government the choice they must make between one path that leads to further isolation and another that leads to full integration in the international community and the ability to develop their economy to its full potential,” Ben-Ami added."
I haven't studied what other groups support this measure, and I'm inclined to agree with you that one of the downsides of sanctions is that it will impact on many of the folks who would be at the forefront of a move to overthrow the current regime from the inside. But I think it's fair to point out that the support by J Street indicates that support for the legislation extends beyond AIPAC.
Bruce
December 8, 2009 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
To be fair, even without the potential for a new government, the problem with sanctions, boycotts and the like, is that it is always the innocent who are impacted most directly.
December 8, 2009 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
This strikes me as an important point, and it's certainly a response to the question I posed at the outset, but far be it from me to sort out the players; I was only asking that MJ and others give us this "lay of the land" and explain what it amounts to. I look forward to that, but since this isn't "my" thread, having posed the question you're speaking to, I'll bow out and listen.
December 8, 2009 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, but this is easy to counter in Rosenberg world, one can just say that AIPAC ate J Street, too, they are evil magicians who can make all sorts of people do all sorts of things they don't want to do.
December 8, 2009 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
AA, I've caused enough trouble for one day, and my good friend lally even excerpted a prior comment I made to you to establish that I'm a hypocrite for challenging Mr. Rosenberg.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/07/the_israel_litmus_test_to_work_in_us_government/index.php#comment-3697228
So at this point I think I'll join Mr. Sleeper and "bow out and listen" to anyone who wants to address the fact that, not only AIPAC, but also J Street, which Mr. Rosenberg states in another thread is doing "God's work", is supporting this bill for unilateral sanctions.
December 8, 2009 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't ever feel that you can't ignore a reply of mine, especially as you aren't one of us writing behind pseudonyms.
December 8, 2009 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please AA. I would never ignore you.
December 9, 2009 12:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is merit in the speculation that this bill and S.908 are a form of head faking as they target businesses of our allies. Surely our Critters can't be serious about punishing international interests in this economy, could they?
This JPost article from Sept provides background:
.http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1251804541978&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
Watching for language that calls for a "blockade" ie an act of war.....
December 8, 2009 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good questions, Jim. I suspect you won't get any good answers, as all Rosenberg does is to try to think up cute ways to denigrate Israel and AIPAC. I'm sure he is capable of real study and analysis and some heavy thinking. That's just not his gig any more.
December 8, 2009 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
If only the Senate was so fast, efficient and steadfast at protecting the health of their constituents and the functioning of our economy as they are at carrying out AIPAC's jingoistic war plans in the conflict ravaged Middle East.
December 8, 2009 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
An interesting read in our local paper regarding a wargaming of this scenario that was done in Washington; the wargaming played out in such a way that the only thing the sanctions "achieved" was to alienate the Russians and the Chinese.
December 8, 2009 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Is there a single senator with a flashlight."
As written in the Constitution, each state has two Senators, and Israel has 100.
December 8, 2009 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Extrapolated from the Federation of American Scientists estimate of Israel’s nuclear weapons as at 2006, it would appear that Israel could now have an arsenal in excess of 300 warheads. If this figure were substantiated, it would make the Israel into the third most powerful nuclear state in the world, after Russia and the US.
However, it is the only state in the world that is an undeclared nuclear power, and the fact that it is outside of the NPT and not subject to any inspection by the IAEA, makes it potentially very dangerous.
Why successive US governments have turned a blind eye to this position, has no acceptable explanation. But it is clear that it is now beyond any outside influence – even AIPAC’s. And that is frightening. More frightening than a non-nuclear Iran that would need at least 20 years to eventually match Israel's current arsenal.
December 8, 2009 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not surprising then that in a recent poll, "a substantial 61%-majority of Americans say that it is more important to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons
the purpose of these types of polls is not only to ascertain what the american public thinks on a particular issue but to determine whether the propoganda campaign on that issue is working. it is. if the numbers were lower, the propoganda would be fine tuned until the desired result is produced.
December 8, 2009 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Jim,
J Street is positioning. As you know better than most, in the organized community, it is not possible to deviate too far from the herd without losing credibility with the sheep. J does what it must.
That is why I am so glad I am out of that world. My God, the joy of speaking the truth and not worrying that the rabbi from Ohavei Koach Yisraelit will call to complain!
I think that J Street plays an important transitional role (Herzl would call it a "nachtasyl") on the road to the day when Israel's interests are represented exclusively by the embassy and by registered agents just like the UK or Japan. Then it will not be able to use its clout to ensure that Dennis Ross and not Ron Malley is in the WH.
I am intrigued by the Senate. I can't believe it will demonstrate tonight that AIPAC has a hundred senators im its pocket. Somehow I doubt it will happen although it would send a clear message that Walt-Mearsheimer were not smoking opium!
By the way, i think that the trolls are gone, or most of them, which means that our threads won't be smutzed up by deviants.
December 8, 2009 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The rabbi from Ohavei Koach Yisraelit"-- I love it, MJ! I'm tempted to say it'll be our (and a few others') little inside joke, but, for anyone else who think that it sounds like the normal name of a synagogue, it means "Lovers of Israeli Might" and is not, I hope, the name of any congregation....
December 8, 2009 11:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I want to inscribe this on my tombstone: "As you know better than most, in the organized community, it is not possible to deviate too far from the herd without losing credibility with the sheep." Ah, incrementalism.
BTW, our WAC will have a presentation with PLO ambassador Amreikat in February. I want to see what ideas he has on re-establishing Palestinian unity and advancing PM Fayyad's plan for unilateral declaration. We really don't need another Oslo Process. The end-game is the only conversation worth having now.
December 9, 2009 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
"We Americans see Israel as unique and somehow exempt from the demands we impose on the rest of the world"
How "unique", Mr. Rosenberg?
http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2008/08/18/movers-and-shakers/
December 9, 2009 8:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tulsa Courthouse
I look forward to that, but since this isn't "my" thread, having posed the question you're speaking to, I'll bow out and listen.
December 17, 2010 1:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't ever feel that you can't ignore a reply of mine, especially as you aren't one of us writing behind pseudonyms.bathing suits
December 20, 2010 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink