WarSclerotic

Robert Naiman: Why Do Senators Boxer and Wyden Want to Bomb Iran?.

( Courtesy of the lefty “Huffington Post.” – JW )

Remember when we pilloried John McCain for singing about bombing Iran?

Wouldn’t it be a scandal if it turned out that California Senator Barbara Boxer and Oregon Senator Ron Wyden were pushing the same agenda?

I have bad news, I’m afraid. They are.

Senator Boxer and Senator Wyden are original co-sponsors of a bill — the “Back Door to Iran War” bill — being promoted by AIPAC that would endorse an Israeli attack on Iran. The bill, sponsored by Senator Lindsey Graham (shocked!) says that if Israel attacks Iran, then the U.S. should support Israel militarily and diplomatically. In other words, if Israel attacks Iran, then the U.S. should join the attack. That would be the opposite of current Obama administration policy, which is to try to distance the U.S. from any Israeli attack. The effect of the policy being advocated by Boxer and Wyden would be to allow the Israeli prime minister — as things stand, Mitt Romney’s BFF Benjamin Netanyahu — to decide by himself when to involve the U.S. in a war with Iran.

As Iran policy expert and former White House official Gary Sick says:

“Initiating a war is the gravest step any nation can take. This legislation would effectively entrust that decision to a regional state. Such a decision is an American sovereign responsibility. It cannot be outsourced.”

As if that weren’t bad enough, the AIPAC/Graham bill would “reiterate” [sic] that U.S. policy is “to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon capability and to take such action as may be necessary to implement this policy.” (Emphasis added.)

But that’s not the Obama administration’s policy, and thus the word “reiterate” is a lie. The Obama administration’s policy is to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Not the same thing at all. Preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon “capability” — whatever that means — is the policy that Netanyahu and AIPAC have long wanted to the U.S. to have, not the policy that the U.S. does have. If the policy were to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon “capability,” then war could be justified at any time, because at any time it could be claimed that Iran is on the “verge” of acquiring a nuclear weapon “capability,” since some would say that Iran already has a nuclear weapon “capability” already. And that’s a key reason that the Obama administration has correctly resisted Netanyahu’s and AIPAC’s demands to make nuclear weapon capability a “red line,” rather than making the acquisition of a nuclear weapon a “red line.”

AIPAC and Graham have jumped the shark, and they’re trying to bring Senate Democrats with them. This is not the cautious, bipartisan AIPAC that some people think existed in the past. This is an AIPAC that is promoting a neocon Republican agenda, openly lobbying for war.

What’s particularly disturbing about Boxer and Wyden’s support for this bill is that in 2002, they both voted against the Iraq war. At the time, many people who opposed the war saw them as heroes for standing against an unjust war.

But of course, their votes didn’t stop the war, because Democratic senators like Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and John Kerry voted yes for war. At the time, these senators who voted for war said things like, “I’m not voting for war, I’m voting to give the George W. Bush administration diplomatic leverage to avoid war.” We learned later that at the time, the Bush administration had been privately committed to war for months, although it was publicly pretending otherwise.

And if you would ask Boxer and Wyden today why they are co-sponsoring pro-war legislation, I don’t doubt that they would say things like: “Oh, don’t worry your pretty little heads about it, this is just a non-binding resolution, it’s not a binding commitment to go to war.”

And, in a narrow sense, they would be technically correct. It is a non-binding resolution. It’s not a binding commitment to go to war. It’s a commitment to a policy that, if adopted, would make war much more likely in the future.

Why would Boxer and Wyden advocate for a policy that would make war more likely? Just to please their AIPAC contributors? Is that responsible behavior for a senator? Most senators have good relations with AIPAC. They’re not all original co-sponsors of the “backdoor to war” resolution.

In fact, of the nine senators who voted no on the Iraq war who are still in the Senate, the other seven are not original co-sponsors of the “backdoor to war” resolution. The other seven senators who voted against the Iraq war and are not original co-sponsors of the AIPAC/Graham “backdoor to war” resolution are: Dick Durbin (D-IL), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Carl Levin (D-MI), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Patty Murray (D-WA), Jack Reed (D-RI), and Debbie Stabenow (D-MI). So it was perfectly possible to say no when AIPAC and Senator Graham came calling looking for original co-sponsors, because these seven senators said no.

After the Iraq war started in March 2003, some people said to me: look, we had huge protests in February, and they went to war anyway. Protesting didn’t do any good. I said to them: I’m very glad you protested in February, but your February protests were too late. The war train had already left the station. We needed your voice six months earlier, before the House and the Senate voted for war. And it would have been even more helpful to have your voice during the Clinton administration, when the House and the Senate committed themselves to a policy of regime change in Iraq.

On Tuesday, AIPAC lobbyists will be swarming the Hill, pressing Senators to sign the “backdoor to war” bill. They won’t be telling Senators and their staffs what they’re really being asked to sign on to. After all, the text of the AIPAC/Graham bill itself tells a lie, by claiming that the U.S. policy is to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon capability, when that is not U.S. policy today.

If you don’t want your senators to sign the AIPAC/Graham “backdoor to war” bill, you should tell them so now, before they’re surrounded by AIPAC lobbyists. Once senators sign on to something, it’s very hard to get them to admit that they were wrong to do so. You can write to your senators here, and sign a petition here.

Kerry talks economics, finds Morsi preoccupied with Islamizing Egypt.

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report March 4, 2013, 4:26 AM (GMT+02:00)

US Secretary John Kerry meets President Mohamed Morsi in Cairo

When visiting US Secretary of State John Kerry sat one-on-one with Egyptian President Morsi in Cairo, Sunday, March 3, he talked at length about Egypt’s calamitous economic straits, relations with Israel, democratization and essential reforms. He had hoped to find the Egyptian president amenable to getting to grips with his country’s fast approaching bankruptcy. In the event, Morsi nodded politely but, debkafile’s Middle East sources report, he was far more preoccupied with pushing forward the three-point plan he and the Muslim Brotherhood’s supreme leader Mohammed Badie have begun implementing:

1. The Muslim Brotherhood will not settle for a parliamentary majority in the coming general election – most likely in April or June; it is aiming for 100 percent of the seats.
2. To set the stage for this campaign, the Brothers have installed their loyalists in the governates of Egypt’s 19 provinces. The spreading of Brotherhood values in the national constituency is going full steam ahead across Egypt.
The MB turned to this course when they saw they had no hope of exercising total control over the restive capital and the protest movements springing up regularly in Tahrir Square. So they decided to build up their support in the country at large in the hope of making Cairo an isolated Island in the predominantly Islamist country.

3. To boost their popularity in the coming election, Morsi and Badie decided they could not afford the painful measures required by the International Monetary Fund for a $4.8 billion loan to tide the economy over its current crisis – spending cutbacks, downsizing the vast Egyptian civil service, reducing food subsidies and cutting away dead wood.

Instead, they dropped their credit application to the IMF altogether and so avoided mass unemployment and widespread hardship in the months leading up to the election.
However, the US Secretary of State sternly called the Egyptian president’s attention to three major concerns which need to be addressed with the utmost urgency:
a) Egyptian foreign currency reserves continue to bleed dangerously and no one knows how to stop the disastrous drain. By April, it is predicted that no more than $4 billion will be left to sustain a population of 80-90 million souls.
2. Egypt’s industrial plants are working at just 50 percent capacity because fuel is scarce and the money to buy it even scarcer.
3. Gas for powering electricity is running out. More and more areas no longer receive regular electricity – some none at all. The water supply is also affected.
debkafile’s sources report two conflicting approaches on how to resolve Egypt’s calamitous economic emergency:

The Morsi Badiah upbeat approach which maintains that Egypt can keep going for three or four months until parliamentary elections. The Brotherhood will win 100 percent of the house and can then safely impose the necessary harsh economic measures that would hurt every part of the population, but hope to put the economy on its feet.
This pie-in-the-sky approach has Washington up in arms. They don’t believe the Egyptian economy can wait another three to four months before tough remedies are put in place. They warn that a delay that long will see the Muslim Brotherhood and President Morsi crash and Egypt slump into a failed state.
Whichever approach is realistic, the Egyptian people will very soon be faced with extreme hardship and a heavy price tab for their revolution.

‘We Mean It that All Options Are on the Table’ – Defense/Security – News – Israel National News.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak

Israel news photo: Flash 90

When Israel says that all options are on the table regarding stopping a nuclear Iran, it means what it says, Defense Minister Ehud Barak said at the AIPAC 2013 conference on Sunday night.

“It is an indescribable feeling to be surrounded by so many friends in the capital of the world’s greatest democracy,” Barak told the audience at the beginning of his speech.

“I have six humble words for all of you: Thank you, thank you, thank you. I would like to express my personal appreciation to President Barack Obama and [outgoing] Defense Secretary Panetta for their resolute backing of Israel. History will surely record your immeasurable contribution to the strength of Israel and the maintenance of the truly special relationship between our two peoples. I wish incoming Secretary Hagel all the best in his new role.”

Barak said that Israel’s “rock solid relationship with the U.S.”, alongside the devotion of IDF soldiers, is what ensures Israel’s strong defense capabilities.

“The Iron Dome recently intercepted over incoming terrorists 400 rockets, like hitting a bullet with another bullet,” he said. “Just last week, we conducted an extremely successful test of the Arrow 3. That’s the future of our missile defense.”

The State of Israel would not be what it is without the U.S. – its people, its leaders, its Congress and the Jewish community, said Barak.

“We live in a tough neighborhood where there’s no second chance for those who cannot defend themselves. Israel is the strongest country and the only genuinely open democracy” in the region, he said, going on to mention the ongoing turmoil in the region, specifically in Egypt and Syria.

“Many believe that the root cause for all the problems in the Middle East is our inability to solve the conflict with the Palestinians, but I say that’s not true,” said Barak. “Recent developments in the Middle East have been beyond our control and independent of our deeds. Even if a peace agreement had been signed and sealed a long time ago, the Muslim Brotherhood would still have come to power in Egypt, Syria would still be in a bloody civil war and Iran would still be pursuing nuclear capabilities.”

Barak stressed that Iran’s pursuit of nuclear capabilities is “the greatest challenge facing Israel, the region and the world today,” adding that if Iran goes nuclear, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt and even local terrorist groups may follow suit.

“Diplomatic efforts are unprecedented and sanctions are hurting, but frankly, while exhausting all diplomatic means is understandable, I do not believe it will lead to the ayatollahs giving up their nuclear aspirations. Therefore, all options must remain on the table,” he said.

Barak said, “We expect all those who say it to mean it. Ladies and gentlemen, we mean it. And let me repeat it: We mean it.”

Referring to the peace process with the Palestinian Authority, Barak said, “I tried hard as Prime Minister, together with President Clinton, so I know from personal experience that the Palestinians are not easy partners for peace. Prime Minister Netanyahu has taken courageous steps to renew the process, including an unprecedented settlement freeze, but there still has been no proper response from the Palestinian side. They clearly bear most of the responsibility for past failures.”

Barak conceded that an agreement with the PA is not feasible today, but that sincere efforts should still be made to achieve an interim agreement that will guarantee Israel’s security.

However, he said, if even an interim agreement isn’t possible, Israel should make unilateral steps to stop the formation of a bi-national state.

“It involves demarcating a line, within the State of Israel, within which we will have the ‘settlement blocs’ and a solid Jewish majority,” said Barak, adding that such moves should include a strong and long-term Israeli military presence along the Jordan River.

“Rest assured, our security should not and will not be compromised under any of these alternatives,” he stressed. “Tough decisions must be taken but it is possible, and as our sages said, ‘If not now, when?’”