US Senate: Will back Israeli attack on Iran

[azurnoir]

Source: Ynet

Members of the US Senate's Foreign Relations Committee have adopted "Senate Resolution 65," according to which the US will support Israel in case it is compelled to take military action and actualize its right to self defense in the face of an Iranian threat.

The resolution stipules that Israel will enjoy Washington's diplomatic, economic and military aid.

According to the resolution, sponsored by Sen. Robert Menendez and Sen. Lindsey Graham, the US's policy is to halt Iranian nuclear ambitions.
Senate Resolution 65 has successfully gained the support of 70 of the 100 senators.

In a statement issued by AIPAC it was noted that “The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has sent a very clear and enormously important message of solidarity with Israel against the Iranian nuclear threat—which endangers American, Israeli, and international security.”

Read more: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4368598,00.html

[Agnosticsherbet]

1. That appears to be a usurption of executive power by the Senate...

n/t

[GitRDun]

2. Congress handed the Bush administration authority to start a war with Iraq

We have seen again and again over time how our government has lied about threats to the nation as a pre-cursor to war....lied about torture taking place during war...

Now Congress is going to hand power over our future military involvement to the Israelis?

This country has its head so thoroughly up its ass it is hard to believe....

[DeSwiss]

3. Well that's nice.

All you Senate warmongers get your fat flabby asses over there right away.

NO.

MORE.

WAR.

- Assholes.

[drdtroit]

4. Psychopaths

[LeftInTX]

5. So if Israel wants us to bomb Iran, we're going to?

If Israel wants to sit around and watch TV while we go to war in Iran, we're stuck?

[ucrdem]

9. If that were true we would have gone in four years ago.

That fact that we haven't may be Obama's greatest legacy, or one of them. It's one of his many underrated achievements. And I don't think this ploy will work any better than the others, and there have been quite a few.

[LeftInTX]

12. Thx :)

I was being kinda silly.
I do know the Rs have been portray Obama as "not supporting Israel etc." I am surprised that the Dems are also behind this.

[golfguru]

6. Just Great! Get involved in another war with borrowed money from China

How stupid are our political leaders???

It would be different if we had surplus foreign money reserves, a budget surplus and Treasury flush with cash. China has 4 Trillion dollars in foreign currency reserves and how many wars have they started recently since getting filthy rich?

[still_one]

7. There is not going to be a war. It is not in anyone's, including Israel's interest no matter what

Bs nonesense like this they try to push

Oh, and for the same reason North Korea is not going to be invading the south either. Too bad for the war mongers and PNAC, it is not going to happen

Good for the rest of us though

[mbperrin]

8. Sometimes, I just grow weary of the BS and think that something

really contagious and only to politicians would be a welcome relief.

[sakabatou]

10. Please not another Afghanistan...

[bobduca]

11. Might as well sneak this in while everyone is distracted.

[davidpdx]

13. Other than alternative news sites, I'm not seeing much being said about this

It is a non-binding resolution, so it in essence means nothing.

Here is a link to the actual text

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d113:1:./temp/~bd7MvS:@@@L&summ2=m&|/home/LegislativeData.php|

[Proud Liberal Dem]

29. Exactly

and it's not like the Senate can order the military to do anything. President Obama doesn't seem particularly interested in launching any new wars, especially while he's trying to draw down the last remaining one. Hopefully, Israel doesn't decide to launch any unprovoked military actions against anybody. I don't want us dragged into anything unnecessary.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

14. Where did that "fuck this shit" video go?

[John2]

15. This is a clear example,

of my allegations our Foreign Policy is a victim of rightwing Policies. This rightwing Policy gave Israel the right to start a War over even the U.N. It says the United States will not recognize even other countries' objections. These are the same assholes that got us into Iraq and Democrats turn the blind eye because they don't want to be seen not supporting Israel.

I'm not a politician and I'm not Jewish, but this Congress puts shackles on us too as Americans. We have to fight their Wars because they make decisions for us like this. I do not feel Iran threatens me or this country at all. They may threaten Israel but it doesn't even threaten us. And if Israel go around dropping bombs on Iran, I feel Iran has every right to retaliate militarily. Every country has a right for self defense, not just Israel. For Israel to attack Iran because of Nuclear weapons or seeking them is hypocrasy on Israel's part. Abnd this american will not go along with it! That would be my answer to this repugnant Congress!

[cali]

16. what war? You say

"This rightwing Policy gave Israel the right to start a War over even the U.N"

What war are you referring to?

[John2]

17. That is the point of this

resolution. It gives Israel the right to attack Iran and does not recognize Iran's rights to retaliate. The resolution in itself pre-empts every other objections. The notion 70 senators went along with it, puts them in a box for any other future decisions. I see right through this tricky manuever presented by the very senators that called for it. Anyone can't see this is being naive. It is a rightwing Policy. Every senator tied to the Policy has ties to a special interest group. And the Administration has already given Israel assurances, the U.S. would be prepared to act within the year. This manuever is only preliminary and a prelude. The Iranians and their Allies are not stupid to this either. They have brains too and intelligence services. They are also preparing for War if Israel does act. It doesn't matter what Iran does if the U.S. Congress and Israel Government have their way. War will be inevitable unless the U.S. public wake up to what ther representatives are doing with their representation in Congress. This Congress don't represent all americans. And I would add, this has indirect ties to fiscal policies within the U.S., such as domestic spending versus military spending. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see why they are hesitant to cut military spending.

note: I do not believe Israel can defeat Iran militarily by themselves. Iran is a country of mearly 75 million people versus only 7. Iran can place millions of man power on the battle field. Israel is only a country that has very limited man power and needs assistance against a country this size. Their resources will be depleted very quickly.

[Behind the Aegis]

18. You didn't answer cali's question. She asked...What war?

"We have to fight their Wars because they make decisions for us like this."

I am modifying her question, "What wars?"

[John2]

19. The Wars in Iraq, and

possibly Iran, or North Korea. They want to get in Syria and recomended sending forces to Africa. There are some republicans that want to get out of Afghanistan but the push to leave forces there are from the right.

And why are you modifying her question, if you are not her? Isn't this your question now? And why else would the Secretary of State go around the World trying to shore up alliances? Lets get to your point if you have any?

[Behind the Aegis]

20. So you believe the wars in Iraq were fought at the behest of Israel?

That demonstrates a poor grasp of the Iraq wars. Furthermore, you are blaming Israel for wars that haven't even happened. Your further claims are that the right are working for Israel...let's see a modicum of proof; y'know...facts.

I modified her question because of your response. She asked about a singular war, your response indicated your belief their was more than one. I needn't be her in order to modify her question; so your distraction is noted, but dismissed.

"why else would the Secretary of State go around the World trying to shore up alliances?"

Really? And what do you think the SoS' job entails?

You are the one trying to make a point, not me. I was asking a question. Did it offend you? Were you thrown that someone(s) might question your allegations? What is your point?

[John2]

22. I'm going to give you a straight forward answer.

The answer is a resounding Yes! And I assure you, I have a complete grasp of the Wars in Iraq. There is clear information Israel wanted the U.S. to attack Iraq and now Iran. The notion Israel can defeat iran by themselves is ludicrous. The dominant interest, the U.S. has in the Middle East is protecting the state of Israel at any cost. That has been stated on a number of occasions. The premise, is not to let any of her adversaries to gain military equivalence.

The United States arms Israel. That is the only means a state with a very small population gained such military superiority. They even turned a blind eye to Israel getting nuclear weapons and introducing those weapons first into the Middle East. Why else do you think the U.S. don't want another state to have military equivalence in that region? You actually feel right wing politicians in this country care about human rights of Arabs? I think you do know the answers to those questions and there is some point you are trying to lead too. I'm trying to flush you out more than you are trying to flush me out. That is because I think you already know my point.

I have already stated numerous times on this forum, that I think U.S. Foreign Policy is racist and bias at best. On one hand, they allow a state to introduce or carry on a nuclear weapons programs in the Middle East without a peep or objection. So are you going to lead us to believe the U.S. intelligence agency has no knowledge of this, but knows every thing about Iraq, North Korea or Iran? At the same time they accuse states of arming terrorists, in conflict with Israel, while at the same time providing arms to Israel. Lets not play games now, My point is obviously clear. Your point needs to be made more clearer, not mine. And I'm more independent than probably you are, because I'm not Jewish or Arab. I'm not very religious either. I'm just a native born U.S. citizen that object to it all. You think I'm a traitor now?

[Behind the Aegis]

26. No, you don't have a "complete grasp" of the wars in Iraq.

Last edited Wed Apr 17, 2013, 06:45 AM - Edit history (1)

If you believe Israel forced us into those wars, you really have no idea as to the real reasons. Your statement that the "dominant interest" for the US in the ME is "protecting the state of Israel at any cost" further demonstrates you have absolutely no clue as to our policies in regards to that region.

"They even turned a blind eye to Israel getting nuclear weapons and introducing those weapons first into the Middle East. Why else do you think the U.S. don't want another state to have military equivalence in that region?"

Are you familiar that Pakistan is also in "the region?" It would seem you are not.

"You actually feel right wing politicians in this country care about human rights of Arabs?"

I don't feel they care about human rights, period. You, however, seem to feel they are working for Israel. Do you think/feel this? If so, you have anything that resembles fact?

You seem to keep forgetting about that pesky NPT. I am not surprised, mind you. It just seems to allow you a convenient out to your views.

I am just jonesing as to how Israel is demanding/guiding/forcing the US into a conflict with North Korea. Please share your 'knowledge.'

"You think I'm a traitor now?"

I have not indicated anything of the such, however, you have now twice stated you aren't Jewish, so; Do you think I am one because I am a Jew?

Does Israel also control our domestic polices or just our foreign ones?

[John2]

27. You have to be much more

clearer about what you mean by Pakistan. And you apparently don't know the U.S. doesn't include North Korea as a state supporting Terrorists. North Korea has trained fighters for Hezbullah and shares technology with Iran. I have seen sources about what the other side intelligence knows. You think they are just sitting around if one attacks the other? Like I said, you have to be clearer about what you think is going on with Pakistan. None of these countries are going to submit to Israel or the U.S. after what happened in Iraq. People are not stupid what is really going on. I have to leave now and will discuss later anything you are trying to flush from my knowledge or ignorance thereof.

[cali]

31. Okay, that wrong and nutty.

There is overwhelming evidence that Israel did not even urge us to go to war with Iraq. And people pushing that dogshit have an agenda. North Korea? Are you fucking serious? Afghanistan? Syria? Woo boy.

Want to criticize Israel on the Occupation and on Gaza? I do that frequently and harshly. Want to make up shit and demonize Israel for things it had nothing to do with? Disgusting.

[cali]

28. OK. First of all it doesn't give Israel anything. It's a non-binding resolution

It's a sucky non-binding resolution and it does illustrate the mindless support Congress gives Israel, but it authorizes, well, nothing.

Furthermore, the chances of Israel actually going to war with Iran are very small indeed.

Now answer my question please.

[aandegoons]

21. Israel and the US sound just like North Korea

Except our nutters like to follow through.

[Douglas Carpenter]

24. the U.S. Senate would back Israel if they attacked Disney World - get real

[blkmusclmachine]

25. Let's face it. DC wants to thrust the US into a Holy War against Islam.

I don't think a lot of ppl understand the religious fanaticism that is swirling around in the halls of power in DC. That's what over 60 years of having the Prayer Breakfast ppl networking into our Gov't has wrought..

[KurtNYC]

30. Did Isreal get one of those envelopes that says "YOU'RE PREAPPROVED!" ?

(like credit card companies send out).

Ugh.

[Doctor_J]

32. I'm shocked!

j/k

[MrBig]

33. Hold your horses people

I know all of the knee jerkers want to read the headline and first paragraph and state "ISRAEL IS GONNA ATTACK IRAN AND THE US IS GONNA LET THEM DO IT!!1!1!!!1"

How about taking a look at what exactly this accomplished. We've got a Senate Resolution - which, for all intents and purposes, means absolutely nothing - saying that the US will support Israel, which is no different than where we were before.

What posting this story accomplished was letting the nut jobs on this website come out in full force with all of their conspiracy theories about Israel, inlcuding the power of those Jews (something someone above has already mentioned). Well done.

[daleo]

40. If it means nothing, why did they bother with the resolution?

Never assume a move towards war is an empty gesture. It is meant as a step towards war by the people who backed it, else they would not have done so.

[L0oniX]

34. Just think ...how much more war we can have by diminishing SS payments.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

35. That's just awesome.

No. Really, it's not.

If Israel decides to attack another country then it should do do on its own. If it decides to go the route of diplomacy then I will think better of it.

Enough of this saber rattling already.

[Octafish]

36. ''Anyone can go to Baghdad. Real men go to Tehran.''

Did al-Qaeda's Gambit Work? Have They Baited Bush into Disastrous Missteps in the Middle East?

Real Men Go to Tehran

by M. SHAHID ALAM
CounterPunch, JANUARY 17, 2006

"Anyone can go to Baghdad. Real men go to Tehran." -- Senior Bush Official, May 2003

EXCERPT...

The war between Iran and Iraq served the United States and Israel quite well. It blunted the energies of Iran, diverting it from any serious attempts to export the revolution, or challenging American influence in the region. The Israeli gains were more substantial. With Egypt neutered at Camp David, and Iraq and Iran locked in a bloody war, Israel was free during the 1980s to do what it pleased. It expanded its settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, destroyed Iraq’s nuclear reactor at Osirak, expelled the Palestinian fighters from Lebanon, and established a long-term occupation over much of Southern Lebanon. Israel was closer to its goal of commanding unchallenged power over the Middle East.

The end of the Cold War in 1990 offered a bigger opening to the United States and Israel. Freed from the Soviet check on their ambitions, and with Iran devastated by the war, the United States began working on plans to establish a military control over the region, in the style of earlier colonial empires. This happened quickly when, with American assurance of non-intervention in intra-Arab conflicts, Iraq invaded Kuwaiti in August 1990.

The US response was massive and swift. In January 1990, after assembling 600,000 allied troops in Saudi Arabia ­ about half of them American ­ it pushed Iraq out of Kuwait, and mounted massive air strikes against Iraq itself, destroying much of its industry, power-generating capacity and infrastructure. The US had now established a massive military beachhead in the oil-rich Persian Gulf. It established permanent military bases in Saudi Arabia, continued its economic sanctions against Iraq, created a Kurdish autonomous zone in the north of Iraq, and, together with Britain, continued to bomb Iraq on a nearly daily basis for the next thirteen years.

With the US beachhead in place, where did the real men in the US and Israel want to go next? There was no secrecy about their plans. At a minimum, the Neoconservatives in the US and their Likud allies in Israel wanted ‘regime change’ in Iraq, Syria and Iran. This would be delivered by covert action, air strikes, or invasion ­ whatever it took ­ to be mounted by the US military. Israel would stay out of these wars, ready to reap the benefits of their aftermath.

The Likud plans were more ambitious. They wanted to redraw the map of the Middle East, using ethnic, sectarian, and religious differences to carve up the existing states in the region into weak micro-states that could be easily bullied by Israel. This was the Kivunim plan first made public in 1982. It would give Israel a thousand years of dominance over the Middle East.

CONTINUED...

http://www.counterpunch.org/2006/01/17/real-men-go-to-tehran/

[proverbialwisdom]

37. Just posturing?

Published on Jan 25, 2013

At the WSJ CEO Council, Washington bureau chief Jery Seib talks with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger on the U.S.'s relationship with Iran.

[Fearless]

38. Charter a plane and take them all over there.

Leave us the fuck out of it.

[Ash_F]

39. Does "actualize its right to self defense" mean preemptive strikes? /nt

[daleo]

41. That's what I got from it

Though the language is obfuscatory, I think that's what they really mean.

[ronnie624]

42. "in case it is compelled to take military action"

It's not their fault. They have no choice but to wage wars of aggression.