House Votes This Week to Tie Obama's Hands on Iran

[Scurrilous]

<snip>

"On Tuesday, the House of Representatives is slated to vote on a resolution designed to tie the president's hands on Iran policy. The resolution, which is coming up under an expedited House procedure, was the centerpiece of AIPAC's recent conference. In fact, 13,000 AIPAC delegates were dispatched to Capitol Hill, on the last day of the conference, with instructions to tell the senators and representatives whom they met that supporting this resolution was #1 on AIPAC's election year agenda.

Accordingly, it is not particularly surprising that the resolution is being rushed to the House floor for a vote, nor that it is expected to pass with very little opposition. Those voting "no" on this one will pay a price in campaign contributions (the ones they won't receive) and, very likely, will be smeared as "anti-Israel." That is how it works.

Most of the language in H. Res.568 is unremarkable, the usual boilerplate (some of it factual) denouncing the Islamic Republic of Iran as a "state sponsor of terrorism" that is on the road to nuclear weapons capability.

The resolution's overarching message is that Iran must be deterred from developing weapons, a position the White House (and our allies share). That is why the sanctions regime is in place and also why negotiations with Iran have resumed (the next session is May 23).

But the resolution does not stop with urging the president to use his authority to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. If it did, the resolution would be uncontroversial."

more


Israel fears nuclear deal between Iran, world powers as Baghdad talks draw near

http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/diplomania/israel-fears-nuclear-deal-between-iran-world-powers-as-baghdad-talks-draw-near-1.430423

Israel fears ‘intermediate agreement’ between Islamic Republic and world powers on May 23 could cancel option of military strike.

[oberliner]

1. So says the estimable MJ Rosenberg

I was betting it was him when I saw that headline.

[azurnoir]

2. Here is further detail of the Senates version

(1) affirms that it is a vital national interest of the United States to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability;

(2) warns that time is limited to prevent the Iranian government from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability;

(3) urges continued and increasing economic and diplomatic pressure on the Islamic Republic of Iran to secure an agreement from the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran that includes--

(A) the full and sustained suspension of all uranium enrichment-related and reprocessing activities;

(B) complete cooperation with the IAEA on all outstanding questions related to Iran's nuclear activities, including--

(i) the implementation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty Additional Protocol; and

(ii) the verified end of Iran's ballistic missile programs; and

(C) a permanent agreement that verifiably assures that Iran's nuclear program is entirely peaceful;

(4) expresses support for the universal rights and democratic aspirations of the Iranian people;

(5) strongly supports United States policy to prevent the Iranian Government from acquiring nuclear weapons capability;

(6) rejects any United States policy that would rely on efforts to contain a nuclear weapons-capable Iran; and

(7) urges the President to reaffirm the unacceptability of an Iran with nuclear-weapons capability and oppose any policy that would rely on containment as an option in response to the Iranian nuclear threat.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r112:S16FE2-0044:/

[shaayecanaan]

4. Note that its nuclear weapons "capable"

The neoconservatives seem to have accepted that Iran is intent on becoming a threshold nuclear power, but not actually developing a nuclear weapon. So the language has been stretched to say that merely having the ability to make nuclear weapons is unacceptable.

It is worth noting that having the ability to make nuclear weapons is not contrary to the Nuclear non-proliferation pact. The following countries are nuclear weapons-capable but are signatories to the NPT and have elected not to build nuclear weapons:-

Australia
Belgium
Bulgaria
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
Germany
Hungary
Italy
Japan
Mexico
Netherlands
Norway
Slovakia
South Korea
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan

There's another passage in the article that is worth noting:-

Any doubt that this is the intention of the backers of this approach was removed back in March, when the Senate was considering new Iran sanctions. Senators Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Bob Casey (D-PA) offered their own "no containment" language to the sanctions bill and the Senate moved to quickly to accept it.

However, amending a bill once it is already on the Senate floor requires unanimous consent and one, and only one, senator objected. Rand Paul (R-KY) said that he would oppose the containment clause unless a provision was added specifying that "nothing in the Act shall be construed as a declaration of war or an authorization of the use of force against Iran..."

That did it.

Neither the Democratic or Republican leadership would accept that (knowing that AIPAC wouldn't) and Paul's objection killed the bill, for the time being. In other words, the purpose of "no containment" language is precisely to make war virtually automatic. Because Paul's provision would thwart that goal, it was unacceptable.

I know that I'm supposed to hate Rand Paul but his persistently principled stances at times make this decidedly difficult.

[Ken Burch]

3. A congressional resolution can't actually tie anybody's hands

(even if it's a resolution calling for the establishment of National Hand-Tying Week).

Resolutions are non-binding.

It does, however give the Democrats a devastating argument to use for removing the Republicans from control of the House this fall...it's disgusting that the majority party there sees it as a legitimate tactic to call for what would almost certainly be the deaths of thousands, possibly tens of thousands, of innocent people in another country just to try to win votes and campaign donations from a domestic interest group here.

[azurnoir]

5. the problem is that a number of Dems will vote for it too

election season and all

[King_David]

6. Huh?

Surprised that representatives should vote the way their constituents want ,in order to be elected?

[holdencaufield]

7. Isn't it odd that Americans...

... of both parties overwhelmingly support Israel?

Could they be under the influence of some mysterious conspiracy?

[azurnoir]

8. so apparently you think Israel's welfare is a priority with Americans right now?

but surprisingly we have other stuff on our minds right now, you'll find few places in the US where politician are elected or not due to their policies on Israel

[holdencaufield]

9. Israel is a priority for you...

... why not to other Americans?

[azurnoir]

10. I think you have it wrong but that's okay n/t

[King_David]

11. Huh?

It was you who said :



''the problem is that a number of Dems will vote for it too

election season and all '



and now :

'we have other stuff on our minds right now, you'll find few places in the US where politician are elected or not due to their policies on Israel'





So which is it ?

[azurnoir]

12. apparently you do not understand American politics all too well?

the voting public make their decisions on who to vote for in the House of Representatives commonly called Congress based for the most part on the domestic policies of those candidates, my statement applied to those Democrats who are elected to the House of Representatives not the voting public, foreign policy does not go to public referendum here in the US

[King_David]

13. If that is the case why did you write,

'''the problem is that a number of Dems will vote for it too

election season and all '



So its not election season that will cause the Dems to vote for it?



I agree,I think they will vote for it because they and their constituents are very pro-Israel.

[azurnoir]

14. That was fully explained in the comment your replying to, did you not read it?

but then you agree with something else you claim I said