A ‘Green Light’ to War on Iran?

Congress seems poised again to ratchet up tensions with Iran by acting on a resolution that, in effect, gives a green light for Israel to attack Iran with promises of U.S. military support. This “back-door-to-war” resolution shows how the Israel lobby can dominate U.S. policymaking, notes ex-CIA analyst Paul R. Pillar.

By Paul R. Pillar

Members of Congress, as we all know, are fond of making political gestures to play to whatever audience they are trying to play to. In private conversation members can be quite candid about this and will exhibit a bifurcated approach to their jobs in which the world of gesture-making is divorced from the world of sound policy-making.

Seeing their political careers dependent on playing to audiences, members tend to be quick to brush aside any costs or hazards entailed in the gestures. This is particularly true of sense-of-the-Congress resolutions, which, as proponents of any such resolution can always point out, do not entail any changes carrying the force of law.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. (Iranian government photo)

The trouble with this casual attitude toward gesture-making statements is that there often is someone else with an agenda who knows how to exploit the statements to advance the agenda. Even something as legally soft as a sense-of-the-Congress resolution will subsequently be cited as policy and precedent.

Anyone who supported or even acquiesced in the gesture will forever be counted as backing the policy it implies, thereby making it seem that the policy is not the project of a determined minority even if it really is. Any qualifications or caveats that are incorporated in the statement get forgotten or are left unmentioned in later agitation by the determined minority to implement their favored policy.

All of these hazards are inherent in a draft joint resolution that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved this week. The resolution, one of the endless series of Congressional love letters to Israel, “urges” in its final operative paragraph:

“that, if the Government of Israel is compelled to take military action in legitimate self-defense against Iran’s nuclear weapons program, the United States Government should stand with Israel and provide, in accordance with United States law and the constitutional responsibility of Congress to authorize the use of military force, diplomatic, military, and economic support to the Government of Israel in its defense of its territory, people, and existence.”

Forces of reason worked hard to modify this paragraph to make it slightly less bad than it was in the original version, which was co-authored by Senators Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, and Robert Menendez, D-New Jersey, and those forces deserve commendation for their efforts.

Changes included insertion of the word “legitimate,” limiting of the subject to a nuclear weapons program, and referring to Congress’s constitutional responsibilities. But proponents of a war will take “legitimate” to be a declarative statement rather than a condition, reference to an Iranian nuclear weapons program perpetuates a falsehood that this is the kind of program Iran has now, and mention of Congress’s responsibility will be taken as an invitation for Congress to pass a later war resolution.

The fact that the modifications hardly eviscerated the message of the paragraph is reflected in the fact that the resolution’s main outside proponent, AIPAC, crowed about the committee’s approval. The resolution is an open invitation to Israel to start a war with Iran and to drag the United States into that war. The resolution may accurately be referred to as either the “Backdoor-to-War Resolution” or the “Green Light Resolution.”

Once passed by both houses of Congress, which, if Congress stays true to form, it surely will be, the resolution will repeatedly be cited by proponents of a war as policy and as a commitment. It will be exploited the way such statements have been exploited in the past.

Neocon defenders of the Iraq War repeatedly cite the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which Bill Clinton had no use for but signed when he was mired in the Lewinsky scandal and on the eve of getting impeached, as indicating that overthrowing the Iraqi regime had broad bipartisan support and was not just a neocon project. The resolution will be described as a “commitment” alongside Barack Obama’s boxing-himself-in declarations that an Iranian nuclear weapon would be unacceptable.

In a somewhat heated debate I got involved in at a private dinner earlier this week, a prominent neoconservative commentator argued that the United States must never back down from Obama’s “commitment” because to do so would severely damage U.S. credibility. I pointed out, without getting a response, that exactly the same argument about protecting U.S. credibility was the main reason for the U.S. decision to go in big in Vietnam in the 1960s (when the argument wasn’t any more valid than it is now).

I will not take this space to review all the reasons a war with Iran, either initiated by the United States or getting dragged into it by Israel, would be folly from the standpoint of U.S. interests. Those reasons range from the counter-productivity of an action that would lead Iran to take the very decision (i.e., to make a nuclear weapon), that it has not taken thus far, to the poisoning of relations with generations of Iranians to come, regardless of what kind of regime is in power in Tehran in the future.

Since we are dealing with a Congressional gesture, let us stay in gesture-land for the moment and just make a few observations about issues of right and wrong and thus what the United States should or should not declare itself to be in favor of.

The postulated Israeli taking of military action would be an act of aggression. It would be aggression committed against a state that does not have any nuclear weapon, has not decided to build a nuclear weapon, and has foresworn any intention to build such a weapon. It is a state that is a party to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and subjects all of its nuclear activities to regular international inspection.

Even if Iran were to junk all of those commitments and build a weapon, it would be joining a club that already has nine other members. The would-be aggressor, Israel, is one of those nine. Unlike Iran, it has never subjected any of its nuclear activities to any international law, control regime, or inspection. It has a large arsenal of nuclear weapons but has never admitted to having any.

If Israel initiates a war, it would be acting on a long series of threats that it has been making to do just that. Iran, in contrast, has never threatened to attack Israel, notwithstanding the rhetorical bombast and anti-Israeli invective that many in Israel and the United States have tried to confuse with declarations of operational policy.

Actions are more important than words, of course. Israel has a long (and recent) history of repeatedly throwing its weight around by using military force and attacking neighboring states and populations. That history has included the war of conquest in 1967, the long-term military occupation of part of Lebanon, and highly destructive attacks against Palestinians in Gaza followed by a suffocating blockade.

The Islamic Republic of Iran, by contrast, has never launched a war against anyone (although the Iranians fought like tigers when Saddam Hussein committed aggression against them by initiating the Iran-Iraq War).

Israeli initiation of a war with Iran would be, even under the most charitable interpretation of Israeli motives, for the purpose of maintaining Israel’s regional nuclear weapons monopoly. It also would serve the Israeli government’s purpose of spoiling any chance for the foreseeable future of rapprochement between Washington and Tehran, thereby helping to sustain Israel’s claim that it warrants special treatment as the only reliable American partner in the Middle East.

And, of course, such a war would serve the further Israeli government purpose of killing for the time being any movement toward doing something about the continued Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory.

In short, the postulated Israeli attack would be thoroughly unjustified and even unconscionable. It would be nothing that the United States should condone, let alone invite or support.

Paul R. Pillar, in his 28 years at the Central Intelligence Agency, rose to be one of the agency’s top analysts. He is now a visiting professor at Georgetown University for security studies. (This article first appeared as a blog post at The National Interest’s Web site. Reprinted with author’s permission.)

26 comments for “A ‘Green Light’ to War on Iran?

  1. TaskForceGreen
    May 3, 2013 at 00:35

    Come on guys…I am sure there are FOx news and CNN news fans here, and liberals and conservatives alike who may/may not endorse military action against Tehran…

    I am an author on this topic, and have been for 15 years…Here is something you may wish to know. There are Venezuelan paramilitaries along w/ Quds Force (IRGC/Iranian SOF)training near the US border states AS WE SPEAK. War with Iran will, at one point, be inevitable. They were assisting in the killing of our children in Iraq, and they gave tech to the worst of the worst TCOs (Transnational Criminal Orgs)in Mexico, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Sudan, Algeria, Libya (big time!), and elsewhere. I followed PMCs (contractors) for firms like TITAN and others and saw it with my own eyes. Iranians are laughing at our inability to grow a pair and get it on, so to speak. They have every intention of disrupting our activities in the region (in Herat, Afghanistan–a few years back–numerous US SOF were killed by suspected Quds Force/Iranian SOF). Do we just wait until Israel goes apesh*t on them? Or do we act?

    You all can do the anti-war dance all you like…but unfortunately, most of these comments I’ve seen are HIGHLY uneducated and are sooooooooo obviously sourced from second-hand info, or worse, the media. I don’t watch CNN or Fox unless I need to..But what I do, instead, is spend my own money and travel to places like Herat, Dubai, and elsewhere and see it for myself. The EFPs (a type of IEDs) were given to Iraqis by Iran (its been confirmed numerous times) and they’ve maimed children and killed more Iraqis than US personnel. You wanna let Iran continue? Go ahead…But I recommend you get educated on what their intentions in the future really is. I am not FOR WAR, but I am def for ACTION against the threats we face from the Quds Force and the regime that backs them.

    • TaskForceGreen
      May 3, 2013 at 00:41


      Now has Americans done similar “shady” actions? (i.e given arms to the wrong people)???? sure! But we don’t do it in order to cause terror and hurt innocent people. I know US SOF members who still can’t sleep because of the accidental deaths of innocent Iraqis and others in countries I am not allowed to name. THESE people (Iranian SOF) actually TARGET THESE PEOPLE!! There is a difference, and we need to take a side. You don’t support Israel’s course of action??? FINE! But get real, people. Iran needs a boot on their neck until they get their act together…denying the holocaust?? seriously? You guys think war with them would be wrong? I know for a fact that US SOF have been itching to go to downtown Tehran and end this TOMORROW.

      If you all take the time out of your busy day-trading schedules or courses at Berkley/Brown-type universities (where Jane Fonda-esque losers teach our children that inaction is better than saving lives), you’ll agree with what I’m saying before you know it. Do we care about oil?? SURE WE DO! but would you rather Iranians have it to fund their expansion of terror? Or would you rather have it to power your car to work and back…its an ugly, grotesque truth about the US, but it is what it is. We need oil, and if we gotta beat the holy piss out of tyrants to get it, i have no issue with it. And neither do half the Iranians (the westernized college students and others like them, i mean).

  2. Frances in California
    April 22, 2013 at 18:51

    Some good comments here; enlightening to be sure . . . but how does any country in the world, with as limited geographic, um, let’s call it “wiggle-room”, launch anything nuclear against a country nearby? They would ALL be dead from fall-out in an unremarkably short time? Seriously, what’s really going on here?

    • F. G. Sanford
      April 23, 2013 at 20:04

      Frances, read up on “neutron” bombs. There are nukes that are remarkably effective without many of the annoying side-effects people associate with Hiroshima. A prominent British trauma surgeon has gone on the lecture circuit with pictures he claims provide evidence that tactical nukes have ALREADY been used in Iraq. I believe John Pilger has done a documentary on this, but my memory may be faulty.

    • TheAZCowBoy
      April 26, 2013 at 03:03

      I guess you haven’t read about the new ‘slimeline’ tactical nukes the US has developed(in violation of NPT) and how the US has designated them ‘non-nuclear’ weapons in a move of self deception.

  3. onion
    April 21, 2013 at 17:54

    Since SCO ( Shanghai Cooporation Organisation) is now a full fledged military and trade entity.
    Anybody who launch bombs onto Iranian soil are in for a MAJOR surprise.
    The UK and CIA crushed the legal democracy in Iran in 1953 implementing a coup de´tat
    The US gave weapons of mass destruction to Saddam Hussein and asked him to start a war on Iran. Which he did (1980-86)
    The war on Afghanistan was launched 1 (one) year BEFORE 9/11.
    Guess China is fed up with wars in their backyard.
    And will respond accordingly.
    Wellcome to the New World Order !!

    • TaskForceGreen
      May 3, 2013 at 00:46

      New world order??? lol…come ON!!

      These anti-US conspiracy theories make me laugh soooo hard. How uneducated some of us are…
      yes, we do dirty things all over the world. But I choose the lesser of two evils..I choose to stick with the red-white-and-blue (yeah its cheesy sounding, so what?).
      I wouldn’t put too much stock in the ideal that the US are the imperial bad guys from star wars..lol..
      Again, I am an author who, lets just say, has taken the time (like 15 years) and money to find the truth about what we do (w/JSOC,Iranian SOF’s activities, etc). I can tell you that, soon, we will wish we’d just joined Israel, jumped into Tehran before they knew what hit them, and end it.

      China/North Korea’s situation will be next…although I am not as educated w/ NK’s intentions, I do know, however, that China ain’t gonna fight us if we go at it with NK. We owe them too much debt…so if NK slips up again, Seoul and others in NATO and/or UN will be there in no time.

  4. Morton Kurzweil
    April 21, 2013 at 16:45

    Let’s imagine that Cuba became an Islamic state instead of a Communist dictatorship.
    What would be the status of Cuban refugees? How long would such an Islamic State survive
    90 miles offshore with the potential for atomic bombs and missiles aimed “for defensive purposes”
    at our shores?
    That is the nature of an independent Islamic State run by, armed and supported by Iran, Pakistan, and
    Saudi Arabia on the borders of Israel.

    • TheAZCowBoy
      April 26, 2013 at 02:58

      The American colonists got a ‘bit’ radical also when England decided to attack and destroy the vestiges of the colonies and what was to become America. Like Hamas, Hezbollah and the Taliban, Americas colonists were called ‘terrorists’ and the rest is history. The Palestinians, like the Afghans have every right to murder the interloper aggressors. The bankrupt UNITED SNAKES (US/Israel/NATO) and regurgitated ‘colonists’ are now grabbing at all all the oil they can becuase they see the writing on the wall. How’s your Manderin, Pilgrims?

  5. flek
    April 21, 2013 at 16:26

    If anyone cares…


    THE TRUTH ABOUT KHAZARS (the so-called Jews)

    By Benjamin H. Freedman: ‘A Jewish man writes about the Jews’

  6. aletho
    April 21, 2013 at 15:27

    The fact is that Iran does have substantial conventional missile capabilities, and, given the questionable reliability of missile defense systems today, an Israeli attack on Iran would be suicidal.

    We need to be analyzing the possible real motives behind the endless saber rattling coming out of Israel and its occupied zone in Washington. Brinksmanship was also practiced during the cold war. Who gained?

  7. Don Bacon
    April 20, 2013 at 22:36

    There won’t be an attack. Hyping the threat is so much more profitable, and safe too. Iran, Palestine, Korea — the gifts that keep on giving to the MIC. Iran isn’t Iraq, which had been totally weakened by sanctions (Iran isn’t) and so was considered safe for an easy invasion and occupation. Even the clowns in Washington and Tel Aviv see how that turned out.

  8. LK
    April 20, 2013 at 19:25

    Boy, you really have to know your financial/military history/doctrine/strategic playbook to understand this “play” by the Israelis, I would think. If I recall correctly, didn’t WWI begin this way:

    “The July Crisis was a diplomatic crisis among the major powers of Europe in the summer of 1914 that led to the First World War. Immediately after Gavrilo Princip, a Bosnian Serb nationalist, assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, in Sarajevo, a series of diplomatic maneuverings led to an ultimatum from Austria-Hungary to Serbia, and ultimately to war.” […] so that

    “After meeting with Szögyény on July 5, the German Emperor informed him that his state could “count on Germany’s full support”, even if “grave European complications” ensued, and that Austria-Hungary “ought to march at once” against Serbia.[35] He added that “in any case, as things stood today, Russia was not at all ready for war, and would certainly think long before appealing to arms”.[35] Even if Russia were to act in defence of Serbia, Wilhelm promised that Germany would do everything in its power, including war, to support Austria-Hungary.”

    Not a good historical precedent sign, given the ongoing and similarities of financial shenanigans of the 1913 Federal Reserve Act then and now:

    “Controversy about the Federal Reserve Act and the establishment of the Federal Reserve System has existed since prior to its passage. Some of the questions raised include: whether Congress has the Constitutional power to delegate its power to coin money or issue paper money, whether the Federal Reserve is a public cartel of private banks (also called a banking cartel) established to protect powerful financial interests, and whether the Federal Reserve’s actions increased the severity of the Great Depression in the 1930s (and/or the severity or frequency of other boom-bust economic cycles, such as the late-2000s recession).”

  9. LK
    April 20, 2013 at 19:05

    Uh, no.

    “It is not true, BTW, that Jews were building the city of Jerusalem 3000 years ago, as Mr Netanyahu repeatedly claims, and even if it were, it would not override international law’s injunction against ethnic cleansing. The archeologists tell us that Jerusalem was an abandoned village 3000 years ago surrounded by a small agrarian population. This is during the purported time of David and Solomon and the purported United Kingdom. Jerusalem did not achieve any significance until the 8th century BCE and then as the continuous development of a Palestinian settlement from which artifacts have been discovered of representing a variety of Palestinians deities of which Yahweh was only one of several . There is not one shred of evidence for a Jewish temple dating from 3000 years ago, or any other significant engineering structures from that time.

    Furthermore, it is unlikely that Mr Netanyahu, or any other Israeli who claims to be derived from God’s Chosen, possesses any genetic connection to the ancient Judeans. The burden of proof is on Mr Netanyahu to produce a verifiable pedigree or genealogical tree stretching back 3000 years into the Iron Age. In fact, no living person is able to do that.

    Mr Netanyahu derives from European Jewish ancestry, who, in turn, derive mostly from the Russian Khazars, those living near the Volga and Don Rivers, who converted in mass to Judaism in the 9th century CE bringing a much larger population to Judaic belief than any population of Judeans of the ancient world, or their descendants.

    Paul Wexler, a philological archeologist at Tel Aviv University, in his book, The Non-Jewish Origin of the Sephardic Jews, writes that Hebrew and Aramaic made their appearance in European Jewish text only in the 10th century CE, and were not products of earlier linguistic developments. During the first millennium CE, Jewish believers in Europe knew no Hebrew or Aramaic. Only after the religious canonization of Arabic in Islam and Latin in Christianity, did Judaism adopt and propagate its own religious language as a high cultural code.

    It is as likely that Adolf Hitler is a descendant of the ancient Judeans as is Mr Netanyahu, for all anyone knows.”

    • TaskForceGreen
      May 3, 2013 at 00:56

      Israel is tired of being pushed around. Sure, they’ve done some messed up sh*t to some of those near the settlements, but brother…there have been some awful incidents that have occurred to trigger these events and they were done by old-school Palestinians who STILL believe killing busloads of women and children is the way to settle it.
      All of us in the US are tired of seeing Palestinian stubborness and israel’s lack of compassion, BUT HOWEVER, if it came down to a showdown, I choose Israel. I know that they’ve EARNED THE RIGHT to exist..and they ain’t waiting to get chemmed or nuked by Tehran. Their forward ground intel/SIGINT elements have shown that Iran has VERY imminent plans to, at some point soon, preemptively strike them off the map (as they’ve always promised they would).

      So you all think Israel should just ask for more sancitons? They should just let Iran laugh at them until they decide to hit the red button? Sorry, I don’t subscribe to the belief of “peace, love, and understanding” in that region. Its a powder keg, and if you care about innocent life (and a stable region), you may wanna back Israel as the right pony for this one. I’ve met IDF SOF before, and they dread war with Iran…they aren’t hungry for it, but they arent about to wait until they get hit.

      If you are liberal minded and think peace between the two is still possible, GREAT!! get off your fat ass, peel your greasy fingers off your keyboard, and go to Israel/Iran and make it happen. I, on the other hand, have used $10,000+ to travel and see the reality of it, and Iran has ZERO interest in peace. So decide for yourself what is most important, people…

      Decide which nation you’d like seen wiped off the face of the map…because it WILL happen..unfortunately, it is not something we can “talk out” anymore. They are ADAMANT about killing “the zionist evil” and thats it. So…I think poster BORAT (above, who i replied this to) has the right idea. They fough off the Arabs and deserve to live a peaceful life. If they are doing wrong in the settlements, then we can fix it without bombing each other in a three-way war that will claim the lives of tens of millinons of people.

  10. John Puma
    April 20, 2013 at 06:56

    Quote “borat”: “There is no country of palestine, the territory was won in the ’67 war which several arab states perpetrated. These Arabs could have easily been absorbed by the other Arab countries.”

    New Jersey is about the same area as “Israel.” It is not a country.

    I always thought that the exodus should have been to New Jersey. The New Jerseyites coulds have easily been absorbed by other US states.

  11. Vinayprasad
    April 19, 2013 at 22:38

    How many people are there who think there is no Palestine state? You are in the minority. Hence you are ignored.

  12. Vinayprasad
    April 19, 2013 at 22:36

    Even if the resolution is passed, and even if Israel attacks Iran, finally the United States will not enter the war and support Israel. This is because of dire warnings from Russia and China. America will be checkmated by these countries by bringing in their (Russia & China)forces to the Persian Gulf. In fact Israel too will be prevented from launching any attack by none other than America. There will be a high possibility that the Israeli attack will be nipped in the bud at the last moment.

  13. Don Bacon
    April 19, 2013 at 18:44

    All you need to know about the hyped “Iran threat.” Just ‘do the numbers.’

    WASHINGTON – The United States is finalizing a complex $10 billion arms deal that would strengthen two key Arab allies while maintaining Israel’s military edge, defense officials said on Friday ahead of a trip to the Middle East by Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel. The deal, more than a year in the making through a series of coordinated bilateral negotiations, would result in the sale of V-22 Osprey aircraft, advanced refueling tankers and anti-air defense missiles to Israel and 25 F-16 Desert Falcon jets worth nearly $5 billion to the United Arab Emirates.

    WASHINGTON–The Obama administration on Thursday announced an arms deal with Saudi Arabia valued at nearly $30 billion, an agreement that will send 84 F-15 fighter jets and assorted weaponry to the kingdom. The administration notified Congress last year of its intent to sell the advanced jets to Saudi Arabia, a key U.S. ally in the Middle East and a strategic bulwark against Iran. The final agreement — which also includes the modernization of 70 existing aircraft as well as munitions, spare parts, training and maintenance — comes at a time of increased tensions in the Persian Gulf.

    WASHINGTON — The Pentagon plans to sell 60 Patriot missiles to Kuwait in a deal worth an estimated US$4.2bn as the Gulf state moves to bolster its defenses against a potential Iranian threat.

  14. nomorewar
    April 19, 2013 at 18:20

    I believe there is a phenomenal amount of ignorance about the history between the US and Iran. Like many, I looked to the hostage taking as the modern point of departure for understanding Iran. Having read “Going to Teheran”, I now realize how very little I knew. There is history from the 1800’s involving US interference in Iran’s internal affairs. Our government has maintained an intense interest in the Middle East because of its resources and global position and not in a good way. Our recent blundering with sanctions and constant threats in the area has only pushed Iran in the exact direction we don’t want them to go, i.e. nuclear weapons. Israel is doing the same. As Nixon did with China, we must revisit our whole approach if we want a stable Middle East and that includes respecting Iran’s role in the region and its legitimate security/economic concerns. Thanks to the author for bringing the newest US incident of threatening Iran to our attention and the possible havoc it may create. I fear, however, that the US may pay a heavy price for its ignorance and the submission of our national interests to corporate imperialism.

    • hank
      April 21, 2013 at 13:16

      CORPORATE IMPERIALISM….How euphemistic !
      It’s ZIONISM, stupid.

    • TheAZCowBoy
      April 26, 2013 at 02:32

      Every nation that has (((booted))) out the resource stealing Great Satan (Iran, Venezuela, et. al.) continues to be demonized and threatened (directly or indirectly) by the Great Satan. In the 1950’s the US decimated North Korea murdering millions (Some 26% of the population) by the war criminals Gen’l’s LeMay and McArthur who leveled all 78 of North Korea’s major cities. It is no wonder that ‘Never again’ has become the war cry of the North Koreans against AmeriKKKa, and like China that has never forgotton the massacres, genocide, germ warfare testing on the Chinese people by Japan in the 1920’s, they too ‘live for the day’ that they will level the ex-Japanese Empire with vigor. In my vists to China I have been amazed how every Chinese child over the age of 6 knows the Japanese brutalities committed by the Japanese on their people, and as the ‘every dog has his day’ opportunity approaches, the Chinese people look forward with joy at destroying the Japanse empire – as late as the world might see it.

  15. incontinent reader
    April 19, 2013 at 13:30

    Thank you for so clearly articulating the dangers and risks behind S. 65., and thanks also your colleagues here and elsewhere, e.g. those policy experts and diplomats who, now in larger and larger numbers are urging greater diplomatic flexibility in negotiations with Iran. The NY Times itself has finally weighed in on S.65, but in doing so has not conveyed how dangerous it is- e.g., the ease with which Israel could trigger a major war, even though the resolution is non-binding and limits U.S. support of military action initiated by Israel against Iran to that taken in Israel’s “self defense”. Yet we have experienced too many instances in the past of Israel and the U.S. fudging the facts and/or word smithing to justify preemptive wars of aggression claimed to have been initiated in self defense, and there is a long history of provocative acts taken by the Israel and the U.S. against Iran to trigger a response from it that could be characterized as belligerency and would “justify” a preemptive war. So, there is no reason to expect that either Israel or the U.S. would be restrained by the limiting language of the resolution. As for the stated rationale of S.65, its “whereas” clauses provide the grist for the resolution, but are so seriously flawed that they also should be addressed and deconstructed to set the record straight and make clear the illegitimacy of the policy behind it.

    A good adjunct to this article may be found at: http://www.lobelog.com/more-diplomacy-less-pressure-for-iran-settlement-report/

  16. elmerfudzie
    April 19, 2013 at 12:53

    Oh, I’ve had just about enough of all this crap. Our so called leaders routinely offer up their populations to the war profiteers. Infrastructure is destroyed, names and places obliterated, people start all over again. The suffering masses keep asking themselves the same old, seemingly unresolved question, what was it all about? In the past, all that John Doe could do was to hum the old Peter, Paul and Mary tune; “the answer my friend is blowing in the wind, the answer is blowing in the wind”. I can however suggest an alternative here. After the Israelis bomb Iran, the billionaire mullahs will get everything they want; higher oil prices, the throngs of unemployable and or drug addicted numbers will be reduced, hatred for the west will ensure the future existence of their plutocratic dynasty, and Iran will eventually have commercial nuclear power, with A-bombs if they so choose. People everywhere need to tackle this never ending drumming to war by encouraging and financially supporting those grassroots movements addressing the world’s toughest social and environmental justice issues. In effect, dear readership, if there’s anything global to achieve, its a whole paradigm shift in the way corporations and governments are managed by the community of peoples. Organized efforts such as Harvard University’s boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israeli businesses and their stock shares are just the beginning of what we all can do to prevent senseless, needless wars and the strangleholds these war mongering corporations have on our diverse economies.

  17. Don Bacon
    April 19, 2013 at 12:18

    It’s simple — There cannot be, legally, an elective military attack against a program, even if Newspeak is used to mislabel it “legitimate self defense.” We know that in the case of Iraq “legitimate self defense” was erroneously used by warmongers to legitimize an illegal act.

    An elective military attack on another country for any reason is prohibited by the United Nations Charter which is the law of the land. That includes attacks against programs that somebody may not like.

    UN Charter: (excerpt)
    To maintain international peace and security,
    # All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
    # All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

    • TheAZCowBoy
      April 26, 2013 at 02:16

      Since when have the Bible Demons read, understood or even believed the UN Resolution that declared Jerusalem’s jurisdiction to fall under the control of the UN. Almost 200 UN resolutions have been ignored, or shown a stiff middle finger, by Israel, to the community of nations that gave the blood soaked serial Irgun/Force-1, et. al. killers recognition in 1948. The UN should banish the Jewish state from its membership and allow it to continue as the pariah nation of racist zealots that it continues to be under the G-dless Kahzars.

Comments are closed.