Jul 24, 2010
Republicans in the House of Representatives have introduced a measure
that would green-light an Israeli bombing campaign against Iran. The
resolution, H.Res. 1553
(in full below), provides explicit support for military strikes against
Iran, stating that Congress supports Israel's use of "all means
necessary" against Iran "including the use of military force". US
military leaders have warned that strikes could be catastrophic to US
national security interests and could engulf the Middle East in a
"calamitous" regional war.
Nearly a third of House Republicans have signed onto the resolution, which has been publicly discussed and circulated by its lead sponsor, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), for months. The National Iranian American Council is leading calls to oppose the measure, urging those concerned to demand that House Republican Leader John Boehner denounce the resolution.
The introduction of the measure coincides with a pattern of renewed calls
for military strikes that have escalated since President Obama signed
"crippling" Congressional Iran sanctions into law. Neoconservatives who
were instrumental in orchestrating the Iraq War, such as Bill Kristol, and Reuel Marc Gerecht, have led the stepped up calls for military action.
Hawkish former Bush Administration official John Bolton recently laid out the game plan
to prod Israel into attacking Iran, arguing that outsiders can "create
broad support" for a strike by framing it as an issue of Israel's right
to self defense. Supporters for military strikes, Bolton says, should
"defend the specific tactic of pre-emptive attacks" against Iran. He
urges that Congress can "make it clear" that it supports such strikes
and that "having visible congressional support in place at the outset
will reassure the Israeli government, which is legitimately concerned
about Mr. Obama's likely negative reaction to such an attack."
In spite of enthusiasm from the neocons, top US military leaders have warned of the many dangers of military strikes against Iran. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has argued,
"Another war in the Middle East is the last thing we need. In fact, I
believe it would be disastrous on a number of levels." Admiral Mike
Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has expressed his own serious reservations
about an attack, stating, "Iran getting a nuclear weapon would be
incredibly destabilizing. Attacking them would also create the same kind
of outcome. In an area that's so unstable right now, we just don't
need more of that." General David Petraeus has warned that a strike on
Iran would be utilized by the Iranian government to unite it's otherwise divided populace.
Simulations have been conducted over the past year to assess the
outcome of a preemptive military strike against Iran. One such
simulation, by the Brookings Institution's Saban Center, found that
strikes would draw the US into the conflict
that would engulf the region into war, and would enable Iran to use the
attacks as an opportunity to unite the Iranian people and dismantle its
opposition. The simulation also found that the strikes could not
destroy Iran's nuclear program but merely set it back a few years.
An Oxford Research Group report released recently reinforced those findings and also warned that an Israeli attack
would be disastrous and would be unlikely to stop Iran's nuclear
program. Instead, the report concluded attacks could convince Iran to
withdraw from the international Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and to
aggressively seek to develop nuclear weapons.
Iranian activists have urged that even raising the specter of war undercuts the opposition in Iran. "The mere fact that Obama didn't make military threats made the Green Movement possible," noted Akbar Ganji. "A military attack would destroy all of that."
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. Join with us today! |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Republicans in the House of Representatives have introduced a measure
that would green-light an Israeli bombing campaign against Iran. The
resolution, H.Res. 1553
(in full below), provides explicit support for military strikes against
Iran, stating that Congress supports Israel's use of "all means
necessary" against Iran "including the use of military force". US
military leaders have warned that strikes could be catastrophic to US
national security interests and could engulf the Middle East in a
"calamitous" regional war.
Nearly a third of House Republicans have signed onto the resolution, which has been publicly discussed and circulated by its lead sponsor, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), for months. The National Iranian American Council is leading calls to oppose the measure, urging those concerned to demand that House Republican Leader John Boehner denounce the resolution.
The introduction of the measure coincides with a pattern of renewed calls
for military strikes that have escalated since President Obama signed
"crippling" Congressional Iran sanctions into law. Neoconservatives who
were instrumental in orchestrating the Iraq War, such as Bill Kristol, and Reuel Marc Gerecht, have led the stepped up calls for military action.
Hawkish former Bush Administration official John Bolton recently laid out the game plan
to prod Israel into attacking Iran, arguing that outsiders can "create
broad support" for a strike by framing it as an issue of Israel's right
to self defense. Supporters for military strikes, Bolton says, should
"defend the specific tactic of pre-emptive attacks" against Iran. He
urges that Congress can "make it clear" that it supports such strikes
and that "having visible congressional support in place at the outset
will reassure the Israeli government, which is legitimately concerned
about Mr. Obama's likely negative reaction to such an attack."
In spite of enthusiasm from the neocons, top US military leaders have warned of the many dangers of military strikes against Iran. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has argued,
"Another war in the Middle East is the last thing we need. In fact, I
believe it would be disastrous on a number of levels." Admiral Mike
Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has expressed his own serious reservations
about an attack, stating, "Iran getting a nuclear weapon would be
incredibly destabilizing. Attacking them would also create the same kind
of outcome. In an area that's so unstable right now, we just don't
need more of that." General David Petraeus has warned that a strike on
Iran would be utilized by the Iranian government to unite it's otherwise divided populace.
Simulations have been conducted over the past year to assess the
outcome of a preemptive military strike against Iran. One such
simulation, by the Brookings Institution's Saban Center, found that
strikes would draw the US into the conflict
that would engulf the region into war, and would enable Iran to use the
attacks as an opportunity to unite the Iranian people and dismantle its
opposition. The simulation also found that the strikes could not
destroy Iran's nuclear program but merely set it back a few years.
An Oxford Research Group report released recently reinforced those findings and also warned that an Israeli attack
would be disastrous and would be unlikely to stop Iran's nuclear
program. Instead, the report concluded attacks could convince Iran to
withdraw from the international Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and to
aggressively seek to develop nuclear weapons.
Iranian activists have urged that even raising the specter of war undercuts the opposition in Iran. "The mere fact that Obama didn't make military threats made the Green Movement possible," noted Akbar Ganji. "A military attack would destroy all of that."
Republicans in the House of Representatives have introduced a measure
that would green-light an Israeli bombing campaign against Iran. The
resolution, H.Res. 1553
(in full below), provides explicit support for military strikes against
Iran, stating that Congress supports Israel's use of "all means
necessary" against Iran "including the use of military force". US
military leaders have warned that strikes could be catastrophic to US
national security interests and could engulf the Middle East in a
"calamitous" regional war.
Nearly a third of House Republicans have signed onto the resolution, which has been publicly discussed and circulated by its lead sponsor, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), for months. The National Iranian American Council is leading calls to oppose the measure, urging those concerned to demand that House Republican Leader John Boehner denounce the resolution.
The introduction of the measure coincides with a pattern of renewed calls
for military strikes that have escalated since President Obama signed
"crippling" Congressional Iran sanctions into law. Neoconservatives who
were instrumental in orchestrating the Iraq War, such as Bill Kristol, and Reuel Marc Gerecht, have led the stepped up calls for military action.
Hawkish former Bush Administration official John Bolton recently laid out the game plan
to prod Israel into attacking Iran, arguing that outsiders can "create
broad support" for a strike by framing it as an issue of Israel's right
to self defense. Supporters for military strikes, Bolton says, should
"defend the specific tactic of pre-emptive attacks" against Iran. He
urges that Congress can "make it clear" that it supports such strikes
and that "having visible congressional support in place at the outset
will reassure the Israeli government, which is legitimately concerned
about Mr. Obama's likely negative reaction to such an attack."
In spite of enthusiasm from the neocons, top US military leaders have warned of the many dangers of military strikes against Iran. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has argued,
"Another war in the Middle East is the last thing we need. In fact, I
believe it would be disastrous on a number of levels." Admiral Mike
Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has expressed his own serious reservations
about an attack, stating, "Iran getting a nuclear weapon would be
incredibly destabilizing. Attacking them would also create the same kind
of outcome. In an area that's so unstable right now, we just don't
need more of that." General David Petraeus has warned that a strike on
Iran would be utilized by the Iranian government to unite it's otherwise divided populace.
Simulations have been conducted over the past year to assess the
outcome of a preemptive military strike against Iran. One such
simulation, by the Brookings Institution's Saban Center, found that
strikes would draw the US into the conflict
that would engulf the region into war, and would enable Iran to use the
attacks as an opportunity to unite the Iranian people and dismantle its
opposition. The simulation also found that the strikes could not
destroy Iran's nuclear program but merely set it back a few years.
An Oxford Research Group report released recently reinforced those findings and also warned that an Israeli attack
would be disastrous and would be unlikely to stop Iran's nuclear
program. Instead, the report concluded attacks could convince Iran to
withdraw from the international Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and to
aggressively seek to develop nuclear weapons.
Iranian activists have urged that even raising the specter of war undercuts the opposition in Iran. "The mere fact that Obama didn't make military threats made the Green Movement possible," noted Akbar Ganji. "A military attack would destroy all of that."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.