Skip to main content

View Diary: Hey y'all, let's have a war with Iran! (77 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Not if you read the actual bill (0+ / 0-)

    The actual billdoes not say what the diarist claims.  What it says amounts to little more than "Israel is keen but Iran is groaty", That should shock anyone.

    •  That should [not] shock... (0+ / 0-)

      One day I will learn to proofread.

    •  undue complacency (0+ / 0-)

      Dear  Quicklund , your responses are truly saddening in their naivety.
      They bring to mind the phrase “the banality of evil.”
      AIPAC is a highly sophisticated, powerful, and effective political operation.
      Their mission is to parley a highly misleading and self-serving symbolic narrative of
      “Israel” and what “Israel means” into hard political and economic support from the US.
      They have been remarkably successful.
      Can anyone really believe such an effective operation  would spend their time on
      drafting and getting the Senate to adopt legislation that  is totally benign and meaningless?
      Of course not.

      In his responses, Quicklund repeatedly stresses that S RES 65 has “no force in law” and reassures us that we shouldn’t “panic.”I think we should. Politics is largely a struggle over symbols and S RES 65 certainly has enormous political force.  

      First, It simply papers over the real nature of Israeli rule over Palestinians. When senators approve of that kind of whitewash, the American people are misled.

      Second, it reinforces misleading stereotypes about Iran and its regime by confusing the various real failings of that regime with their treaty responsibilities in terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. These are two very different things.

      Third, it takes the many statements by president Obama to the effect that he is not willing to let Iran obtain a  “nuclear weapon”, and pretends to support those efforts, BUT in the “Sense of the Congress” section the resolution  stresses the need for the US to prevent Iran from gaining a “nuclear weapons capability.” This is a very sly rewording of very specific legal language that potentially  has enormous consequences. It substantially lowers the bar for countenancing military action against Iran. Since almost all nuclear technology can arguably have “dual uses” there is probably no one on the planet who can untangle “peaceful nuclear technology” (to which Iran is completely entitled under the NPT) from military uses of the same technology (which are prohibited.)

      Fourth, on the eve of President Obama’s trip to the Middle East S RES 65 undermines his peaceful efforts to defuse the Iranian issue. This resolution simply gives Netanyahu something that he can use to convince his cabinet that an Israeli strike against Iran will receive automatic US support: as such, it makes it much more likely that he will risk a first strike. Such a strike is assessed to be directly contrary to US  interests. President Obama has strongly opposed such an action.

      Finally as the late great Edward Said pointed out, “Orientalism” (the systemic tendency to represent eastern cultures in derogatory ways determined by the norms of western cultures) is often simply a system of citation. In other words, you plant a lie in your own media and then refer to it incessantly until it becomes accepted as “truth.” In S RES 65 there are several such self-referential assertions. Iran and Hezbollah and Hamas are all terrorist organizations because we (the Senate or some administration official) has previously said they are. And maybe they are, but if the only evidence is an assertion to that affect by a body that so clearly takes its marching orders from the AIPAC lobby, then excuse me if I am skeptical. Our march to war in Iraq began in much the same way.

      In fact, to my mind, the most serious lasting harm that comes from symbolic gestures like S RES 65 (that according to some have no real standing in law) is that they plant a false narrative in the official thinking of our government on issues like…well…war and peace. When assertions like this gain the force of historical record, the whole process of real academic discourse become a travesty.  

      So grow up Quicklund! S RES 65 was largely drafted by AIPAC—and any Senator that gives in to AIPAC and signs on to S RES 65 Is acknowledging their allegiance to AIPAC as a political force.
      When  a “real war resolution”  is finally proposed (god forbid), it will surely look almost identical to this one.  Therefore any senator that signed this resolution will have a hard time explaining why they won’t back “the real war resolution.” In short, S RES 65 is just a softening up operation. Your reassurance that it has ‘no force in law’ has no force in the real world.

      I’d think if you had watched the lead up to our misguided war in Iraq (also slyly nudged along by AIPAC and friends) you would now understand these fairly simple points.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site